It's sometimes said that people in athletics departments exist in a bubble that's completely detached from reality.
The following quote shows that the same can be said of professors:
“That’s a gross inequity that affects us financially but also morale. It’s a great chance for the senate to step forward. It’s not a Penn State crime, but it sure makes me want to call 911.”
The quote came from Fran McGuire, a professor in parks, recreation and tourism at Clemson. McGuire was consulted in this article by the Independent-Mail, which documented complaints and uneasiness on Clemson's campus in the wake of Chad Morris' monstrous raise to $1.3 million a year.
Morris' raise, combined with Gus Malzahn's move to Arkansas State to become head coach, makes Morris the highest-paid assistant in the country. It's the latest sign that Clemson's administration is as serious about football as it's been in a long time.
And it doesn't sit well with some faculty who apparently aren't seeing their compensation come close to approaching market value.
There is a way to reasonably and rationally discuss this topic, and McGuire's approach probably isn't the way to do it. To even mention the horrific developments at Penn State during this discussion is ridiculous. And to suggest this approaches some sort of crime is pretty over-the-top, too.
The presence of big-time athletics on college campuses has never been easily reconciled. Dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, administrators and faculties have been uncomfortable with an endeavor that hasn't been central to higher education and the "academic mission."
In recent years, as the economy has dipped, we've seen the athletics market go in a direction that's completely opposite from just about every other market.
This is what Clemson president Jim Barker told me in a recent interview when I asked him about the school's commitment to the football staff:
“Aside from the fact that this is a market that’s so out of sync with every other market that I deal with, I think we’ve done the right things. I think if we’re going to be competitive, we’re going to need to be competitive. And that means investing in our coaching staff and facilities. Now we are doing similar things in terms of investing in our recruiting of students, recruiting and retaining faculty members. That’s really where most of our campaign efforts are going, to create new scholarships and new professorships and facilities. And the same thing would be true on the athletic side. The dollars involved are different, but the approach is the same. The market for an English professor is not the same as the market for an offensive coordinator.”
People are making less, getting furloughed and laid off. But big-time football and basketball programs are spending more and more as part of the so-called "arms race."
Fans aren't necessarily donating more, and in a lot of cases they're filling fewer seats in stadiums. But it doesn't matter -- at least, not at the moment -- because of the TV money that's rolling in.
Televised sports is the hottest thing going right now because of captive audiences that are still inclined to watch live television. Advertisers have honed in on this phenomenon, and conferences have cashed in on it.
I know a number of professors at Clemson and am sympathetic to the fact that they're dealing with pay freezes and all the other stuff the rest of America is dealing with. State budget cuts have dealt a major blow to the money available to pay faculty, and it's an unfortunate trend.
If Clemson's pay for professors is far below market value, then Clemson needs to take a serious look at that. But that's an issue that should be completely separate from what Clemson is paying its coaches.
Clemson's athletics department isn't leeching off its institution and sucking away money that would otherwise go to professors. Clemson is merely taking the extra TV money from its bank account to pay its most valuable commodities.
Clemson has decided to play big-boy football, and that decision means paying your coaches big-boy money ... or losing them to schools that are willing to pay them more.
Television networks don't pay big money to watch someone teach a class. Might sound harsh, but it's the truth.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment