Despite the financial turmoil affecting athletics departments at many colleges, assistant coaches at some of the nation’s largest football programs are expected to get big raises this year. Nearly a dozen football programs in the NCAA’s Division I-A will spend at least 38 percent more on their defensive or offensive coordinators this year, according to USA Today. Last year, two assistant football coaches made more than $650,000: the University of Tennessee’s Monte Kiffin ($1.2-million), now at the University of Southern California, and the University of Texas’ Will Muschamp ($900,000). This year, six assistant coaches are expected to make at least $700,000, the newspaper reported.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
10 Responses to Assistant Football Coaches See Big Increases in Pay
_perplexed_ - March 10, 2010 at 2:11 pm
It’s good to see that Universities continue to reward mission-critical employees rather than allow funds to be diverted to anything relevant to academics.
dereklambert - March 10, 2010 at 3:40 pm
When an English Literature class brings in as much money as a football program, then yea, let’s see more balance between coaching staffs and teaching staffs. Sorry, but for better or worse, its a capitalist economy.
11893847 - March 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm
You might do a bit of fact-checking, dereklambert. There are only a dozen or so football programs in the country that make money. All the rest run in the red.
tfinkelmeyer - March 10, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Not saying these assistant coaches deserve to be making such big bucks …But virtually all college football programs in the major conferences make money — and lots of it. It’s the athletic departments as a whole that generally “run in the red.”
11893847 - March 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm
The NCAA indicates only 30% of Division 1 football teams have revenues greater than expenses.
chemmilt - March 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm
It’s nice to see those rewarded who truly represent what the modern American university is about: Football! Football is a way of giving students something fun to compensate for a lack of serious academics.(Personally, I prefer professional football. The college coaches, despite their growing salaries, seem to be ever more gifted in calling bonehead plays.)
cwinton - March 11, 2010 at 12:40 am
For those so eager to defend this kind of irresponsible fiscal behavior, take a look at Old Dominion University. It is adding a $450 annual per student fee to underwrite a football program. At 17,000 students that’s not chump change. ODU claims it’s what the students want (all 17,000, I’m sure … I hope they vote with their feet). At 5 or 6 home games per year, $450 per year looks to me like NFL home game ticket pricing (and with a 20,000 seat stadium, just how many ODU students will actually be able to get tickets). I suspect a careful look at the purported 30% of Division 1 football programs with revenues exceeding expenses, would reveal this kind of subsidy on the revenue side and additional subsidies (such as stadium maintenance) on the expense side. We’re way past the point where we should have drawn the line on football. These kind of pay increases in the face of layoffs and furloughs just emphasizes that point.
brucedavis - March 11, 2010 at 9:01 am
“dereklambert” indicates we are in a capitalist economy that essentially grants validity and support for anything making a profit, in this case university athletics and it’s disproportionate salaries and expenses compared to those on the educational side. Alas, that is typically true, but I wish we could put better context into such debates and realize that education is not (or should not be) a capitalist function; it is not structured nor intended to be a profitable institution–it is not part of the business sector. Granted, fiscal responsibility is crucial and income from sources other than the public coffers is part of modern economic realities, but the value of any of education’s structure and activities should be measured according to its primary mission of applied learning. I grow weary of the arguments that entertainment and monetary profit are ends in themselves, ergo they are legitimate and supportable pursuits in education despite their warping of priorities and social values. (But then, I’m an idealist, which makes me an unrealist, unfortunately.)
11159995 - March 11, 2010 at 11:11 am
If Mr. Lambert judges everything by its value in the “capitalist economy,” then we might just as well shut down almost all the university presses in the U.S. since very, very few make any “profit” (or, as we call it when non-profits are involved, “surplus”). Then we would find that many professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, could not get tenured and promoted. In that event, they might look for careers elsewhere. Perhaps they could take up coaching football, since it pays so well. Without talented teachers, students could then just go to college and be entertained all the time at sporting events. Isn’t this what college is all about, after all, fun and games?–Sandy Thatcher, past president of the Association of American University Presses
ddwalker - March 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm
If there is a revenue stream sufficient to pay non-mission- centered employees like assistant coaches six- and seven-figure salaries, why should gifts to such organizations be tax-deductible? Where in this case is the greater societal benefit to rewarding the diversion of such dollars from government coffers to private enterprise?