"College sports ‘arms race' not sustainable"

D

DisplacedJacket

Guest
Haven't we just concluded an experiment-on a world wide scale-showing that "free markets" don't work as they are supposed to?
Nope. Not even the US is a "free market" The gubment has their fingers in too many cookie jars there for it to be truly free.
 

TenaciousBuzz

Varsity Lurker
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
368
College coaches don't need a salary cap, they just need restrictions similar to the players on moving between schools while under contract.

The rest will sort itself out.
This. If I ran the NCAA, a school which hires a coach away from a school where he has years remaining on his contract, would lose 2 schollys for every year the coach had remaining at the old school. If a coach leaves to go to a new school before the season ends, he can't have ANY contact with the new school's current recruits until the final whistle blows on the BCS Championship Game.

Also, if you are a player whose coach leaves, you can transfer and sit out 5 games the next season, as opposed to waiting an entire season.
 
Last edited:

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
tl;dr - college coaches make a boatload of money, what should be done about it?

Answer - nothing. Either the coaches are worth it and the school prospers or they aren't and the school suffers. In the end it will work itself out like free markets are supposed to if we leave it alone.

Move along.

“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.”--H.L. Mencken
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
College coaches don't need a salary cap, they just need restrictions similar to the players on moving between schools while under contract.

The rest will sort itself out.

Hmmm, this may be a valid solution that would have the same effect but more acceptable than a salary cap.

The funny thing is I think coaches might prefer a salary cap to being held more accountable to contracts.

It is obvious the penalties for breaking the contracts have no effect other than getting the schools to offer even higher raises to offset their effects.

P.S.
If you made coaches sit out a year like players are required to do that would cut out a lot of the shenanigans.
 

RamblinPeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
1,928
This is a 2007 number, but it's the most recent data I found......

The average price per WIN (just Head Coach salary) in every D-1A program is.......

$181,972

Something is wrong with that........

Average attendance for each of those is probably around 35k? * $25 per ticket = hell of a lot of scratch.
 

NatiJacket

Clear Whiskey Drinker
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
6,907
The point is that college athletics shouldn't be a "free market". We aren't talking about professional sports, but about intermurals. The cost effective thing to do would be to cut all sports except for men's basketball and football. The marginal returns on such 'investments' are negative, and should be cut. But thats not what college sports are there for. The going rate for coaches is rising higher and higher pricing many schools out of competition. In the free market, thats what is expected to happen. But it's not good for college sports for some colleges to go bankrupt and fail.
 

buzztheirazz

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
2,768
This is a 2007 number, but it's the most recent data I found......

The average price per WIN (just Head Coach salary) in every D-1A program is.......

$181,972

Something is wrong with that........
not really. multiply 55,000(average attendance)x100(avg price per ticket)

i know 100 seems high but don't forget about psl's and boxes....
 

ahsoisee

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
5,925
Controls

Some things need control. The reasoning for a free market is great in some areas, but poor in others.

There are controls on the salaries of the Presidents of the colleges as meted out by the State Board of Regents. If there are controls on the salaries of the leaders, teachers, professors, etal, then there should be controls on the athletic leaders in the same college.

There are controls (called bargaining agreements) on most workers in the major companies, caps on managers, but none on the CEO's of the companies. They draw 10-50 million a year and do not own the company.

I agree that a person who owns a company should be able to make as much money as he can possibly make. If he wants more money, he expands he business or creates another company. Nothing wrong with this free enterprise system, because he is hiring more workers to make more money.

However, all employees should have caps on their salaries through bargaining or some fair method set up by the President of the company, but the CEO should also have a cap.

Some companies lay off 1000 employees at a medium of $50,000 per employee while retaining or increasing the salary of the higher-ups and CEO. If a CEO makes $20,000,000 a year, maybe the CEO should be removed due to the drop in business, and his salary could retain approximately 400 of the fired employees.

I like free enterprise, but we have become a nation of communism (socialism). We have the elite and the poor. Those in the government jobs are the elite and they intend on taking all the money and leaving the remainder of the nation as mere servants receiving a pittance for their salaries.

The government uses our tax money to help the big companies who will support their agendas by allowing the huge salaries to the elite while allowing layoffs to the low wage earners.

It is a coordinated effort by the socialist to split the ranks into the elite and poor, so that the elite controls the government and the working class.

Without controls to limit the the elite's salaries, they will control the masses. There needs to be free enterprise in business to the point that anyone can open his own business and profit from it. He should be able to make as much money as he desires. However, his CEO's and high ranking officials should have limits so they do not eat up all the profits and leave the workers poor.

If the onwer or conglomerate will not limit the high salaries of the elite, then the government should set controls on their salaries in proportion to the salaries of the workers. If a company needs to reduce its overhead, the first thing that needs to go is the high salaries of the CEO and his cadderie of elites. If the company is in a bind, then it is mostly the fault of the CEO and his cadderie, not the workers, but they are the first to suffer.

Father Time
 

gtphd

What a time to be alive
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
23,286
not really. multiply 55,000(average attendance)x100(avg price per ticket)

i know 100 seems high but don't forget about psl's and boxes....
Then subtract off the number of people that would come regardless of the coach.
 

samsgt02

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
3,266
Re: Controls

Some things need control. The reasoning for a free market is great in some areas, but poor in others.

There are controls on the salaries of the Presidents of the colleges as meted out by the State Board of Regents. If there are controls on the salaries of the leaders, teachers, professors, etal, then there should be controls on the athletic leaders in the same college.

There are controls (called bargaining agreements) on most workers in the major companies, caps on managers, but none on the CEO's of the companies. They draw 10-50 million a year and do not own the company.

I agree that a person who owns a company should be able to make as much money as he can possibly make. If he wants more money, he expands he business or creates another company. Nothing wrong with this free enterprise system, because he is hiring more workers to make more money.

However, all employees should have caps on their salaries through bargaining or some fair method set up by the President of the company, but the CEO should also have a cap.

Some companies lay off 1000 employees at a medium of $50,000 per employee while retaining or increasing the salary of the higher-ups and CEO. If a CEO makes $20,000,000 a year, maybe the CEO should be removed due to the drop in business, and his salary could retain approximately 400 of the fired employees.

I like free enterprise, but we have become a nation of communism (socialism). We have the elite and the poor. Those in the government jobs are the elite and they intend on taking all the money and leaving the remainder of the nation as mere servants receiving a pittance for their salaries.

The government uses our tax money to help the big companies who will support their agendas by allowing the huge salaries to the elite while allowing layoffs to the low wage earners.

It is a coordinated effort by the socialist to split the ranks into the elite and poor, so that the elite controls the government and the working class.

Without controls to limit the the elite's salaries, they will control the masses. There needs to be free enterprise in business to the point that anyone can open his own business and profit from it. He should be able to make as much money as he desires. However, his CEO's and high ranking officials should have limits so they do not eat up all the profits and leave the workers poor.

If the onwer or conglomerate will not limit the high salaries of the elite, then the government should set controls on their salaries in proportion to the salaries of the workers. If a company needs to reduce its overhead, the first thing that needs to go is the high salaries of the CEO and his cadderie of elites. If the company is in a bind, then it is mostly the fault of the CEO and his cadderie, not the workers, but they are the first to suffer.

Father Time
Big fan of fas****? Sometimes that big money CEO keeps you from losing too much money. Why is it so hard to accept the idea a private business should decide how much their employees get paid? College football is interesting because many of the programs are public schools.
 

augustabuzz

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
1,614
Re: Controls

Some things need control. The reasoning for a free market is great in some areas, but poor in others.

There are controls on the salaries of the Presidents of the colleges as meted out by the State Board of Regents. If there are controls on the salaries of the leaders, teachers, professors, etal, then there should be controls on the athletic leaders in the same college.

Father Time
The group you mention above are state employees whereas the football coaches are employed by a private athletic association.
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
Football is a business, not a game. This new craze of regulating the amount a company can pay for any service or product is stupid and wrong headed. Lets put a salary cap on actors and surgeons and NBA endorsements, too. **** it, let's transition to a command economy, because that's what this stupid talk is. Anyone remember the last major command economy and how it turned out?

This crap is ridiculous. I, for one, think it is great that people can still make millions of dollars in my country doing almost any damn thing.
 

77GTFan

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
9,397
The NCAA is a voluntary, member organization of colleges. If it wants to act in the best interests of its members to legislate coaches' pay it is free to make that choice. Colleges that do not want to accept the regulations of the NCAA are free to then form their own assoiation of colleges. The argument that we live in a free enterprise system holds no water. True freedom allows us to choose our voluntary associations and make the rules the members want to live by.

I believe the escalation of coaches' salaries is detrimental to the majority of schools. They regulate what the athletes can receive; they need to regulate coaching costs somehow. If I were in charge, I would legislate that a head coach's salary in any sport must be no more than an average of the university's deans' salaries, assistants should be paid no more than the average salary of full professors. Entry level football assistant or basketball assistant jobs should be equal to entry level professor salaries. My view is that if you don't want to be a head football or basketball coach for a measly $150K, $200K, $250K a year, maybe more - then go to the pros if they will have you. That's just my opinion.
 

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
The NCAA is a voluntary, member organization of colleges. If it wants to act in the best interests of its members to legislate coaches' pay it is free to make that choice. Colleges that do not want to accept the regulations of the NCAA are free to then form their own assoiation of colleges. The argument that we live in a free enterprise system holds no water. True freedom allows us to choose our voluntary associations and make the rules the members want to live by.

I believe the escalation of coaches' salaries is detrimental to the majority of schools. They regulate what the athletes can receive; they need to regulate coaching costs somehow. If I were in charge, I would legislate that a head coach's salary in any sport must be no more than an average of the university's deans' salaries, assistants should be paid no more than the average salary of full professors. Entry level football assistant or basketball assistant jobs should be equal to entry level professor salaries. My view is that if you don't want to be a head football or basketball coach for a measly $150K, $200K, $250K a year, maybe more - then go to the pros if they will have you. That's just my opinion.
Isn't what you just described a free market system? Also just because we CAN regulate something doesn't mean it will have any positive economic outcome if we DO.

Placating opinions and evening the playing field between larger and smaller schools are not going to make the NCAA a dime more.

However, even if we DID for some reason put a salary cap on coaches, what is to stop the AA from spending that extra 5 cool on its facilities? The best coaches would migrate to the colleges with the best facilities, and the best players would follow. Advantage: smaller schools... wait.

You can't level this playing field, even if it made sense to try.
 

JJacket

Declared dead for tax purposes.
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
86,776
This is all GT's fault.

If we hadn't have lured John Heisman away from Clemson for $2,250 + 30% of the gate for coaching baseball and football at GT - none of this would have happened.
I believe that the morse code version of the hive was outraged at the time - when they were not receiving BOTD dots and dashes.

30% of our gate for a season nowdays, I figure, is about $4 million a season. CPJ is getting screwed by Heisman standards.
 
Top