Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="KnightBridgeAZ, post: 4290672, member: 591"] Yes and no. Its a thorny issue, and not so easy to resolve. Absolutely, in terms of what they bring to the university, most men's coaches produce far more in revenue, crowds, etc. As someone pointed out, Dawn outperforms the men at her school, but then, she is very well rewarded, she isn't talking about her salary specifically but the "average" or "general" disparity. But where it gets tough is the realization that they are ultimately performing the same job. Is the claim that the salary is not based on how well they coach the team but on the revenue the sport generates (which is pretty much the case right now)? Doesn't seem quite right. That would suggest a men's team coach with a losing or .500 record, but who draws big crowds, should be paid more than a Women's coach whose teams make the NCAA's virtually every year. As I say, it does seem off. Are we saying that its like someone working for a fortune 500 company vs. a mom-and-pop, such that one is more financially successful so the bigger company can pay more? Part of my take is actually that the men's coaches are paid far more than is "reasonable". Heck, the money is shoveled their way at schools whose athletic programs are not self-sufficient and where some of the money is generated from taxes and student fees. [/QUOTE]