The Top Paid Government Employees

Page 3 of 4<1234>
October 26th, 2021 at 7:28:49 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Evenbob
Ridiculous. Do you know why you never see a bantamweight boxer fighting a heavyweight boxer? The bantamweight boxer would be killed. No matter how good he was. The same thing with gender-neutral sports. Weight and size are everything. I took karate classes in the early seventies and they drilled it into our heads that Bruce Lee who was five foot eight would never beat a black belt karate expert who is 6ft 2 and weighed 200 lb. Just like in the movies when you see some 5 foot 4 115 pound woman destroying men twice her size with martial arts. It's a joke, they would kill her with one punch. And her punches would be almost unfelt by them.


It depends on the sport. Combat sports have weight and size requirements. (Most) Team sports do not (not at the High School Level anyway). However, even if there is a sport with very specific size and weight requirements, should gender be a factor if a female is built in a way to satisfy the requirement? I am honestly not sure, and I have heard convincing arguments on both sides (since this is often cited as the pinnacle of necessary separation, combat sports, even if a niche example).

This is different than non-combat sports, and far less different than non-contact sports (and with the possible exception of wrestling does not really apply to High School or even many Colleges). Boxing is very different than Soccer, which is very different than Golf, which is very different than pool/billiards. Combat sports are a very small example of sports that are not really represented in academic communities (not in any mainstream way).

In any case this is really not something I want to get too into here, we are not going to agree overall. And, I may even agree with you for extreme examples (combat sports), I am not fully sure, but even for college sports this is an extreme example, certainly not applicable to the college sports that most people watch or generate revenue for the school.
October 26th, 2021 at 7:31:35 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler
That is an interesting view, that you probably do not apply to other government jobs (if you are like most Americans).

If an IRS Revenue Director is extremely skilled and leads and trains a top team and is the top performer and brings massive value (probably far more revenue to the government than even the best State Football team) should he make seven figures? The reality is there is a double standard for sports because they are viewed as entertainment, its not just about revenue produced. The IRS director probably brings more value to the government directly and indirectly (by training others to follow his methods).


More revenue, yes, more profits, no. By definition, the IRS does not make, "Profits," nor does or can the Federal Government. They can simply have a surplus, but they do not operate on a profit-basis in any way whatsoever.

With schools at all levels, you have an athletic department. I don't know what the breakdown is or if any of it comes from tax dollars on direct, but if not, then they need to operate between boosters, donations, raffles, concessions and ticket sales to cover their expenses.

With that, if you want to say something like, "No tax revenues should go into athletics," then I'm perfectly fine with that and don't have an objection in the world. In fact, I would like to expand upon that to include band, choir, art and home economics must also be self-funding. If you want to say, "Sports should be able to financially support themselves to exist in public schools," we're good.

The flip side of that is you would need to get Government regulation completely out of sports. What that means is, if football is the only sport that can operate profitably, then that is the only sport schools need operate. This site adequately summarizes Title IX:

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-title-ix/

Quote:
Athletic programs are considered educational programs and activities. Title IX gives women athletes the right to equal opportunity in sports in educational institutions that receive federal funds, from elementary schools to colleges and universities. While there are few private elementary, middle school or high schools that receive federal funds, almost all colleges and universities, private and public, receive such funding.


Okay, so because the institutions (though perhaps not the sports, on direct) receive Federal funding, Title IX applies. I'm not saying that Title IX is a negative, in the current state of affairs, but without it...schools would have the option of only keeping profitable sports. Football can operate profitably, but softball can't? Bye bye softball. Girls basketball is profitable, but boys' basketball loses money? Bye Bye boys hoops, at that school.

So, the Federal Government has already asserted itself when it comes to the sports offerings of the schools which, again, is fine given the current state of affairs. Ideally, the AD would fund itself 100% and have totally separate accounting AND public schools would never receive Federal funds whatsoever, so Title IX would not apply at the Federal level, but that's not the case.

With that, I agree with you that what you are proposing would be fine if sports were self-funding, but had no other oversight whatsoever. Schools could offer sports based on nothing other than what sports they think could financially support themselves. However, I'd want to see the same standard applied to a number of other extracurriculars, or what should be extracurriculars, as well.

Quote:
I know you are probably going to say the IRS should be abolished because the Federal government should be shrinked. Fine scale it down to your State tax agency with whatever their positions are called, the same principle probably applies (likely even more so since they are less manned). In both of these examples the employees would be paid on a set pay scale and make the same as somebody in the same position for the same amount of years who is a total shammer and brings close to nothing.

People only care about incentive pay for government employees that produce revenue when it is something they enjoy (Football). When it is something their either hate or don't care about, its a crazy idea.

Let's take a great example from this forum, the Wizard left the IRS to make more money in the private sector. (If he feels I am being out of line with these comments I would be happy to be corrected, but this is all stuff he has stated on here or WOV), my guess is he added immense value to the IRS just by knowing how intelligent and hard working he is, and he almost certainly was a massive revenue producer (even if not directly, by saving money with risk management in SS, which I think was his main role eventually if I recall). And, he is probably as close to a celebrity that, as we as a nation we can have, as a former IRS employee who is now famous for math skills and strategy (and a bunch of other stuff, but for these purposes). Granted, not as famous as Football people, but for the niche field of IRS actuaries, probably as close as it gets (and probably earned the Federal Government more than the top Football Coach, yes I know they are technically State employees). Would it be right for the IRS to offer him seven figures (whether he would accept it or not is totally irrelevant) since he was brining so much value and direct revenue to the IRS to keep him and/or get him back?

The point is we (I say we as Americans, not me specifically) only reward revenue in government when it accompanies entertainment. Even if there are fields that produce objectively more revenue (and with the right people can produce far more) and are strictly compensated based on GS level and years (and maybe some variations for location COLA etc...). Yet, coaches are regarded as the only ones that its even worth considering seven figure base salaries for plus multiple six figure bonuses if they meet some arbitrary objectives (defeat a certain teams in certain games).


It's not about revenue; it's about profit. Revenue doesn't matter if you spend more than you are bringing in. The Alabama Crimson Tide football team produces profit. The Government, whether state or federal, by definition...cannot profit. They can operate at a surplus by taking in more than they are spending, but the word, "Profit," isn't correctly applied to them.

As far as Government employee compensation is concerned, I believe that they have pay grades that are based on a number of factors. If you want to suggest that coaches and professors have some sort of similar pay grade structure, I don't automatically object, but it seems that public Universities have mostly been left to manage their own financial affairs. Besides, that's not what you're suggesting, because you earlier said that these institutions should not have sports whatsoever.

Quote:
That is what gender neutral means, one team, same standards, you either meet them or fail regardless of gender, nobody is graded on the curve.

A similar example is not sports, but its as close to sports as I come in my adult life, is the Army, the Army transitioned to a gender and age neutral PT test. It used to be curved (heavily) based on age and gender, for example a 27 year old male would have to do at least 39 push ups to pass (and 77 to max score) in two minutes. A 27 year old female would have to do 17 (and 46 to max score) a 60 year old male must do 20 pushups to pass (and 55 to max). This same curving applies to runs, sit-ups, alternate events, etc...

Now, it is based purely on job assignment. A 60 female must meet the same minimum score as a 21 year old male if they are both Finance Specialists, (which would be much lower than the same two soldiers would have to meet if they were infantry). It makes sense, academic standards are not gender neutral (to be eligible for whatever job you need a certain score regardless of age and gender, you either score high enough in the required subjects or you do not), there is no reason physical standards should be.

In my High School there was one Football team, one year (my sophomore year when she was a freshman) a female wanted to join (and it was decided that she could as there were no gender restrictions as there was only one Football team). Everyone thought it was scandal, she joined, and after about a week everyone stopped caring because it changed nothing. She did not get a ton of field time during games -though some men did not either- (I had to go to every Football game, even away, because I was in marching band, so I saw them all except maybe four, -I think I usually had to skip Thanksgiving Day games most years because my family wanted to be away, but other than that my attendance was actually perfect for how much I hated it-), and maybe they had lower standards because of her gender some would say (I have no reason to suspect that, she was built very well, better than most men), I don't know I would hope not, but in any case the world did not end, and after a week or two of gossip people stopped caring, and as I remember she was on the team until I graduated (I would have to assume she stayed on her senior year, she was one year behind me).

I see no reason that a female should not be allowed to join any team if they can meet the requirements and pass the try-outs. As long as the standards are the same. Whether it is a job, the military, or a team, the concept is the same, you have a specific role in that organization regardless of age and gender and you need to be able to meet that standard.

I don't want to get too derailed with this rabbit hole (gender neutral standards), I know we do not agree, and have hashed it out before in other threads, but that is my view. And, I know neither of us are going to change our view in this thread. I am more interested in revenue views.


I'm not in favor of, "One Team." I think you should have a team for males and a team for females, but if a female wants to try out to be on the team for males, that's fine. You can't have just, "One team," in most sports...otherwise, you would, de facto, only have Men's teams. Also, Title IX would have something to say about it, anyway.

You'll like the last couple paragraphs in my link, but you can't really use them against me. I don't disagree with, "If they can't financially support themselves, then get rid of them," even if the sport in question is football.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 26th, 2021 at 8:23:38 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Mission146
More revenue, yes, more profits, no. By definition, the IRS does not make, "Profits," nor does or can the Federal Government. They can simply have a surplus, but they do not operate on a profit-basis in any way whatsoever.

With schools at all levels, you have an athletic department. I don't know what the breakdown is or if any of it comes from tax dollars on direct, but if not, then they need to operate between boosters, donations, raffles, concessions and ticket sales to cover their expenses.

With that, if you want to say something like, "No tax revenues should go into athletics," then I'm perfectly fine with that and don't have an objection in the world. In fact, I would like to expand upon that to include band, choir, art and home economics must also be self-funding. If you want to say, "Sports should be able to financially support themselves to exist in public schools," we're good.

The flip side of that is you would need to get Government regulation completely out of sports. What that means is, if football is the only sport that can operate profitably, then that is the only sport schools need operate. This site adequately summarizes Title IX:

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-title-ix/



Okay, so because the institutions (though perhaps not the sports, on direct) receive Federal funding, Title IX applies. I'm not saying that Title IX is a negative, in the current state of affairs, but without it...schools would have the option of only keeping profitable sports. Football can operate profitably, but softball can't? Bye bye softball. Girls basketball is profitable, but boys' basketball loses money? Bye Bye boys hoops, at that school.

So, the Federal Government has already asserted itself when it comes to the sports offerings of the schools which, again, is fine given the current state of affairs. Ideally, the AD would fund itself 100% and have totally separate accounting AND public schools would never receive Federal funds whatsoever, so Title IX would not apply at the Federal level, but that's not the case.

With that, I agree with you that what you are proposing would be fine if sports were self-funding, but had no other oversight whatsoever. Schools could offer sports based on nothing other than what sports they think could financially support themselves. However, I'd want to see the same standard applied to a number of other extracurriculars, or what should be extracurriculars, as well.



It's not about revenue; it's about profit. Revenue doesn't matter if you spend more than you are bringing in. The Alabama Crimson Tide football team produces profit. The Government, whether state or federal, by definition...cannot profit. They can operate at a surplus by taking in more than they are spending, but the word, "Profit," isn't correctly applied to them.

As far as Government employee compensation is concerned, I believe that they have pay grades that are based on a number of factors. If you want to suggest that coaches and professors have some sort of similar pay grade structure, I don't automatically object, but it seems that public Universities have mostly been left to manage their own financial affairs. Besides, that's not what you're suggesting, because you earlier said that these institutions should not have sports whatsoever.


(I edited out the last segment of your quote to make it easier and more streamlined, this is not intending to misquote, but to focus in on the above areas, if this offends you I will edit my post, I know people have been strict about cutting posts recently, but I feel this was in good faith, feel free to correct me please).

I am far too aware of Title IX, and I actually have mixed feelings on it. It does only apply as you say to schools that receive Federal Aid (which is effectively most, certainly of accredited ones anyway....). And, well actually I'll leave it at that, I don't want to get too far down that rabbit hole.


But, your definition of profit interests me. A football team can profit if it produces more revenue than it spends, but a collections branch cannot call it profit if it collects more revenue than it spends? This seems highly subjective.

Forget the IRS. Let's say State, your state has a tax collection and enforcement team of four people, let's be very generous and say they make 100K each including benefits. That team costs your State 400k a year, let's say that is the superstar team as far as research and obtaining unpaid taxes, and brings in 30 million in otherwise uncollected taxes and fees. About the same as the a good State's Football team's revenue (which is far higher than most States). However, expenses are minimal, lets even say factoring in equipment and travel expenses for the team, it costs 600K a year. This would be a dramatically better return on investment than even the most profitable football team.

To go back to the IRS because its an easier example to get figures on, almost everyone agrees that every dollar spent on the IRS increases revenue (though conservatives view this as a negative), for every dollar spent you can expect an increase of around 4-6 dollars in revenue (depending on who you cite), of course there is a cap because there is only so much revenue and assets that can be uncovered (but, we are nowhere near that cap), and eventually dollars would start to net less dollars until it hits the cap. Even arch-conservative Steve Mnuchin (while serving Trump) saw this and wanted to direct more for this reason. This is kind of revenue per dollar that most private companies could only dream of (and yes you can say they have an advantage as they have the power of force behind collections and seizures unlike private collectors).

But, I don't agree that the Federal Government cannot make a profit, the USPS is an example of that for most of history. Yes it has lost money in most recent years, but for most of history it has been profitable (and perhaps ironically it only became unprofitable when regulations forced it to operate in a certain way). This is an example of a Federal Agency that receives no taxpayer money, and is completely reliant on the services and goods it sells (and has to abide by regulations that no private agency would such as maintain routes that are money drains and offices to ensure that everyone has mail service regardless of remote location, though this is not even the largest issue of why they lose money now).

But, I am not sure that I accept your large definition of profit. Do you mean that level of government has to be profitable for it to matter? If this is the case many Football teams are also not profitable (as they belong to State's that run at a deficit).

If you say the government at all levels cannot profit, then how does an agency of the government profit (Alabama Football to your example)? If this is just an arm of Alabama (as it is), its no different than any other revenue producing endeavor by the State?
October 27th, 2021 at 10:59:14 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
(Quote clipped, relevance)

Quote: Gandler


But, your definition of profit interests me. A football team can profit if it produces more revenue than it spends, but a collections branch cannot call it profit if it collects more revenue than it spends? This seems highly subjective.


There's nothing subjective about it. Here are the objectives behind my statement:

The main avenues by which a football team can profit are the following: Gate, TV Contract, Radio Contract, Sponsorships, Concessions, Merchandise, Licensing, Boosters and Direct Donations. You can also have raffles, and things of that nature, depending on the jurisdiction.

The IRS, on the other hand, collects tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

People are legally required to pay taxes on, for example, income. People are not required to buy tickets to a football game. Therefore, one transaction is involuntary and the other transaction is voluntary---that's the difference.

Technically, an individual can donate directly to the Federal Government via the IRS...but I don't think that typically happens. If you had an IRS agent in charge of that department (or those beneath that person) who were exceptionally good at soliciting voluntary donations, or other transactions, that would benefit the IRS, then I agree with you.

Quote:
Forget the IRS. Let's say State, your state has a tax collection and enforcement team of four people, let's be very generous and say they make 100K each including benefits. That team costs your State 400k a year, let's say that is the superstar team as far as research and obtaining unpaid taxes, and brings in 30 million in otherwise uncollected taxes and fees. About the same as the a good State's Football team's revenue (which is far higher than most States). However, expenses are minimal, lets even say factoring in equipment and travel expenses for the team, it costs 600K a year. This would be a dramatically better return on investment than even the most profitable football team.


You could charge a state income tax rate of 80% and the RoI would be even better. It's not voluntary.


Quote:
To go back to the IRS because its an easier example to get figures on, almost everyone agrees that every dollar spent on the IRS increases revenue (though conservatives view this as a negative), for every dollar spent you can expect an increase of around 4-6 dollars in revenue (depending on who you cite), of course there is a cap because there is only so much revenue and assets that can be uncovered (but, we are nowhere near that cap), and eventually dollars would start to net less dollars until it hits the cap. Even arch-conservative Steve Mnuchin (while serving Trump) saw this and wanted to direct more for this reason. This is kind of revenue per dollar that most private companies could only dream of (and yes you can say they have an advantage as they have the power of force behind collections and seizures unlike private collectors).

But, I don't agree that the Federal Government cannot make a profit, the USPS is an example of that for most of history. Yes it has lost money in most recent years, but for most of history it has been profitable (and perhaps ironically it only became unprofitable when regulations forced it to operate in a certain way). This is an example of a Federal Agency that receives no taxpayer money, and is completely reliant on the services and goods it sells (and has to abide by regulations that no private agency would such as maintain routes that are money drains and offices to ensure that everyone has mail service regardless of remote location, though this is not even the largest issue of why they lose money now).

But, I am not sure that I accept your large definition of profit. Do you mean that level of government has to be profitable for it to matter? If this is the case many Football teams are also not profitable (as they belong to State's that run at a deficit).

If you say the government at all levels cannot profit, then how does an agency of the government profit (Alabama Football to your example)? If this is just an arm of Alabama (as it is), its no different than any other revenue producing endeavor by the State?


Same as above; it's not a voluntary transaction.

I think your post is clouded by your apparent disdain for Saban's salary. Your entire counter post is nothing more than a non sequitur.

Even if you had a point, at no point have you answered why you would ever cut something that is drawing positive revenues. What state a football team belongs to is irrelevant as is whether or not that state operates at a surplus. The question is, "How is the football team doing financially?" If you have a department store location, for example, that's losing money that you think could be viable...you don't start by getting rid of the departments in the store that are actually profitable.

As far as the USPS goes, again, the majority of transactions that go through them are voluntary. As you mentioned, the only involuntary thing that happens with them is they must sometimes deliver to locations that other entities might refuse.

You're also talking about Government entities that are legally required to exist...I don't think Alabama is legally required to have a football team, though I imagine there would be a revolt if they didn't.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 27th, 2021 at 2:33:25 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Mission146
(Quote clipped, relevance)



There's nothing subjective about it. Here are the objectives behind my statement:

The main avenues by which a football team can profit are the following: Gate, TV Contract, Radio Contract, Sponsorships, Concessions, Merchandise, Licensing, Boosters and Direct Donations. You can also have raffles, and things of that nature, depending on the jurisdiction.

The IRS, on the other hand, collects tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

People are legally required to pay taxes on, for example, income. People are not required to buy tickets to a football game. Therefore, one transaction is involuntary and the other transaction is voluntary---that's the difference.

Technically, an individual can donate directly to the Federal Government via the IRS...but I don't think that typically happens. If you had an IRS agent in charge of that department (or those beneath that person) who were exceptionally good at soliciting voluntary donations, or other transactions, that would benefit the IRS, then I agree with you.



You could charge a state income tax rate of 80% and the RoI would be even better. It's not voluntary.




Same as above; it's not a voluntary transaction.

I think your post is clouded by your apparent disdain for Saban's salary. Your entire counter post is nothing more than a non sequitur.

Even if you had a point, at no point have you answered why you would ever cut something that is drawing positive revenues. What state a football team belongs to is irrelevant as is whether or not that state operates at a surplus. The question is, "How is the football team doing financially?" If you have a department store location, for example, that's losing money that you think could be viable...you don't start by getting rid of the departments in the store that are actually profitable.

As far as the USPS goes, again, the majority of transactions that go through them are voluntary. As you mentioned, the only involuntary thing that happens with them is they must sometimes deliver to locations that other entities might refuse.

You're also talking about Government entities that are legally required to exist...I don't think Alabama is legally required to have a football team, though I imagine there would be a revolt if they didn't.



Oh I do have massive disdain that the top paid government employee is a sports person. Its not Saban personally (never even heard the name before I saw this graph), I am sure he is a nice guy and a fine coach (or maybe not, don't really know or care). I have even more disdain that the #2 person is a GA employee (already forget his name), because this is something that directly effects me (as somebody who lives in GA and does business with UGA, specifically their agricultural department, and takes courses through UGA run programs, so this is a much more tangible connection).

But, yes I do disdain that he is the top paid government employee (by an absurd margin). I think it shows how wrong American priorities are out of order for college sports to even be so profitable.

I don't accept the voluntary argument. If consent is needed for profit a lot of industries would suffer. My point about government departments that directly bring in far more revenue than Football teams (while having almost no expenses) is a valid one.

But, I am not going to claim to have a well thought out argument, this post (OP) was initially made at the shock of finding out the highest paid government employees, I imagine a lot of people had no idea such salaries existed for sports related positions (in government). I certainly never though anything like that was possible, I assumed coaches of popular sports that require a full time commitment maybe made the same approx salary as an experienced professor (which I know varies, but that ballpark). If somebody randomly told me "the Football Coach makes 5mil a year", I would never have believed them....
October 28th, 2021 at 9:35:07 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler

Oh I do have massive disdain that the top paid government employee is a sports person. Its not Saban personally (never even heard the name before I saw this graph), I am sure he is a nice guy and a fine coach (or maybe not, don't really know or care). I have even more disdain that the #2 person is a GA employee (already forget his name), because this is something that directly effects me (as somebody who lives in GA and does business with UGA, specifically their agricultural department, and takes courses through UGA run programs, so this is a much more tangible connection).

But, yes I do disdain that he is the top paid government employee (by an absurd margin). I think it shows how wrong American priorities are out of order for college sports to even be so profitable.

I don't accept the voluntary argument. If consent is needed for profit a lot of industries would suffer. My point about government departments that directly bring in far more revenue than Football teams (while having almost no expenses) is a valid one.

But, I am not going to claim to have a well thought out argument, this post (OP) was initially made at the shock of finding out the highest paid government employees, I imagine a lot of people had no idea such salaries existed for sports related positions (in government). I certainly never though anything like that was possible, I assumed coaches of popular sports that require a full time commitment maybe made the same approx salary as an experienced professor (which I know varies, but that ballpark). If somebody randomly told me "the Football Coach makes 5mil a year", I would never have believed them....


In my opinion, it's only technically a Government position because the schools are considered Governmental institutions. Personally, I would just as soon athletics have to completely fund themselves, but could still exist and use the University's name and represent the University, but that's not how it works.

I'm quite confident that the coaches in other sports are getting paid far less because those sports don't make money. If college football coaches were instead classified as independent contractors, which I think is almost closer to the truth, then they wouldn't be on that list.

As far as, "American priorities," I disagree. People like football, ergo, football is highly profitable. If nothing else, you should be happy that positive revenues are flowing into a Government entity all by way of voluntary transactions.

Would you prefer that they have a nobody coach, the team loses all the time and the program to operate at a net loss? If the program lost money (as many do, which I have already admitted) then, on net, tax dollars would be going into the program---which I could understand someone being upset about.

Your point is invalid because you can't just look at revenues as validation. The Federal Government, in theory, could dramatically increase revenues just by instituting a 99.9% flat Federal Income Tax. Would that justify IRS agents getting paid leaps and bounds more than they already do?

I don't know if most people know it or not. I would say that people who pay even the slightest amount of attention to college fooball (or even sports, in general) would know that Saban's pay is in the millions.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 28th, 2021 at 6:49:55 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Mission146
In my opinion, it's only technically a Government position because the schools are considered Governmental institutions. Personally, I would just as soon athletics have to completely fund themselves, but could still exist and use the University's name and represent the University, but that's not how it works.


That is a good point. And like I cited earlier, this is what military Academies do for their popular teams to avoid having overpaid coaches being Federal employees (which would rightly bring outrage). There is no reason State's cannot do this too. Football is usually the culprit (from what I see), but some other sports like Basketball can get somewhat close. There is no reason at the State Level for coaches to be State employees. Let them be paid from league revenue.

Quote: Mission146
I'm quite confident that the coaches in other sports are getting paid far less because those sports don't make money. If college football coaches were instead classified as independent contractors, which I think is almost closer to the truth, then they wouldn't be on that list.


But, see I don't think this is a good argument. If two coaches work the same hours, have the same recruitment commitments, etc... (IE work exactly the same), and have the same success rates why should one make vastly more just because their activity is deemed as more popular?

And, I know your answer is going to be "profit", but this does not apply to other fields in State Colleges. A professor who teaches a general subject which collects a lot of tuition makes less than a specialized professor with only a few students (which is usually fair as specialized professors tend to have a unique background where they need to be incentivized to leave the private sector).

But, I will never be convinced that a Football coach is so unique that such a pay jump is required, I would guess there are endless people in America that would do that job for free just for the bragging rights (While in contrast I doubt anyone would be a Chemical Engineering Professor for free, let alone hoards of people begging for the opportunity).

Quote: Mission146
As far as, "American priorities," I disagree. People like football, ergo, football is highly profitable. If nothing else, you should be happy that positive revenues are flowing into a Government entity all by way of voluntary transactions.


Its a bad sport that is not entertaining to watch and causes harm. While the entertainment perception is subjective, the harm is not. And, while you may say adults have the right, I agree, the problem is many people are pressured by parents to start participating from a young age.

Football even by sports standards, is pretty unique in being both extremely boring and overly dangerous.


https://www.center4research.org/football-brain-injuries-need-know/

There are lots of things that are profitable that I think are absurd. But, the government does not sponsor/pay for them. Again, I never am critical the NFL, because if people want to spend their money going to such games that is their right. But, when it is a government venue and government organization, the dynamics change.


Quote: Mission146
Would you prefer that they have a nobody coach, the team loses all the time and the program to operate at a net loss? If the program lost money (as many do, which I have already admitted) then, on net, tax dollars would be going into the program---which I could understand someone being upset about.


I don't accept that the coach's salary influences profit (and even if it did I can't say it is something I would honestly care about because there should not be involvement). For example Alabama has an average profit of 75 million a year. Team's with less paid coaches have higher profits.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2019/09/12/college-football-most-valuable-clemson-texas-am/?sh=1c351641a2e7
(The ranking is confusing as they rank on revenue not profit).

For example to compare the top 2 Gov Schools (as far as coach salary, not score) Alabama and UGA, UGA profits an average of 74 millions a year, and Alabama is 61 million, and the UGA coach is paid less and apparently less famous. So there is not a direct correlation of salary and name recognition to profits.

I stand by my earlier comment that if some random student was allowed to be coach (for no pay obviously, maybe they would even have to pay to do it), and they were successful it would be lauded (and probably increase intrigue) , and if they did not have a great year nobody would care.

Quote: Mission146

Your point is invalid because you can't just look at revenues as validation. The Federal Government, in theory, could dramatically increase revenues just by instituting a 99.9% flat Federal Income Tax. Would that justify IRS agents getting paid leaps and bounds more than they already do?


If that was my point it would be. My point was revenue versus expenses. Tax rates don't matter to an agent's collection rates. If an agent has a set salary, they collect what they collect and their salary is what their salary is. The tax rate does not influence individual revenue. Its about individual performance (and the overall revenue they bring to the department).

If somebody (lets say Tax agent) makes 100K a year with salary/benefits and expenses and brings dozens of millions in revenue that would otherwise not be obtained they are many times more valuable than the top football coach who only has value in the sense of a large and complicated organization (then scale this out to a "team" of agents or somebody who oversees and trains that team and you can see the logical progression of how much more value they bring to the government). And then shift this to an ultra specialized field that probably only a handful of people can even do (let along do well), and you can see the progression. There are endless people who are Football coaches both professionally and recreationally and compare this to anyone who is any kind of actuary (let alone one who is also a Certified IRS agent, my complete guess would be about a dozen or so maybe, and the revenue they can produce). I am sure there are other examples if I spent more time, but I feel this is a fair one, especially if the goal is a single individual producing as much revenue for a department with minimal expenses as possible.

Quote: Mission146
I don't know if most people know it or not. I would say that people who pay even the slightest amount of attention to college fooball (or even sports, in general) would know that Saban's pay is in the millions.


Maybe, I am very much an anti-sports bubble, but I would doubt if I end up at the bar this weekend during a UGA game (which is sadly quite likely), and ask random people what the coaches salary is, I doubt that anyone would get it right (even within a 1 mil buffer zone). I could be wrong but it just does not seem like the kind of thing college fans would care about, even the most hardcore ones. I know if somebody randomly came up to me and asked (before knowing what I know), I would say, "No clue, maybe 300kish if you are forcing me to guess".
October 28th, 2021 at 7:20:52 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote:
That is a good point. And like I cited earlier, this is what military Academies do for their popular teams to avoid having overpaid coaches being Federal employees (which would rightly bring outrage). There is no reason State's cannot do this too. Football is usually the culprit (from what I see), but some other sports like Basketball can get somewhat close. There is no reason at the State Level for coaches to be State employees. Let them be paid from league revenue.


In that event, we agree on this point. Although, it wouldn't change what Nick Saban does in fact get paid or what Alabama football makes in revenue and profits...it would just change whether or not Saban would appear on Government employee compensation lists.

Quote:
But, see I don't think this is a good argument. If two coaches work the same hours, have the same recruitment commitments, etc... (IE work exactly the same), and have the same success rates why should one make vastly more just because their activity is deemed as more popular?

And, I know your answer is going to be "profit", but this does not apply to other fields in State Colleges. A professor who teaches a general subject which collects a lot of tuition makes less than a specialized professor with only a few students (which is usually fair as specialized professors tend to have a unique background where they need to be incentivized to leave the private sector).

But, I will never be convinced that a Football coach is so unique that such a pay jump is required, I would guess there are endless people in America that would do that job for free just for the bragging rights (While in contrast I doubt anyone would be a Chemical Engineering Professor for free, let alone hoards of people begging for the opportunity).


The why is simple: Because the sport generates more revenues and greater profits for the teams. Why do the best NFL players make more money than the best professional Ping-Pong players or Dart players? That's a simple function of demand.

Anyway, this goes back to whether or not they should be Government employees to begin with, which we both agree they shouldn't. As you mentioned, some college hoops coaches make serious bank and that's for the same reason.

I think that you keep thinking of it as Government and Education, but it really is that in name only. I also don't think that college sports even have an arguably educational purpose, which is one of my defenses of High School (and lower) sports.

Quote:
Its a bad sport that is not entertaining to watch and causes harm. While the entertainment perception is subjective, the harm is not. And, while you may say adults have the right, I agree, the problem is many people are pressured by parents to start participating from a young age.

Football even by sports standards, is pretty unique in being both extremely boring and overly dangerous.


https://www.center4research.org/football-brain-injuries-need-know/

There are lots of things that are profitable that I think are absurd. But, the government does not sponsor/pay for them. Again, I never am critical the NFL, because if people want to spend their money going to such games that is their right. But, when it is a government venue and government organization, the dynamics change.


Are you really going to make me research and cite viewership numbers to counter this objectively bad point, or will you just admit that it's a bad point. In this country, people clearly find football not only to be entertaining to watch, but actually, the most entertaining sport to watch.

Maybe reframe this position in a way that only focuses on the potential for physical harm and I will address it.

Also, going back to the football programs that are profitable---the Government is not paying for those ones. In fact, the Government is actually paying out less money than it otherwise might by virtue of the fact that the sport is profitable.

Quote:
I don't accept that the coach's salary influences profit (and even if it did I can't say it is something I would honestly care about because there should not be involvement). For example Alabama has an average profit of 75 million a year. Team's with less paid coaches have higher profits.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2019/09/12/college-football-most-valuable-clemson-texas-am/?sh=1c351641a2e7
(The ranking is confusing as they rank on revenue not profit).

For example to compare the top 2 Gov Schools (as far as coach salary, not score) Alabama and UGA, UGA profits an average of 74 millions a year, and Alabama is 61 million, and the UGA coach is paid less and apparently less famous. So there is not a direct correlation of salary and name recognition to profits.

I stand by my earlier comment that if some random student was allowed to be coach (for no pay obviously, maybe they would even have to pay to do it), and they were successful it would be lauded (and probably increase intrigue) , and if they did not have a great year nobody would care.


I accept that I would be a worse football coach than Nick Saban, that Alabama would almost certainly lose more games under my leadership and, as an indirect consequence, make less in revenues. For someone who finds the sport boring, I'm shocked that you seem to think that all coaches are equal, or you could just go be a college football coach and get that big contract for yourself.

You can't counter a general point that the head coach matters by comparing two coaches. I guess you can, but then I can find any number of teams that make less in profits (or lose money) and point to those as reasons that Saban is paid more than they are.

The problem with nobody caring if they had a poor year is just that---nobody would care. If nobody cares, then nobody spends.


Quote:
If that was my point it would be. My point was revenue versus expenses. Tax rates don't matter to an agent's collection rates. If an agent has a set salary, they collect what they collect and their salary is what their salary is. The tax rate does not influence individual revenue. Its about individual performance (and the overall revenue they bring to the department).

If somebody (lets say Tax agent) makes 100K a year with salary/benefits and expenses and brings dozens of millions in revenue that would otherwise not be obtained they are many times more valuable than the top football coach who only has value in the sense of a large and complicated organization (then scale this out to a "team" of agents or somebody who oversees and trains that team and you can see the logical progression of how much more value they bring to the government). And then shift this to an ultra specialized field that probably only a handful of people can even do (let along do well), and you can see the progression. There are endless people who are Football coaches both professionally and recreationally and compare this to anyone who is any kind of actuary (let alone one who is also a Certified IRS agent, my complete guess would be about a dozen or so maybe, and the revenue they can produce). I am sure there are other examples if I spent more time, but I feel this is a fair one, especially if the goal is a single individual producing as much revenue for a department with minimal expenses as possible.


Revenue v. Expenses is just profit or loss. It doesn't change the point. If you want to use the word, "Profit," to describe it, then the IRS could make more in, "Profits," simply by instituting an income tax rate of 99.9%.

It also gets back to voluntary v. involuntary streams of revenue, but you dismissed that point as irrelevant.

Quote:
Maybe, I am very much an anti-sports bubble, but I would doubt if I end up at the bar this weekend during a UGA game (which is sadly quite likely), and ask random people what the coaches salary is, I doubt that anyone would get it right (even within a 1 mil buffer zone). I could be wrong but it just does not seem like the kind of thing college fans would care about, even the most hardcore ones. I know if somebody randomly came up to me and asked (before knowing what I know), I would say, "No clue, maybe 300kish if you are forcing me to guess".


That might be an interesting informal survey, but I doubt if you will find very many Alabama fans that hear what Saban's salary is and are angry about it.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 28th, 2021 at 8:17:26 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Mission146
In that event, we agree on this point. Although, it wouldn't change what Nick Saban does in fact get paid or what Alabama football makes in revenue and profits...it would just change whether or not Saban would appear on Government employee compensation lists.



The why is simple: Because the sport generates more revenues and greater profits for the teams. Why do the best NFL players make more money than the best professional Ping-Pong players or Dart players? That's a simple function of demand.

Anyway, this goes back to whether or not they should be Government employees to begin with, which we both agree they shouldn't. As you mentioned, some college hoops coaches make serious bank and that's for the same reason.

I think that you keep thinking of it as Government and Education, but it really is that in name only. I also don't think that college sports even have an arguably educational purpose, which is one of my defenses of High School (and lower) sports.



I think we agree here. (I combined both quotes together). I don't have much to add at this point. If they want to get paid, let them get paid as contractors of the league not as a salaried employee of the State. I would find this not offensive at all (and probably never know or care).



Quote: Mission146
Are you really going to make me research and cite viewership numbers to counter this objectively bad point, or will you just admit that it's a bad point. In this country, people clearly find football not only to be entertaining to watch, but actually, the most entertaining sport to watch.

Maybe reframe this position in a way that only focuses on the potential for physical harm and I will address it.

Also, going back to the football programs that are profitable---the Government is not paying for those ones. In fact, the Government is actually paying out less money than it otherwise might by virtue of the fact that the sport is profitable.


No, I already accepted that Football is the most popular sport in America. And, even I know the Superbowl is the most watched single sporting event on TV (In America) by a large amount. So you don't need to convince me of its popularity.

That does not mean I have to enjoy it. I find it boring even when I genuinely make a good faith attempt to "get into it", its like 4 seconds of action and then minutes of standing around. I just don't get the appeal. And, I say this as somebody who does not like watching activities /sports in general (even activities that I enjoy), but Football is overly boring as a spectator. I think even Soccer is more active to watch than football. I just don't get it, its not for me, and that is fine. I feel the same about video games, I enjoy playing video games, but this massive industry in recent years of watching people play games or "E-Sports" I find absurd (I just don't get the appeal). Which is fine, I can live without them, and they can live without me, it only matters when government is involved (because that is a forcible shift of priorities).

As for the harm, I think that is a fair point. It is a dangerous sport, which can cause lasting harm (especially if young). Which again is fine for consenting adults (same reason I have no issues with private combat sports), but less fine when you look at the amount of minors that are pressured to participate from a young age (at public schools). I am very convinced that if Football was not as popular and ingrained into the society as it is, it would be unthinkable if somebody just popped into the county and said , " Hey here is my idea for a sport lets push it out to all schools for kids". But, I also accept that I grew up in a family that felt Football was dangerous (going back to letters from my Grandfather in the early 1960s to his kids away at school begging them to not get involved because of the suspected brain risks), so this was ingrained into me from a young age.




Quote: Mission146
I accept that I would be a worse football coach than Nick Saban, that Alabama would almost certainly lose more games under my leadership and, as an indirect consequence, make less in revenues. For someone who finds the sport boring, I'm shocked that you seem to think that all coaches are equal, or you could just go be a college football coach and get that big contract for yourself.

You can't counter a general point that the head coach matters by comparing two coaches. I guess you can, but then I can find any number of teams that make less in profits (or lose money) and point to those as reasons that Saban is paid more than they are.

The problem with nobody caring if they had a poor year is just that---nobody would care. If nobody cares, then nobody spends.


No, I don't think all coaches are equal (if I said that I misspoke or worded poorly). I simply said, I am not convinced revenue would be greatly effected with a different coach, UGA fans would still be UGA fans. This goes back to the above point, if they really want top-tier coaches for certain sports let them be privately paid by league funds (I would have never known or cared).




Quote: Mission146
Revenue v. Expenses is just profit or loss. It doesn't change the point. If you want to use the word, "Profit," to describe it, then the IRS could make more in, "Profits," simply by instituting an income tax rate of 99.9%.

It also gets back to voluntary v. involuntary streams of revenue, but you dismissed that point as irrelevant.


But, the IRS could not, they just enforce and investigate the Tax Code as approved by Congress. The IRS does not have the power to change rates or exemptions. This does not influence an agent's productivity or revenue that they bring.

And, even if they could I doubt the IRS would raise the tax rate to such a margin (because they are smart enough to know that all rich people would flee and they would make essentially nothing).

I do think its irrelevant when comparing government revenue, because you can make the voluntary argument about any department that you despise. In the long run anything that the government sanctions is involuntary (even Football) because it is crafted in a way that we are forced to allow/endorse it (I admit that is an obtuse point, but its true). Again, it comes down to what you personally prefer.



Quote: Mission146
That might be an interesting informal survey, but I doubt if you will find very many Alabama fans that hear what Saban's salary is and are angry about it.


Next time I end up at the Sports Bar on game night I will do this. (And yes I know this proves nothing, but it would be a fun personal test). I don't expect people to get angry or even care, but it would be interesting to see what some hardcore fans think on the surface the coach makes without being able to google it.
October 29th, 2021 at 6:49:07 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote:
I think we agree here. (I combined both quotes together). I don't have much to add at this point. If they want to get paid, let them get paid as contractors of the league not as a salaried employee of the State. I would find this not offensive at all (and probably never know or care).


They'd have to be paid by the school in any case, you just would call them a contractor as opposed to an employee. It's just a rose of a different name.

Quote:
As for the harm, I think that is a fair point. It is a dangerous sport, which can cause lasting harm (especially if young). Which again is fine for consenting adults (same reason I have no issues with private combat sports), but less fine when you look at the amount of minors that are pressured to participate from a young age (at public schools). I am very convinced that if Football was not as popular and ingrained into the society as it is, it would be unthinkable if somebody just popped into the county and said , " Hey here is my idea for a sport lets push it out to all schools for kids". But, I also accept that I grew up in a family that felt Football was dangerous (going back to letters from my Grandfather in the early 1960s to his kids away at school begging them to not get involved because of the suspected brain risks), so this was ingrained into me from a young age.


(Above section clipped, relevance)

I don't have a meaningful objection to any of that. I'm not even going to argue that youth football is, "Worth the risk," other than to say that it's up to each individual parent to decide that.

This study, however, looks at youths aged 14, or younger:

https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=sports-injury-statistics-90-P02787

As you probably would have expected, football is the #1 sport by which these children suffer injuries...however, you might be surprised to find that basketball and bicycling are really close. These are ranked by emergency room visits and also seem to include non-team activities.

One unsurprising thing about this study is that the most popular activities yield the most emergency room visits. For instance, skateboarding resulted in 66,000 emergency room visits for the year studied, but I would imagine that significantly more kids played basketball, baseball or football than skateboarded.

With that, I think the injury argument is valid, but creates a slippery slope. At what point would a person point to number of participants v. number of serious injuries and say, "Any more than this number is unacceptable and any fewer is acceptable."?

According to this study:

https://www.frplegal.com/child-injury/an-in-depth-review-on-youth-sports-injuries-statistics-in-2019/

Basketball actually results in more injuries than football in 2019, though basketball is not typically thought of as a particularly dangerous sport. I would say that the reason for that is it is not considered a contact sport, but when there is contact (or, more to the point, a fall) players have no protection.

This study:

https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/blog/a-closer-look-at-youth-sports-injuries/

Focuses on team sports and says football has the most injuries by that standard. With that, let's compare the number of injuries for each sport on a per participant basis using the above-linked study:

Football: 444281/1057382 = 0.42017076137

Basketball: (88927+70700)/550305 = 0.29007005206

Soccer: (190436+145215)/450234 = 0.7455034493

The most dangerous injury (short of death) that is frequent and can have long-term effects is the concussion. With that, let's compare the concussion rate for soccer v. football:

Football: 122372/1057382 = 0.11573111704

Soccer: (62285+26143)/450234 = 0.1964045363

That makes sense because, in soccer, you have the potential for direct head-to-head (or other body parts to head) contact and falls are unprotected.

With that, soccer is a more dangerous sport (on a per athlete basis) than football, but then perhaps you would advocate for them to also get rid of soccer. If you did, then I suppose basketball would need to be the next sport on the chopping block followed by volleyball.

Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion of soccer players wearing helmets, or perhaps you could ban use of the head for youth soccer.

Quote:
No, I don't think all coaches are equal (if I said that I misspoke or worded poorly). I simply said, I am not convinced revenue would be greatly effected with a different coach, UGA fans would still be UGA fans. This goes back to the above point, if they really want top-tier coaches for certain sports let them be privately paid by league funds (I would have never known or cared).


Again, there are no, "League funds," by which coaches would be paid...at least, not without doing our original idea by which you have a league with teams that can use the University name and mascot, but otherwise have nothing to do with it. If you don't want them to appear on the Government employee lists, then all that need happen is the school pay coaching staff as contractors, rather than employees.

Quote:
But, the IRS could not, they just enforce and investigate the Tax Code as approved by Congress. The IRS does not have the power to change rates or exemptions. This does not influence an agent's productivity or revenue that they bring.

And, even if they could I doubt the IRS would raise the tax rate to such a margin (because they are smart enough to know that all rich people would flee and they would make essentially nothing).

I do think its irrelevant when comparing government revenue, because you can make the voluntary argument about any department that you despise. In the long run anything that the government sanctions is involuntary (even Football) because it is crafted in a way that we are forced to allow/endorse it (I admit that is an obtuse point, but its true). Again, it comes down to what you personally prefer.


My main point is college football is Government in name only---particularly for those programs that operate profitably. Certainly, private Universities with football teams wouldn't be classified as Government revenue. This all stemmed from my original point that I don't look at the IRS on a profit/loss basis.

If you wanted to get into a Government entity that is engaged in voluntary transactions that DOES operate on a profit/loss basis, then State Lotteries would have been a much better comparison.

Quote:
Next time I end up at the Sports Bar on game night I will do this. (And yes I know this proves nothing, but it would be a fun personal test). I don't expect people to get angry or even care, but it would be interesting to see what some hardcore fans think on the surface the coach makes without being able to google it.


Cool, let me know how that goes.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
Page 3 of 4<1234>