Highest Paid Public Employees by State

[berzerker60]

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

Not really trying to make any particular partisan point here, I just think it's an interesting graph showing our priorities and values. Personally, I also think it's a good case for paying student athletes. They're putting their bodies at risk, unlike the coaches, and since they're forbidden from taking jobs during scholarships, lots of them are pretty much dead broke.

Your tax dollars at work! (Sort of - actually not usually since, as the article mentions, the funds usually come out of the revenues from the sports programs)

 

[gevorg]

too bad the whole world prefers football over handegg

 

[ivwshane]

I think what the chart gets at is that our priorities are pretty fucked up!

But it certainly makes sense when you consider that, as a whole, Americans have the "my team versus your team" mentality (most obviously seen in politics).

 

[Gooberlx2]

Definitely not surprising. Taken as a singular business, Michigan's football program would be worth ~$400 million, and they're only ranked #6.
http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/1...ting-reveals-winners-losers/PARAMS/post/30084

College sports are big big business.

 

[Wreckem]

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

Not really trying to make any particular partisan point here, I just think it's an interesting graph showing our priorities and values. Personally, I also think it's a good case for paying student athletes. They're putting their bodies at risk, unlike the coaches, and since they're forbidden from taking jobs during scholarships, lots of them are pretty much dead broke.

Your tax dollars at work! (Sort of - actually not usually since, as the article mentions, the funds usually come out of the revenues from the sports programs)

Most of a coaches contract comes from boosters and endorsement deals.

 

[ElFenix]

football and men's basketball pay for themselves. further, boosters are more likely to write big checks to the academic side when happy and liquored up after a winning football game.

it's all the other sports (and some hollywood accounting) that makes athletics departments run in the red.

that said, if the colleges would tell the bowls to piss off, they'd be making even more money.

 

[Brainonska511]

football and men's basketball pay for themselves. further, boosters are more likely to write big checks to the academic side when happy and liquored up after a winning football game.

it's all the other sports (and some hollywood accounting) that makes athletics departments run in the red.

that said, if the colleges would tell the bowls to piss off, they'd be making even more money.

I'm highly skeptical of that claim: www.sportsmanagementresources.com/library/is-football-basketball-self-supporting

 

[berzerker60]

Yeah, very very few football programs are actually self-supporting. The NCAA really, really needs to cut down the scholarship limit dramatically from 85 to near the NFL max active roster of ~50, which at a scholarship cost of ~$32k/yr is north of $1m/team/yr.
Use the savings to pay for the athletics programs and any left over to pay the athletes risking their bodies and banned from taking on side jobs.

 

[dullard]

Your tax dollars at work! (Sort of - actually not usually since, as the article mentions, the funds usually come out of the revenues from the sports programs)

So if I am nearly bankrupt, have a house in foreclosure, massive credit card bills, student loans up to my eyeballs, and I am applying for government aid then it is okay for me to buy $200 bottles of wine at a restaurant (assuming I work as a dish washer since the funds came from revenues from a restaurant)?

Sub-dividing my income, no matter how I do it, doesn't justify excessive spending.

 

[mikegg]

http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228

Not really trying to make any particular partisan point here, I just think it's an interesting graph showing our priorities and values. Personally, I also think it's a good case for paying student athletes. They're putting their bodies at risk, unlike the coaches, and since they're forbidden from taking jobs during scholarships, lots of them are pretty much dead broke.

Your tax dollars at work! (Sort of - actually not usually since, as the article mentions, the funds usually come out of the revenues from the sports programs)

Actually, college tuitions are skyrocketing. Professors are less. Schools are hiring more "administrators" and laying off more professors while charging students 2-3x more than just a couple of years ago.

 

[berzerker60]

So if I am nearly bankrupt, have a house in foreclosure, massive credit card bills, student loans up to my eyeballs, and I am applying for government aid then it is okay for me to buy $200 bottles of wine at a restaurant (assuming I work as a dish washer since the funds came from revenues from a restaurant)?

Sub-dividing my income, no matter how I do it, doesn't justify excessive spending.

This analogy doesn't make any sense. The colleges aren't effectively spending any money on the coaches - they spend a lot of football/basketball, but then (in the ideal case) make up that revenue through ticket sales and TV contracts.

A better one analogy would be if a homeless shelter started an outreach program paying a prize chef $1 million/yr to make fancy "to go" dinners, which ultimately paid for the chef's salary because wealthy donors bought these dinners. The program raised the profile of the homeless shelter and maybe attracted general donations, but didn't actually generally help (or terribly hurt) the kitchen as a whole otherwise, becoming a kind of strange combination of high-end restaurant and homeless shelter. The combo didn't make much sense together, but homeless shelters are worthwhile and people enjoy eating well, so it stuck around.

But then this became the standard, and every homeless shelter was expected to have a restaurant attached, even though 90% of those restaurants were money holes. That's the sad reality of college sports today - they actually suck money away from colleges, while still not really being clearly aligned with the primary goals of higher education.

 

[DesiPower]

Oh wow look, people in the entertainment industry making the most... what a surprise!

 

[davmat787]

They are the highest paid because their programs are cash cows for the university. More often than not they support their own program as well as programs like womens volleyball, field hockey, .etc. Programs that lose money that is. Below is a link to the top 10 most profitable programs.

The University of Texas football program made over $68 million in profit. A well known head coach is a boon for recruiting, and college sports are all about recruiting the top players. Ergo, top head coaches easily command top dollar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas

I am not sure, but I don't think these figures include money from TV deals, since those are per conference usually, then divided per school and that money can then be used to support programs that don't pay for themselves.

 

[Acanthus]

Actually, college tuitions are skyrocketing. Professors are less. Schools are hiring more "administrators" and laying off more professors while charging students 2-3x more than just a couple of years ago.

Yup class sizes are up, class variety is down, professor pay is flat, and admin costs are way way up. I'll try to find links.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

They are the highest paid because their programs are cash cows for the university. More often than not they support their own program as well as programs like womens volleyball, field hockey, .etc. Programs that lose money that is. Below is a link to the top 10 most profitable programs.

The University of Texas football program made over $68 million in profit. A well known head coach is a boon for recruiting, and college sports are all about recruiting the top players. Ergo, top head coaches easily command top dollar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas

I am not sure, but I don't think these figures include money from TV deals, since those are per conference usually, then divided per school and that money can then be used to support programs that don't pay for themselves.

In the future you might want to read the other links posted to avoid looking foolish.

 

[Vic Vega]

Most of these schools rely on the revenue from sports to function. I don't have a problem with this.

 

[Vic Vega]

too bad the whole world prefers football over handegg

The whole world can't afford to play hand egg, Americans can so we do.

Soccer is for little kids and poor countries.

 

[berzerker60]

They are the highest paid because their programs are cash cows for the university. More often than not they support their own program as well as programs like womens volleyball, field hockey, .etc. Programs that lose money that is. Below is a link to the top 10 most profitable programs.

The University of Texas football program made over $68 million in profit. A well known head coach is a boon for recruiting, and college sports are all about recruiting the top players. Ergo, top head coaches easily command top dollar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas

I am not sure, but I don't think these figures include money from TV deals, since those are per conference usually, then divided per school and that money can then be used to support programs that don't pay for themselves.

Very few universities have profitable athletic divisions and many lose money on football and basketball.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578169472607407806.html

Historically, only a fraction of college athletic departments support themselves. To break even, most rely on student fees and support from the school's general fund. Of the 120 athletic departments in college football's top division in 2011, only 19% reported a profit. The profitable schools generally have one thing in common: big-time football. Ohio State University's football team, for instance, earns more than 70% of the revenue generated by all the school's teams. (In most cases, those profits are spent solely on athletics, including others sports; very few schools divert football money to academics).

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/fam...-football-wont-say-1317598414326/#articleTabs

And some of the country's best football teams do earn millions each year for their schools. But the vast majority don't, especially since the recession. Last year, 42% of the teams in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1A), lost money, according to a NCAA report prepared by Fulks. How much did they lose? A whopping $2.9 million, on average. (In comparison, the 69 money-making football programs brought in a median of $9.1 million, with at least one school generating as much as $65 million.)

...

When public universities build a fancy new stadium, it's often taxpayers who get stuck with the bill. About half of the roughly $280 million cost of the University of Minnesota's 50,000-seat TCF Bank Stadium, completed in 2009, came from the state's general fund, which supports a number of projects that aren't specifically allocated for in other state funds, at an annual rate of about $10 million per year for roughly 25 years, according to documents from the state legislature. Heinz Field, where the University of Pittsburgh's Panther football team plays, cost taxpayers $196 million, and Lincoln Financial Field, where Temple Owls play cost taxpayers $181 million (both teams share the field with a pro sports team), according to Brad Humphreys, an economics professor specializing in sports finance at the University of Alberta. The universities could not be reached for comment.
...
Not only are many college football bowl games set up as non-profit entities, which gives them advantageous tax status, they also get subsidies from the state. In recent years, the state of Louisiana has subsidized the Sugar Bowl to the tune of about $1.3 million per year, according to research into their IRS statements by Playoff PAC, which advocates for a playoff system in college football. The Orange Bowl has received subsidies from state and local government worth $600,000 and $1 million per year, and the city of Tempe, Ariz., will subsidize the Fiesta Bowl with nearly $1 million this year, the organization says.

Athletics is not a source of revenue for the vast majority of universities, it's a money sink. Whether it's worth it or not it up to you, but they're doing the universities no favors outside of a few fringe cases.

 

[Matt1970]

^^^ Your two stories seem to conflict.

 

[berzerker60]

The first discusses athletic departments (all sports), the second one is about football specifically. Also, one's from 2011, the other 2012, so they're reporting on different years.

 

[piasabird]

People want football.
Football Sells Tickets.
Tickets sales fund colleges.

 

[berzerker60]

Ticket sales don't fund colleges.

 

[Bean7]

Football rules the United States

 

[jagec]

I think what the chart gets at is that our priorities are pretty fucked up!

Seriously. Some states are REALLY overpaying their deans/college presidents.

No wonder their sports programs suck so much.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Why are coaches paid so much?

It's as if your educational institutions were merely fronts for sports teams.











Oh, wait...