<p>*“If you put too much value on a program, it starts to swallow the university. It starts to guide the moral compass."</p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly. Think Penn State. *</p>
<p>I may be one of the few that think this way, but I don’t think that’s why things happened at PSU. If so, then why do bad things often go unquestioned/unreported in the regular world? I really think that many people (sexist alert: often men) don’t like reporting/telling about the bad things they see or learn about. </p>
<p>Have you ever watched that show, “What Would You Do?” ??? Often the men sit around and do nothing when something horrid is going on right in front of them…it’s often the women who get involved. The men in those shows aren’t “held back” by a misguided sports-crazy moral compass…they are held back by something else…the desire not to “get involved.”</p>
<p>I think if a bunch of women had known what was going on, the PSU thing would have been very different.</p>
<p>*Sure, but that doesn’t come from the university budget. That’s a different thing from the university signing the check. *</p>
<p>Again…these coaches’ salaries aren’t really coming from the “university budget”. Those high salaries are paid thru the athletic depts who get their money from ticket sales, donors, and (big money) from CBS, ABC and ESPN sports. </p>
<p>When schools agree to these large salaries it’s because they’ve “done the math.” They realize that for every dollar that they agree to, the school/athletic dept is going to get a greater return (2x? 3x? more?). When Bama first agreed to pay Nick Saban about $4M per year, people gasped. But, for every one million spent, Bama has probably gotten 5x in return. So, how is that “costing” the univerity ANYTHING? When it was paying the previous head coach a much lower salary, the school had a worse team and less money coming in. </p>
<p>It’s kind of like when Hollywood signs a name star for a top role. Yes, they agree to pay $XXM for that star, but they’re banking on that person’s name/talent to bring in enough money that paying out $XXM will be a fraction. They weigh two choices…use a lesser-known star and maybe only bring in $XXM or use a name and bring in $XXXM. (This isn’t a perfect example since a name star doesn’t have as much control over the project as a head coach does. However, the point is that the entity has “done the math” and expects to bring in a much, much larger amount of money by initially spending more for a certain coach/star, than it would if it went with a lesser talented choice for less money. )</p>
The perks add up to quite a bit more, and just by dint of having this job he can easily make millions afterwards if he desires. Bill Clinton has made 10’s of millions since he left office in speaking fees ($150,000+ per) and book deals. He doesn’t get that as ex-governor of Arkansas.</p>
<p>Elizabeth Warren makes $350K per year for teaching one class at Harvard while she campaigns for another job. Where’s the outrage over that?</p>