Mack Brown Gets $2 Million A Year Raise

[GrandGreen]

A lot of you are coming to the defense of Brown and the free enterprise system. A couple of points, I have not seen any criticism of Brown on this board for making that amount of money. The problem is the contention that a tax exempt state supported university such as UT is justified in spending the vast amount of monies not to educate but to maintain athletic superiority over the NCAA. The primary justification is always going to be that the exposure will benefit the institution far more than the cost. The primary objections are that it creates unfair competition and brings up very serious issues about college athletes. Although, many of you have supported the Brown salary, no one has even commented on the total inequity of the NCAA system when you relate athletes like Colt McCoy who are actually playing the game and risking injury getting only an athletic scholarship versus the $5m annually the hc is making. It seems to me difficult to support Brown's salary by capitalistic tenets and totally disregard the fact that NCAA sports is based on amateur athletes.

[Green Dozer]

No state monies are used to support UT's athletic programs, it is a separate entity. It comes from donors to begin with. I think a football operating budget of 13.5 million dollars and the generation of 87.5 million in revenue is pretty capitalistic. FYI, they now have a CO-OP not only in Austin, but San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. Somebody sure did a great job with branding and marketing in Austin. Bottom line is that the alumni and the administration came together at the same time and built that athletic program into what it is today. Hmm, who could learn from that?

I want to rub my fillings with foil when I think about how our merchandising has been and is handled!

[SilverEagle]

No state monies are used to support UT's athletic programs, it is a separate entity. It comes from donors to begin with. I think a football operating budget of 13.5 million dollars and the generation of 87.5 million in revenue is pretty capitalistic. FYI, they now have a CO-OP not only in Austin, but San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. Somebody sure did a great job with branding and marketing in Austin. Bottom line is that the alumni and the administration came together at the same time and built that athletic program into what it is today. Hmm, who could learn from that?

I want to rub my fillings with foil when I think about how our merchandising has been and is handled!

Well when you consider that if they charged the $57 end zone ticket prices for all of the seats at their stadium, they would make a minimum of $4,674,000 on just one game. That's based on a 82K seating capacity. And this has nothing to do with the cost of parking, concessions, and selling official gear.

[NT80]

$5 million a year for a college coaching salary is beyond crazy, but so is football revenue of $100 million that he earns them in one season.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

$5 million a year for a college coaching salary is beyond crazy, but so is football revenue of $100 million that he earns them in one season.

And just think, Mack will soon be the second highest paid college coach. Nick Saban has it in his contract that if he makes the championship playoff that he will be paid $1 more than the highest paid college coach.

[GrandGreen]

No state monies are used to support UT's athletic programs, it is a separate entity. It comes from donors to begin with. I think a football operating budget of 13.5 million dollars and the generation of 87.5 million in revenue is pretty capitalistic. FYI, they now have a CO-OP not only in Austin, but San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. Somebody sure did a great job with branding and marketing in Austin. Bottom line is that the alumni and the administration came together at the same time and built that athletic program into what it is today. Hmm, who could learn from that?

I want to rub my fillings with foil when I think about how our merchandising has been and is handled!

I think most football fans in Texas know that state funds don't directly fund college athletes. Sorry but a system based on amateur athletes and tax exempt status is anything but capitalistic. No one is saying that UT does not do a great job with athletics. The football expenses for football for 08-09 were $22.6m as reported by the US Department of education if that really matters. In addition to the costs that are charged directly to football, there is another $56.5m in athletic expenses that is unallocated to any sport. The comparable numbers for NT are $4.3m direct football and $6.4m in unallocated expenses.

Just to clarify with the obvious, universities are tax exempt because they are non-profit institutions. On an on-gong basis, revenues have to equal expenses. It is very rare for an athletic department to generate funds. In the vast majority of NCAA programs, athletic departments lose money with the difference made up with student fees and in some states, government supplements. There are some football programs that generate funds, these monies are almost entirely reinvested in the athletic department. In the case of a few programs with UT the foremost, the surpluses are so great that they almost have to look for ways under NCAA rules to reinvest the money in the football program. This just keeps adding to the competitive imbalance between the haves and the have-nots and when UT is the comparison, everyone else is a have-not.

I guess I am in the minority on this board, but IMO the primary principle of collegian sports should be fair competition; not who as the largest athletic budget. I am also amazed at the notion that UT is number one in the nation in athletics revenues because they have simply been more effective than the rest of universities. I guess being the de facto flagship of a comparatively football crazy wealthy state has been only incidental to their success.

Still no was addressed the incongruity of multi-million dollar coaches in an university based amateur competition. The only basis, I can come up with for not paying players is that it would further deteriorate competition. But, that is a hard concept to sell when you have a coach that makes more than the entire cost of 85 ships.

Edited December 11, 2009 by GrandGreen

[FirefightnRick]

In addition to the costs that are charged directly to football, there is another $56.5m in athletic expenses that is unallocated to any sport.

I'm guessing this is where the remainder of the near $90 Million listed under "Grand Total Expense" comes from?

Varsity Teams Men's Teams Women's Teams Total

Basketball $7,891,661 $4,557,124 $12,448,785

Football $22,569,086 $22,569,086

Total Expenses of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $8,981,935 $12,424,012 $21,405,947

Total Expenses Men's and Women's Teams $39,442,682 $16,981,136 $56,423,818

Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $56,511,314

Grand Total Expenses $112,935,132

I guess I am in the minority on this board, but IMO the primary principle of collegian sports should be fair competition; not who as the largest athletic budget.

No, I'm with you on this as well. But watch during the bowl season when the NCAA sponsored commercials try and spin it as fair competition, or something to that sort.

This is why I posted earlier that they should be forced to compete in the pro ranks rather than something based on fair, amateur competition.

Rick

Edited December 11, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[eulessismore]

Maybe. But then we would be complaining that we were left behind and we deserve to be in the pros too.

I just hope that after years of neglect, the culture at UNT has changed as much as I think it has. It still has a long way to go, but it is so much better than even 10 years ago. Hell 5 years ago. It is all about the alumni.

Hey, what about the students? I guess the student side looked wide open for the last couple of home games I attended, but the Green Brigade always turns out in force.

[SilverEagle]

Current stadium capacity is 100,119.

Ok then, they make a minimum of $5,706,783.00 per game on ticket sales only. Keep in mind this is based on end zone ticket prices. I don't know what their prices are for the 20 yard line to 20 yard line seats.

[cwb]

Man, it really baffles/humors me how some can be so hard core capitalist on the non-sports forum and be such socialists on the football forum.

[EagleD]

Ok then, they make a minimum of $5,706,783.00 per game on ticket sales only. Keep in mind this is based on end zone ticket prices. I don't know what their prices are for the 20 yard line to 20 yard line seats.

And you have to join the Longhorn foundation to even apply for season tix.

If people are willing to pay that price, go ahead. It actually keeps a nice paycheck coming for your's truly; not $5 million nice, but it pays the mortgage.

Texas' home games were pretty boring to watch this year.

[LongJim]

And you have to join the Longhorn foundation to even apply for season tix.

Not unless the demand is high enough. The last 2 years the general public could buy season tix without joining the LHF. It works similar to the MGC regarding the 'points'/$ benefits.

[LongJim]

Man, it really baffles/humors me how some can be so hard core capitalist on the non-sports forum and be such socialists on the football forum.

I agree. I hope UNT can get to the level where they can outspend everyone in the SBC, and have all the athletic ameneties the athletes deserve at this school. If UNT is spending 3X what everyone else spends/takes in--good for them.

Edited December 11, 2009 by LongJim

[untjim1995]

Ok then, they make a minimum of $5,706,783.00 per game on ticket sales only. Keep in mind this is based on end zone ticket prices. I don't know what their prices are for the 20 yard line to 20 yard line seats.

My buddy has season tickets for UT games and we went to the UT-Tech game in September in Austin. Those tickets, for the upper deck, at about the 30, and about 3/4 of the way up, cost $95 each--after he pays $2500 a year to the Longhorn Foundation. One of his friends that used to sit about three rows behind him decided about 4 years ago to raise his Longhorn Foundation contribution to $5000 per year to move up--he now sits at the 35, in the upper deck, and about three rows in front of my buddy's tickets.

[greeneagle69]

I long for the day that our $2000.00 per week coach beats the $96,000.00 per week coach !!

[greenminer]

I long for the day that our $2000.00 per week coach beats the $96,000.00 per week coach !!

unreal when I think about it.

seriously...i have a few CC debts I could use help on.

[gangrene]

Not everyone at UT is happy with Mack Brown's raise. I was just watching ESPN's Outside the Lines and they had a whole segment devoted to whether or not Mack Brown should be making $5 million a year. A disgruntled UT Accounting professor was on air complaining about how his department is being forced to cut budget and an Iowa senator voiced his displeasure with the amount of money college football coaches are making. Iowa senator, others raise concerns about spiraling coaching salaries

The upset professor doesn't sound all that different from what we encountered here during the stadium vote. But the UT student newspaper, the Daily Texan, seems to be more supportive than our counterpart, the NT Daily, as I find no mention of anyone opposed to Mack Brown's raise on their website.

[greenminer]

A disgruntled UT Accounting professor was on air complaining about how his department is being forced to cut budget and an Iowa senator voiced his displeasure with the amount of money college football coaches are making.

Anyone want to call BS on this?

I am not disagreeing with the notion that Mack is overpaid, but to say that your department is being forced to take cuts to accommodate it...just seems unfounded.

I would be curious to see how he came up with that, for example the line-item budget changes. How would a university justify that to its board?

[cwb]

Anyone want to call BS on this?

I am not disagreeing with the notion that Mack is overpaid, but to say that your department is being forced to take cuts to accommodate it...just seems unfounded.

I would be curious to see how he came up with that, for example the line-item budget changes. How would a university justify that to its board?

He wasn't blaming the cuts on Brown's pay raise. He was questioning the timing of the raise while there are shortfalls in academics. Looks like the atheletic dept. should be teaching the business courses.

[greenminer]

He wasn't blaming the cuts on Brown's pay raise. He was questioning the timing of the raise while there are shortfalls in academics. Looks like the atheletic dept. should be teaching the business courses.

I should have thought of that. Thank you.

Can we come up with a draft for a business department playoff? That's the only way they are going to make sense of all this.

[gangrene]

Anyone want to call BS on this?

I am not disagreeing with the notion that Mack is overpaid, but to say that your department is being forced to take cuts to accommodate it...just seems unfounded.

I would be curious to see how he came up with that, for example the line-item budget changes. How would a university justify that to its board?

He (Michael Granoff) wasn't really making that claim (that the budget cuts would pay for the raise) and the show's host did state that no state funds or tuition revenue is used to pay the salary of Mack Brown and that Texas football generated $87 million last year. I just rewound the segment on my DVR and Granoff claims, "The major problem today is one of timing. The University of Texas is facing a major budget crisis (insert chuckle/BS claim here)." He goes on to state, "We've (faculty) had layoffs, major curriculum changes and the faculty has been meeting for the last month trying to figure out how to save a few hundred thousand dollars here and there. And I think I've never, in all my years at the University of Texas, heard so much outrage about this decision, from faculty, business people, season ticket holders and some of the most loyal supporters of UT athletics, myself included." He also wants to use the money earned from athletics for academic purposes and states that the current business model for collegiate athletics is not sustainable. He made some very valid points IMO.

They also had UT's AD, DeLoss Dodds on to defend his decision and he mentioned that Granoff was a friend and has served on the athletics council and understands the business. A very smug, unfriendly-looking, and almost defiant, Dodds justified Mack's raise by stating that the athletic department has given the university $6.6 million over the last three years and that the football program has gone from generating $20 million, 12 years ago, to $87 million during Mack's tenure at UT. When the host further prodded Dodds as to why the athletics department doesn't give more of its $87 million to the university, Dodds was a bit testy, and said he had just stated that they intended to do so, but would not divulge any details as to how much. Dodds really came across as ass during this interview.

Edited December 11, 2009 by gangrene

[greenminer]

FWIW:

via ESPN

"So this notion that the coaches are getting market salaries and therefore it is OK … is absolutely fatuous, because it is a completely rigged market where the real producers don't get paid. And the coaches, moreover, are getting paid by institutions that benefit from extensive tax privileges and also extensive subsidies from the university and the state. So none of that is free market, but they like to wrap themselves in the cloth of the free market to say that their salaries are justified. It is idiotic."

[untjim1995]

I thought this was a good article form the WSJ about UT and its support.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...Tabs%3Dcomments