Shalala Sponsoring a bill to limit coaching salaries

[Suhrthing]

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.

I surely could be this dense. No doubt.
Give me the numbers and i'll concede.

 

[Suhrthing]

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.

Lol. You equating economics to mathematics.... really? LOL. Just stop. You're talking that big sh@t like you're an 'economist'? Are you?

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

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.

I think you misunderstand the way the subsidies work. This pretty much tells the story:

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

www.huffpost.com

"While taxpayer money doesn’t technically go to pay the coaches’ actual salary lines, taxpayer money does pay for the salary packages for most every [public university] coach, trainer, and full-time athletic department staff member. That’s because [public university] athletic department employees are [university] employees, so they receive the same “standard university benefits” as all other [university] employees...

Even if taxpayer money isn’t going directly to pay these incredibly generous salaries, it still plays a role. By picking up the cost of employee benefits for the [public university] athletic department, taxpayers help to free up money for the athletic department, money it can then use to pay for other things – such as the salaries of its coaches."

"Those huge salaries — for football coaches and men’s basketball coaches who are the highest paid public employees in the most states — may look very different to the public when it knows that part of the justification for those salaries, that “the taxpayers of a state does not fund coaches’ salaries” isn’t exactly the case."

"Like many of its peers, the UI athletic department has grown dramatically. The total number of athletic department staff, according to the university’s academic personnel books, has risen from eighty-eight in 1997, to one hundred and ninety-six in 2017. That’s a whopping one hundred and twenty three percent increase in athletic staff. More staff costs taxpayers more money."

The article looks at Indiana University. Now imagine Alabama- which takes this to another level. Nick Saban makes 8 million a year. The university (via the taxpayer) subsidizes his health insurance. He has like 100 assistants on staff that also get health insurance and pensions. That eventually adds up to millions of dollars- which the taxpayers are paying.

The residents of the city of Miami don't pay Manny Diaz's health insurance, but they pay for Willie Taggart's and Dan Mullen's.

 

[Suhrthing]

I think you misunderstand the way the subsidies work. This pretty much tells the story:

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

www.huffpost.com

"While taxpayer money doesn’t technically go to pay the coaches’ actual salary lines, taxpayer money does pay for the salary packages for most every [public university] coach, trainer, and full-time athletic department staff member. That’s because [public university] athletic department employees are [university] employees, so they receive the same “standard university benefits” as all other [university] employees...

Even if taxpayer money isn’t going directly to pay these incredibly generous salaries, it still plays a role. By picking up the cost of employee benefits for the [public university] athletic department, taxpayers help to free up money for the athletic department, money it can then use to pay for other things – such as the salaries of its coaches."

"Those huge salaries — for football coaches and men’s basketball coaches who are the highest paid public employees in the most states — may look very different to the public when it knows that part of the justification for those salaries, that “the taxpayers of a state does not fund coaches’ salaries” isn’t exactly the case."

"Like many of its peers, the UI athletic department has grown dramatically. The total number of athletic department staff, according to the university’s academic personnel books, has risen from eighty-eight in 1997, to one hundred and ninety-six in 2017. That’s a whopping one hundred and twenty three percent increase in athletic staff. More staff costs taxpayers more money."

The article looks at Indiana University. Now imagine Alabama- which takes this to another level. Nick Saban makes 8 million a year. The university (via the taxpayer) subsidizes his health insurance. He has like 100 assistants on staff that also get health insurance and pensions. That eventually adds up to millions of dollars- which the taxpayers are paying.

The residents of the city of Miami don't pay Manny Diaz's health insurance, but they pay for Willie Taggart's and Dan Mullen's.

Huh? This article dispels the the notion that tax-payer dollars pay head coaches... and only reiterates that supporting staff are tax-funded. Which are budgeted by the state. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[Canedude08]

I surely could be this dense. No doubt.
Give me the numbers and i'll concede.

Lets start with the basics and I'll use UF as a stand in for the typical flagship state school.

UF Student Population--52,367 (2017 numbers, includes both undergrad and grad)
UMiami Student Population--17,003 (2017 numbers, includes both undergrad and grad)

UF Athletic Department Revenue--149.2 million(2018 data)
UMiami Athletic Department Revenue--89.1 Million(2018 Data)(This number is a bit inflated due to the 2017 season and the increase in revenue experienced from that year which carried over)

So in other words, Florida has more people that can donate, which leads to more revenue. Florida, and schools like them are able to spend a ton of money on coaches, because the LABOR doesn't get a **** dime. That's what Dr. Shalala has a problem with, and something the NCAA should have handled years ago. If the NCAA stood up and said that players could receive a salary along with an education, I'm willing to bet that coaching salaries would drop significantly. There's no such thing as a bottomless pit of money, even the most well heeled booster won't spend themselves into bankruptcy in order to win football games. The NCAA refuses to address this nonsense, so Dr. Shalala tried to step in. Will this bill ever pass? **** no, because there are too many dumbass members of congress in backwater states that know that if they dare stand up to Nick Saban, Coach O or Dabo, they would be primaried. It's similar to when Charles Rangel kept trying to bring back the draft during Operation Enduring Freedom. He knew **** well no legislator in their right mind would dare vote for it, but it forced people to ask the question: If this war is so incredibly great, why won't the people that are sending youngsters to die send their sons and daughters? Dr. Shalala is forcing the NCAA's hand, and if she can use her considerable political influence to make the NCAA address the problem, schools like Miami would benefit.

 

[Suhrthing]

Lets start with the basics and I'll use UF as a stand in for the typical flagship state school.

UF Student Population--52,367 (2017 numbers, includes both undergrad and grad)
UMiami Student Population--17,003 (2017 numbers, includes both undergrad and grad)

UF Athletic Department Revenue--149.2 million(2018 data)
UMiami Athletic Department Revenue--89.1 Million(2018 Data)(This number is a bit inflated due to the 2017 season and the increase in revenue experienced from that year which carried over)

So in other words, Florida has more people that can donate, which leads to more revenue. Florida, and schools like them are able to spend a ton of money on coaches, because the LABOR doesn't get a **** dime. That's what Dr. Shalala has a problem with, and something the NCAA should have handled years ago. If the NCAA stood up and said that players could receive a salary along with an education, I'm willing to bet that coaching salaries would drop significantly. There's no such thing as a bottomless pit of money, even the most well heeled booster won't spend themselves into bankruptcy in order to win football games. The NCAA refuses to address this nonsense, so Dr. Shalala tried to step in. Will this bill ever pass? **** no, because there are too many dumbass members of congress in backwater states that know that if they dare stand up to Nick Saban, Coach O or Dabo, they would be primaried. It's similar to when Charles Rangel kept trying to bring back the draft during Operation Enduring Freedom. He knew **** well no legislator in their right mind would dare vote for it, but it forced people to ask the question: If this war is so incredibly great, why won't the people that are sending youngsters to die send their sons and daughters? Dr. Shalala is forcing the NCAA's hand, and if she can use her considerable political influence to make the NCAA address the problem, schools like Miami would benefit.

Miami charges more for tuition because they CAN, not because they 'have to'. Did you even bother to calculate students x tuition? Are you that dense?

Here ya go... get back to me.

https://www.fa.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UF_AFR_2018webversion.pdf

 

[Canedude08]

Miami charges more for tuition because they CAN, not because they 'have to'. Did you even bother to calculate students x tuition? Are you that dense?

Here ya go... get back to me.

https://www.fa.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UF_AFR_2018webversion.pdf

You realize that unlike the University of Florida, UMiami isn't getting significant cash outlays from the State, right? I know you didn't bother to actually READ the financial report linked, but it actually discusses what the school gets from the state. Hence why in state students pay significantly less than out of state students. This is basic stuff, something that has been true since the beginning of state subsidized, land grant schools were established.

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

Huh? This article dispels the the notion that tax-payer dollars pay head coaches... and only reiterates that supporting staff are tax-funded. Which are budgeted by the state. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

It reiterated that coaches at public universities can have these exorbitant salaries because taxpayers are subsidizing other parts of the athletic department. Ok let me try to explain this another way. At public universities there are 3 pots of money

1. Donations
2. State budget (from the taxpayers)
3. Revenue (tuition, TV deals,etc)

Let's suppose it costs 10 million per year to run an athletic department. The school wants to hire a big time coach and donors give 10 million to hire him. Now he wants 80 assistants. The school has the money to hire assistants and spend millions in salary, pension, and other benefits because the taxpayers have given the school 10 million for an operating budget. However, if the taxpayers had paid zero and the coach still wanted all those assistants, the school would have to take from either the donation pot or the revenue pot. If they pull from the donation pot, it means there is less money available for the head coach. If they pull from the revenue pot, it usually means they are raising tuition. Raising tuitions at public universities is highly visible and the public gets angry, so instead the school tells the legislature they need more money, and suddenly an extra few millions of even more taxpayer funds go to the program. If the school had been required to pull from the donation pot, they wouldn't have had to raise tuition or ask the government (which forces the taxpayers) to raise money. The taxpayer subsidies allow the school to avoid dipping into the donation pot, which means all that money can go to the head coach.

At private universities there are just 2 pots of money:
1. Donations
2. Revenue

In this example, running an athletic department costs 10 million like with public schools. The school wants to hire a head coach. Donors put up 10 million to hire a new HC. But before the athletic department can make a hire, it has to crunch the numbers for how much it will likely cost for a staff. The staff expenses (salary, benefits, etc ) have to come from one of the two pots of money. The tuition is already outrageously high, so the funds have to come from the donation pot, meaning there is less money for a head coach.

You are failing to understand that the millions in taxpayer money going to the athletic departments at public universities is what allows them to avoid dipping into the donation pot, meaning it can all go to the HC. Setting a cap on the head coach's salary at public universities helps level the playing field since private universities are constantly at a disadvantage because they cant just turn to their local representatives and say "give me more taxpayer money so we don't have to touch the donation pot and it can all be used on the HC."

 

[Suhrthing]

It reiterated that coaches at public universities can have these exorbitant salaries because taxpayers are subsidizing other parts of the athletic department. Ok let me try to explain this another way. At public universities there are 3 pots of money

1. Donations
2. State budget (from the taxpayers)
3. Revenue (tuition, TV deals,etc)

Let's suppose it costs 10 million per year to run an athletic department. The school wants to hire a big time coach and donors give 10 million to hire him. Now he wants 80 assistants. The school has the money to hire assistants and spend millions in salary, pension, and other benefits because the taxpayers have given the school 10 million for an operating budget. However, if the taxpayers had paid zero and the coach still wanted all those assistants, the school would have to take from either the donation pot or the revenue pot. If they pull from the donation pot, it means there is less money available for the head coach. If they pull from the revenue pot, it usually means they are raising tuition. Raising tuitions at public universities is highly visible and the public gets angry, so instead the school tells the legislature they need more money, and suddenly an extra few millions of even more taxpayer funds go to the program. If the school had been required to pull from the donation pot, they wouldn't have had to raise tuition or ask the government (which forces the taxpayers) to raise money. The taxpayer subsidies allow the school to avoid dipping into the donation pot, which means all that money can go to the head coach.

At private universities there are just 2 pots of money:
1. Donations
2. Revenue

In this example, running an athletic department costs 10 million like with public schools. The school wants to hire a head coach. Donors put up 10 million to hire a new HC. But before the athletic department can make a hire, it has to crunch the numbers for how much it will likely cost for a staff. The staff expenses (salary, benefits, etc ) have to come from one of the two pots of money. The tuition is already outrageously high, so the funds have to come from the donation pot, meaning there is less money for a head coach.

You are failing to understand that the millions in taxpayer money going to the athletic departments at public universities is what allows them to avoid dipping into the donation pot, meaning it can all go to the HC. Setting a cap on the head coach's salary at public universities helps level the playing field since private universities are constantly at a disadvantage because they cant just turn to their local representatives and say "give me more taxpayer money so we don't have to touch the donation pot and it can all be used on the HC."

Qualify your assertion that FSU and UFs 'massive programs' are getting millions in subsidies. It should be easy. I'm going out on a limb and say their football programs are self-sustaining - but would be happy to admit I'm wrong.

 

[Suhrthing]

You realize that unlike the University of Florida, UMiami isn't getting significant cash outlays from the State, right? I know you didn't bother to actually READ the financial report linked, but it actually discusses what the school gets from the state. Hence why in state students pay significantly less than out of state students. This is basic stuff, something that has been true since the beginning of state subsidized, land grant schools were established.

No, its your job to qualify your assertions, not mine. UM's endowment seems to be about 2/3's or UF. Which probably is largely made up with its 50k vs 6k tuition no?

 

[Salt]

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.

Whether educator or the one being educated, as long as you understand that it's still an opinion at its core.

Science is also a perspective on how you can look at things but it is not the thing itself. I take it you never have taken a philosophy course.

Math will not help you in that department.

 

[MainLineCane]

IF some here were capable of actually reading/listening and NOT prejudging a proposal based on who or where it came from...VS its substance...there is no limit to how much we could improve

 

[MainLineCane]

I think you misunderstand the way the subsidies work. This pretty much tells the story:

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

‘No Taxpayer Dollars’ For Coaches At the U of I? You May Be Surprised

www.huffpost.com

"While taxpayer money doesn’t technically go to pay the coaches’ actual salary lines, taxpayer money does pay for the salary packages for most every [public university] coach, trainer, and full-time athletic department staff member. That’s because [public university] athletic department employees are [university] employees, so they receive the same “standard university benefits” as all other [university] employees...

Even if taxpayer money isn’t going directly to pay these incredibly generous salaries, it still plays a role. By picking up the cost of employee benefits for the [public university] athletic department, taxpayers help to free up money for the athletic department, money it can then use to pay for other things – such as the salaries of its coaches."

"Those huge salaries — for football coaches and men’s basketball coaches who are the highest paid public employees in the most states — may look very different to the public when it knows that part of the justification for those salaries, that “the taxpayers of a state does not fund coaches’ salaries” isn’t exactly the case."

"Like many of its peers, the UI athletic department has grown dramatically. The total number of athletic department staff, according to the university’s academic personnel books, has risen from eighty-eight in 1997, to one hundred and ninety-six in 2017. That’s a whopping one hundred and twenty three percent increase in athletic staff. More staff costs taxpayers more money."

The article looks at Indiana University. Now imagine Alabama- which takes this to another level. Nick Saban makes 8 million a year. The university (via the taxpayer) subsidizes his health insurance. He has like 100 assistants on staff that also get health insurance and pensions. That eventually adds up to millions of dollars- which the taxpayers are paying.

The residents of the city of Miami don't pay Manny Diaz's health insurance, but they pay for Willie Taggart's and Dan Mullen's.

^^^^^
Agree 100%

Does anyone here really want to help pay for UFs and FSUs coaches extravagant salaries and benefits ???

 

[PSU Cane]

Highest paid state employees by far are college football coaches in just about every state, except maybe Rhode Island and Puerto Rico

Which is why state governments suck and consistently have problems....you could say the same about many state school systems. Would you prefer your highest paid and most qualified (in their field) be the guys coaching kids to play a sport or those in charge of fixing things like taxes, roads, schools, local crime, etc?

People will be the first to complain about taxes and salaries for all of the necessities to run a government but throw money hand over fist for sports.....either donations, tickets, cable TV to watch, etc. Medical insurance? F you. You don't care if that doctor is one of the best in the country and has saved hundreds or thousands of lives, he's shouldn't be allowed to charge what he wants for his skill but that football coach should. Interesting.....

I'd like to see how many complain if you milk became $10/gallon, ground beef was $12/pound, or gas $8/gallon . How many would scream foul and say the government has to step in to control the prices or subsidize so the prices are kept to a level customers can afford? Or would you simply say that's supply and demand?

I love sports, especially football. I would give up my current job i worked my entire life to get to work in the industry. But.....the salaries and the overall money are completely out of control. Everyone has lost logic and understanding of what is truly important and critical for future success in HS and College schools and athletic programs. Far too often people can't see past their own likes and selfish wants to agree why something is completely off-based for the greater good.

 

[Canedude08]

No, its your job to qualify your assertions, not mine. UM's endowment seems to be about 2/3's or UF. Which probably is largely made up with its 50k vs 6k tuition no?

Endowments are more about donations and investments, than it is about tuition, which is used for mostly operating expenses. Miami has had significant growth over the last 30 years, due to some big time financial transactions. Due to UMiami not getting subsidized by the Florida Legislature, the typical tuition payment goes more towards operating expenses. You think Miami having significantly smaller class sizes comes without a cost?

 

[Suhrthing]

Endowments are more about donations and investments, than it is about tuition, which is used for mostly operating expenses. Miami has had significant growth over the last 30 years, due to some big time financial transactions. Due to UMiami not getting subsidized by the Florida Legislature, the typical tuition payment goes more towards operating expenses. You think Miami having significantly smaller class sizes comes without a cost?

The point is big time programs don't need subsidies for their athletics. Show me where UF is dipping into state funding to pay for athletics.

 

[RichtshawFerguson]

Guys, a cap can be set for a publicly funded University. The NCAA would have no choice but to make that the rule for all schools (or else private schools would have a massive advantage). Any private school could still pay anyone involved in intramural athletics a billion dollars a year if they so desired. But not for a team that they wished to be part of the NCAA.

 

[RightSaidFred]

It reiterated that coaches at public universities can have these exorbitant salaries because taxpayers are subsidizing other parts of the athletic department. Ok let me try to explain this another way. At public universities there are 3 pots of money

1. Donations
2. State budget (from the taxpayers)
3. Revenue (tuition, TV deals,etc)

Let's suppose it costs 10 million per year to run an athletic department. The school wants to hire a big time coach and donors give 10 million to hire him. Now he wants 80 assistants. The school has the money to hire assistants and spend millions in salary, pension, and other benefits because the taxpayers have given the school 10 million for an operating budget. However, if the taxpayers had paid zero and the coach still wanted all those assistants, the school would have to take from either the donation pot or the revenue pot. If they pull from the donation pot, it means there is less money available for the head coach. If they pull from the revenue pot, it usually means they are raising tuition. Raising tuitions at public universities is highly visible and the public gets angry, so instead the school tells the legislature they need more money, and suddenly an extra few millions of even more taxpayer funds go to the program. If the school had been required to pull from the donation pot, they wouldn't have had to raise tuition or ask the government (which forces the taxpayers) to raise money. The taxpayer subsidies allow the school to avoid dipping into the donation pot, which means all that money can go to the head coach.

At private universities there are just 2 pots of money:
1. Donations
2. Revenue

In this example, running an athletic department costs 10 million like with public schools. The school wants to hire a head coach. Donors put up 10 million to hire a new HC. But before the athletic department can make a hire, it has to crunch the numbers for how much it will likely cost for a staff. The staff expenses (salary, benefits, etc ) have to come from one of the two pots of money. The tuition is already outrageously high, so the funds have to come from the donation pot, meaning there is less money for a head coach.

You are failing to understand that the millions in taxpayer money going to the athletic departments at public universities is what allows them to avoid dipping into the donation pot, meaning it can all go to the HC. Setting a cap on the head coach's salary at public universities helps level the playing field since private universities are constantly at a disadvantage because they cant just turn to their local representatives and say "give me more taxpayer money so we don't have to touch the donation pot and it can all be used on the HC."

UM does get a lot of money from the government.

 

[1LuvCane]

UM does get a lot of money from the government.

In fact, it gets more money from government grants than it gets from student tuition.

Got proof?

 

[Fightinibis]

Every one of you that thinks this WOULDN'T benefit Miami needs to open up a book.

We're struggling to crack $4 million a year and the best schools are paying double that. If you want the college football to be literally four schools that have a chance (which is the direction things are going), the salary limits are terrible.

Miami will never be one of those four schools.

Salary limits don't make sense in a free market. The NCAA is not a free market.

I would give a **** MUCH more had she not personally destroyed us for 14 years to make her point in practice for a later political move.