With another major university ending a college sport today I thought we could keep a list going.
So far we have ODU ending wrestling and Cincinnati ending men's soccer.
I do not think this will be the end of it honestly.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
This is just the beginning.
I mean, Maryland did this well before the coronavirus was here.
This is just going to accelerate it. Yet I bet we don't see a downward trend in paying basketball and football coaches.
How do you just stop paying more for a football coach? The market dictates the price. Sure you can go cheap but that will reflect in the results. Just is what it is.
I wouldn't want someone to tell me how much I was worth in my profession because someone thinks I get paid to much.
You stop by stopping - leadership at a university says we are not going to pay more than X for a coach.
Will it limit your candidate pool? Yes.
More of a rhetorical question. If you want to win there is a price tag that comes with it. That is the point.
The price tag for a HC salary to win his first NC is not that high:
Saban: 1.6 million
Fisher: 2.75 million
Dabo: 4.5 million (got a 1 million raise for winning ACC and runner up for NC year before)
Miles:around 2.7 million (hard to nail this one down since he got massive increase guarantee when he won SEC that year)
Ogeron: 4 million.
There is a limit to return on investment it appears.
That has nothing to do with market trend. I understand the point you are making. It is just so unrealistic there really isn't anything to argue. Dabo has deserved every dollar in raises they have given him.. These big schools can afford to pay their head coach X amount and continue to give raises because they produce a product that keeps the money flowing. Their fans continue to have hope they will win. The second you show your fans you aren't as committed to winning is the second they stop being financially invested. That's everything from ticket sales to donations.
You don't like coaches get paid so much, while kids aren't getting scholarships to play. I get it.
15 coaches make 5 million or more this upcoming year. How many of them have a real shot at a NC? Michigan? Purdue? South Florida? Northwestern?
What is your point? I didn't decide what the market value of a head coach is.
That isn't the market value either. It's just like housing bubbles of the past. It's being artificially inflated by the two or three coaches who should be making 5 million but in order to keep them above the rest of the pack catching up they are making 8,9 and soon 10 million a year.
well I guess we should make a movie and call it fireman's big short.
I think you just defined "market"
No. It's nothing like a housing bubble. You're misinterpreting what determines market value for a coach's salary. The top coaches are being paid a value that is an X multiplier of the ROI their salary makes for the Athletics Department overall. If Dabo doesn't maintain success and revenues drop he will likewise be dropped.
Therefore their salaries cannot be inflated because those schools can afford to pay those salaries. Other schools, like VT cannot.
Conversely, a housing bubble are market values that are falsely inflated by some underlying economic issue that is either mismanaged, misreported or illegally falsified. Like bad loans being repackaged and resold as AAA rated assets. It inflates the market for a time so that it appears that value is maintained or rising, while the foundation of that value is worthless up until those loans can no longer be traded, or someone bets against them. And then it all comes crashing down.
Yes the top schools can afford it but who can't are schools trying to play keep up. Cincy just paid the buyout for a new basketball coach of 500k plus now paying his new increased salary and and increased assistant pool. They are upping the football salary pool for assistants too. Yet they are cutting a sport. Doesn't sound like they can afford it. USF ranks 68th among public schools in revenue but pay their football coach top 11 money??
I feel the frustration. Income inequality is a bitch.
But just because other schools can't afford to pay that level salary doesn't mean those salaries are inflated. It means those schools have less revenue.
In regards to cutting sports again it's also a revenue issue. Any institution whether its non-profit or for profit will cut the things that have the least gain. Nonprofits do it every year, from your local "support highway 81" charity up to the United Nations. What they don't do is cut the thing that makes the most gain for them.
Now you can make the argument that morally coaches should voluntarily reduce their salaries to keep non-revenue sports afloat. There are precedents for this in both non-profit and for profit entities, but that has nothing to do with market value or why coaches are paid what they are paid.
those athletic departments should have known there was a pandemic on the way and not given those coaches the raises they earned!!!!!!!!!!
UC and USF along with a lot of other schools rely on student fees just to pay operating costs the pandemic is an excuse right now to cut costs. Now if football season were to be cancelled I would understand schools being under the financial stress to have to make these decisions but currently, no. Again if UC can't keep a sport with only 9.9 scholarships and only 3 paid coaches maybe they shouldn't have gone out and paid the buyout of a new basketball coach and given him a massive raise.
Revenue earning doesn't start at in September so they shouldn't need to wait until a cancellation of the season to make financial adjustments. I am sure that they are already being hit hard.
I think you singling out UC and USF is exactly that, an outlier. I get your point though. It sucks for everyone affected by those decisions.
Thank you. You were able to make my point much better than I could.
I think we all agree that it sucks they had to drop soccer but that's the reality.
Your argument is so laughable because you're comparing Cincinatti's "new basketball coach and massive raise" to what he was making at NKU and not compared to what they were already paying Mick Cronin.
Mick Cronin was making $2.2m annually at Cincinnati, and UCLA signed him to a deal worth $4m annually. Is Cincinnati supposed to give him a raise to $4.1m annually to retain him to prevent them from having to hiring John Brannen as a replacement? Brannen is making $1.5m annually.
Maybe you're right in that the entire thing is a house of cards and needs to be more sustainable to protect student athletes. Painting Cincinnati's hire of a basketball coach as somehow being irresponsible to show why they shouldn't have cut men's soccer is astounding, though.
Sure you can go cheap but that will reflect in the results.
Well, if all salaries were chopped by say, 30%, then would you think the Saban would be 30% less successful? No. Winners are winners, no matter what they make. If someone at a D1 coaching level "tanks" because they are sulking over salary, well, then are in the wrong profession.
If salaries were chopped by 30%, someone would very quickly unchop them to hire Saban.
This is the point!
Oh ye of little faith in the NCAA and their wacky overreaching rulings...
Bit of a stretch in my opinion but I've seen crazier things.
There is already a draft bill in the House that is attempting to limit how much of total revenue can be used to pay coaches.
There are a lot of draft bills in the house that will remain just that.
True but this one has a better chance than many because it also tied to the movement to allow athletes to profit off their name and likeness.
It has legs no doubt.
And given a bit of the large salaries are state employees (and the private schools receive federal funding) it wouldn't surprise me if it goes thru. No reason for a coach to make the massive salaries they do in an amateur sport.
There is absolutely reason. It is market driven. Why do CEOs of non profit organizations make millions of dollars? Simple. Hiring the best makes the organization more successful and will produce a return on investment.
If it is tied to a percentage of revenue, how does that change anything? Highest paid coaches are at schools with highest revenue. Very few irresponsible ADs are going to unbalance that.
This actually isn't true. As I pointed out above there are several schools that require influxes of money from the academic side every year just to pay costs yet pay their coaches in the top 15 in the nation.
The athletics bubble was going to pop eventually
Will be interesting to see if this pops the tuition bubble as well. People are currently lining up class action lawsuits to get tuition payments returned for lack of provided room and board.
Wait which schools aren't giving back room and board? Also tuition is about to go up as even less money comes from the Feds and states to schools in annual budgets.
At least 2 so far... Drexel and Miami (FL)
CNBC: Students are suing their colleges for coronavirus-related refunds
Based on the 2 examples above, this appears to be an issue with private universities.
I'll say it, Liberty as well.
I expect as long as online classes are still going on, there will be no tuition refunded by most colleges. VT did issue room and board refund which in my case was $1000. For the remaining dining plan, you were given options to carry over to next semester or get refund. My local community college did allow students to withdraw and get refunds if they were unable to do online to finish the semester. Some students did not have access to internet and computers.
And how will this effect the incoming 2020 classes? If universities decide to only offer online courses in the fall, I'd imagine many families would consider holding off for a year.
When will UVa drop their football program due to futility?
When we beat them 17 years in a row.
And Carolina recently dropped aluminum
It definitely begs the question 'where do college sports in the modern college experience?' Football (and at some schools, basketball) are not just a social activity students, but an activity that engages alumni, fosters an alumni network, and defines the school's culture. I'm not sure what role olympic sports play.
I'm torn on the issue - on one hand, I'm a life long tennis fan, and went to a bunch of VT Tennis matches when I was in school. I have a few friends who played tennis in college, and a few friends who played other sports that got cut while they were in school, and it really sucked for them; their entire college experience got completely uprooted half way through.
On the other hand, I love football. If I could trade a lifetime of losses in every other VT sport to get a national championship in football, I'd do it.
I don't see an easy answer.
This all just goes back to the old saw "You can't legislate human nature."
If these guys can't make money, they ain't gonna spend it.
College sports isn't a for profit business.
?????????????????????????????????? pls explain
Virginia Tech Athletics is a 501(c)(3) organization which means they are a non-profit.
okay sure, tax deductible donations etc etc.
but saying "it's a nonprofit" doesn't hand wave away all the other concerns about revenue streams and expenditures etc etc etc
That these schools should be focused on keeping athletes and sports instead of the ever increasing pay of coaches. They are so concerned about a soccer team that might cost the school a school 25,000-50,000 outside of scholarships which are usually donated monies. UC has about 5-7 million tied up in just basketball and football coaches salaries so dropped that by a million and your not cutting sports.
How about this scenario. You cut coaching salaries. UC's once successful football team loses it's coach. This then gives the message to the alumni and fans they aren't interested in winning. This leads to less turn out, this leads to less revenue. Now were at less revenue and more cost. Now we have to cut 2 sports to stay afloat rather than 1.
So basically as long as schools keep football and basketball afloat we should all just accept that as normal and fine?
Not what I said at all. I am not sure why this is the conclusion you came to. Clearly something has to drive the machine. If that is football and basketball so be it. I would hate to see other sports get cancelled but someone has to pay.
Students that's who pays. If these schools are so short of money to keep sports then cutting salaries seems like the most logically place to trim.
Oh you know, they're non-profit... Just ignore the billion dollar endowments these schools have academically and athletically that all their donations go toward, which largely ends up paying the scholarships of their students, the 8-9 figure facility upgrades and multimillion dollar coaches annually. But yeah... definitely not a profit. No siree.
right -- the argument is that it's nonprofit because it's reinvested in the school/program/operation/ etcetcetc
but i agree that it's silly to look at it top-to-bottom and conclude that a major of goal of university athletics isn't to generate revenue for use. "nonprofit" or not.
Less than 5 schools a year "turn a profit" I can only name 3 that I've ever seen give money to the academic side. Schools can play just as well and have just as many scholarship athletes and amazing facilities if the football coach can only make 1.9 million instead of 2 million.
I didn't say "profit", I said "revenue for use" -- you know, nonprofit
allocation of expenditures by athletic departments is a different conversation than "college sports isn't a for profit business"
i still don't see how "college sports isn't a for-profit business" has any bearing on the relative merits of a given generic coach's salary vs a scholarship sport
I view the "job" of AD's to provide chances for men and women to come play a sport for a college while getting a degree. Any AD who cuts sports while continuing to increase funding for extra staff positions in other sports isn't taking the foundation of his job correctly. Again UC cut a sport that costs pennies compared to the increase they gave their football and basketball coaching staffs this year. Football makes money to keep those sport afloat at most schools but at what cost in the end? If coaching salaries at a place like UC get to 5 million a year is that doable long term? Should it be?
what does that have to do with being a nonprofit -- that's all I'm asking
The OP said this. UC still is "making enough" money to fund men's soccer if they wanted to. They aren't running out of money.
What the OP meant was... football in most cases is the largest generator of revenue for any given athletic department that supports a football program. That revenue is used to fund the other sports. If that revenue is taken away, then ADs have decisions to make.
I don't think there's an argument here, I think he's just trying to continue the argument that these schools with their billion dollar endowments are operating like the little sisters of the poor because the industry went through an arms race over the past 20 years that led to serious out of control spending.
Is the job of the AD to win championships/be competitive or to provide students with opportunities to play sports competitively? How you answer this question determines which side of this argument you fall in. Clearly, Cincinnati's AD was mandated to win at revenue sports over providing opportunities for students. If this is his mandate, it makes sense to cut non-revenue sports and focus on winning revenue ones.
Cincy doesn't have any sports that make money in the long term. They are fully subsidized by student fees.
That doesn't matter if the funding is going down and the priority is maintaining competitiveness in revenue sports. Regardless of how they get funded, the priority for Cinci, as shown by their actions, is win at football and basketball. This is probably a directive from the president and board and they are choosing not to cut salaries or football/basketball staff so that they can remain competitive. The shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Not saying I like it, but just saying it is a valid choice given their apparent priorities.
I can't think of a more Virginia Tech thing than us finally getting momentum on the recruiting trail and reestablishing our brand only to have football canceled in 2020.
i would upvote, but leaving this at 25 seems appropriate.
It's going to be pretty funny when UVa cancels non-revenue sports but tries to explain why football doesn't matter.
Maybe they'll just raise student fees again.
They already had to give out hot dogs to sell football tickets.
This is probably an excellent time for coaches to get extensions that help the bottom line short term at the University and provide the coaches extended security.
Here is something I have pondered: football powerhouses such as Clemson don't invest as much in Olympic sports as their inferiors (in football) thereby helping them invest more in football. Would schools having to cancel non-revenue sports help level the playing field a little bit?
I guess it's a moot point if there isn't even a playing field this year.
Perhaps. Clemson has 17 sports (8 men / 9 women) while say Virginia Tech has 20 ( 10 men / 10 women).
Clemson biggest profit bringers/success I assume are 1. Football then 2a. Basketball 2b. Baseball
OT: Clemson's baseball field/stadium is pretty dope. Doesn't get the hype like SoCar/Miss State's (because they're other worldly), but it's badass.
Does Title IX not work both ways or is it only total number of scholarships that have to be equal not number of sports?
It's total number of scholarship athletes. You have to provide "equal opportunity" to men and women.
In addition, scholarships are limited by sports and many women's sports have way more scholarships than the men's due to football. e.g. women have 18 scholarships for women croas country and 12.6 for men.
Edit: forgot to type sport
Either I'm missing something here or there a typo.
Many sports have partial scholarships. Most players don't get full cost of attendance they get percentages.
Not that typo, I know partial scholarships are a thing in pretty much every sport besides D1 football and basketball, and probably a couple other niche sports.
I think the second women should have been basketball
This has been going on for a long time, Syracuse canceled its 100+ year old swim team in 2011.
It really sucks because at the end of the day its costing kids a chance to got to college and compete because the AD made a bad hire and another sport coach failed to do their job.
Can we just rename this thread "How Colleges Fund Athletic Coaches and Programs: By Fireman, GGC, Zblaetz"
right....boring...waste of time...
sorry for forcing you two to read it. are you aware of the collapse comment feature?
Feel free to offer some input! Or ya know create something to talk about...
What shall we discuss next? I'm wide open for the next 30 days or so.
The fall 2020 college football and NFL seasons may have just taken a serious hit at the chance of actually happening. The LA mayor says it will be "very difficult" to have any sporting events in the city until 2021.
Article