forums

Shalala Sponsoring a bill to limit coaching salaries

Advertisement
SoFlaSmitty said:
She sucks and ruined football here with this mindset, but wouldn't this be a plus for us? If every college was on the same playing field when it came to pay coaches wouldn't we benefit from this being a smaller school that doesn't have Bama or other big time money?
Click to expand...

You can't legislate a true leveled "playing field" in a sport where you have over 100 programs with disparate commitments to the sport. Some programs can barely get 25k folks to attend their games while others have 90k and more to their games with folks paying top dollar to attend and become a booster. The latter will always have an edge on coaches, facilities, recruiting reach, etc regardless of what some blue-haired capri wearing pinko wants to legislate.
 
MedleyCane said:
You can't legislate a true leveled "playing field" in a sport where you have over 100 programs with disparate commitments to the sport. Some programs can barely get 25k folks to attend their games while others have 90k and more to their games with folks paying top dollar to attend and become a booster. The latter will always have an edge on coaches, facilities, recruiting reach, etc regardless of what some blue-haired capri wearing pinko wants to legislate.
Click to expand...
That was my other thought was boosters would just pay them unreal amounts for appearances
 
Advertisement
DTP said:
Ummm...public University football coaches are government employees. As long as public tax dollars are going towards these universities, the government has all the right to cap their salaries. Now a private university, who does not receive any tax subsidies, should be able to pay whatever they want.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of boosters, they pay the majority of salaries.
 
This bill is back *** thinking and full of hypocrisy. Won’t pass, thankfully. ****** passed on the chance to move to the SEC because she didn’t think Miami could pay the coaches at competitive level???
 
Advertisement
These obscene salaries are why teams like Miami are always scrambling through dumpsters trying find good coaches.

Salary wise we cant compete.
 
Uom2001 said:
This bill is back *** thinking and full of hypocrisy. Won’t pass, thankfully. ****** passed on the chance to move to the SEC because she didn’t think Miami could pay the coaches at competitive level???
Click to expand...

She was right. I know that the typical Miami "Fan" has this irrational dislike of Dr. Shalala, becuase "Muh Football", but be honest with yourself. Miami has no business joining in the SEC. This fanbase doesn't put money in WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD. This fanbase barely shows up WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD. Miami would merely be Vanderbilt in the SEC. The only thing Miami would be doing by joining the SEC is giving the SEC schools an additional recruiting benefit, because they could then sell "You would get to come back to Miami and play in front of mom and dad" in addition to the other crap. Conference wise, Miami is exactly where it should be, the problem is that WE haven't done our part. People like Blake James are still employed because people on the BOT aren't doing their jobs. The University President, whether it is Tad Foote, Dr. Shalala or Dr. Frenk have little to do with athletics. It's on the people that hold the ultimate power at the University to force change if people aren't doing their jobs.
 
Uom2001 said:
Ever heard of boosters, they pay the majority of salaries.
Click to expand...

Yes but what you don't realize is that taxpayers are still subsidizing those salaries and massive programs. At private schools, the athletic departments are entirely self-funded, whereas taxpayers pay for the athletic departments at public universities.

School A is a public university
School B is a private university

Suppose it costs 5 million to run an athletic department. Both A&B have big donors willing to donate 10 million. School A can direct that full 10 million to the foundation paying for the coaches salaries and tell the public "oh, all that salary is from private donors." The taxpayers get billed $5 million to run the athletic department and pay the $1.5 million salary of the AD. Meanwhile at school B, the school has to decide how much goes to the coach and how much goes to the athletic department. If they direct $5 million to the foundation paying for coaches salaries, now it only has $5 million to run the department. If you are a Florida taxpayer, you have essentially subsidized the University of Florida and FSU to pay coaches more than Miami.
 
Advertisement
TimeB0mb said:
Yes but what you don't realize is that taxpayers are still subsidizing those salaries and massive programs. At private schools, the athletic departments are entirely self-funded, whereas taxpayers pay for the athletic departments at public universities.

School A is a public university
School B is a private university

Suppose it costs 5 million to run an athletic department. Both A&B have big donors willing to donate 10 million. School A can direct that full 10 million to the foundation paying for the coaches salaries and tell the public "oh, all that salary is from private donors." The taxpayers get billed $5 million to run the athletic department and pay the $1.5 million salary of the AD. Meanwhile at school B, the school has to decide how much goes to the coach and how much goes to the athletic department. If they direct $5 million to the foundation paying for coaches salaries, now it only has $5 million to run the department. If you are a Florida taxpayer, you have essentially subsidized the University of Florida and FSU to pay coaches more than Miami.
Click to expand...
Uh... state schools have budgets; they don't 'decide' what the taxpayers pay. Legislators do that. And UM gets athletics funds from fees/tuition just as state schools do; and typically those fees/tuition are considerably higher than state institutions. Im not arguing state football programs dont have more $$, but its not simple a/b like you've postulated.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
LMAO no it doesn't.

Economics is a mathematical science. Math doesn't have opinions.

I take it you never took an econ class either.
Click to expand...

Monetary policy and how you manage an economy is also about theory. Has nothing to do about math if you believe money can be created out of thin air.
 
Salt said:
Monetary policy and how you manage an economy is also about theory. Has nothing to do about math if you believe money can be created out of thin air.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between partially learning science and accepting the opinion of the person that teaches it to you and actually learning a science and forming opinions of your own.

If you're the former, you're exactly the person I was talking about when you initially responded. That's about the student, not the educator.
 
Advertisement
jthomps123 said:
Uh... state schools have budgets; they don't 'decide' what the taxpayers pay. Legislators do that. And UM gets athletics funds from fees/tuition just as state schools do; and typically those fees/tuition are considerably higher than state institutions. Im not arguing state football programs dont have more $$, but its not simple a/b like you've postulated.
Click to expand...

You kind of invalidate your argument when you bring up the relative differential in tuition for private vs. public schools while not concurrently acknowledging that difference is because of taxpayer money.
 
jthomps123 said:
Uh... state schools have budgets; they don't 'decide' what the taxpayers pay. Legislators do that. And UM gets athletics funds from fees/tuition just as state schools do; and typically those fees/tuition are considerably higher than state institutions. Im not arguing state football programs dont have more $$, but its not simple a/b like you've postulated.
Click to expand...

You can't be this dense. Miami charges more for tuition because Miami receives significantly less in state funding(And it's per student, IE Bright Futures, etc.) than state institutions because the University of Miami is a PRIVATE institution. There are multiple reasons WHY state schools have more financial resources, most of which centers around alumni donor bases. UF produces more alumni in one year, than Miami produces in 3. Let that settle in. That means UF can lean on 3x the people Miami can, in order to fundraise. That plays a huge role.

By the way, Miami does collect fees from students for athletics, the problem is that those fees are miniscule compared to UF, who has 2-3x the student population. The Miami athletic fee covers the costs of tickets, which are AT COST. When one looks at how many games one can attend for practically free, Miami is probably losing money on it, because of the fact that a student could literally go to major sporting events for pennies on the dollar.

That said, Miami has done a poor job of maximizing the funds that are coming in. However, due to how the system is right now, Miami is operating at a significant disadvantage anyway, and Dr. Shalala is merely trying to find a solution, seeing the NCAA isn't interested in addressing the problem in the least.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
You kind of invalidate your argument when you bring up the relative differential in tuition for private vs. public schools while not concurrently acknowledging that difference is because of taxpayer money.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. Talk to me about FIU vs UM.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top