My main point is they aren't worth that kind of money. What if all the universities universally said the most any coach can make is $200,000....call it a salary cap. Guess what more profit to the universities and they could help pay tution for some bright kid who might actually help change the world for the better. I think this is a mucher better plan than paying someone $1.5 million.
I agree with the bank bullshit. Give them a ton of dough and then find out there is $50 billion in deferred comp for thier executives. Its simple you take government money you don't get bonuses and deferred comp.
The other thing is the differnce between a university and a business. Allthough college sports is like a business it officially isn't. So if Mark Cuban wants to take some of his billions and pay a coach $20 million out of his pocket to try to win a championship and lose money for the year that his right.
His attitiude in the news conference wasn't very unsympathetic to the plight of many of the people that pay his salary...which is officially the tax payers of Conn.
Since this is somewhat of a political thread....here is something that pisses me off is the inequity of the health care system....and I for one think we need some sort of socialized medicine. Before you jump in....we already have it in some form.....you just have to be 62 to get it. My problem is two people have the exact same coverage. One person works for a small to medium sized company....the other works for a huge national company and the amount they pay every month is vastly different with no ability to change it. It not like shoping for a car. We have three kids and our coverage per month was $1,900. that is absolutely absurd. My wife had to switch jobs....just to go to a company with more affordable health care coverage. She is now with a huge company and the coverage is not as good but over $1,000 a month less. I think the oregon plan was one of the more logical plans I heard about 10-15 years ago.
I agree with the bank bullshit. Give them a ton of dough and then find out there is $50 billion in deferred comp for thier executives. Its simple you take government money you don't get bonuses and deferred comp.
The other thing is the differnce between a university and a business. Allthough college sports is like a business it officially isn't. So if Mark Cuban wants to take some of his billions and pay a coach $20 million out of his pocket to try to win a championship and lose money for the year that his right.
His attitiude in the news conference wasn't very unsympathetic to the plight of many of the people that pay his salary...which is officially the tax payers of Conn.
Since this is somewhat of a political thread....here is something that pisses me off is the inequity of the health care system....and I for one think we need some sort of socialized medicine. Before you jump in....we already have it in some form.....you just have to be 62 to get it. My problem is two people have the exact same coverage. One person works for a small to medium sized company....the other works for a huge national company and the amount they pay every month is vastly different with no ability to change it. It not like shoping for a car. We have three kids and our coverage per month was $1,900. that is absolutely absurd. My wife had to switch jobs....just to go to a company with more affordable health care coverage. She is now with a huge company and the coverage is not as good but over $1,000 a month less. I think the oregon plan was one of the more logical plans I heard about 10-15 years ago.
How do you determine what kind of money they are worth?
You want to call it a business, but it isn't? How is it not? They are selling a product in ticket sales, tv revenues, and apparell and the good teams sell.
If you want to cap college salaries you'll have Calhoun as an assitant head coach for the Toronto Raports. You'll have scrubs as head coaches and the quality of play suffers and you get less revenues.
Let the market figure things out, if the basketabll programs didn't make a lot of money for the college and the state then they wouldn't be paid that much. It's that simple.
You can't seriously think a 200k cap would just keep the world going 'round in the same way. It sounds great, the university has a milllion more (which is pennies in a university or state budget) but you don't seem to even consider the consequences or acknowledge the problems it creates.
You want to call it a business, but it isn't? How is it not? They are selling a product in ticket sales, tv revenues, and apparell and the good teams sell.
If you want to cap college salaries you'll have Calhoun as an assitant head coach for the Toronto Raports. You'll have scrubs as head coaches and the quality of play suffers and you get less revenues.
Let the market figure things out, if the basketabll programs didn't make a lot of money for the college and the state then they wouldn't be paid that much. It's that simple.
You can't seriously think a 200k cap would just keep the world going 'round in the same way. It sounds great, the university has a milllion more (which is pennies in a university or state budget) but you don't seem to even consider the consequences or acknowledge the problems it creates.
Don't get me started on this. Everything is in relationship to the revenue generated. Yeah they make $1.5 mil, but they are worth that, that is what the market commands. They have a talent that exceeds the top 1% of all coaches out there. Most people look at the dollar amount and say, that's too much, but how many coaches out there are better than Calhoun? Not many, if at all, so when his services are desired you have to pay to secure his talent. If you artificially destroy the market with caps, you end up hurting the labor market. How many people still want to be doctors once His Highness pushes through socialized medicine. When you lack incentive and competition you hurt the quality and eventually the quantity of the services provide. I know it hurts liberals to think that people are only in it for the money, but if you compensate quality people based on their talent within the market, then you tend to have more engaged and happy employees. I forsee a shortage eventually in the doctor market and you will eventually see big incentives by the government to get people to committ to that profession (what you mean they have to throw money and perks at people to get them to do something?)
Now I know you are going to jump on this whole mortgage/credit meltdown, but don't forget the government mandated CRA and pushed Fannie/Freddie to make riskier loans. Couple that with greed on Wall St (yes, greed happened, when you set the table and create a monster, it happens) and the access to cheap money (Alan Greenspan) and you had a cocktail brewing that was set to explode. Honestly, if there wasn't a subprime market, do you think anyone would have lent money to people in innercity Detroit, Cleveland or one horse towns like Las Vegas?
There is my political side, sorry, we are in it for the money NorthStar. I understand there are bonafide hardships and there is a lack of fairness between insurance plans, but legislating the market doesn't make for better medicine. In the long run it hurts it.
Now I know you are going to jump on this whole mortgage/credit meltdown, but don't forget the government mandated CRA and pushed Fannie/Freddie to make riskier loans. Couple that with greed on Wall St (yes, greed happened, when you set the table and create a monster, it happens) and the access to cheap money (Alan Greenspan) and you had a cocktail brewing that was set to explode. Honestly, if there wasn't a subprime market, do you think anyone would have lent money to people in innercity Detroit, Cleveland or one horse towns like Las Vegas?
There is my political side, sorry, we are in it for the money NorthStar. I understand there are bonafide hardships and there is a lack of fairness between insurance plans, but legislating the market doesn't make for better medicine. In the long run it hurts it.
Keep in mind, while JC makes the money he makes, the majority comes from shoe deals, TV/Radio shows. I don't know what his base salary is but most college coach salaries are paid by donors and marketing companies such as Nike and other endorsment and appearance fees.
Also, as several posters have stated, where was UConn before Calhoun. They aren't filling Gampel without him.
SMU for example secured 20 donors to give $100K for the next 5 years to June Jones is salary.
Also, as several posters have stated, where was UConn before Calhoun. They aren't filling Gampel without him.
SMU for example secured 20 donors to give $100K for the next 5 years to June Jones is salary.
A couple of points...do you know any business owner that gives his employees some beneift and then on purpose charges himself more for the same thing? I can't think of any thing that fis this. Well that is the way it is for health care. Why should some federal, state, county or city worker get the opportunity to have better and less expensive health care than what I have to pay for it?. They shouldn't and they in effect all work for me. So I think I should be able to join any of their health care programs and pay the exact same cost as them. Simple solution.
As far as college sports being a business...the reality is they are a big businesses that would have a hard time losing money because they don't have to pay the stars. You aren't there to watch Calhoun coach.....you are there to watch the players play and they are the ones that don't get paid.
Guess what at $200k a year you would still have great coaches. The point is they get paid way too much for what they do. They can earn as much as they want from a radio station or if some rich alum wants to pay the bill.....I do have a problem with the Nike type contract because it is the school and the school's players that wear the shoes on the court that allows Nike to pay the coach. Shouldn't that money go to the university just like the naming rights to their stadiums? We all know some basketball player can't walk in and say I'm not wearing Nike...I want to wear a different brand. Coach proably wou;dn't put him in. I think it would be fun to see some star kid who is going to sign with a different shoe company not want to wear them in the tournament. What news freak show that would be.
Just because you are the best at something doesn't mean you deserve to make a million dollars. So the best carpenter on the Rx who is one of the top 1% deserves to make a million? No....because the market won't allow him....they will hire a good carpenter and pay him what $75K and still get a good carpenter. The point is the salary for these caoches is ridiculous relative to what they really do. There are great doctors that save peoples lives every day and they don't get paid a million.....the priorites are all wrong...and I love sports....it just the coaches and pro players are paid way too much....in pro sports it is purely business and if the can get away with it....I guess more power to them. Although I thought I heard NASCAR was going to do something because of the economy and sponship down (I don't watch that shit but heard something on ESPN).
On that same line....why do kids have to go to college at all...why can't they just turn pro if they are good enough? Why do they have to act like they are taking classes? Maybe because they need star type players for the cooleges to make money and pay their coaches. The kids are the stars not the coaches. The universities use the kids....although I will say for the vast majority of them....the fact that they even go to college and learn anything is better for them than what most of them would have experienced if they never went ot college. Think of all the college football players who get injured knees that effect them the rest of their lives....what do the colleges do for them?
As far as college sports being a business...the reality is they are a big businesses that would have a hard time losing money because they don't have to pay the stars. You aren't there to watch Calhoun coach.....you are there to watch the players play and they are the ones that don't get paid.
Guess what at $200k a year you would still have great coaches. The point is they get paid way too much for what they do. They can earn as much as they want from a radio station or if some rich alum wants to pay the bill.....I do have a problem with the Nike type contract because it is the school and the school's players that wear the shoes on the court that allows Nike to pay the coach. Shouldn't that money go to the university just like the naming rights to their stadiums? We all know some basketball player can't walk in and say I'm not wearing Nike...I want to wear a different brand. Coach proably wou;dn't put him in. I think it would be fun to see some star kid who is going to sign with a different shoe company not want to wear them in the tournament. What news freak show that would be.
Just because you are the best at something doesn't mean you deserve to make a million dollars. So the best carpenter on the Rx who is one of the top 1% deserves to make a million? No....because the market won't allow him....they will hire a good carpenter and pay him what $75K and still get a good carpenter. The point is the salary for these caoches is ridiculous relative to what they really do. There are great doctors that save peoples lives every day and they don't get paid a million.....the priorites are all wrong...and I love sports....it just the coaches and pro players are paid way too much....in pro sports it is purely business and if the can get away with it....I guess more power to them. Although I thought I heard NASCAR was going to do something because of the economy and sponship down (I don't watch that shit but heard something on ESPN).
On that same line....why do kids have to go to college at all...why can't they just turn pro if they are good enough? Why do they have to act like they are taking classes? Maybe because they need star type players for the cooleges to make money and pay their coaches. The kids are the stars not the coaches. The universities use the kids....although I will say for the vast majority of them....the fact that they even go to college and learn anything is better for them than what most of them would have experienced if they never went ot college. Think of all the college football players who get injured knees that effect them the rest of their lives....what do the colleges do for them?
oh I forgot to mention the comment about the mortgage or housing meltdown. There was pressure to have Fannie Mae put more homeowners into homes. The initial plan of allowing some sort of 100% financing was probably well intended and probably at least somewhat well thought out. I would probably believe that most of those initial 100% financing loans performed adequately.
There were two real problems....looking backwards it is easy to see one and I am surprised I didn't see it coming. Homes were appreciationg at 10% or more a year. Incomes were going up at about 3% a year. Pretty quickly prices will rise so much that people wouldn't be able to buy them. It should have caused a flattening of appreciation or no appreciation to happen.
The bigger problem was the crappy credit buyer who was able to purchase a home...get 100% financing and just pay a higher rate of say 2%. Wallstreet was laughing at the easy money they were making. It was easy when homes were appreciating. Once they stopped appreciating then it wasn't so good. This group of homeowners that should have never had homes based on their income assets and credit history is the group that started the whole housing meltdown. They started to effect things and the values which made Fannie's 100% buyers have difficulty...you know the rest.
One other contributing factor is the irresponsibilty of the public if you want to call it that....many of them did one of two things....spent and refinanced to pay off the added debt with the new equity or two wanted the big house today so they over bought what they could afford with riskier loan products.
There were two real problems....looking backwards it is easy to see one and I am surprised I didn't see it coming. Homes were appreciationg at 10% or more a year. Incomes were going up at about 3% a year. Pretty quickly prices will rise so much that people wouldn't be able to buy them. It should have caused a flattening of appreciation or no appreciation to happen.
The bigger problem was the crappy credit buyer who was able to purchase a home...get 100% financing and just pay a higher rate of say 2%. Wallstreet was laughing at the easy money they were making. It was easy when homes were appreciating. Once they stopped appreciating then it wasn't so good. This group of homeowners that should have never had homes based on their income assets and credit history is the group that started the whole housing meltdown. They started to effect things and the values which made Fannie's 100% buyers have difficulty...you know the rest.
One other contributing factor is the irresponsibilty of the public if you want to call it that....many of them did one of two things....spent and refinanced to pay off the added debt with the new equity or two wanted the big house today so they over bought what they could afford with riskier loan products.
