John Calipari will make 3.7 million dollars next season as the coach of the University of Kentucky.
It just seems outrageous to me because it is a public institution.
It just seems outrageous to me because it is a public institution.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
UMass Cuts Ski Team
- Thread starter askstowell
- Start date
And only $400k of that comes from the university directly. The rest comes from "other sources" For what its worth UK athletics don't take any taxpayer money as they are run as a separate entity financially from the university. In big time athletics thats the way its done.
As far as UMass it probably will not be the last cut, my guess is another sport might go next year. And about the professor that made $631k - a large part of that is grant money so the number is a bit skewed.
Warp Daddy
Active member
Not ENTIRELY accurate . In today's modern UNIVERSITY there is a notion of "all funds accounting " Thus what you say is certainly a part of the picture but not the whole picture . STATE FUNDS may pay $400K BUT Foundations are of any stripe be it the UK foundation , any Booster foundation etc are IDENTIFIED .
Most athletic budgets are generated off a combination of student generated fees AND athletic DONATIONS and as was debated YESTERDAY on TV JUST before the NCAA tipoff by a number of UNiversity Presidents notably Penn State , Ohio State , U of Hartford and several others IN NEED OF CHANGE as a prioity as $$$$ to foundations have eroded from market decline AS AS ISSUES THAT ARE DETRACTING from support of teh central ACADEMIC mission of any University . So the issue will certainly evolve and change and probably result in A CONTRACTION of athletics at MANY schools .
This is a problem that has gotten entirely out of hand and needs to be RIGHT sized
riverc0il
New member
Give Warp an Amen on this one!! It looks like UMass is right sizing the issue by cutting the smaller programs. Same as other schools as previously mentioned. The University I work at has not cut any programs and are currently on track to open a new athletics facility in the not so distant future (though not immediate either). But our Univerity's athletic program does not live and die by big game attendance.
I have never liked the idea of college students as professional athletes. Which those that get shown on prime time TV essentially are even though their "payment" comes in the form of full boat scholarships, fame, and visibility to the pro teams. But everyone that makes a bracket is culpable as these folks along with Vegas make the demand which feeds the process. Where there is demand and potential revenue, you can be sure man kind will create supply and profit. Unless it is regulated.....
Warp Daddy
Active member
Steve are you with Plymouth State and is it a D3 school ?
riverc0il
New member
Pretty sure it is D3, yea. Though the ski team took home some big honors this year at the finals out west. Can't recall specifics.
threecy
New member
It is too bad in that the ski program was probably one of the lowest cost ski programs around...they've been able to work out excellent deals with their home mountain for almost half a century.
SIKSKIER
New member
Some of the best almost 2 years of my life were spent in Grafton dorm.Uugghh.I can't really remember.
riverc0il
New member
This is actually the least expensive part of fielding a team. Most teams work out cheap local options for training. When I was at UML, we even received five days of free training as an act of good will from Black Mtn one year.
The big money is in loading up two or three University vans every week and paying for gas to and from ski areas and then paying for two nights of lodging for the entire team. Counting coaches, that is 30 people for a full team with back up racers. Add in food and a race weekend gets very expensive very quickly not even counting lift tickets (even with a discount). Local practice options are usually the cheapest part of the entire season.
When I was at UML, we paid something like $300-350/pp/per year as a club sport so that was not counting University club fund or fund raising. For a sport with no revenue (i.e. ticket sales and merchandise), it is quite expensive. Downgrading from sport to club means the members have to buck up to help pay for the season.
mondeo
New member
Coaches are worth the money for the big D-I programs. In college, coaches are the program. Get rid of Calhoun at UConn and you either bring in another top notch coach or lose that revenue stream as you're no longer able to recruit top level players. I've gotta say it was kinda refreshing to hear his response to that question; so used to polished public comments that a little honesty is nice every once in a while. He could easily get more money going somewhere else (as is the case with a lot of college coaches) but he chose to stay at UConn.
As far as college students as professional athletes, it's a mixed bag. Basketball's a great example. If you don't use them to bring in revenue, then there isn't much motivation to give scholarships. Without scholarships, a lot of the inner city kids that play D1 don't go to college. The stars that go on to the NBA are the exception; a lot of other kids use it as a path out of poverty. Lose the massive revenue stream that D1 hoops brings in and you take away that opportunity.
As far as college students as professional athletes, it's a mixed bag. Basketball's a great example. If you don't use them to bring in revenue, then there isn't much motivation to give scholarships. Without scholarships, a lot of the inner city kids that play D1 don't go to college. The stars that go on to the NBA are the exception; a lot of other kids use it as a path out of poverty. Lose the massive revenue stream that D1 hoops brings in and you take away that opportunity.
drjeff
Well-known member
And they do. I'm pretty certain that atleast at UCONN, if it wasn't for Randy Edsall and the Football team and Jim Calhoun and the Men's hoops team and to a lesser extent, Geno Auriema and the Women's hoops team, you'd see/hear of more funding issues for athletics(and I'm talking both intercollegiate athletics AND on campus all student acces facilities).
Whether or like it or not, modern day, large sport, nationally prominent athletic programs are an integral part of many universities out there as a source of funding both from conference/TV revenues, alumni "loyalty" donations, and also as a source of university name promotion for potential students. I've gotten into this debate with my in-laws many times over (FIL is a retired prof/department head at Boston University, MIL is a retired prof at UMASS Boston and SIL is currently on faculty at Duke{although considering leaving Duke for Princeton}) Let's just say that expecially with my MIL and SIL, they're not fans of college athletics and the debates we've had have been quite interesting. My FIL, loves college athletics, but after having had to teach many "complete and total idiots" that were part of the Boston University Hockey Team over the years, he can talk up both sides of the debate very well.
No real good answer to this one, except that it sucks for the UMASS ski team
jaywbigred
Active member
Totally sucks for the Umass team.
I love th Ohio State story, where the men's football and basketball teams are run in the model of a business to earn revenue that allows those 2 sports to earn enough money (along with other athletic department licensing and such) to pay all their own expenses (including servicing debt on their new arenas and renovations), plus cover the budget shortfalls for the other 34 "non-revenue" varsity teams (most in the country), and have enough leftover to give money to support academics at the university, e.g. renovation of the library.
Story from the WSJ from aways back:
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/Vi...305306&SPID=10402&DB_OEM_ID=17300&SPSID=87726
I love th Ohio State story, where the men's football and basketball teams are run in the model of a business to earn revenue that allows those 2 sports to earn enough money (along with other athletic department licensing and such) to pay all their own expenses (including servicing debt on their new arenas and renovations), plus cover the budget shortfalls for the other 34 "non-revenue" varsity teams (most in the country), and have enough leftover to give money to support academics at the university, e.g. renovation of the library.
Story from the WSJ from aways back:
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/Vi...305306&SPID=10402&DB_OEM_ID=17300&SPSID=87726
Geoff
Well-known member
So UMass should build a 101,568 seat football stadium and get John Calipari back to coach the basketball team?
threecy
New member
Sometimes yes, sometimes not so much - depends upon the school, its location, and the home mountain. I probably shouldn't go into specifics, but they had had a very good deal probably for the last 50 years. They even have a trail named after the school at their home mountain. Their long time coach (who retired I believe half a decade ago or so) was also instrumental in trail improvements at said ski area.
Absolutely a big expense, but once again it depends upon the school, its location, and home mountain. Some schools' home mountains may host quite a few races they participate in, thus minimizing the travel, food, lodging, and ticket/racing expenses.
The latter was not so much the case for UMass in recent years, but for many years both were the case, thus making their program relatively low cost as compared to other schools.
Mind you, I'm not saying UMass made a bad move by cutting the team (nor am I saying they made a good move). When it comes down to it, I believe public universities should focus on academics. In the face of budgetary problems, extras should be the first to go. Was the ski team really a large expense, as compared to things UMass throws money at? Not at all, but that's a whole different discussion.
jaywbigred
Active member
If UMass students/alumni supported their football and basketball teams the way they support the Red Sox and Pats, this would work, yes.
mondeo
New member
Columbus is the largest city in Ohio, and doesn't have any professional sports teams.
Springfield isn't even a quarter the size of Columbus, and Boston has plenty of other options.
The sports programs that really bring in money are the ones where there aren't professional teams as options.
Columbus does have a professional hockey team and I disagree with your statement regarding college teams doing well only if pro teams are absent.
It's a cultural thing and has very little to do with the presence of a pro sports team. I say this as a former resident of Ohio. They've got not one, but two pro football teams and yet you can walk up to those stadiums during any home game and get tickets for below face value. Both of those teams are less than two hours drive from metro Columbus. You want Buckeye tickets? Plan on paying $350.
Michigan same thing even though there are four pro sports teams in Detroit. There are numerous other examples.
Warp Daddy
Active member
good point s USC UCLA ND Florida State , Miami etc etc etc etc
riverc0il
New member
I can't think of many major NE teams that don't have a nearby home mountain that would cut a good deal on night skiing rates.... pretty much every College or University fielding a ski program has a night skiing option within a half hour or less or their own home mountain very near the campus for some of the better teams.
jaywbigred
Active member
Well said guys. Its cultural, and to me it makes sense. Going to OSU for law school really opened my eyes. Whereas I have virtually no connection with guys who play for the Devils and Giants and Yankees, my connection to guys who played on the OSU football team was more real. Lots of them were Ohio boys, everyone lives in Columbus together, we walk around the same campus, and (many of them) will have a diploma sitting on their walls for the rest of their life from the same institution that I do. Its easy to root for them.
It saddens me that schools like UMass and Rutgers, big state schools in areas rife with athletic talent, can't do more to engender local and statewide interest in their sports, thus producing revenue and helping the university, the local economy, and the school's overall image.
I believe strongly that college is NOT just about academics. In fact, I believe that those things learned in the classroom make up a very small fraction of all the important things you learn in college. College athletics thus are an integral part of the college experience that binds both the athletes and fans together in a special way that enhances the college experience.
Just my 2 cents. A real loss for Umass.
Similar threads
