What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Highest Paid State Employee by State

El Gringo

Something witty and clever
Club Member
Sorry if this has already been posted. I didn't see it, and didn't want to search for it.

To no ones surprise, football coaches in a majority of states are the highest paid state employee. Its also no surprise that some states' highest paid employee is the basketball coach - Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky. Then there are others that I do find a bit surprising. The highest paid employee in what I would consider football states - California, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida - is a basketball coach.

The commentary by Deadspin is biased against high-paid coaches, but does account for the fact that much (most) of the money that goes to the coaches does not come from the state (but endorsements, media shows, etc.).

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

Map:

k-bigpic.png
 
and New Hampshire, ****ing Canada lovers.

Edited quickly, but bot quick enough. Ah, that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you mistook Vermont for New Hampshire and you're surrounded by assholes who like to point out mistakes.
 
The commentary by Deadspin is biased against high-paid coaches, but does account for the fact that much (most) of the money that goes to the coaches does not come from the state (but endorsements, media shows, etc.).

This angle of the article had me confused though.

He starts out with this, almost as a disclaimer:

So are my hard-earned tax dollars paying these coaches?
Probably not. The bulk of this coaching money—especially at the big football schools—is paid out of the revenue that the teams generate.


But then he comes back later trying to make this point:

Far exceeding these base salaries is the "additional compensation" that almost all of these coaches receive, which is tied to media appearances, apparel contracts, and fundraising. While this compensation does not come directly from the state fund it is guaranteed in the coaches' contracts; if revenue falls short, the school—and thus the state—is on the hook to cover the difference. Plus, even it doesn't come directly from taxpayers, this compensation is still problematic for all the reasons listed above.


I'm just confused about what point he was trying to make. He admits at the beginning that most coaches aren't getting paid with state money, then he tries to come in at the end and say that in an indirect way that they are, or could be getting state funds--I'm not sure if he knows what he's saying there.

So you're right, there's a bias. The map's cool and interesting, than it seemed like he wanted to make this an article about the evils of college athletics and never really explained how this map proves it.



 
Edited quickly, but bot quick enough. Ah, that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you mistook Vermont for New Hampshire and you're surrounded by assholes who like to point out mistakes.

I almost wondered if I should change it. Is there really a difference between the two states? It is like North and South Dakota. Same state.
 
this part is stupid:

f you take out "contributions and donations"—some of which might have gone to the universities had they not been lavished on the athletic departments—this drops to an average loss of $17 million

First that is a wild assumption that absolutely does not take into the fact that a portion of those contributions and donations come for a seat donation that is made to buy the seats themselves.
 
I heard that Bama went from an AD that earned a little over $60 million a year with a profit of under $10 million before Saban got there... to a $100+ million AD that profited around $50 million today. If anything, Nicky Satan is underpaid.
 
Edited quickly, but bot quick enough. Ah, that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize you mistook Vermont for New Hampshire and you're surrounded by assholes who like to point out mistakes.

False. No difference Vermont and Rhode Island.

Semper Gumby
 
Gino Auriemma $$$$$ > Jim Calhoun $$$$

images
 
It's kind of hard to rally around a math class.

Great comment, but it was plagiarized..........from "the Bear." http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5613612

The rebuttal analysis should show dollar amount per capita of scholarship money granted to student athletes.
The faction that is anti-athletic seems to conveniently ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars that college athletic departments continue to pump back into higher education at a time when state funding is in decline.
 
Your comments refer pretty much to a very small number of universities in the big picture. Most schools that compete do not "pump back into higher education."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...pend-more-on-athletes-than-education/1837721/

The USA article you posted misses an important point. NCAA members spend a material chunk of their revenue to fund scholarships. NCAA members provide more than $1.5 billion in athletics scholarships annually amongst the 450,000 student athletes that participate in NCAA sports. Even those who walk on are benefitting from academic services.

If there is a larger single non governmental contributor to higher ed in terms of dollars and numbers of scholarships granted to college students in America that spends more on scholarships than NCAA participating athletic departments, feel free to point that out.
 
The USA article you posted misses an important point. NCAA members spend a material chunk of their revenue to fund scholarships. NCAA members provide more than $1.5 billion in athletics scholarships annually amongst the 450,000 student athletes that participate in NCAA sports. Even those who walk on are benefitting from academic services.

If there is a larger single non governmental contributor to higher ed in terms of dollars and numbers of scholarships granted to college students in America that spends more on scholarships than NCAA participating athletic departments, feel free to point that out.

Your point is a narrow one. I am not certain what you conclude if what you say is correct. But in order to understand the subject completely, the widening gap between the worlds of athletes and coaches and students and scholars you might read "The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values" by Shulman and Bowen. Money is important but it is not everything.
 
Your point is a narrow one. I am not certain what you conclude if what you say is correct. But in order to understand the subject completely, the widening gap between the worlds of athletes and coaches and students and scholars you might read "The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values" by Shulman and Bowen. Money is important but it is not everything.

I assert that the premise of "The Game of Life" is shallow. The authors argue that today's student athletes have lower academic scores than their predecessors in the 1970's and other eras. The leadership skills taught by athletics don't necessarily translate into skills needed to succeed following their audition to become pro athletes. The authors go so ridiculously far as to recommend cutting coaches salaries to bring universities back to their core academic missions.

Guess what Shulman and Bowen don't tackle? They don't argue the supremacy of colleges and universities that choose to forego NCAA athletics. Lots of schools choose not to play already. Among them are brainy places like the U of Chicago, MIT, Emery or Harvey Mudd. There are hundreds more institutions with religious or liberal arts or other niches and no big athletic departments (Knox or Westminster or Oberland). There are on-line colleges like DeVry and University of Phoenix. The market has a place for the overly athletic-centric like Alabama or Oklahoma State, the apex athletic/academic like Stanford, and the academic first institutions like Rice or Vanderbilt and Northwestern. The system we have offers something for everyone. Who do they think they are to defy Americans passion for college sports being played at levels never reached before?

There are factors influencing higher ed driven by remote teaching, the internet and digital delivery. Governmental financial aid programs have driven up tuition up by saturating admissions offices with students holding billions of dollars of low interest debt.

The whole mission of higher ed has shifted, as theology and history programs of the 1920's gave way to sciences and economics of the 1960's to the high tech and business based curriculum of today. College presidents run a big business that offer education plus a life experience with access to a network of alumni. The point of higher ed isn't ivory tower academic research. Universities are business, just as are the athletic departments. Who cares if athletes have lower SAT scores than some film studies or psychology major who might never find a job in the same field as their degree?

You can find more types of degrees and departments than ever. You argue that athletes are less equipped now to succeed after graduation? Well, what about the sociology major who works retail? Or the woman's studies graduate working tables?Or how about the business major who has never studied philosophy who will earn less in some cubicle that his brother the welder and friend the plumber?

The fact is that college sports is firmly rooted in American culture. Your Game of Life authors should be content letting Michigan be Michigan, big house and all. The thing about college athletics is that the net result is a Darwinian process that ensures survival of the fittest. If Northwestern or Colorado or Maryland or CSU are relegated to the margin, it's just the market working.

College athletics is so much more than the $1.5 billion scholarships earned by thousands of student athletes. It's the fight song and colors and tradition that ties grandfathers to grandsons. It's who we are.
 
Great post skiddy but you kinda lost me at the end. You kinda kill your own argument a bit.
 
Wow! It was a great argument. I was particularly impressed with the evolution of higher education fitting into the evolving needs of the modern world. And the observation about who we are is sensational. But I don't remember the book as ignoring the schools that don't field athletic teams. In fact my memory is just the opposite. The study focuses on ALL students and the participation in sports along with the academics. Schools like Michigan has a much smaller percentage of students participating in sports than, say, Williams or Middlebury.

There is a good argument that Michigan or Alabama should remain what they are and Williams keeps the same focus it has always had. But those of us from the classic liberal arts tradition will always believe the student that attends one of the small liberal arts schools and plays intramural sports will always be better off than the Alabama student that goes to class and just attends the football games.
 
Wow! It was a great argument. I was particularly impressed with the evolution of higher education fitting into the evolving needs of the modern world. And the observation about who we are is sensational. But I don't remember the book as ignoring the schools that don't field athletic teams. In fact my memory is just the opposite. The study focuses on ALL students and the participation in sports along with the academics. Schools like Michigan has a much smaller percentage of students participating in sports than, say, Williams or Middlebury.

There is a good argument that Michigan or Alabama should remain what they are and Williams keeps the same focus it has always had. But those of us from the classic liberal arts tradition will always believe the student that attends one of the small liberal arts schools and plays intramural sports will always be better off than the Alabama student that goes to class and just attends the football games.

Both Alabama and Michigan offer intramural sports. A participant in intramurals at a BCS school may argue that they are better off having the best of both worlds. There is nothing wrong with having the option of playing intramural sports AND attending six home football games on campus.

Participation in intramurals is fleeting, with the experience generally limited to your time on campus. The number of Williams alumni that rally around a campus intramural league tournament in hoops or softball is going to small.

The number of Michigan or Alabama fans who show up for football games during or after their time as students is large. I imagine that a number of alumni at big BCS schools talk about their fond memories of legendary intramural accomplishments at the tail gate party. Where do William alumni go to network and talk about their college experience, and when Williams alumni gather, do those events have as much energy and excitement as game day?

Less than 2 percent of most BCS level student bases are scholarship athletes. The small population of elite student athletes are offered the opportunity to showcase their skills at legendary events and venues. Many of these athletes who don't play football or basketball will not be on television and will seldom have thousands of adoring fans cheering them on. A fortunate few of theses college athletes will leverage their access to coaching and facilities to pursue an Olympic dream or attempt a career as a professional athlete.

The opportunity afforded to Emma Coburn to compete at the highest levels and travel around the world to run and jump can not be easily replicated at Williams.

Big colleges are not for everyone. But they are very good at allowing supporting student athletes who dare to dream big and who need a support environment to nurture those dreams and help make them come true.

And behind these best of the best are these highest paid state employees who happen to be directly or indirectly supporting them by delivering college football, basketball, hockey, and in the case of Nevada plastic surgery, that people pay money to watch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kal's whole argument (as that of the authors of the tomes referenced) is based almost solely upon envy: "Athletics gots more money than I (or who I think should have it) gots".

The market dictates the amount of money paid to each "public" employee, based upon market value, rather than upon some philosopher-king's determination of value, to the woeful distress of wanna-be philosopher-kings (such as Kal) everywhere. For me, the highest paid public employee is any professor of women's studies who's paid a dollar or more: money paid, but no value received.
 
Kal's whole argument (as that of the authors of the tomes referenced) is based almost solely upon envy: "Athletics gots more money than I (or who I think should have it) gots".

The market dictates the amount of money paid to each "public" employee, based upon market value, rather than upon some philosopher-king's determination of value, to the woeful distress of wanna-be philosopher-kings (such as Kal) everywhere. For me, the highest paid public employee is any professor of women's studies who's paid a dollar or more: money paid, but no value received.

My argument is based upon money but most certainly NOT based upon envy. I would argue that the Penn State scandal largely occurred because of the culture of big time athletics, television and a celebrity society. Clearly these are topics too large to air out in this sort of forum. But I attended a big time school and we won the national championship my senior year (football). I had a classmate, Allen Sack, who has become a professor and has written extensively on this subject. Let me say simply that I subscribe to the attempts of Dr. Sack to point out the need for balance in sports and athletics and that balance has been tilted in recent years. I would also note another classmate, Alan Page, who has spent much of his adult life trying to escape the image of himself as nothing more than a college and NFL star.
 
Back
Top