Why Coach Should Fly Coach

Colleges need to put education ahead of athletics.

By Andrew Kroll, Western Michigan University

The NCAA Division I-A football season just concluded with a spate of year-end bowls. From the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl on Dec. 19 through the Meineke Car Care Bowl and the Bell Helicopter Armed Services Bowl, teams from throughout the nation competed in 32 games, culminating with Ohio State and Florida squaring off in the BCS National Championship game on Jan. 8. The payout for playing in a non-BCS bowl ranges from $325,000 to $4.25 million; for a BCS bowl game, $14 million to $17 million. With such large sums of money at stake during the college football season, spending continues to increase in Division I-A football programs to maximize athletic success and increase school visibility. Nowhere is this increased spending more evident than in the excessively high salaries of today’s college football coaches.

On Nov. 16, 2006, USA Today reported on a recent investigation into the salaries of NCAA Division I-A head football coaches. USA Today obtained contracts or documentation showing compensation for 107 out of the 119 football coaches in 11 major football conferences and it provided detailed information regarding the salaries, bonuses, and incentives for many of those coaches.

According to the article, the average head football coach of a premier program earns $950,000 per year, not including benefits, incentives, and other perks which include, but are not limited to: subsidized housing, use of private jets, million-dollar annuities, and family travel accounts. The study also found that at least 42 of the 119 coaches will earn $1 million or more this year. The University of Oklahoma’s head football coach Bob Stoops makes a reported $3.35 million per year, highest among Division I-A coaches.

As the salaries of college football coaches continue to rise, the overwhelming discrepancy in pay between coaches and faculty members grows. Universities now pay these coaches six- and seven-figure salaries along with lucrative bonuses and incentives, while the salaries of the faculty at the same institutions of higher learning pale by comparison. For example, the average salary of a full professor at the University of Oklahoma is $95,650—roughly $3.2 million less than head coach Bob Stoops. InsideHigherEd.com found that the average salary for a full professor at a four-year institution in 2005-06 was roughly $83,000, $867,902 less than the average head coach’s at a premier Division I-A school.

Traditionally, the mission of a university is to provide facilities for teaching and research, not multi-million dollar shoe endorsements, private jets, or luxury suites. The movement to glorify athletics at the expense of higher education illustrates our society’s growing tendency to emphasize entertainment over instruction and stimulation over introspection. This is clearly demonstrated by the enormous difference in pay between coaches and faculty.

As an NCAA Division I student-athlete (in a non-revenue sport), I believe that the priorities of a university lie within the word “student-athlete:” student comes before athlete, meaning academics take priority over athletics. All universities emphasize to their student-athletes that the goal of their college careers is succeeding academically and graduating, not winning conference championships or qualifying for bowl games. But with the overwhelming presence of the media in college athletics—especially in basketball and football, where “student-athletes” compete in games involving tens of millions of dollars—it is clear that college athletics are, first and foremost, a business.

I’m not suggesting that faculty salaries should include big bonuses, country club memberships, or use of a private jet in order to lessen the gap between them and coaches, but there should be a monetary increase in faculty salaries so as to accurately reflect their important role in the university. Also, if universities exercise greater control over how much they pay their coaches it will lessen the gap between the salaries of academic faculty and athletic departments.

The most prominent example of a group of universities emphasizing academics over athletics is the Ivy League. Just after the 1981 season, the eight Ivy League football teams were downgraded from Division I-A to I-AA due to an argument with the NCAA over television revenue. Instead of appealing this decision, the Ivy League presidents gladly walked away from Division I-A football. A Nov. 17, 2006, article in TheNew York Times examined the state of Ivy League football 25 years after it made the switch from Division I-A to I-AA. While several coaches and athletic directors believe Ivy League football could exist successfully in Division I-A both academically and athletically, the consensus among Ivy League university presidents is that the move to Division I-AA football was the right one. Harvard’s interim president Derek Bok stated, “The quality of football is not the primary objective of this institution.” Cornell interim president Hunter R. Rawlings III echoed Bok’s sentiments, saying, “In the largest football group, I see so many serious problems and a real loss of confidence in academic integrity. The Ivy League is better off making it clear what it values most.”

The USA Today report raises serious questions regarding the priorities of schools with Division I-A sports when it comes to achieving athletic success. It also illustrates the differences in the way athletics and academics are viewed in our society. Consider Bob Stoops’ bonus structure: If he graduates 65 percent of his players (72 out of 108 total players) this year he will earn an extra $40,000; if he had won his Fiesta Bowl game against Boise State, he would have made $175,000.

It’s perfectly clear what the main priority is in college football: winning. Take the recent firing of former Alabama head coach Mike Shula. Despite a highly successful 2005 season in which the Crimson Tide went 10-2 with a No. 9 national ranking, the University of Alabama fired Shula after going 6-6 in the 2006 season. Shula’s firing surprised many in the college football community not only because of his success during the 2005 season, but also his ability to graduate his players. The University of Alabama Newsreported in March that, “Since Shula arrived at UA in 2003, the football team’s graduation rate has seen steady improvement and now stands at 67 percent, one of the highest rates all-time for the UA football program and better than the overall student graduation rate during the same period.” It seems that universities will take all actions necessary to ensure athletic success, even if that success comes at the expense of education. Instead universities should give college coaches a reward structure that puts greater emphasis on their players’ academic performance than on winning.

One might think that the revenue these football programs bring in is split up between both athletic and academic programs, so it would benefit the academic as well as athletic programs. Unfortunately that is rarely the case, as the athletic departments of many NCAA Division I schools actually operate independently of the university itself, with all athletic earnings going into a separate budget solely for themselves. The athletic department then uses these earnings for athletics-only purposes, such as paying the salaries of their coaches, building new facilities, and ensuring that all existing sports are fully funded.

So if universities did attempt to control the increasing salaries of their football coaches, it wouldn’t automatically mean that more money would go toward scholarly pursuits. But if universities refused to engage in excessive bidding wars over the salaries of coaches they would make a much more positive statement as to the role of athletics in education.

As these football coaches enjoy bonuses and perks such as $10,000 a year gasoline allowances (see head coach Bobby Petrino, University of Louisville), faculty members throughout the nation earn less than 10 percent of what the average top-tier football coach makes. Yet it is these very professors who mold today’s students into tomorrow’s politicians, doctors, scientists, lawyers, and educators. Universities ought to reduce coaches’ salaries and stop sending the message that winning football games is 10 times as important as the hard work of higher education, because how we compensate any worker for their efforts reflects our values.

 
Andy Kroll is a junior at Western Michigan University and an NCAA Division I college soccer player.

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh