Jim Calhoun in spat with political activist / reporter after game

[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.