Proposed law seeks to limit skyrocketing salaries of college coaches

[Rembrandt90]

Elected officials determine their own salaries by majority vote within their legislative body or by submitting a budget to their legislative body. That is not a salary cap, and it isn’t analogous to an effort to legislatively cap salaries of employees of universities.

The issue of improving the quality of education is obviously valid. But throwing money at education has never improved it. Conceptual innovations are needed. And in any case, better education and the opportunity to hire coaches is not an either/or decision. If it was, the logical move would be to abolish sports altogether and reassign all of those resources to the education budget. But the fact is that schools use football as a revenue source.

 

[Kybluedude]

Well as the father who just had his last kid graduate from college I think it’s obscene what these coaches make and the students see increases year after year. Frankly wonder what most of the coaches could accomplish in “ real life”?
Some can’t put 2 sentences together

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Well as the father who just had his last kid graduate from college I think it’s obscene what these coaches make and the students see increases year after year. Frankly wonder what most of the coaches could accomplish in “ real life”?
Some can’t put 2 sentences together

Did you see my prior post about what the university pays these coaches.

Do you think they each generate more than $400k for the university? Because that's all the school is paying them.

 

[YaketySax]

Wow. I guess I hit a nerve. My comment obviously wasn’t personal.

At the end of the day, no court or legislature, perhaps outside of CA, NY, or IL, is going to try to cap anyone’s salary. This isn’t Venezuela.

Not a nerve. I just think pointing out someone is online making assumptions to be one of the lowest common denominators of internet commenting. My original point wasn't even about the legality so most of your response was a straw man.

...is this Messenger by the way? Your commenting history has very similar levels of condescension and hubris to that guy.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Even though schools typically only pay a portion of a coaches salary, why does it matter if tax payer money is involved? In other words, if you believe that the free market correctly values products and services, including labor, then why would the involvement of tax money change the value of the labor? I guess fundamentally, the question is why is someone's personal opinion on what a person should be paid more valuable than what the market says it should be?

 

[Rembrandt90]

Not a nerve. I just think pointing out someone is online making assumptions to be one of the lowest common denominators of internet commenting. My original point wasn't even about the legality so most of your response was a straw man.

...is this Messenger by the way? Your commenting history has very similar levels of condescension and hubris to that guy.

You are being condescending to me. I haven’t been condescending to you. Let’s at least get that part straight. In fact, I have given you a lot of “likes”.

Are you seccats04? Your posting behavior, hostility, and use of innuendo are very similar. See how the guilt by implied association game works?

 

[Rembrandt90]

Even though schools typically only pay a portion of a coaches salary, why does it matter if tax payer money is involved? In other words, if you believe that the free market correctly values products and services, including labor, then why would the involvement of tax money change the value of the labor? I guess fundamentally, the question is why is someone's personal opinion on what a person should be paid more valuable than what the market says it should be?

Agree. Unless a school is funded by a state government that would actually attempt to cap university salaries, this idea is dead on arrival. It was proposed by Donna Shalala. It may seem reasonable to some people who are envious of what other people make, or who believe in a state very tightly controlled by central government, but that isn’t the way our society works.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

You are being condescending to me. I haven’t been condescending to you. Let’s at least get that part straight. In fact, I have given you a lot of “likes”.

Are you seccats04? Your posting behavior, hostility, and use of innuendo are very similar. See how the guilt by implied association game works?

I don’t know this Messenger guy, but I have seen comments about him on at least two different boards. I have seen a lot of people ask you the same question, but do not recall you giving an answer. Are you Messenger?

 

[Rembrandt90]

I don’t know this Messenger guy, but I have seen comments about him on at least two different boards. I have seen a lot of people ask you the same question, but do not recall you giving an answer. Are you Messenger?

If I understand this question, I am being asked if I am another poster. I am not. Are you?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

If I understand this question, I am being asked if I am another poster. I am not.

Thanks. To be clear, you have used other screen names here, just not Messenger.

 

[Rembrandt90]

Thanks. To be clear, you have used other screen names here, just not Messenger.

That is untrue. To be clear. But the distraction from the subject of the thread to try to make the dialog personal and negative is typical. Not interested.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

That is untrue. To be clear. But the distraction from the subject of the thread to try to make the dialog personal and negative is typical. Not interested.

Then don’t do it.

My perspective is that you are a rather sensitive person who accuses others of wrongdoing repeatedly.

My recollection is that you were exposed at some point in the past of having more than one screen name. If I am mistaken about that, I apologize.

 

[rqarnold]

That might be true to an extent when it comes to state governments but not federal. Even state governments shouldn't try to cap salaries. And there is absolutely no evidence that coaches salaries are costing tax payers anything. The Athletic departments return money to the school not siphon off it. If UK had to down grade education to cover Calipari's salary then I would be against paying him what we do. But even if that were the case that's a decision for the university and not politicians who are totally unfamiliar with the university's budget.

And I won't get into the fallacy of salary caps and how they don't even work since that we trigger a long drawn out discussion on free markets. And that would hijack this thread which I hate when that happens, so I won't do it.

There is a small number of athletic programs that “return money to the school”. UK just happens to be in that minority. It just so happens to be the ONLY program in the state that does so. Even UL uses tax dollars to fund their program. Schools like WKU, EKU, et al regularly see over half their athletics budgets come from the university general fund...which includes tax dollars.
Salary caps can very much limit the taxpayer exposure to coaching salaries. If schools have and can fund from outside sources, go for it.

 

[Poetax]

Well as the father who just had his last kid graduate from college I think it’s obscene what these coaches make and the students see increases year after year. Frankly wonder what most of the coaches could accomplish in “ real life”?
Some can’t put 2 sentences together

It’s a difficult situation for sure, you don’t want to suppress someone’s ability to make a lot of money but you don’t want them to break the bank either. The one point though that could solve the problem is to hold any entity that receives taxpayer’s money to have ceilings on any position or job pay under their jurisdiction. The open market could do anything they want as far as how much they want to paid. The facts of the matter is this, the general public will pay for any increases in salaries in the educational fields and government agencies. Coaches and those who fall under this or any others that could be included should still be able to receive income from any other sources outside the entity that they work for. I would think the general public would be ok with that scenario.

 

[Rembrandt90]

Then don’t do it.

My perspective is that you are a rather sensitive person who accuses others of wrongdoing repeatedly.

My recollection is that you were exposed at some point in the past of having more than one screen name. If I am mistaken about that, I apologize.

You are mistaken. Please stop accusing others of exercising your tactics, and please focus on UK football.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

You are mistaken. Please stop accusing others of exercising your tactics, and please focus on UK football.

ROFL

Rembrandt, if that is your real name, you are not a young man. You should not be this sensitive.

 

[Rembrandt90]

There is a small number of athletic programs that “return money to the school”. UK just happens to be in that minority. It just so happens to be the ONLY program in the state that does so. Even UL uses tax dollars to fund their program. Schools like WKU, EKU, et al regularly see over half their athletics budgets come from the university general fund...which includes tax dollars.
Salary caps can very much limit the taxpayer exposure to coaching salaries. If schools have and can fund from outside sources, go for it.

It is true that UK athletic programs pay a “tax” to the Dean that goes top support other UK academic departments. This was mandated by UK’s Board. In many schools, departments pay “taxes” to the Dean. But I don’t know how many athletic departments do.

The UL situation is interesting because there is at least an appearance that UL may have diverted public money to violate NCAA rules, which would be a criminal conspiracy. At one time, a state prosecutor was looking at this. He couldn’t find enough evidence to prosecute. But that was while Jurich was still there, and it doesn’t mean a crime was not committed. I think UL is on several short leashed at once, and an NCAA investigation continues.

 

[Rembrandt90]

ROFL

Rembrandt, if that is your real name, you are not a young man. You should not be this sensitive.

Has nothing to do with being sensitive. You love to argue and start fights, and you are relentless in baiting people. Please do it somewhere else. Not interested.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Has nothing to do with being sensitive. You love to argue and start fights, and you are relentless in baiting people. Please do it somewhere else. Not interested.

Sensitive people are sensitive about being called sensitive. I knew that. So, I take full blame in your denial. I should have just let you be the victim. It is what you do best. Carry on.

 

[Levibooty]

Even though schools typically only pay a portion of a coaches salary, why does it matter if tax payer money is involved? In other words, if you believe that the free market correctly values products and services, including labor, then why would the involvement of tax money change the value of the labor? I guess fundamentally, the question is why is someone's personal opinion on what a person should be paid more valuable than what the market says it should be?

The assumption here is that people believe the free market correctly values anything. I for one don't. The free market certainly misses on the value of heroin for example. Just because fools place a value on something doesn't mean it has productive value. This mentality is what happens in a society that makes money its god.

 

[Levibooty]

Not a nerve. I just think pointing out someone is online making assumptions to be one of the lowest common denominators of internet commenting. My original point wasn't even about the legality so most of your response was a straw man.

...is this Messenger by the way? Your commenting history has very similar levels of condescension and hubris to that guy.

There is some truth in this.

 

[Levibooty]

That is untrue. To be clear. But the distraction from the subject of the thread to try to make the dialog personal and negative is typical. Not interested.

I hope you remember this and I also hope you noticed my "like" of your post.

 

[Levibooty]

There is a small number of athletic programs that “return money to the school”. UK just happens to be in that minority. It just so happens to be the ONLY program in the state that does so. Even UL uses tax dollars to fund their program. Schools like WKU, EKU, et al regularly see over half their athletics budgets come from the university general fund...which includes tax dollars.
Salary caps can very much limit the taxpayer exposure to coaching salaries. If schools have and can fund from outside sources, go for it.

Kudos to you sir, you can see the big picture.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

The assumption here is that people believe the free market correctly values anything. I for one don't. The free market certainly misses on the value of heroin for example. Just because fools place a value on something doesn't mean it has productive value. This mentality is what happens in a society that makes money its god.

The value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it. What would you logically replace the market’s value for labor with?

 

[jauk11]

The assumption here is that people believe the free market correctly values anything. I for one don't. The free market certainly misses on the value of heroin for example. Just because fools place a value on something doesn't mean it has productive value. This mentality is what happens in a society that makes money its god.

Well said.

 

[zannmann]

They need to outlaw the ridiculous buyout clauses.

 

[Levibooty]

The value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it. What would you logically replace the market’s value for labor with?

That is economic value. There are other measures and you totally missed my point using heroin as an example. What happened here when somebody tried to triple the price of generators after an ice storm is another example of my point. When money is your god you see nothing else.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

That is economic value. There are other measures and you totally missed my point using heroin as an example. What happened here when somebody tried to triple the price of generators after an ice storm is another example of my point. When money is your god you see nothing else.

I didn’t miss your point. It just wasn’t very good. The transaction between a coach and a school is an economic transaction. Heroin has an economic value for people who are using it to get high. They are all economic transactions governed by the value the market places on them. Government can’t make the market go away. The laws of economics will still apply irrespective of what government does.

I asked you a simple question as to what you would replace it with and you didn’t answer except to say there are other measures. What are they and what would you use?

 

[TBCat]

They need to outlaw the ridiculous buyout clauses.

I'm against absurd buy out clauses but that's not for the government. The AD needs to not enter into contracts that are bad for the school. The idea that an organization that is 20 trillion in debt is going to make wise decisions for universities that they aren't even familiar with is ridiculous. And why should all schools have to live under new constraints because a few are poorly run.