Skip

Football, Basketball, Med School, and Hockey
May 14, 2013 8:38 AM   Subscribe


 
The best thing about that map is New Hampshire.
posted by elizardbits at 8:45 AM on May 14, 2013 [10 favorites]


That 'why they deserve it' link is something else. You're really gonna cite Penn State as an example of football being good for a school and coaching staff being worth every penny?
posted by PMdixon at 8:46 AM on May 14, 2013 [15 favorites]


Wooo Med. School Dept Chair!
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 AM on May 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


From the "Why they deserve it" link:

Ask someone from rural Oklahoma if he knows that the University of Oklahoma is in the top 10 nationally in the graduation of Rhodes Scholars, and it’s unlikely he’ll answer in the affirmative. Ask him how the Sooners have done against Texas on the gridiron the past three years, and he’ll no doubt report that OU has won each time, and he might even remember that the combined score is 146-58. Is that necessarily a good thing? No. But it demonstrates the impact that Bob Stoops and the program he has built have on the state. (emphasis mine)

I don't know that justifying things just because they increase visibility is necessarily the way to go here. Yes, that increased visibility means more applicants to the school, and free advertising, but what is the purpose of a school? Should the emphasis be on attracting applicants and making money, or on providing an education?
posted by dubold at 8:47 AM on May 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


The "why they deserve it" link has one giant gaping hole in its logic. It may well be true that a winning football team is a worthwhile objective for a university in terms of its PR value. It may well be true that it is worth spending the amount of money a top football coach commands in order to gain a winning football team. (I don't say either of those things is true, but we can grant them for the sake of argument). What the writer fails to demonstrate, however, is that coaches actually make such a radical difference in overall team performance--that spending big bucks on a top coach actually results in a losing team becoming a winning team. There is, in fact, a lot of statistical data out there to suggest that people wildly exaggerate the impact of coaches on a team's success and/or failure (very similar to what happens with CEOs in the business world).
posted by yoink at 8:48 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wow, I'm amazed they manage to pay these large salaries for football and still comply with Title IX.
posted by Mitheral at 8:49 AM on May 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


You're really gonna cite Penn State as an example of football being good for a school and coaching staff being worth every penny?

Yeah, that was really gross, especially how they specified that the dude has been the best thing ever for "the past year" or whatevs. "Given what he has meant to Penn State in the past year-plus, the man is probably due a raise."

He deserves a raise because he allowed Penn State to feel good about football again without the pesky reminder of years and years of child abuse? Bleh.
posted by elizardbits at 8:53 AM on May 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


From the "why they deserve it" link:

Nothing sells a school like a successful team. And that can’t be refuted.

Interestingly, not only are the players on successful teams unpaid, it is widely considered illegal and immoral to pay them. (Monetary compensation to players is the source of most NCAA "ethics violations".)
posted by leopard at 8:54 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is there any way to know who the specific people are making those salaries in the map on the first link? When I click on a state it just brings up a blank text box.
posted by octothorpe at 8:55 AM on May 14, 2013


Well this explains a lot.
posted by DU at 8:56 AM on May 14, 2013


Is there any way to know who the specific people are making those salaries in the map on the first link? When I click on a state it just brings up a blank text box.

In most cases, it's pretty easy to figure out if you know sports. I'm from North Carolina (by birth no matter where I live) and the highest paid person is a basketball coach. I can guess without doing any research whatsoever, that that person is Roy Williams, the coach at UNC.

For most states, it'll be the head football at the flagship university.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:57 AM on May 14, 2013


and why they deserve it

Well of course they deserve it.

With our society's huge overemphasis on improving the brains of young people, it is increasingly difficult to find people who are really good at damaging those brains-- and when you finally do, they don't come cheap.
posted by jamjam at 8:59 AM on May 14, 2013 [9 favorites]


Interesting that the CT one is the women's basketball coach.
posted by elizardbits at 8:59 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


When Plato & them said democracy was rule by a dangerous ignorant mob this might be what they were talking about. NCAA football and basketball are minor league sports. The major league revenues never cease to amaze me because the action is as compelling as minor league baseball or minor league hockey; i.e. it sometimes can barely hold my interest but there is no way I would spend money on a ticket.
posted by bukvich at 9:03 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


UConn's men's basketball coach is pretty new, a promoted assistant from when Jim Calhoun retired in 2012, but the Women's Coach (Geno Auriemma) has been there forever and been very successful.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:04 AM on May 14, 2013


...and free advertising...

Actually, it's costing them $4,600,000 per year.
posted by jessssse at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2013 [9 favorites]


Minnesota needs to be updated to Football Coach/Fired Basketball Coach, because Tubby Smith has been fired but they are still paying him millions.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ah, of course. A top-tier coach actually brings money in to the institution. This is why college is now at record affordable levels nationwide!
posted by Eideteker at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2013 [9 favorites]


Why are coaches paid as state employees rather than contractors?

(I would guess there are individual lawyers, construction company CEOs, private practice doctors, etc. who make far more from any given state than a coach -- but they would officially be working for a private corporation rather than directly for the state.)
posted by miyabo at 9:08 AM on May 14, 2013


Why are coaches paid as state employees rather than contractors?

What? And give up that sweet state-funded medical insurance?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:11 AM on May 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is there any way to know who the specific people are making those salaries in the map on the first link?

I presume that Michigan's is Tom Izzo (men's basketball coach at Michigan State), just because he's got 18 years and six Final Fours to have piled up bonuses and seniority, but Brady Hoke (relatively new football coach at Michigan) will almost certainly pass him up with a couple more decent years.

Florida is in the same boat -- Billy Donovan has had enough success to make $3.5M a year, and Will Muschamp (Florida football coach) and Jimbo Fisher (Florida State football coach) are relatively new.
posted by Etrigan at 9:11 AM on May 14, 2013


Nothing sells a school like a successful team. And that can’t be refuted.

The need for having a top sports program to make your university "sell" is a myth. Just ask the Ivy League. The problem is that most people don't want to hear it. Same thing goes for publicly-funded stadiums for privately-held sports teams.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:17 AM on May 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


I hate to defend Penn State but it's not really accurate to call the football coach a state employee. The commonwealth only contributes 14% of the university's budget at this point. That's down from 62% in 1970.
posted by octothorpe at 9:21 AM on May 14, 2013


I can guess without doing any research whatsoever, that that person is Roy Williams, the coach at UNC.

It's really a toss-up between him and Coach K.

I went to school in VA, so I'm guessing the moneybags football coach there is Tech's coach. I'm totally at a loss for my home state of CA. One of the guys UCLA or USC just hired? Steve Fisher?
posted by LionIndex at 9:23 AM on May 14, 2013


The need for having a top sports program to make your university "sell" is a myth. Just ask the Ivy League.

The first step in having an elite 21st Century university is to start it in the 18th Century.
posted by Etrigan at 9:23 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, given how much the funding for state universities has been cut lately, it seems plain wrong to pretend these whole salaries are being paid by the state.
posted by smackfu at 9:24 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


...and why they deserve that.

Saw this infographic a few days ago. I've processed it, and my response is still "THIS IS THE REASON WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS".
posted by barnacles at 9:24 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's really a toss-up between him and Coach K.

Duke's a private university, so he's not a state employee, which is why I was sure. Also, Coach K receives his salary directly from Satan.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:24 AM on May 14, 2013 [25 favorites]


Ah, you're completely correct. I forgot about that.
posted by LionIndex at 9:26 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


That 'why they deserve it' link is something else.

I admit I had trouble deciding if it was satire or not. I think not, though.

Interestingly, not only are the players on successful teams unpaid, it is widely considered illegal and immoral to pay them.

Not true. Colleges can now pay them $2,000 per year, which probably equates to about $.50/hour or something.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:29 AM on May 14, 2013


I'm totally at a loss for my home state of CA. One of the guys UCLA or USC just hired? Steve Fisher?

They're probably still counting Ben Howland (UCLA basketball, fired six weeks ago). They may have even counted his $3.5M buyout in that. If not, Steve Alford (Howland's replacement) signed for $18.2M over seven years.

USC is private, so Cal is the only real other suspect, but they don't pay like UCLA does.
posted by Etrigan at 9:31 AM on May 14, 2013


If not, Steve Alford (Howland's replacement) signed for $18.2M over seven years.

I think that would probably still win the prize, although Fisher might be close.
posted by LionIndex at 9:34 AM on May 14, 2013


Actually, Fisher makes a little less than a million, so still behind Alford.
posted by LionIndex at 9:35 AM on May 14, 2013


Interesting that the CT one is the women's basketball coach.

UConn under Geno Auriemmais is kind of a monster - 8 national titles in 25 years, which is a better record than even Pat Summitt posted. And it's kind of ridiculous that Summitt wouldn't be on this list even if she hadn't retired last year; the fact that Derek Dooley was supposedly worth $1.8 million helps show why that Penn State blog is full of crap.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:36 AM on May 14, 2013


Nevada FTW
posted by slogger at 9:42 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


The first step in having an elite 21st Century university is to start it in the 18th Century.

So...it's really important to sell your university with elite sports programs if you're not...old?

Cal Tech

Washington University of Saint Louis

Rice University

Emory University

Cal-Berkeley

No offense to the Owls of Rice or the Bears of Cal-Berkeley, but there is not an "elite sports program" amongst these highly competitive highly ranked schools.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:52 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Most football programs lose money

That link concerns which "schools made money from [all] campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year". It doesn't say most football programs lose money:
Sixty-eight FBS schools reported turning a profit on football, with a median value of $8.8 million. The 52 FBS schools that lost money on football reported median losses of $2.7 million.

The breakdown for basketball programs at those 120 schools was nearly identical, though the median values for profitable programs ($2.9 million) and money-losing ones ($873,000) were smaller.

The fiscal fortunes of major college athletic programs without football teams were even worse. None of the 97 schools in that category reported making money from athletics, with median losses of more than $2.8 million.

Fulks pointed out that many schools funnel profits from football and men's basketball -- which for the top schools can mean millions in Bowl Championship Series payments and NCAA tournament payments -- into lower-profile sports that can't rely on season ticket plans, TV packages and well-heeled donors.

More teams generally means larger subsidies from the school.

"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money."
So more than 1/2 of the country's FBS football programs make money outright and that's not even counting the promotional value. I'm very confident that the schools whose football coaches are the highest paid state employees are also the ones well over that median ~$9 million profit.
posted by 0 at 9:53 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's an obvious response to the "why they deserve it" issue. Why don't the actual college players deserve it? Aren't they being exploited, so that the coach can make more money? There's also an obvious solution.

Yes, winning football teams help to promote schools. But like any football league, there are requirements that the teams need to abide by. So, why not have collegiate sports division/league requirements that cap certain tean expenses... including that of salaries? Are we to believe that the football coach wouldn't take the job, just because they only make as much as the university's president? If they want their eventual shot at the bigtime, coaching professionally, then shouldn't they be willing to settle for a miserly $450K a year?

I mean, you *could* pay your coach enough money to build a new computer lab every year, assuming you didn't want the right to play other teams and make it to any of the collegiate bowl games... but why would you do that?!
posted by markkraft at 9:55 AM on May 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


The best thing about that map is New Hampshire.

From the Deadspin comments:
Samer Kalaf
Dick Umile! And he doesn't even have a fucking championship!

JaneEyre27
Don't be talking smack about Dick Umile!

Samer Kalaf
I went to UNH, and I love the guy. But sometimes, the "University of No Hardware" taunts get to you.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:58 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Infographics designers: people love maps of the US.
posted by mattbucher at 10:16 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


The best thing about that map is New Hampshire.

All of New England is sort of ... quirky that way.
posted by jessamyn at 10:18 AM on May 14, 2013


The first step in having an elite 21st Century university is to start it in the 18th Century.

So...it's really important to sell your university with elite sports programs if you're not...old?


When you hold up the Ivy League as the example of how a sports program isn't important, you're leaving out the fact that they had a long time to get good.

Yes, there are selective schools that don't have sports programs (except Cal, which is a big-time program that reaps the benefits thereof), but they're all also private schools that are more than 100 years old. Are there any public schools without athletic programs that are highly regarded in more than a small niche?

And honestly, if a school has to add "in St. Louis" to its name so people know A) where it is, and 2) that it's not one of those other Washington schools, its profile could clearly benefit from some raising (not necessarily via an athletic program, but something). Columbia is technically "Columbia University in the City of New York," but they don't have to put that on the T-shirts to keep people from asking how far it is away from the White House.

I'm not saying that a football team is required, but it's a net positive for a lot of schools in both income and profile-raising. Notre Dame would be a little Catholic school in Indiana with a good agriculture program if it weren't for football.
posted by Etrigan at 10:26 AM on May 14, 2013


Nothing sells a school like a successful team. And that can’t be refuted.

People who are so superficial as to base their entire decision of where to study for the next four years entirely on whether or not the school has a successful sports problem probably aren't yet mature enough to be going to college in the first place.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:33 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


UConn under Geno Auriemmais is kind of a monster - 8 national titles in 25 years, which is a better record than even Pat Summitt posted.

UConn almost has more good fortune than they need. National champs in both men's and women's basketball? Crazy.

OTOH, they are still a member of the imploding Big East, so that's not great.
posted by smackfu at 10:35 AM on May 14, 2013


It's sort of irrelevant, but Alabama has done very, very well with Saban as its coach. More people want to go there, so it's now more competitive and has a (by the numbers) "smarter" student body. There are more faculty positions as a result. Building on campus has skyrocketed. Out of state tuition money is rolling in.

But this is sort of like the thing about being yourself unless you can be Batman. Saban and UA are Batman. That job's taken. It may well be that he's directly responsible for taking a moribund but historically powerful program and putting it back on top, and that UA's fortunes have generally (and dramatically) improved because of it, but this in no way means that some minor state school should expect similar results by overpaying their ball coach.

tl;dr no amount of money paid to a coach will turn Boise State into the kind of national draw that other top-tier state schools (Alabama, Texas, Michigan, etc) are even when they're not succeeding overmuch on the field.
posted by uberchet at 10:36 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


successful sports problem

This is the best and most accurate typo I have seen all year.

posted by elizardbits at 10:36 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh, Nevada. Never change.
posted by The World Famous at 10:46 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


People who are so superficial as to base their entire decision of where to study for the next four years entirely on whether or not the school has a successful sports problem probably aren't yet mature enough to be going to college in the first place.

I think this assumes a little too much about what it means for people to base their decision on the success of a sports program. Having a long term successful sports program means that people who are in their formative years spend time thinking about and having positive associations with the school; it's can be a form of branding, not a conscious choice to go to the school with the most successful football coach. For the most part, large state schools probably don't need this branding because if you grow up in Texas you're going to think of UT-Austin as an option pretty much no matter how successful the Longhorns are, but it doesn't hurt if you've been seeing the Longhorns on Sportscenter for a decade before you make your selection.

I have also known people for whom the camaraderie of sporting events is important in selecting a college (including someone who transferred because she realized she missed that part of high school), and while that can be immature, there are a ton of colleges out there, and plenty of them will give you a good education; if you've got options, you've got to make the choice based on something other than quality of the academic quality of the school, and sports isn't the craziest reason that people pick.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:50 AM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


"No offense to the Owls of Rice or the Bears of Cal-Berkeley, but there is not an "elite sports program" amongst these highly competitive highly ranked schools."

You have to understand though... Berkeley *is* old, at least by Californian standards. It essentially the College of California's new digs... back when there was no other college in the state... and six years after the gold rush is pretty old.

By comparison, Stanford is 36 years younger... but they've had the advantages of deep pockets and a pretty good football team. You may have heard of a few of their former coaches.

(...and the best marching band ever.)
posted by markkraft at 10:55 AM on May 14, 2013


I'm not saying that a football team is required

But this is exactly what enough people are saying that drives the ridiculous salaries, not just of the Nick Sabans but of the coaches at schools that have middling sports programs at this level (e.g. The University of Minnesota, who are still paying fired coaches Tim Brewster and Tubby Smith). Why do they keep burning big piles of money like this? Because having high paid coaches is a requirement.

FWIW, Washington University of Saint Louis accepts less than 20% of its applicants, has an endowment of more than $5 billion, and ranks (according to US News anyway) higher than Notre Dame and a ton of other schools that have elite sports programs. Its profile is just fine, whether your average sports fan has heard of it or not.
posted by mcstayinskool at 10:59 AM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


To take a slightly different tack on this back and forth that doesn't seem altogether productive, what I'd like to see in a utopian sports landscape would be for a privatization of college football and basketball. Each football and basketball team would then establish relationships with their "schools". The athletes recruited to come play for these teams would be paid athletes with an optional scholarship to attend the affiliated university, but similar to today would lose eligibility after 4 years (with associated redshirt and transfer caveats). The school in turn would get the kickback of a percentage of profits that are at least partially earmarked for non-revenue sports.

I'm sure someone will poke tons of holes in that idea, but I don't believe I can be persuaded that it's worse any than the ethical cesspool that is today's NCAA, one which rewards coaches absurdly and the performers comparatively not at all.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:10 AM on May 14, 2013


Well it's too damn bad that I hate/suck at football & basketball. I could have been rich!
Honestly, I don't see the point in either.
Football: NOT NEAR AS GREAT AS RUGBY! What with their timeouts and helmets. Please...
Basketball: I could never get over how my shoes felt on the waxed wood floor, that sound of snickers squeaking every 3 seconds drove me crazy.
If it was played on roller-skates I might have kicked some ass!
posted by QueerAngel28 at 11:36 AM on May 14, 2013


I'm not saying that a football team is required

But this is exactly what enough people are saying that drives the ridiculous salaries, not just of the Nick Sabans but of the coaches at schools that have middling sports programs at this level (e.g. The University of Minnesota, who are still paying fired coaches Tim Brewster and Tubby Smith). Why do they keep burning big piles of money like this? Because having high paid coaches is a requirement.


I can't argue that there isn't too much money being thrown around, but that's the market for you. It's clearly not a "requirement," because as you note, there are plenty of schools that don't do it -- the vast majority, in fact. But not all non-university companies pile as much money into marketing as others, and a lot of the ones that don't pile that money into marketing do all right. They're not Coca-Cola or Apple sized, but not everyone wants to be Coca-Cola or Apple sized. Rice is probably okay not being Notre Dame, but clearly they think there's some value in remaining one of the smallest schools in Division I.

tl;dr -- "Benefit" != "requirement", and people have been arguing about the real cost-benefit balance of marketing for a long time now.
posted by Etrigan at 11:48 AM on May 14, 2013


Why are coaches paid as state employees rather than contractors?

At a lot of large public universities, it's both.

Coaches get a base salary from the University/State and then a "performance bonus" from the Alumni Fund or the University Athletic Fund (often named after a renowned coach from the past).
posted by madajb at 11:53 AM on May 14, 2013


So more than 1/2 of the country's FBS football programs make money outright and that's not even counting the promotional value.

I've always been very skeptical of self-reported accounting results.
The university near me claims that the athletic department is self-sufficient, yet as far as I know, there has never been an outside audit of their claim.

I'd love to see a multi-college true accounting of the profits and losses of college athletics, but I don't imagine that will ever happen.
posted by madajb at 12:02 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


That's funny, I've always been skeptical of claims that most college football programs lose money based on sources which actually state the opposite.

Anyway, here's the most updated version of those ginned-up numbers.
posted by 0 at 12:21 PM on May 14, 2013


Whether it makes money or not, it's still a bit odd that so much money goes into attaching universities to a game that actively causes brain damage to its participants.
posted by NoraReed at 12:31 PM on May 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


...it's still a bit odd that so much money goes into attaching universities to a game that actively causes brain damage to its participants.

Its a tradition!
posted by frijole at 12:35 PM on May 14, 2013


Well, according to the MOOC FPP, all of this will be moot in a few years when online courseware shuts down all the universities. Unless people pay to watch the Coursera Cavaliers play against the edX Eagles.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:10 PM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Well, according to the MOOC FPP, all of this will be moot in a few years when online courseware shuts down all the universities. Unless people pay to watch the Coursera Cavaliers play against the edX Eagles.

At University of Phoenix Stadium
posted by ghharr at 1:44 PM on May 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


USC is private, so Cal is the only real other suspect, but they don't pay like UCLA does.

I seem to recall that a significant portion of Tedford's salary (like millions) was coming from private donors and not from the university coffers. What it says about the donors that they'll pay for a football coach and not any of the other things Berkeley needs a bit more, I don't know.

Do note that I don't actually know if Tedford is still the coach (I think not), so perhaps take everything I say about Cal athletics with a grain of salt.
posted by hoyland at 2:29 PM on May 14, 2013


That's funny, I've always been skeptical of claims that most college football programs lose money based on sources which actually state the opposite.

Anyway, here's the most updated version of those ginned-up numbers.


From your link:

In 2012, for FBS schools, 23 football programs generated positive net revenue. 97 reported losses. Median positive net revenue fell from $8.9 million in 2011 to $5.4 million in 2012. Losses increased by almost 21% from 2011.

In 2012, for FCS schools, none of the schools generated positive net revenue. Losses have been increasing steadily for the past nine years.

And that's Div I. I've seen the NCAA's numbers on Div II and III and they're even worse.

College football is a boondoggle. I'd say shut it down and replace it with intramural competition except that it's associated with serious injuries, particularly brain damage, so I say just ban it entirely. Let the pros start their own minor league if they need a farm system.
posted by jedicus at 2:30 PM on May 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


If profitablilty is the measure by which we judge college sports, a lot more sports are going down before football.
posted by smackfu at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


In 2012, for FBS schools, 23 football programs generated positive net revenue. 97 reported losses. Median positive net revenue fell from $8.9 million in 2011 to $5.4 million in 2012. Losses increased by almost 21% from 2011.

Again, this is reading a finding for all athletics as a finding for the football programs. Don't let the F in FBS confuse you. It only means that the school is large enough to potentially send it's football team to a bowl game. The Maryland Terrapin golf team is still a part of FBS-school athletics. Twenty-three of those 120 schools had profitable overall sports programs, 97 didn't.

Considered in isolation, though, the majority of football programs make money. This is summarized in the Findings & Observations on page 13:
Between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of the nine years reported. This percentage has been relatively stable as has the dollar amount.
The full details are in Table 3.6 on page 28. The number of profitable FBS football programs has actually been remarkably stable in my opinion, consistently falling between 56% and 58% since 2008. (I don't care much about the non-FBS numbers since those coaches are not the highest paid state employees.)

Look, if ya'll wanna hate on football, hey knock yerself out. I, like most fans, agree that it sucks that the athletes are the only ones not getting paid. But please just drop the idea that big-time college coaches are undeserving of their high salaries because their programs actually lose money. It's simply not a valid rebuttal to 'why they deserve it' because it's complete bullshit. They lead organizations that make tens of millions in profit every year.
posted by 0 at 7:19 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


If colleges are dependent on the unpaid labor of students, students who are also at very high risk of continual brain damage and other injuries while they play, with a chance but no guarantee of a job playing football after college, what the hell are we doing, seriously?

Why are we ok with this?
posted by emjaybee at 5:01 AM on May 15, 2013


Holy crap. A lot of DC's highest paid employees work for UDC.

Talk about a terrible return on investment.....
posted by schmod at 7:44 AM on May 15, 2013


Let the pros start their own minor league if they need a farm system.

You win the chicken dinner.

"[College football] is still in the warlord stage of political development"
posted by mrgrimm at 7:49 AM on May 15, 2013


(I don't care much about the non-FBS numbers since those coaches are not the highest paid state employees.)

Seems reductionist thinking. The non-FBS coach salaries are certainly affected by the FBS salaries.

If colleges are dependent on the unpaid labor of students, students who are also at very high risk of continual brain damage and other injuries while they play, with a chance but no guarantee of a job playing football after college, what the hell are we doing, seriously?

Why are we ok with this?


Malcolm Gladwell agrees.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:54 AM on May 15, 2013


« Older Disruption: The new Crescent City newspaper war   |   Dark luminescent roots framed by a silver halo Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post