Gotta love the NCAA. Coach Cal bolts, he will take his prized

[Pardner]

GOOD GRIEF!

It is NOT taxpayer dollars going towards their salaries. It is revenue from the respective Athletic Departments programs (i.e., basketball games and functions) and donations from alumni and other interested parties. I think it's unbelievably outrageous that college basketball coaches are now getting paid $5 million to be basically a marketing instrument for a university, but that money is certainly NOT coming out of the state income tax revenue or any other tax revenue.

See how the Calhoun soap opera plays out if sanctions occur.  See how the politicos' patience plays out in the pseudo private-public institutional domains like college sports, the Fed, Illinois Tollway, Major League Baseball.  Even in Kentucky, public patience will wear thin in this economy.  Add in the academic push back when cuts are made with dropping enrollments.

[Daniel]

Boosters will pay most of his salary just like at all big time programs.

This is most likely the case - like T Boon Pickens was ready to back getting Self. 

[GGGG]

Right and wrong.  What happens when the athletic department is not profitable (see IU, according to a WSJ article a few months back), then the taxpayers make up the difference.

See what Vassar announced today.  A huge increase in tuition and a cut in staff because their endowment was wrecked by the stock market last year.  Lots of big time universities have seen their endowments lose as much as 50% (Harvard has said it lost 35% last year and many rumor it is really more like 50%)

College giving is also way way down,  A lot of rich boosters to the athletic department are no longer rich.  A disproportionally high number came from the financial services industry (i.e., hedge fund managers) and they were wiped out.  Dick Strong is a fraction of himself.

The world has changed, it will catch up to the state universities very soon.

A couple of things - and know this comes from someone who works in a public university in an administrative capacity.  First, it is abolutely illegal in most states that I know of to use tax or tuition dollars for anything other than instruction or administrative costs.  Now that may mean that a portion of a coaches or athletic directors salary comes from tax revenue and they write it off as "administrative"...maybe...but that's about it.  This is an extremely small percentage of a coach's salary.  Coaches make their money through boosters, television shows, shoe contracts, etc.  This is all funnelled through the university. 

Athletic departments make most of their revenue through student fees (non-tuition fees charged to students every year), gifts and general revenue.

I would be extremely surprised if the State of Indiana taxpayer contributed significantly toward the deficit you mentioned.  I would shocked if the State of Kentucky taxpayer is contributing anything toward Calipari's salary.

[Brewtown Andy]

Coaches make their money through boosters, television shows, shoe contracts, etc.  This is all funnelled through the university. 

Another board I post on linked to what was supposedly the agreement of contract that Gillispie and UK both signed.  In it, the university was paying him $400K to coach, and a local tv station was paying him $1.2 million for a weekly tv show.

[NavinRJohnson]

recruits and Memphis is left at the altar. On another level, the salaries continue to increase at a rapid pace. 5 big ones to coach some kids. The separation of the haves and have nots widens even more.

At least those particular recruits/players have the option to go somewhere else now. It is infuriating to me that players that are already on scholarship, while they are free to leave, to do so they are forced to sit out a year, while their coaches can bolt for greener pastures any time they want, with literally no consequences. Its ridiculous.

Take either of the Curry kids as an example...they clearly demonstrated they were good enough to play at big time programs, but in order to make a move to Duke or UNC or wherever, they need to sit out a year. Yet, if their coach wanted to make a move to a major conference school, he not only would get big money to do so, but could be working there the next day. It is just an effed up system. I realize there need to be controls in place, but these coaches get rich on the backs of the players, who are simply not afforded anywhere near the same rights.

I know they commit to the university and not the coach, but lets get real...Many commit with the expectation that the coach is gonna be there. If they aren't cofortable that's going to happen, they probably choose to go elsewhere. If not, they truly are commiting to the University and its a non-issue. If any of the current Memphis players wanted to transfer as a result of this change, they should be allowed to do so without having to sit out. Same for the UK players, MU's players last year, etc. It is just inherently unfair.

[GGGG]

Another board I post on linked to what was supposedly the agreement of contract that Gillispie and UK both signed.  In it, the university was paying him $400K to coach, and a local tv station was paying him $1.2 million for a weekly tv show.

I guess it depends on the state.  I really doubt that the $400k he was making from UK was from tax revenue.  I'm sure it was from some of the other sources I named.

[TJ]

I guess it depends on the state.  I really doubt that the $400k he was making from UK was from tax revenue.  I'm sure it was from some of the other sources I named.

Surely UK basketball makes $400k in ticket revenue in a season...

[TJ]

If any of the current Memphis players wanted to transfer as a result of this change, they should be allowed to do so without having to sit out. Same for the UK players, MU's players last year, etc.

Better yet, the coaches should have to sit out a year too.

[NavinRJohnson]

Better yet, the coaches should have to sit out a year too.

A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players.  I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.

[TJ]

A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players.  I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.

Completely agree.  Obviously there's no way to make coaches sit out a year, but there has to be some way to make coaches contracts worth more than they are.

I do not want to see the flood gates opened any players allowed to transfer at will though.  That will just punish the losing school even further.

[GGGG]

A bit too impractical, but generally speaking I believe the NCAA should hold coaches to the same contractual standards that they do the players.  I am a free market guy all the way...the problem is that there is a free market for coaches, not really the case for the players. As much as I would hate to see more NCAA intervention of any kind, coaches' contracts should mean something.

What makes you think that contracts don't mean anything?  The buy-outs are written into the contracts.  When TC left, his contract was followed to the letter.

[Hards Alumni]

Right and wrong.  What happens when the athletic department is not profitable (see IU, according to a WSJ article a few months back), then the taxpayers make up the difference.

See what Vassar announced today.  A huge increase in tuition and a cut in staff because their endowment was wrecked by the stock market last year.  Lots of big time universities have seen their endowments lose as much as 50% (Harvard has said it lost 35% last year and many rumor it is really more like 50%)

College giving is also way way down,  A lot of rich boosters to the athletic department are no longer rich.  A disproportionally high number came from the financial services industry (i.e., hedge fund managers) and they were wiped out.  Dick Strong is a fraction of himself.

The world has changed, it will catch up to the state universities very soon.

favorite part of all of this is that when the program makes money, the school keeps it.  when the program loses money the taxpayers kick in the difference.

sound familiar?  It should.

[NavinRJohnson]

What makes you think that contracts don't mean anything?  The buy-outs are written into the contracts.  When TC left, his contract was followed to the letter.

Of course it was...never said it wasn't. That's great for TC and for Marquette, but, because of those buyout clauses, coaches are free to come and go as they please, while players are not. Either coaches should be subject to some of the same restrictions that the players are under (Again, I oppose that from a practical and philosophical standpoint), or the players should be afforded some of the movement rights that the coaches have -- at least in certain circumstances. 

[GGGG]

Of course it was...never said it wasn't. That's great for TC and for Marquette, but, because of those buyout clauses, coaches are free to come and go as they please, while players are not. Either coaches should be subject to some of the same restrictions that the players are under (Again, I oppose that from a practical and philosophical standpoint), or the players should be afforded some of the movement rights that the coaches have -- at least in certain circumstances. 

You stated "coaches contracts should mean something."  That makes no sense.  They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean.  So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts.  If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But should the institution be given that same option?  Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?

[TJ]

You stated "coaches contracts should mean something."  That makes no sense.  They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean.  So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts.  If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But should the institution be given that same option?  Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?

We'll see - it's potentially about to happen at Kentucky.

[NavinRJohnson]

You stated "coaches contracts should mean something."  That makes no sense.  They are generally followed to the word so they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean.  So do the player's LOIs, which are contracts.  If you are suggesting that players should have say a two week window after a coach leaves (or is fired) to get out of the LOI, I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But should the institution be given that same option?  Should they be able to tell a player that the LOI is not going to be honored from their standpoint?

No, and that's an entirely different argument. What does one have to do with the other?

Of course contracts are followed to the letter, and they should be. That's not the problem, and I suspect you are intentionally missing the point. The problem is I suppose the contracts themselves that a coach has such an easy time moving on, when a player does not. That's why the contracts should mean something beyond the doallars and cents impact on the coach and the University.

And yes, if a coach leaves or is fired, the players involved should have such a window to leave without having to sit out a year if they choose...that is exactly what I am advocating. If they are not allowed that opportunity, then I do believe it should be more difficult for coaches to make a change. The only way to do that is to make the contracts more difficult to get out of. I do not like that idea much though.

[GGGG]

No, and that's an entirely different argument. What does one have to do with the other?

Of course contracts are followed to the letter, and they should be. That's not the problem, and I suspect you are intentionally missing the point. The problem is I suppose the contracts themselves that a coach has such an easy time moving on, when a player does not. That's why the contracts should mean something beyond the doallars and cents impact on the coach and the University.

And yes, if a coach leaves or is fired, the players involved should have such a window to leave without having to sit out a year if they choose...that is exactly what I am advocating. If they are not allowed that opportunity, then I do believe it should be more difficult for coaches to make a change. The only way to do that is to make the contracts more difficult to get out of. I do not like that idea much though.

I understand what you are saying.  However what I don't understand is your statement "they should mean something."  That is an emotional argument and not a legal one.  Contracts have buy-outs in them because the university's agree to them.  Do you want the NCAA to make buy out clauses illegal?

My question regarding the LOIs is that in 95% of the cases nationwide, they protect the player.  Most players don't want to get out of their LOI even with a coaching change.  My guess is that if schools are going to agree to provisions in LOIs that let them go in the case of a coaching change, they may want to have the same flexibility for incomming players and coaching changes.