Do you still think $4 million is too much?

Do you think now that $4 million is too much?

  • No. Coach Saban is well worth it. He'll bring more than that in.

    Votes: 96 82.8%
  • Yes. It's still too much no matter what he does.

    Votes: 20 17.2%

  • Total voters
    116

davefrat

Hall of Fame
Jun 4, 2002
6,134
5,971
282
Hopewell, VA
Apples and oranges. Professors make more money for bringing research and prestige to the University for academic accomplishments. If we were to hire Peter Singer to join the facutly in ten Hoor, you can bet we would pay him quite a bit to come. However, given that there are hundreds of faculty, and that few of them contribute in a significant way to the bottom line of the University, it is not surprising that they do not make a large sum of money. As for the head coach, he is judged by the number of wins, and therefore money, that he adds to the athletic department. This money pays for every other sport on campus, as well as adding millions back into the academic insitution, enabling it to spend more money on education. Market analysis is absolutely appropriate here. Despite the communist atmosphere usually present on campus, Universities are businesses that have to deal with massive competition for clients. I attended the University and now attend the best law school in the world. I say this not to brag, but rather to point out that I am not alone. Every year I have been there, several of my classmates have also been recent graduates of the University. Every single one of them, including myself, went there because of the football team. You cannot seperate the two, and the success of the one depends on the other.

This was posted elsewhere, and should be read.
http://tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070114/NEWS/701140342/1013/EDITORIAL2

actually, there are plenty of top notch universities that have awful athletic programs. so, it's not necessary to have a great football or basketball team in order to have a great university.

btw the way, one of my buddies from grad school at ua (and fellow rabid bama fan) is the associate director of alumni relations at the greatest law school in the world.

good luck with your legal studies...first year is a nightmare, year two is hard, and year three is essentially a way to make you pay more tuition (scare you to death, work you to death, bore you to death, as they say). then, you get the oh so fun task of studying for the bar....ugghhh!!!
 

BamaJoker

Scout Team
Sep 7, 2006
146
0
0
Memphis, TN
He's worth every cent we pay him!:smile:
I think I'll wait til he wins a few before I make the same statement. :rolleye2:

He may END UP being worth that much and I certainly hope so, but I think $4 mil is a bit much. IMO. But what do I know Jessica Simpson makes millions to "act"... :eek:
 

CapitalTider

All-American
Jun 8, 2004
2,798
0
0
Vienna, VA
Policemen, Firemen and Teachers live quite well up here - though not so well as even a lower tier head football coach...
Really? When we lived in DC, Montgomery County (Maryland suburbs) was looking at having to change their rules that required firemen and policemen to live in the county, because the firemen/policemen could not afford to live there on their salaries and they could not pay them enough to be able to afford to live there. I couldn't afford to live there and I made substantially more than a policeman or fireman. We moved to Arlington, VA after that and it wasn't any better.
 

CapitalTider

All-American
Jun 8, 2004
2,798
0
0
Vienna, VA
From the standpoint of an Alabama fan, I think Saban's salary is well worth it. The amount of exposure he has given the school, the exposure that an improved football program will give the school, the revenue from the assumed major bowl appearances are well worth the cost. I think if we hadn't hit the $4 million per year mark, some other school would have in the near future.

However, like some others, as a citizen that kind of salary for an entertainer and employee of a tax-exempt entity concerns me. There's nothing to be done about it I suppose, but I have grave concerns about a society that values entertainers so greatly and so much over other professions.

The salary concerns me as an Alabama fan and alumnus for two reasons:

(1) The NCAA has consistently designed their rules to create parity in Division IA college football and athletics in general. Everything from scholarship limitations, practice limitations, to per diem amounts were designed to create parity. Now, as others have pointed out, the only real advantage the "haves" have is the ability to pay coaches more money than the small guys. How far out of balance does the situation get before the NCAA decides to create a rule to try to force parity here?

(2) Prominent Congressman from the House Ways and Means Committee and other Congressman have expressed concerns over coach's salaries and universities' tax exempt status. Despite what some think, this isn't a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals", this issue was raised by House Ways and Means Chair William M. Thomas, R-Calif. For those that do not know, tax legislation begins in Ways and Means. This interest began in the fall and is ongoing. In the middle of this Congressional inquiry, the University of Alabama significantly altered the playing field by upping coaching salaries. Conventional wisdom is generally that if Congress is talking about regulating your industry, the industry should get together and address Congress' concerns to stave off regulation. I doubt much will come of this, but it is an issue to be aware of. My number 1 and number 2 could come together with the NCAA getting the double benefit of maintaining parity and satisfying Congress. If Congress did act, I would guess that collegiate athletics has too long of a history for it to affect the tax exempt status of the sponsoring university. However, the tax exempt rules impose a wide variety of special requirements and excise taxes on activities that Congress seeks to discourage. So a steep excise tax on coaching salaries above some floor would not surprise me. If you think that Congress cannot legislate salaries, I would point you to the rules for officers of publicly traded companies. The Internal Revenue Code specifies that salaries of more than $1 million per year cannot be deducted; that's why every CEO of a publicly traded company makes $1 million per year in base salary. It's also why stock options and other incentive compensation is such a huge area; it's an example of Congress creating a bigger issue by trying to address one issue. But it hasn't stopped them and I don't recall seeing much effort put into repealing this provision.
 

swamptroll

1st Team
Jan 4, 2007
360
0
0
no, cns is definitely not worth the money being paid. i reccomend that we hire dubose or shula back immediately.....
 

bamasae

Scout Team
Nov 5, 2006
109
0
0
Lake Martin
The salary concerns me as an Alabama fan and alumnus for two reasons:

(1) The NCAA has consistently designed their rules to create parity in Division IA college football and athletics in general. Everything from scholarship limitations, practice limitations, to per diem amounts were designed to create parity. Now, as others have pointed out, the only real advantage the "haves" have is the ability to pay coaches more money than the small guys. How far out of balance does the situation get before the NCAA decides to create a rule to try to force parity here?

(2) Prominent Congressman from the House Ways and Means Committee and other Congressman have expressed concerns over coach's salaries and universities' tax exempt status. Despite what some think, this isn't a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals", this issue was raised by House Ways and Means Chair William M. Thomas, R-Calif. For those that do not know, tax legislation begins in Ways and Means. This interest began in the fall and is ongoing. In the middle of this Congressional inquiry, the University of Alabama significantly altered the playing field by upping coaching salaries. Conventional wisdom is generally that if Congress is talking about regulating your industry, the industry should get together and address Congress' concerns to stave off regulation. I doubt much will come of this, but it is an issue to be aware of. My number 1 and number 2 could come together with the NCAA getting the double benefit of maintaining parity and satisfying Congress. If Congress did act, I would guess that collegiate athletics has too long of a history for it to affect the tax exempt status of the sponsoring university. However, the tax exempt rules impose a wide variety of special requirements and excise taxes on activities that Congress seeks to discourage. So a steep excise tax on coaching salaries above some floor would not surprise me. If you think that Congress cannot legislate salaries, I would point you to the rules for officers of publicly traded companies. The Internal Revenue Code specifies that salaries of more than $1 million per year cannot be deducted; that's why every CEO of a publicly traded company makes $1 million per year in base salary. It's also why stock options and other incentive compensation is such a huge area; it's an example of Congress creating a bigger issue by trying to address one issue. But it hasn't stopped them and I don't recall seeing much effort put into repealing this provision.
I'm not trying to rip your comments, I agree with them in theory, but I feel compelled to make a couple of remarks.

On point 1: The NCAA has made many of their rules because of Bama and more specifically Bear Bryant. I'm not a aluminum-foil-cap wearing conspiracy theorist, but I have always felt the Northern dominated Notre Dame/Big-10 influences, coupled with the pin-head academics in the NCAA, have always hated Bama and other southern schools for their success. The current uproar spearheaded by Big-10 dominated ESPN is further evidence of this to me.

On point 2: I find it amazing that the Saban issue has warranted Congressional hearings and the like. NO ONE had issue with Notre Dame's muti-million dollar contract with NBC, not the NCAA, not ESPN, and not Congress. To me this is much more of an issue on the state of money in college sports than Saban's deal. Furthermore, the Notre Dame situation as THE most profitable football program in the nation (by a wide margin) is what will ultimately quash these Congressional blowhards. They won't be able to get to Bama without hurting the beloved Irish and that will NEVER happen. Take away their tax exempt status? Forget about it.
 

alatider

All-American
Feb 2, 2005
2,778
1
0
74
The center of Alabama
I'm really tired of people constantly bringing up this $4M pay issue. It's Bama's money and, as a whole, feel that he is worth the money.

There are two cliches that fit here:

(1) Good coaches aren't cheap and cheap coaches aren't good.

(2) You get what you pay for.

I'm sure Mal had resumes sent to him for several cheaper coaches, but are they worth the money?
 

CapitalTider

All-American
Jun 8, 2004
2,798
0
0
Vienna, VA
On point 1: The NCAA has made many of their rules because of Bama and more specifically Bear Bryant. I'm not a aluminum-foil-cap wearing conspiracy theorist, but I have always felt the Northern dominated Notre Dame/Big-10 influences, coupled with the pin-head academics in the NCAA, have always hated Bama and other southern schools for their success. The current uproar spearheaded by Big-10 dominated ESPN is further evidence of this to me.
Wouldn't that lend even more credence to my concern? I've often heard that most of the NCAA rulebook was designed with Coach Bryant in mind. That being said, it has created a great amount of parity, especially in college football, that the NCAA seems to enjoy.

On point 2: I find it amazing that the Saban issue has warranted Congressional hearings and the like. NO ONE had issue with Notre Dame's muti-million dollar contract with NBC, not the NCAA, not ESPN, and not Congress. To me this is much more of an issue on the state of money in college sports than Saban's deal. Furthermore, the Notre Dame situation as THE most profitable football program in the nation (by a wide margin) is what will ultimately quash these Congressional blowhards. They won't be able to get to Bama without hurting the beloved Irish and that will NEVER happen. Take away their tax exempt status? Forget about it.
The Congressional inquiry has nothing to do with Saban per se. The inquiry began long before we even fired Shula. The point is, an inquiry had been raised about coaching salaries and the tax exempt status of universities from the tax legislation writing body of Congress. With that climate, Alabama goes out and adds fuel to the fire by significantly raising coaching salaries.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,446
3,935
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Really? When we lived in DC, Montgomery County (Maryland suburbs) was looking at having to change their rules that required firemen and policemen to live in the county, because the firemen/policemen could not afford to live there on their salaries and they could not pay them enough to be able to afford to live there. I couldn't afford to live there and I made substantially more than a policeman or fireman. We moved to Arlington, VA after that and it wasn't any better.
I have lived in and around DC for the last 10 years or so, so I'm very familiar with the issue of civil servants, their salaries and cost of living. I currently work for a national homebuilder, and there is a growing trend in the area, including the People's Republic of Montgomery County to legislate "affordable housing." After all, the argument goes, policemen, firemen and teachers can't afford to live in the county where they work. It is pure BS.

Not every house that is built is a mansion. Homebuilders offer the range of housing to meet the demand of the market. It does no one any good to offer a product that no one can afford. There's plenty of lower priced housing in the area without having the local government interfere in the market.

"Affordable" housing does nothing more than make market rate home prices rise to offset the subsidy of the nonmarket price homes. The end user, in this case the more productive consumer, always bears the cost of government interference.

Prices are high in Montgomery County and other places because the per lot fee is more than $20,000, which raises the cost of the home. Density is restricted, which raises the cost of the home. The approval process would make Soviet style communists proud, which raises the cost of the home. All these extra costs are aimed at the homebuilder, but, as I said above, all costs are eventually paid by the consumer. Add the higher than necessary property taxes, and it's no wonder home prices are high.

Supply and demand should dictate prices and salaries, not local governments. If widget makers cannot live in county X on a widget makers salary, then the county will be short widget makers. If that job is necessary, the salary will rise until enough widget makers can afford to live in county X.
 
Last edited:

TideFans.shop - 25% off Fan Favorites!

TideFans.shop - 25% off!

20oz Tervis Tumbler
20oz Tervis Tumbler from TideFansStore.com

Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!

Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads