Yeah, the market rules on this one. The universities were the ones that escalated what they would pay for the coach they wanted, so it is a self-created problem if it is a problem at all.
The salary for work has never been based on some standard of what the societal value the work has. Teachers get next to nothing, talk show hosts a ton. Of course there are far more people who can be a good teachers than people who can be a a good talk show host. Plus talk show hosts and actors only get the big bucks as long as they generate bigger bucks for their employers.
As for coaching, I'm convinced that, with a few exceptions, there are plenty of coaches who don't make big bucks that are a good as their higher paid brethren.
Yes, it is indeed self-created. Pretending otherwise is hypocrisy at its finest.
Also, you are correct, some very fine coaches make far less than some highly paid, but perhaps less successful, coaches.
That also doesn't change the factors in a discussion:
- Coaches salaries as the highest paid in their state - which isn't uncommon - is simply idiotic when you recognize that they are working for --- an educational non-profit institution.
- A not so well paid excellent coach expects better and better pay and pursues it from place to place. Yes this is free market. Yes, salaries are not determined based on the societal value of the position. But these are positions at non-profit educational institutions. Escalated beyond belief, IMO.
- Salaries of professors - actually performing the work of the institution - make generally far less. Salaries of the higher executives vary, and some are very high indeed, but at least they are (supposedly) directly furthering the mission of the educational non-profit institution for which they work.
Now - make the teams semi-pro, change how they are funded and "sponsored" by the college, and pay whatever you want.
www.espn.com
