Jim Calhoun in spat with political activist / reporter after game

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3924716

[esotericmindguy]

Awesome....and have you ever been to Hartford?  Awful, without UCONN Bball there wouldn't be anything going on downtown at night.

[Pardner]

"freelance journalist and political activist"...very objective

[Brewtown Andy]

I don't see how Calhoun taking a 50% pay cut is solving a billion dollar deficit....

[Warrior Forever]

Calhoun should have asked him "What portion of your salary are you giving up?"

[AZWarrior]

Activist / reporter = douche bag   

[butchbadger]

I am not a fan of Calhoun.but he was absolutely in the right here.

Guys like that reporter have never created value for anyone.

They have total disdain for the people who have actually busted azz to get ahead and male some $$$.

[Muhoops85]

I just wish that liberal hippy tree hugging hypocrites would just shut the $^^$$## up.  Could you imagine this same press conference 15 years ago with Bobby Knight as the target?  Now that would have been entertaining.

[MUBasketball]

Haha wow. Good for Calhoun, what ridiculous comments by that "journalist".

[chapman]

They just showed the exchange on ESPN.  Gotta say, for a guy I thought was going senile, I was dead wrong.

[TallTitan34]

I am not a fan of Calhoun.but he was absolutely in the right here.

Guys like that reporter have never created value for anyone.

They have total disdain for the people who have actually busted azz to get ahead and male some $$$.

+1

I generally don't care for Calhoun but he was a stud in telling that guy off.  That guy was just dumb.

[muhoosier260]

its not really his fault for getting paid but i would've felt awkward as hell if i was calhoun. good for him though, not really his problem that he is the "highest paid state employee". he did look like an ass though

[MilWarrior]

In no way did Calhoun look like an ass. The ass was the reporter. That idiot was just trying to stir something up. Like others who have posted before have said, I've never been a Calhoun fan. That having been said, job well done Mr. Calhoun. Job well done.

[swimmer]

There's nothing wrong with Calhoun making the big bucks, and I'm glad he put that reporter in his place.  I'm all for paying market value for someone's services, but I do sometimes wonder about our values as a society that drive coaching salaries so high.  It sounds kind of funny when you step back and say, "the coach of a GAME is the most valuable employee of the state." 

Kudos to these coaches for finding a market with such loyal demand and almost free "labor" to create that value for them. 

[AZWarrior]

but I do sometimes wonder about our values as a society that drive coaching salaries so high.  It sounds kind of funny when you step back and say, "the coach of a GAME is the most valuable employee of the state."  

Its not a "set of values" but rather a free market, with the emphasis on free.  He's paid that much because he produces.  If you take the revenue he produces vs. the pay he receives, he's likely the MVP of state employees.

[swimmer]

I don't really want to take this thread off topic into a debate about free markets, but I only referred to societal values because ultimately that's what creates the demand for what Calhoun is selling.  We value winning sports teams and spend a lot of money to follow them.  Calhoun is good at the winning part, so he brings in a lot of money and gets paid accordingly.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Its not a "set of values" but rather a free market, with the emphasis on free.  He's paid that much because he produces.  If you take the revenue he produces vs. the pay he receives, he's likely the MVP of state employees.

+1

Someone has read his Econ 43/44.

[Pakuni]

Its not a "set of values" but rather a free market, with the emphasis on free.  He's paid that much because he produces.  If you take the revenue he produces vs. the pay he receives, he's likely the MVP of state employees.

Maybe, maybe not.
For starters, Jim's not being completely honest.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, his team accounted for $7.3 million in revenues in the latest reporting year (last season). Expenses, according to the department, were about $6.1 million. I assume that includes coaches' salaries.
So, at best, he's bringing in about $1.2 million in income.

Here's the link, if it works:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31323930323026796561723d32303037267264743d322f32322f3230303920323a33323a303220504d

That's still a profit, but there's a catch.
The taxpayers of Connecticut don't get a dime of that money, or benefit financially from it. Nor does the university itself. Whatever operating income the program makes is poured back into the athletic department. So while it's fair to say Calhoun's efforts do quite a bit for UConn's athletic department's finances, his bluster about how he makes $12 million for the university is a bunch of baloney. And what revenue he produces helps no one outside the UConn athletic department, contrary to his implication that he's doing a lot, financially, for "the university".
(I'm sure we can get into a discussion about the economic and non-economic benefits of a having good basketball program in terms of admissions, reputation, etc., but that's another topic altogether. Calhoun never claimed his work helps the university's profile ... just its bottom line).

That being said, I have no quibble with what Calhoun earns, just his fictional accounting.
But I do take issue with your notion that one's value - at least those in the public sector - and compensation ought be tied to the revenue one produces.
The best teachers are nothing but an economic drain on their school district.
Top FBI agents don't make money for the federal government.
A health department nurse who gets neonatal to an indigent infant isn't turning a profit for the state.
Are these people lesser employees than Jim Calhoun? Maybe I've got m priorities mixed up, but a state trooper who saves a life on the road is far more valuable to my state than any college basketball coach.

Oh, and given the way Wall Street firms continue to hand out multi-million dollar bonuses amid record losses, I would suggest that the captains of industry agree that the revenue one produces and compensation have no connection whatsoever.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Maybe, maybe not.
For starters, Jim's not being completely honest.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, his team accounted for $7.3 million in revenues in the latest reporting year (last season). Expenses, according to the department, were about $6.1 million. I assume that includes coaches' salaries.
So, at best, he's bringing in about $1.2 million in income.

Obviously (as you know), he's not an accountant and it wouldn't surprise me if his numbers aren't accurate. But that's not the point. His point was that the investment of a coach, paid through his salary, is a net-positive investment for the University of Connecticut. According to your own numbers, he is bringing in not only $7.3 in revenue but $1.2 million in profit. A pretty good profit margin for any organization in any sector of the economy. And, as you allude to, not only the profit but the actual revenue is spent by the University in the myriad of ways that a basketball program spends money.

Overall, his point is that the University of Connecticut isn't blowing over a million on salary for him simply on a wim. It's doing so because through a cost-benefit analysis it has seen that it can reap larger financial benefits to the basketball program and the University than the cost of the salary of Calhoun.

[Badgerhater]

However many million UCONN hoops makes for the athletic department is eliminating state funding from the athletic department and is free national marketing for the university (with regard to the state money spent on UCONN).  There is an issue with big money and low grad rates in college hoops but the dipcrap activist reporter chose to grind his ideological axe rather than do his homework and understand that particular issue.

[Pakuni]

Obviously (as you know), he's not an accountant and it wouldn't surprise me if his numbers aren't accurate. But that's not the point. His point was that the investment of a coach, paid through his salary, is a net-positive investment for the University of Connecticut. According to your own numbers, he is bringing in not only $7.3 in revenue but $1.2 million in profit. A pretty good profit margin for any organization in any sector of the economy. And, as you allude to, not only the profit but the actual revenue is spent by the University in the myriad of ways that a basketball program spends money.

But you're missing one of my points: Contrary to what Calhoun, and now you, are saying he is not generating money for the University of Connecticut. He's generating money for the athletic department which, I'll assume, is like all other major athletic departments in that it is a self-sustaining operation mostly separate from the university as a whole (sans casual oversight by the board of trustees/regents).
Regular students aren't getting better lab facilities, professors aren't better paid, dorms aren't better appointed, etc., because of anything Jim Calhoun is doing. His success benefits a relatively small portion of the university community.

And while you may give Calhoun a total pass, there's a pretty substantial difference between $12 million and $7 million. And an even more substantial difference between his implication that he makes the university $12 million a year vs. making the athletic department $1.2 million a year.

As I said, I don't begrudge him his salary. Bully for him, I say. But next time he should lay off this bunk about how UConn basketball is a massive moneymaker for the people of Connecticut.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

But you're missing one of my points: Contrary to what Calhoun, and now you, are saying he is not generating money for the University of Connecticut. He's generating money for the athletic department

Okay, he's generating money for the athletic department. My point is that he is generating money, something the "reporter" clearly does not understand. All he sees is a big salary and thinks that someone else must be hurting because it has a lot of zeroes at the end of it. But yes, the University, and more particularly, their athletic department see him as a net-positive investment. That's something the reporter couldn't think through.

Regular students aren't getting better lab facilities, professors aren't better paid, dorms aren't better appointed, etc., because of anything Jim Calhoun is doing. His success benefits a relatively small portion of the university community.

I'm very sympathetic to this argument, but I hope you realize that there are probably a lot of financial benefits to the larger University in terms of exposure that aren't measured by the basketball program's revenue stream.

And while you may give Calhoun a total pass, there's a pretty substantial difference between $12 million and $7 million. And an even more substantial difference between his implication that he makes the university $12 million a year vs. making the athletic department $1.2 million a year.

LOL, I don't give him a "total pass." But he's not an accountant. Let's say that the basketball program's revenue is "only" $7.3 million. The actual figure is not as important to my point that he is still generating money for the basketball program in a real cost-benefit manner that is almost non-existent in government-funded endeavors. Let's be careful with their accounting numbers, too: they are generating $7.3m and $1.2m is allegedly profit. They are certainly "making" the entire $7.3m. The $6.1m spent on the program is going to coaches and administrator salaries, equipment costs, facility costs; it's not thrown into a vortex.

[MUsoxfan]

And while you may give Calhoun a total pass, there's a pretty substantial difference between $12 million and $7 million. And an even more substantial difference between his implication that he makes the university $12 million a year vs. making the athletic department $1.2 million a year.

I think there's also a factor in the demand he creates in prospective students wanting to attend UCONN.  You can't tell me there's not a direct correlation between the success of their men's basketball program and the number of applications flowing into the admissions office.     Ask Marquette what happened in this regard after the Final Four.   More apps means a school can jack up tuition and be much more selective about who they admit. 

I don't think there's really an accurate dollar figure about how much Calhoun has brought into that university, but I guarantee he's worth every penny of his salary even if it was doubled. 

[MU_Navy]

... but I do sometimes wonder about our values as a society that drive coaching salaries so high..." 

I do sometimes wonder about our values as a society that... is able to sit around on our computers and read other peoples' opinions and post our own thinking that they matter...
Just sayin...

That "journalist" was/is a jack ass.  Calhoun should have just given him a three word answer: "No, next question..."

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

Also, what components exactly comprise that $1.6 million salary for Calhoun?  I would have a feeling that only a portion of it comes directly out from the state of Connecticut budget.  Notice too how the "reporter" asked how much he gets from Comcast; I would assume for a coaches show. 

Calhoun also probably pulls in money from camps, speaking engagements, shoe/apparel deals, and also some alumni "subsidy" as part of that $1.6 million salary. 

Obviously this guy did some HW as to where Calhoun's salary comes from to a degree, but chose to ignore the facts for his own personal agenda and attempt to embarass Calhoun.

[Pakuni]

I think there's also a factor in the demand he creates in prospective students wanting to attend UCONN.  You can't tell me there's not a direct correlation between the success of their men's basketball program and the number of applications flowing into the admissions office.     Ask Marquette what happened in this regard after the Final Four.   More apps means a school can jack up tuition and be much more selective about who they admit.  

As I said in my initial post, that's a different discussion and, frankly, not a point Calhoun raised. It may very well be true that applications are up since Calhoun became coach. Do you have those numbers? And I'm not sure increased applications/exposure does much, financially spoaking, for a state-funded school. It may, I just don't know that.
But it's irrelevant because my issue was not with his salary, but rather his somewhat dishonest defense of it.

An honest answer would have been:
"My compensation is the going rate for maintaining an elite college basketball program in the current climate. The powers that be at the University of Connecticut have determined it is to the school's overall benefit to have such a program and, as a result, have chosen to compensate me in this manner in order to create and maintain that program. Should the university decide it is no longer in their interests to have a high-profile basketball program -  or decide that they can do so with a lower-paid coach - they are free to let me go when my contract expires."

That's the truth.

Instead, he laid out a line of BS about how he makes the university $12 million a year, a statement that is provably false on at least two levels. Again, my issue is not with his income, it's with his misleading defense of it.

I don't think there's really an accurate dollar figure about how much Calhoun has brought into that university, but I guarantee he's worth every penny of his salary even if it was doubled. 

Well, if you doubled his salary then the program would be in the red. I'm not sure how one justifies paying a coach so much that it causes the program to lose money, particularly when the program is counted upon to help fund other activities within the athletic department. That would seem to defeat the purpose of having a high-profile basketball team.
And how would you guarantee that UConn would make significantly less revenue by hiring a coach who makes "only" $1 million a year? You may be right, but I think there's no way you can prove that claim one way or the other.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Pakuni,

Do you think that the University of Connecticut ... er, the basketball program of the University of Connecticut ... gets its money worth out of Calhoun? Is the salary that they pay less than the benefit in revenue that the basketball program receives on account of his being the head coach? I think you would agree that the answer is "yes." Calhoun isn't a great public speaker and, again, he's not an accountant. I think that's all he was attempting to say.

[MU111]

Apparently, the so-called "journalist" involved has been in some hot water in the past.  From the AP article on the Calhoun incident: "[Ken] Krayeske, of Hartford, is a political activist and self-described freelance journalist who has landed in the headlines after other high-profile incidents in the past.  They included his January 2007 arrest at Gov. M. Jodi Rell's inaugural parade, where Hartford police charged Krayeske with breach of peace and interfering with an officer.  The charges were later dismissed."

The guy sounds nuts.

[MUsoxfan]

As I said in my initial post, that's a different discussion and, frankly, not a point Calhoun raised. It may very well be true that applications are up since Calhoun became coach. Do you have those numbers? And I'm not sure increased applications/exposure does much, financially spoaking, for a state-funded school. It may, I just don't know that.
But it's irrelevant because my issue was not with his salary, but rather his somewhat dishonest defense of it.

Sure it's a state-funded school.  But they get their fair share of OOS students that pay 3x the in-state rate.  I would imagine that to be a cash cow for the university. 

And how would you guarantee that UConn would make significantly less revenue by hiring a coach who makes "only" $1 million a year? You may be right, but I think there's no way you can prove that claim one way or the other.

I'm assuming in my argument that Calhoun is the only guy that can coach at this great of level at the University of Connecticut.  There are revenue streams all over bringing in cash to the state because of Calhoun and the fact that his teams are consistently near the top of the NCAA.  I truly feel it's impossible to quantify the exact dollar figure he is worth to that state and university. 

[Avenue Commons]

I just wish that liberal hippy tree hugging hypocrites would just shut the $^^$$## up.  Could you imagine this same press conference 15 years ago with Bobby Knight as the target?  Now that would have been entertaining.

Where in the world do you get that he is a "liberal hippy tree hugging hypocrite"?

Sounds like a staunch fiscal conservative to me. Calhoun gave the perfect answer in that UConn hoops gives $12 Million back to the university.

[Pardner]

Apparently, the so-called "journalist" involved has been in some hot water in the past.  From the AP article on the Calhoun incident: "[Ken] Krayeske, of Hartford, is a political activist and self-described freelance journalist who has landed in the headlines after other high-profile incidents in the past.  They included his January 2007 arrest at Gov. M. Jodi Rell's inaugural parade, where Hartford police charged Krayeske with breach of peace and interfering with an officer." 

Yeah, but can he call a time out with the best of them?

[Desert_warrior]

Just a note of comparison, all AZ State University employees were asked to take unpaid time off. Everyone including all of the coaches. Basically a pay cut with higher paid employees taking more unpaid time off.

[Muhoops85]

Sounds like a staunch fiscal conservative to me. Calhoun gave the perfect answer in that UConn hoops gives $12 Million back to the university.

Nail...meet head.

[rocky_warrior]

Maybe, maybe not.
For starters, Jim's not being completely honest.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, his team accounted for $7.3 million in revenues in the latest reporting year (last season). Expenses, according to the department, were about $6.1 million. I assume that includes coaches' salaries.
So, at best, he's bringing in about $1.2 million in income.

Here's the link, if it works:
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31323930323026796561723d32303037267264743d322f32322f3230303920323a33323a303220504d

Pakuni, another thing your omitting, is the $26,546,200 of revenue listed under "Not Allocated by Gender/Sport".   That's a lot of money, and my guess is that it's money that comes in via donations, similar to the B&G fund.  If you allocate that money as a percentage of the revenue brought in by mens hoops:

$7,333,214 (mens hoops) /  $28,175,542 (total by all teams) = 26% from men's hoops.

$26,546,200 (unallocated) * 26% = $6,902,00

So, I think it's reasonable to argue men's hoops directly and indirectly accounts for around $14 MM of UCONN's sports revenue.  And that's higher Calhoun's $12 MM numbers.

[Sponge Ruiner!]

I have absolutely no problem with Calhoun making what he does.

After all, as he said, he needs to be able to retire someday.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

LOL, I got a good laugh out of that from him. Like I said, not really a great public speaker. Obviously, it's not like he walked off the court thinking he would need to discuss the laws of economics as well as discuss his team's play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But you're missing one of my points: Contrary to what Calhoun, and now you, are saying he is not generating money for the University of Connecticut. He's generating money for the athletic department which, I'll assume, is like all other major athletic departments in that it is a self-sustaining operation mostly separate from the university as a whole (sans casual oversight by the board of trustees/regents).
Regular students aren't getting better lab facilities, professors aren't better paid, dorms aren't better appointed, etc., because of anything Jim Calhoun is doing. His success benefits a relatively small portion of the university community.

And while you may give Calhoun a total pass, there's a pretty substantial difference between $12 million and $7 million. And an even more substantial difference between his implication that he makes the university $12 million a year vs. making the athletic department $1.2 million a year.

As I said, I don't begrudge him his salary. Bully for him, I say. But next time he should lay off this bunk about how UConn basketball is a massive moneymaker for the people of Connecticut.

Perhaps you're missing the other revenue.  More than likely he should have said the program generates $12 million.  Some of which goes directly to the university in the form of direct revenues, other goes to operating the arena, the concessions, etc.  They may not be factored into your numbers, but his program is certainly generating that revenue nevertheless.  My guess is that is probably what he meant.  MU, for example, brought in money directly to the athletic program but it also generated money for the Bradley Center and the city of Milwaukee (parking, etc) that doesn't go on MU's books....nevertheless that revenue isn't generated without MU playing.  Same goes for UCONN.

Then we have to factor in the value the program creates.  Before Calhoun got there, UCONN was nothing nationally.  They are now a national presence and that is worth something.  I agree, that's not revenue and also agree with you that is a sidebar discussion.


My bigger beef is why this a-hole "reporter / political windjag" was granted a press pass and allowed to even ask this question in this setting. 

[warrior_jr]

Its not a "set of values" but rather a free market, with the emphasis on free.  He's paid that much because he produces.  If you take the revenue he produces vs. the pay he receives, he's likely the MVP of state employees.

The revenue he produces comes from the money we spend which reflects the value which we assign to it.  Its ironic that you mention the free market, because that is exactly what enables us to assign value. 

Nothing is more annoying than a condescending post by someone that does not understand the point that they are "correcting."  What's even more irritating is that someone else gave you a +1 for your ignorance.

As for society's overvaluation of a game, I agree with swimmer-whats-his-name.  But it is great entertainment.

[Tulsa Warrior]

There is another factor in the equation.  What is the marketing value to a school of a successful athletic team?  What would UConn or Marquette have to pay to get advertising minutes on ESPN and the other media outlets?  What was the dollar and sense value of Marquette's trip to the Final Four?

Beyond the direct balance sheet the other factors to consider are increased name recognition for the school, increased enrollments and increased alum donations.

The reporter's question was a fair one and Calhoun should have been able to hit it out of the park.

[legacy]

I suggest we all get some facts before we come back and see muscoop or Calhoun!!

In seriousness, I agree 100% with Calhoun, and he responded perfectly.  Also, it doesn't make any sense to draw an artificial line between the athletic department and the rest of the university.  Universities invest in having strong athletic departments just as they invest in having strong English or chemistry departments. Good athletics are a service to the students and alumni, just as a student union is.  I agree that it's an odd statement on our values that this is so, but it is what it is.

[AZWarrior]

The revenue he produces comes from the money we spend which reflects the value which we assign to it.  Its ironic that you mention the free market, because that is exactly what enables us to assign value. 

Nothing is more annoying than a condescending post by someone that does not understand the point that they are "correcting."  What's even more irritating is that someone else gave you a +1 for your ignorance.

As for society's overvaluation of a game, I agree with swimmer-whats-his-name.  But it is great entertainment.

Warrior Jr - Feel free to attack my argument, but attacking me (condescending post by someone that does not understand the point that they are "correcting.") is tacky as well as an argumentative flaw.   My point is that their administration is free to pay Calhoun what they think he is worth.  And that is an essential element of a free market.

[Pakuni]

Perhaps you're missing the other revenue.  More than likely he should have said the program generates $12 million.  Some of which goes directly to the university in the form of direct revenues, other goes to operating the arena, the concessions, etc.  They may not be factored into your numbers, but his program is certainly generating that revenue nevertheless.  My guess is that is probably what he meant. 

Well, I'm not going to play guessing games by what he meant, nor play guessing games by what "other" revenues the program may or may not produce for the university when the university itself reports a figure. I have no idea what he meant. What he said is that the program generates $12 million for the university when, at least according to UConn, that isn't accurate. I suspect had he meant the program generates $12 million if one factors in the arena, concessions, etc., he would have said so. But he was pretty clear about saying it was for the university. Still, I can't say what the man meant.

It could well be I'm nitpicking the guy here. And, again, I doesn't bother me whatever he earns. That's between he and UConn, far as I'm concerned.

As for legacy's post ... you may not think it makes much sense to draw a line between athletic departments and universities as a whole, but many universities do think it makes sense. Many, if not most, big-time athletic departments are, in fact, run independently of the university. They have their own administrations, their own budgets, their own revenue streams, even their own endowments. While they may benefit from one another's success, there exists little "investment" between the two.

[augoman]

well, Calhoun should have just asked where he got his press pass, then ignored him and said "next question".  However, I think Pakuni is overlooking the fact that 1. Calhoun is paid less than MU paid Crean although Calhoun has a more successful program, and those dollars that flow to the athletic dept allow other dollars to provide the tools of learning.  2. Not that long ago UW had a one year 5 million dollar shortfall in their athletic dept, and it was made up by we taxpayers via a higher tax rate.  Now their teams generate sufficient revenues, but the rate will never go down.

[legacy]

As for legacy's post ... you may not think it makes much sense to draw a line between athletic departments and universities as a whole, but many universities do think it makes sense. Many, if not most, big-time athletic departments are, in fact, run independently of the university. They have their own administrations, their own budgets, their own revenue streams, even their own endowments. While they may benefit from one another's success, there exists little "investment" between the two.

This is simply gibberish.  Athletic departments may have a measure of autonomy, and there may not be cross-subsidies, but they are obviously part of the university.  Residence life is run separately from academic affairs, and use separate budgets, but they are both part of the university.  The athletic department is under the president and board of trustees just as everyone else is.  Universities do often have quasi-independent research institutions or other offices, but athletic departments do not fall under this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As for legacy's post ... you may not think it makes much sense to draw a line between athletic departments and universities as a whole, but many universities do think it makes sense. Many, if not most, big-time athletic departments are, in fact, run independently of the university. They have their own administrations, their own budgets, their own revenue streams, even their own endowments. While they may benefit from one another's success, there exists little "investment" between the two.

I don't get this claim.  The athletic departments of ALL universities are beholden to the President and Board of Trustees of their schools, thus they are linked.  Sure they have their own budgets, but so does the department of History, the School of Business, etc, at other schools.  And yes, other departments can have their own endowments, just like the athletic departments.  Many departments at universities have their own endowments to push scholarships, fund a visiting professor, etc.

I don't understand your claims as if they are some separate fiefdom.  Perhaps I am not understanding your comments, it wouldn't be the first time.  There is no doubt that there are some athletic departments, OHIO STATE comes to mind, that is a somewhat a unit in and of itself due to it's largess.  But the AD and the department do not operate in a vacuum outside of the university, even at Ohio State.


Back to Calhoun's comments, I suspect that since he was talking off the cuff he was probably lumping several items together.  More than likely some crack journalist will give us the truth we are so deserving of in the next few days. 


Augoman, not sure if Crean was paid more than Calhoun.  There's "payment" and then there's "PAYMENT".  Many of the perks associated with coaches are not reported as a line item on their paycheck, but from outside sources.  Then there are things like their pensions, country club memberships, cars, etc that often go overlooked.  So if it says coach X makes more than coach Y because of what is "reported", that doesn't always make it so in reality.

[radome]

I don't care about the $ at this point.  I just want to find a way to make this a distraction on Wednesday.  I don't think there is a way ... just hoping.

[GGGG]

well, Calhoun should have just asked where he got his press pass, then ignored him and said "next question".  However, I think Pakuni is overlooking the fact that 1. Calhoun is paid less than MU paid Crean although Calhoun has a more successful program, and those dollars that flow to the athletic dept allow other dollars to provide the tools of learning.  2. Not that long ago UW had a one year 5 million dollar shortfall in their athletic dept, and it was made up by we taxpayers via a higher tax rate.  Now their teams generate sufficient revenues, but the rate will never go down.

It is not true that UW's athletic deficit was passed on to the taxpayers.  It was covered by extreme cost cutting and increased student fee revenue.

It is illegal in the state of Wisconsin to have any tax or tuition revenue support athletics, including salaries, unless a coach has an adminitrative or instructional aspect to their position.

[GGGG]

Calhoun unnecessarily elevated the heat of the exchange when he said "I've got some advice for you.  Shut up."

I also think the moans and groans from the other press members in the room were a little pathetic.

[PE8983]

So, how funny is it that Tan Tommy makes $700K more than Calhoun?

[Eweconfan]

Pakuni, all due respect, but what makes you an expert about what happens in the State of CT and at the University? Do you live there? Attend the University? I don't know, maybe you do. I've read your posts, and you make some valid points, but if you're going to take a stand, you shouldn't use things like "I'm assuming" and "probably". If you're arguing a point, should you assume anything?

Look, I can't argue whether what Calhoun said was right or wrong. Why? Because I don't have all the facts behind what he said, nor do I care enough to research it. I suspect you don't have all the facts, either. Do you think there's any possibility that you're missing some pieces to the puzzle?

Again, I come in peace and am not looking to stir the pot. I also admitted I don't know the right or wrong answer, I'm merely asking why you think you do.

[Hards Alumni]

If Calhoun is getting paid an unfair amount of money then that should be between the university and Calhoun.

I realize that UConn is a public university and therefore his salary is public record.

Does this reporter really think that UConn is throwing its money away on a very successful coach?  Does the fact that Calhoun is paid using taxpayers money matter?  Does the money he brings into the university through the athletic dept. outweigh this cost?

Lets be real here folks.  The reporter was looking to be controversial.  Trying to make a name for himself. 

I call this Ann Coulter syndrome.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, all due respect, but what makes you an expert about what happens in the State of CT and at the University? Do you live there? Attend the University? I don't know, maybe you do. I've read your posts, and you make some valid points, but if you're going to take a stand, you shouldn't use things like "I'm assuming" and "probably". If you're arguing a point, should you assume anything?

Look, I can't argue whether what Calhoun said was right or wrong. Why? Because I don't have all the facts behind what he said, nor do I care enough to research it. I suspect you don't have all the facts, either. Do you think there's any possibility that you're missing some pieces to the puzzle?

Again, I come in peace and am not looking to stir the pot. I also admitted I don't know the right or wrong answer, I'm merely asking why you think you do.

And, with all due respect to you, I was not aware one needed to be an expert on the state of Connecticut or UConn student to go on the U.S. Dept. of Education's Web site and find that Calhoun's statement is contrary to what the university itself says it's true. That's really all I've done here ... point out an easily found discrepancy between Calhoun's vigorous defense of his salary and what the university itself claims about the revenues his program produces.

Why that's so offensive is a bit surprising. No disrespect, but some of you are acting like Calhoun's relatives, arduously defending him against an imaginary slight.

Whether those are "all the facts," I have no idea. They are the known facts based upon what Calhoun stated publicly and what the university has stated publicly. There may be, as some have surmised, other unreported revenues out there generated by the program. I don't know. But including those unknowns in the discussion, it would seem to me, requires far more speculation and assumption than anything I've offered.

I suspect that if discussions on an Internet message forum were limited to your standards of a) expertise and b) knowing all the facts, there would be no point in this place existing. Very few, if any, of us have the expertise to critique the performance of a college basketball coach nor all the facts about why he makes the decisions he makes. But we do it anyhow.

[Pakuni]

This is simply gibberish.  Athletic departments may have a measure of autonomy, and there may not be cross-subsidies, but they are obviously part of the university.  Residence life is run separately from academic affairs, and use separate budgets, but they are both part of the university.  The athletic department is under the president and board of trustees just as everyone else is.  Universities do often have quasi-independent research institutions or other offices, but athletic departments do not fall under this.

Gibberish?
Pray tell, what did I say that was gibberish?
That college athletic departments have their own administrators?
Their own revenue streams?
Their own budgets?
Their own endowments?
What did I say that was incorrect?

If there's any gibberish here, it's your effort to equate the relationship an athletic dept. has with its university to that of academic affairs. To borrow a former poster's catchphrase: apples and oranges.
While you're correct that academic affairs has its own budget, its simply a departmental budget within the entire university budget, a subset if you will. they rely on the university to provide its revenues from out of the whole.
That's not the case with athletic departments, which have their own, self-sustaining budgets and are largely autonumous in how they choose to allocate their resources.
the situations are not analogous.

[dsfire]

I also think the moans and groans from the other press members in the room were a little pathetic.

I thought those were pretty funny (and on-point).  The "reporter" tried to call out actual reporters for not devoting coverage to a non-issue.  He should be treated like he's a joke.

[Lennys Tap]

Ann Coulter is not a news reporter. Her writings are opinion pieces and are always identified as such. You may find her writings offensive or over the top but she is paid to share her admittedly slanted views. To pose as a reporter while trying to push a political agenda (as this guy obviously does) is another thing altogether. It is, unfortunately, a common occurance in "journalism " today.

[Avenue Commons]

Next stop, Superbar, leaving in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...............................

[CAINMUTINY]

Let's quit with the semantics......its 12 million less that needs to fund the athletic dept. that otherwise would have been funded by the state.

Also, Calhoun has built UCONN from a nothing team (who can recall them in the 1970's) to an absolute powerhouse so his salary is commensurate with what he has done, period.

[GGGG]

Gibberish?
Pray tell, what did I say that was gibberish?
That college athletic departments have their own administrators?
Their own revenue streams?
Their own budgets?
Their own endowments?
What did I say that was incorrect?

If there's any gibberish here, it's your effort to equate the relationship an athletic dept. has with its university to that of academic affairs. To borrow a former poster's catchphrase: apples and oranges.
While you're correct that academic affairs has its own budget, its simply a departmental budget within the entire university budget, a subset if you will. they rely on the university to provide its revenues from out of the whole.
That's not the case with athletic departments, which have their own, self-sustaining budgets and are largely autonumous in how they choose to allocate their resources.
the situations are not analogous.

I don't think you really know how most, large state universities work.  The individual colleges at a university all have their own administrators, their own endowments, their own facilities. their own revenue streams...  They are very similar to athletics in that manner, but they don't have the headlines.

And I can guaranty you, that if the Board of Trustees at UConn *wanted* their President to have more control over budgets, etc. at the athletic department, it would happen in an instant.  For instance, Alvarez up at UW is talking about the need for athletic budget cuts, etc.  Don't you think he's talking with their Chancellor about that?  I'm fairly certain she is involved quite a bit in those discussions.

[ToddRosiakSays]

UConn's Calhoun has spat with reporter


Feb. 23, 2009 8:38 a.m.  




Jim Calhoun, the coach of the University of Connecticut, took exception on Saturday to a question from a freelance reporter about his $1.6 million pay.

The reporter, who is well known as a provacateur, was asking the question in the context of Connecticut's budget deficit. Calhoun fired right back.

Calhoun's Huskies will be in Milwaukee on Wednesday to face the Marquette Golden Eagles.

-- Delivered by Feed43 service



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/40080642.html

[lab_warrior]

There is a pretty good deadspin entry on this situation...

http://deadspin.com/5158591/jim-calhouns-annoying-interrogator-is-not-happy-with-that-annoying-answer

[Eweconfan]

PAK, I wasn't viewing your post as a slight, and did not take offense to it at all. I was simply asking why you thought you had all the information to make your observations. I don't really care what the the website states, all I'm saying is there might be more to it. That's all. I also made it perfectly clear that I don't know either.

Perhaps Calhoun was talking about both the Men's and Women's program together?

My post was not meant to be antagonistic, so I apologize if it came across that way.

[Bling]

The professional thing to do here is to completely ignore that jackass.  I don't know what Calhoun was thinking in stepping down to that guys level.  Why give him what he wants?  I'm sure that reporter is happy now that he got a rise out of Coach Calhoun.  Ignore the guy and don't give him any credit.  Respond and get pissed and you are giving him exactly what is looking for.  Calhoun should have said "pass" or "next question".  Absolutely no need to respond to that

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Bling, Calhoun did give him a nice, quick, "professional" response. Then the hippie leftist couldn't help himself so he then on going about how "no one" was reporting on salaries and the like. That was what caused Calhoun to go off.

[Bling]

Still, no matter what that guy says, no need to respond.  What if the reporter called him a poopy head?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

If a guy insults you publicly like that hippie did, you'd probably go off as well after the hippie failed to shut up. It's a basketball game press conference, not CNN.

[rugbydrummer]

Pakuni, all due respect, but what makes you an expert about what happens in the State of CT and at the University? Do you live there? Attend the University? I don't know, maybe you do. I've read your posts, and you make some valid points, but if you're going to take a stand, you shouldn't use things like "I'm assuming" and "probably". If you're arguing a point, should you assume anything?

Look, I can't argue whether what Calhoun said was right or wrong. Why? Because I don't have all the facts behind what he said, nor do I care enough to research it. I suspect you don't have all the facts, either. Do you think there's any possibility that you're missing some pieces to the puzzle?

Again, I come in peace and am not looking to stir the pot. I also admitted I don't know the right or wrong answer, I'm merely asking why you think you do.

Welcome to MUSCOOP

[Marquette Mama]

I think this exchange between Calhoun and the so-called reporter may have been an initial "shot across the bow."  It appears Calhoun's comments were picked up by news broadcasts beyond espn.  It was featured on our news broadcasts prominently throughout the weekend (and we are a midwest market, a thousand miles from CT). 
This morning, news broadcast featured an interview with Pete Carroll (sorry if I've spelled that wrong) from USC defending his $4.4 million salary.  Recession = open season on highly paid individuals?

[MUEng92]

All I know is, if I had a ticket to Wednesday's game, I think I would give Calhoun a standing ovation (for about 5 seconds) and then start booing him just to stay in balance!

[reinko]

All I know is, if I had a ticket to Wednesday's game, I think I would give Calhoun a standing ovation (for about 5 seconds) and then start booing him just to stay in balance!

That's not a bad idea.  How about it students?  Instead of the overrated chant, how about overpaid?

Just a chant of 1 point 6.

[Pakuni]

That's not a bad idea.  How about it students?  Instead of the overrated chant, how about overpaid?

Just a chant of 1 point 6.

Or chant "Give back a dime".

[MUWarrior06]

Also, what components exactly comprise that $1.6 million salary for Calhoun?  I would have a feeling that only a portion of it comes directly out from the state of Connecticut budget.  Notice too how the "reporter" asked how much he gets from Comcast; I would assume for a coaches show. 

Calhoun also probably pulls in money from camps, speaking engagements, shoe/apparel deals, and also some alumni "subsidy" as part of that $1.6 million salary. 

Obviously this guy did some HW as to where Calhoun's salary comes from to a degree, but chose to ignore the facts for his own personal agenda and attempt to embarass Calhoun.

I'd agree with this 100%

[Marquette84]

And, with all due respect to you, I was not aware one needed to be an expert on the state of Connecticut or UConn student to go on the U.S. Dept. of Education's Web site and find that Calhoun's statement is contrary to what the university itself says it's true. That's really all I've done here ... point out an easily found discrepancy between Calhoun's vigorous defense of his salary and what the university itself claims about the revenues his program produces.

Why that's so offensive is a bit surprising. No disrespect, but some of you are acting like Calhoun's relatives, arduously defending him against an imaginary slight.

Whether those are "all the facts," I have no idea. They are the known facts based upon what Calhoun stated publicly and what the university has stated publicly. There may be, as some have surmised, other unreported revenues out there generated by the program. I don't know. But including those unknowns in the discussion, it would seem to me, requires far more speculation and assumption than anything I've offered.

I suspect that if discussions on an Internet message forum were limited to your standards of a) expertise and b) knowing all the facts, there would be no point in this place existing. Very few, if any, of us have the expertise to critique the performance of a college basketball coach nor all the facts about why he makes the decisions he makes. But we do it anyhow.

You win the Understatement of the Year award with this quote:

"There may be, as some have surmised, other unreported revenues out there generated by the program."

Some?  Try $26,546,200. 

And they're not "unreported" revenues.  Those revenues are documented in the very report you cite.  Find the line item listed as "not allocated by sport/gender."

And what does this include?  Well, according to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act:

(I)(i) The total revenues, and the revenues from football,
        men's basketball, women's basketball, all other men's sports
        combined and all other women's sports combined, derived by the
        institution from the institution's intercollegiate athletics
        activities.
          (ii) For the purpose of clause (i), revenues from
        intercollegiate athletics activities allocable to a sport shall
        include (without limitation) gate receipts, broadcast revenues,
        appearance guarantees and options, concessions, and
        advertising, but revenues such as student activities fees or
        alumni contributions not so allocable shall be included in the
        calculation of total revenues only. [emphasis added]


With all due respect, just because it is listed as "not allocated" doesn't mean that mens basketball doesn't drive a portion of that revenue. 

In fact, it is entirely reasonable to believe that mens basketball at Uconn is a significant driver of alumni contributions--just as it is with the Blue and Gold fund at Marquette. 

And if Calhoun (and his agent) were smart, he'd be able to document just how much of that general revenue is driven by the performance of Mens basketball. 

You made some pretty strong accusations about Calhoun's lack of honesty.  In reality, you're using limited data--the officially allocated revenue for mens basketball--and ignoring any contribution of mens basketball to the non-allocated revenue.

If mens basketball drives significant non-allocated revenue--and its extremely reasonable to believe that it does--then Calhoun is not only completely honest, but likely conservative in his statement that mens basketball brings $12 million to UConn.

 

[rocky_warrior]

In fact, it is entirely reasonable to believe that mens basketball at Uconn is a significant driver of alumni contributions--just as it is with the Blue and Gold fund at Marquette. 

Ahem, I agree...
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=12776.msg114319#msg114319

Apparently I need to stoop typing with invisible electrons.

[Marquette84]

Ahem, I agree...
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=12776.msg114319#msg114319

Apparently I need to stoop typing with invisible electrons.

Sorry--I missed it.  Apparently, Pakuni did as well.      

I may have been unduly influenced by the fact that 16 or so posts after you offered the comment Pakuni was still attempting to make the statement that there "may be" other "unreported" revenues that represent "unknowns" and would require "far more speculation" and "assumption" simply in order to discuss it. 

As you and I point out, there is ample evidence to replace "may be" with "are"
"unreported" with "reported"
"unknowns" with "knowns."
"far more speculation" with "admitting the obvious."

At the start of the thread, he felt perfectly content throwing around terms like "not completely honest," "bunch of baloney" and "fictional accounting"--which, ironically, required him to engage in the same sort of speculation and assumption (albeit in the opposite direction) that he's now decrying. 




 

[Pakuni]

Sorry--I missed it.  Apparently, Pakuni did as well.      

I may have been unduly influenced by the fact that 16 or so posts after you offered the comment Pakuni was still attempting to make the statement that there "may be" other "unreported" revenues that represent "unknowns" and would require "far more speculation" and "assumption" simply in order to discuss it. 

Wow. And the intellectual dishonesty award goes to ...

I'm impressed with your ability to string together snippets of what I wrote and try to create a statement I never made. I bet you're really good at Boggle.

Although you're correct about one thing (broken clock theory?): Unreported was a poor, erroneous word choice on my part. I'd have been better off using "uncatergorized". Those revenues were reported, just not delineated as basketball revenues. And, whether you like it or not, it would take an "assumption" as to what sport is most responsible for them and some "speculation" as to where exactly they're coming from (i.e. donations, sponsorships, etc.)
To the contrary, I'm not speculating or assuming anything. I took the numbers the university itself reported as what it believed the basketball program was generating. Blame them if you feel the number was inaccurate.

Also, I find it interesting that, in defense of Calhoun, you're going to attribute a sizeable portion of the uncategoraized revenues to basketball (which may very well be true ... but that would be an assumption or, at the very least, supposition), yet there's nary a mention of the $18.8 million in uncategorized expenses. Surely if you're going to assume that 20-some percent of the unallocated revenues to hoops (or in 84's case, 100 percent of them), you should do the same with the unallocated expenses, right?

And yes, Calhoun's remarks were misleading. He said he "turns over" $12 million to the university, as if he cuts the chancellor a check at the end of the basketball season to do with what he/she sees fit. He knows darn well, or should darn know, that his program doesn't "turn over $12 million" to the university. At best, his program helps generate money, though direct and indirect means - maybe as much as $12 million - for the athletic department, the great majority of which funneled back into the basketball program. That's like bragging that my efforts make my company $100,000 a year while my salary and expenses total $98,000.

Now, I'm pretty sure nobody else cares about this subject, so I'll eagerly await your response and let the thread die the merciful death it so richly deserves. Have a nice day.

[MU737]

I just watched the video and I think it was cool he was wearing the autism puzzle piece on his suit coat, I think its awesome when coaches so support for causes in little ways like that.  Ozzie wears some of that stuff too during post game chats every so often.

[dsfire]

For what it's worth, Pat Forde came up with some numbers in today's column:

Here are the facts as the U.S. Department of Education sees them, per an annual financial report submitted by UConn assistant athletic director Maureen O'Connor: The men's basketball program generated $7.3 million in revenues in 2007-08. It spent $6.1 million.

One UConn source said those numbers don't tell the whole story. The source said men's basketball is conservatively responsible for an additional $4 million in corporate marketing revenue and $4.5 million in donations to the school's booster organization, the UConn Club. That gets closer to a net profit of $12 million, but not all the way there.

(and then goes on to alternately praise and damn Calhoun)

I think Czabe also speculated on Bob & Brian this morning that the $12 mil was the combined direct revenue of the UConn men's & women's basketball teams.