“A Question About Calhoun’s Salary”
I am glad someone else in the blogosphere is perplexed by the large sums being invested in athletics programs by state institutions that are facing a budget shortfall. Jim Calhoun argues with the reporter to “get some facts,” but these facts show that Calhoun is playing with fuzzy numbers. The state
of Connecticut is facing a budget shortfall of over $900 million this year, and could top $8 billion over the next two (see chart on left for a budget breakdown). If the state is forced to reduce the number of teachers, then the students who attend school to receive an education, not audition for a professional athletics contract, will suffer. This is especially pressing in a state where more than half of students enrolled in 4-year public colleges have not graduated within six years. Calhoun argues that his team and its success, which presumably he plays a rather large part in, helps bring in a profit of $12 million for the university. But recent athletics budget reports show that while this helps support athletic programs, the university still contributes a net of $2 million to the athletic department annually to help cover all the expenses. This number is subject to the 3.5% budget cut the university is enacting in response to a $9 million reduction in state funding. Adding to this is the fact that coaches’ salaries constitute nearly 40% of athletic department expenses. I think this makes it clear that it would be very beneficial if coaches voluntarily cut their pay to help the university.What is even more disturbing is Calhoun’s lack of sympathy for the hardships that individuals around the state of Connecticut and the nation are facing. His behavior brings to mind awful memories of Latrell Sprewell’s contract complaints when he felt that $14 million was not an adequate sum of money to adequately take care of his family. Calhoun’s statements also reflect that he is in effect hoarding his money, saving it for his retirement, rather than using it to the benefit the economy by spending more disposable income. I am curious to see what your opinion is on this issue. Do you feel that this backlash is warranted against programs with spending that can be deemed reckless in the face of the economic crisis? I think this situation epitomizes the problem in college athletics today, but I am curious to about what you think? Is this a problem? What do you think the future holds?
“Does Age Matter?”
One important aspect of OJ Mayo’s career that you overlook is that he was 20 ye
ars old during his time at USC. His “advanced” age gave him a physical and mental advantage compared to other freshman players. He must have also carried the concern that delaying the start of his NBA career would have put him at a disadvantage against players who were younger and shared the same amount of college experience. But for individuals who would enter the NBA directly out of high school, the college experience provides an intermediate step in terms of skill and the demands of increasing exposure. Only the MLB minor league system offers a similar experience where the demand is increased gradually, and thus it protects itself against issues that an age limit would counter. I would argue therefore, that the age limit is simply an insurance policy for the teams that would dole out millions of dollars on otherwise unproven talent. But perhaps for OJ and other players of his ilk, the most important consideration was the one I address below.The second issue you raise in this post is the question of payments to student-athletes, something that has been going on under the table for years, but has seen increased exposure given the recent scandals you mention. The increased exposure the players get in college is good for all the parties involved, and there is no reason the players shouldn’t see a profit as a result. The players themselves are rewarded through greater endorsement deals and an established, dedicated fan base that they carry throughout their pro careers. For the colleges this means increased interest, which results in greater ticket sales and a large boost in merchandise sales. The NBA teams that draft highly developed players, both in terms of talent and marketability, see a similar boost in their bottom line as a result. Allowing players to leave for teams overseas only serves to diminish their earning potential. It would seem that the current rules are not realistically enforceable as the number of cases that slip by the radar is becoming more and more apparent. Obviously allowing players to be paid would result in an imbalance between those programs that see a profit and those that do not. Keeping that in mind, do you support college athletes being rewarded above and beyond covering their expenses (including ones not currently covered by scholarships)? In effect aren’t schools already “purchasing” players through the construction of better facilities, and more expensive student-athlete support programs? Where should the line be placed between what is considered legal aid and what is considered a breach of rules or ethics?
