Though I appreciate the sentiment the reason football coaches make that sort of money is because of all the additional income that a winning sports team can bring to a state run educational institution, or at least that is my understanding. The income coaches make is simply a matter of supply and demand and because of the difference, a good coach can make to the chances of having a successful sports team. Interesting to consider this proposal but essentially it sound like Mr. Rosenberg is tilting at windmills with this proposal.

It may be true that a "winning" sports team might bring in more money than the money it diverts from the educational mission--and this is debatable when one calculates all the expenditures required for such an enterprise. But how many teams can be "winning"? The economic and cost/benefits reasoning dodges Rosenberg's logic--it doesn't defeat it. Recall the missions of these universities, which don't include generating revenue from souvenirs and sideshows.

Right, gwlove, it's tilting at windmills in the sense that his suggestion (no matter how reasonable it is) doesn't have the chances of a snowball in hell. But maybe (a big maybe, I know) a somewhat less radical proposal might have better chances (like that of a snowball on a merely warm day). Eg., if (total big sports net income) minus (coaches salaries' increment over highest paid professors' salaries) is equal to or greater than (net big sports income's contribution to academic programs) . . . then the big sports' coaches salaries are no impediment to government grants and subsidies; otherwise, they areOr something like that.

The general dea being that if big sports don't pay for themselves and also contribute at least a little something to academics, then the institution should suffer some sort of penalty for distortion of the academic mission.

Coaches' salaries are not so different from bankers' salaries run amok. Why not place a $500,000 limit on any salary if an institution receives federal money? Obviously, no institution or region can solve this embarrassing problem by themselves. Only a national action could bring the outrageous salaries that demean the real values of higher education. Yes, it does say much about our society when coaches are paid much more than university presidents or state governors.

Rosenberg writes of "the purpose" of a university "education". He acts as though his assertion is self-evident and universally agreed with. And he says nothing about the overall university experience and what its "purpose" might be. And any US Representative or Senator from, say, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Minnesota, ... and something on the order of 35 other states who votes to sustain such a Federal Regulation is going to be turned out of office next election.

If only the money from the big donors and advertisers who pay the coaches' salaries could be shifted to academics, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately these boosters would not shift their donations to the educational side.

Why not work to change current big college sports into what in fact they are, a publically and privately subsidized farm system for for the NFL and NBA. Let the leagues manage them, recruiting in and paying players and coaches as they see fit, putting an end to the misleading and empty notions of student athlete and coach as teacher and returning some integrity to universities as having educational and civic missions.

Why not work to change current big college sports into what in fact they are, a publically and privately subsidized farm system for for the NFL and NBA. Let the leagues manage them, recruiting in and paying players and coaches as they see fit, putting an end to the misleading and empty notions of student athlete and coach as teacher and returning some integrity to universities as having educational and civic missions.

Like the Olympics, collegiate athletics has been corrupted by the media hype that goes along with winning. The perception is that this kind of recognition increases the support received from tax payer dollars even if the athletics program is operating in the red (which by all accounts most do). Coaches who by whatever means figure out how to grease alumni and boosters (who may also be politicians) to produce a winning formula apparently are in short supply and so have increasingly upped the ante for their services. If we really want to curb the excesses of the system that has evolved, I suggest we require coaches to be members of the faculty in the fullest sense of the word (after all they are supposed to be teachers, aren't they?), eligible for P&T and subject to participating in teaching, research, and service. Excepting perhaps the small number of coaches receiving massive incomes, I suspect the large majority of coaches would welcome moving to a system that put less pressure on winning and more on academic integrity.

I'm sympathetic to Rosenberg's concern that athletics too often trumps academics. However, his remedy is absurd. Would we really be better off as a society if scientists at Michigan, Cal Berkeley or Florida were denied federal research grants because of the salary of the football coach. Yes, most football coaches seem overpaid from my vantage point in the professoriate. But, so do most New York lawyers, Mr. Rosenberg.

I agree with rtanderson: bring on the salary caps! Many people argue that sports brings in money for universities, but sports run amok--as in the recent Chronicle article on the huge debts some schools have amassed to pay for enormous stadiums--just costs universities more. I think it's doubtful that money from sports will bring in any "extra" funds for the university anyway, as more money = more demand for the latest and greatest in locker rooms, sports equipment, trainers, etc.

Unless there is overhaul on other levels, the salary structure for coashes isn't going to change. If you want a winning coach, you have to pay for him, and it's a lot more than we pay other types of educators (yes, I do believe that good coaches teach players a lot more than just game fundamentals.) That's the reality of the current market for coaches.

While I wish that we could dramatically reduce college spending on competitive athletics, I think we need to move away from the notion that we should use the power of the federal government to right every perceived wrong or foolishness. History shows that many attempts at regulation result in: 1) additional costs in time and record-keeping for the regulated; and 2) creative strategies that effectively end-run the intended goal. The proper parties to address this issue are boards of trustees and the NCAA. I'd rather see Congress first fulfill constitutional duties, like passing balanced budgets before the beginning of the new fiscal year, or addressing other critical issues like funding social security.

Individual researchers at these institutions deserve the federal dollars that they have earned. To withhold these funds would crush 1000s of active labs throughout the country.

From the above article: "Which is why Congress should bar federal research grants or subsidies from going to such institutions, he argues. “Any school that pays more to those who coach big-time sports than to those who teach students academic subjects shows its true colors. No taxpayer should pay money to such a school,” Rosenberg concludes."

This is outrageous, and I'm concerned that it looks like only 1 other person caught this!

Big time college athletic programs typically do not pay coaches with tax dollars. The money is raised by their Athletic Foundation. Many of the big time football programs (Texas, Alabama, LSU)not only pay for non-revenue sports (Track, Golf, any women's sport), but also give money to academics. The Federal Government needs to stay the hell out. They screw up everything they touch. e.g. housing, immigration, foreign policy, grants that only help specific demographic groups). Do you want them to help out college athletics like they've helped the banking industry by regulating it?

I respect Rosenberg's opinion. Although one might conclude that taxpayer's dollars may aid in more money appearing in salaries for coaches, the logic of Rosenberg's argument leaves a great deal to be desired. Do we conclude institutional values are determined by how money is allocated in the institution? Are all institutions held to the same standard? I missed the point of how institutional "values" are determined in the piece.

Individual researchers at these institutions don't deserve the unconstitutionally appropriated federal dollars that they have obtained, and only a tiny fraction of federal research grants are constitutional.

OTOH, I have to agree that the extramural sports are merely the minor league feeder system, and that the players should be compensated accordingly. Still, if I were the one making the decision, the compensation of the university executives and coaches would be severely trimmed. The liberty loving economist, however, says that we should, instead, eliminate the dishonest cross-subsidies and let an honest market determine the compensation packages, in both university and professional sports. Let them build their own stadia, restaurants, sky-boxes, parking, transportation, training faclilities, etc., and see how it shakes out.

"Many of the big time football programs (Texas, Alabama, LSU)not only pay for non-revenue sports (Track, Golf, any women's sport), but also give money to academics."

This is one of the great myths the NCAA loves to see disseminated. The fact is athletics operate in the red chronically, and do not return any money to the general fund. Ironically, even NCAA reports acknowledge that. Athletic departments have become experts at cooking the books, conveniently ignoring that costs exclusively incurred by them are often passed off to buildings and grounds, security, and other budgets.