forums

Shalala Sponsoring a bill to limit coaching salaries

TerragonSix said:
If you're best at your job, you should get paid accordingly.

If you suck at your job, you should get paid accordingly.

Putting a cap on salaries will just increase bonuses, incentives and perks.

If I were paid by the load in trucking, and lets say I ran 10 loads a day. I get paid a max cap of $300 for the day. Another guy runs 6 loads, and reaches his cap of $300.

We both made the same amount of money, but I hustled my *** off and the other guy didn't. But because of the cap, I have no incentive to work hard.

How is that remotely fair or reasonable?
Click to expand...

This is not even remotely similar.
 
Advertisement
TimeB0mb said:
If UF tuition is 13k per year instead of 10k per year because the AD is getting paid 1.2 million of taxpayer money, then the legislature needs to act. The school will not police its own costs, that's the problem with spending other people's money.
Click to expand...

Doesn't quite work that way given the relative institutional autonomy of public universities. They have their Trustees and boosters too, and in many if not most cases, Trustees of a major state university are also extremely influential in said state.

Moreover, the flagship school in a given state is supposed to be a bastion for free and progressive thought. If you want a low-cost, quality education, go to community college.

That's a bit of hyperbole, and I completely understand your point, but there's a massive gray area.
 
TerragonSix said:
If you're best at your job, you should get paid accordingly.

If you suck at your job, you should get paid accordingly.

Putting a cap on salaries will just increase bonuses, incentives and perks.

If I were paid by the load in trucking, and lets say I ran 10 loads a day. I get paid a max cap of $300 for the day. Another guy runs 6 loads, and reaches his cap of $300.

We both made the same amount of money, but I hustled my *** off and the other guy didn't. But because of the cap, I have no incentive to work hard.

How is that remotely fair or reasonable?
Click to expand...

The issue with your argument is you're operating under the economics of a free market. The NCAA is far from a free market.

But for starters, if you're paid by the load, why the **** are you working 10 if you only get paid for 6? Your entire argument falls apart when you're assuming workers are willing to work for free.
 
Last edited:
TemplarCane said:
Aren’t a percentage of coaches salaries funded by apparel contracts and booster groups? At least at some schools?

Doesn’t it count for something if a football program’s revenue covers their costs?
Click to expand...

This is extraordinarily simple to manipulate.
 
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...
Yep.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
Doesn't quite work that way given the relative institutional autonomy of public universities. They have their Trustees and boosters too, and in many if not most cases, Trustees of a major state university are also extremely influential in said state.

Moreover, the flagship school in a given state is supposed to be a bastion for free and progressive thought. If you want a low-cost, quality education, go to community college.

That's a bit of hyperbole, and I completely understand your point, but there's a massive gray area.
Click to expand...

The original purpose of state universities when they were founded was to provide the public with access to a low cost, quality public education. Prior to the establishment of the state university systems, the country had all private universities that were typically attended by wealthy people. There was very little social mobility. The state universities were an attempt to remedy that.

I disagree with your views of the purpose of a state university. The purpose of a state university is not to be a bastion of progressive thought- however, that's what they have turned into through leftist professors. The state university is supposed to be a bastion of free thought, which is not the same as progressive thought.

Ultimately that's not really pertinent to my point which is that the federal government has a duty to the taxpayers to ensure that federal funds are being spent wisely. I don't think that coaching salaries should be capped simply because they are making too much money. However, if the fact that universities are paying coaching staffs millions of dollars is causing tuitions to be higher than they would otherwise be and schools are not controlling their own costs, the federal government has every right to set conditions on the universities to receive federal taxpayer money. Again, state university systems can freely decide to forgo the federal funds and pass the costs onto the students or the state taxpayer. It's like the recruiting example I gave above. Many state universities openly embraced anti-military neo-marxist students and professors that would harrass military recruiters, right up until the federal government set conditions and told universities that they HAD to provide access or they would lose funds. And wouldn't you know it, state schools suddenly became much more military friendly.

Lastly- my support of the cap only goes for public non profit universities. I don't believe it should apply to private non profits. Since private universities are not taxpayer funded, the federal government does not have an interest in their tuition costs or the amount being paid to coaches. The biggest winners will be Miami, USC, and Notre Dame.
 
Last edited:
This is a good thing for Miami football. Small schools cant afford 7 mil a year for a coach, thus never getting top tier coaching and losing good ones they do find for pay upgrades.

Same ones on here saying dont cap the coaches, would be the first ones saying dont pay players.
 
Advertisement
hurricaneman said:
People are going to say capitalism should dictate coaches salaries, liberal agenda, socialism, yadda yadda, but college football is not a market governed by capitalism. Almost all the employees in this system are free laborers. Alabama can afford to pay Nick Saban $10M because the best players they get from around the country don't earn a dime (small bags aside). In a competitive market Alabama would have to be paying top dollar for all those 5 star athletes and their payroll would be massive. It wouldn't be a sustainable model. So because there's only one variable that schools need to navigate individuals, like Saban, hold incredible amounts of power. That's somewhat the gist of the antitrust aspect of the bill.
Click to expand...
Okay, so the problem is that the athletes don't make money, allowing for coaching salaries to grow exorbitantly. Schools have a vested, revenue driving interest in having the best possible program (best coaches and best students). Instead of regulating coaching salaries, it sounds like the real best solution is to pay players and let free markets work. Interestingly, that probably can't happen because it would be a Title IX issue to only pay football players. So government and NCAA regulations cause this problem. Instead of fixing those issues, she wants to add more government regulation. Doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not an elected official, so what do I know?
 
Advertisement
tsimonitis said:
shalala.house.gov

Proposed federal law seeks to limit skyrocketing salaries of college coaches | U.S. Congresswoman Donna Shalala

A proposed federal law is the latest -- and perhaps most powerful -- attempt seeking to limit spiraling salaries among college coaches. The possibility of an anti-trust exemption emerging from that law would allow schools to limit or cap those salaries with the creation of a...
shalala.house.gov

If anyone thought she wasn’t sabotaging UM football.
Click to expand...

How about term limits for these idiots in congress that have nothing better to do than come up with countless new ways to micromanage everyone else's lives?
 
This isn’t really a Left or Right issue.

The explosion of Federal money into state and private schools since the Seventies has led to spiraling salaries, costs, and tuition. It’s a huge racket, based on the inflationary principle of too much money chasing after too few goods.

In a rational universe, textbooks shouldn’t cost 150.00. Nick Saban shouldn’t pull down 7 million so Dabo can kick his a$$, but he does.

Our private university has to go hat in hand to the BOT so we can compete with big state schools for good Assistant Coaches because of this entire process.

If Shalala’s bill were to become law, all that would happen is that the Boosters at Bama and Clemson would find compensation packages that would be tailored to the law.
 
Advertisement
craval85 said:
The same way that other govt. employees are paid salaries based on tiers. For private schools they can enforce coaching salary restrictions as part of the rules framework to maintain conference affiliation. This is absolutely necessary for the sustainability of the game moving forward.
Click to expand...
Most big salaries are paid by boosters.
 
section9 said:
This isn’t really a Left or Right issue.

The explosion of Federal money into state and private schools since the Seventies has led to spiraling salaries, costs, and tuition. It’s a huge racket, based on the inflationary principle of too much money chasing after too few goods.

In a rational universe, textbooks shouldn’t cost 150.00. Nick Saban shouldn’t pull down 7 million so Dabo can kick his a$$, but he does.

Our private university has to go hat in hand to the BOT so we can compete with big state schools for good Assistant Coaches because of this entire process.

If Shalala’s bill were to become law, all that would happen is that the Boosters at Bama and Clemson would find compensation packages that would be tailored to the law.
Click to expand...

well it kind of is a left or right issue since it has to do with how our gov't spends our taxes.
 
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...
You think UM doesn’t get Federal Grants ? Funny.
 
I saw the little tub at SOTU on Tuesday and as much as I hate her there, I was so happy she is gone from THE U that I realize our football program might mean more to me than the good of the county. I guess it is truly, "All about THE U". On principles I object pay constraints but if it helps THE U, then bring them on.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top