Student football tickets

#501
#501
hatvol96 said:
What has Steve Spurrier done for South Carolina that merits them paying him more than Rich Brooks?
Click to expand...

Not many people are complaining about SOS's pay. I'm not sure, but Spurrier was making about $1,5 million to not go to BCS bowl games or win SEC championships. Fulmer is being paid $2 million.
 
#502
#502
GAVol said:
One last time . . . I am not commenting whatsoever on the job CPF is doing right now.

The median income for SEC football coaches is around $2 million and rising. It doesn't matter if we fire CPF tomorrow and bring in Coach Joe Blow. If he has any success whatsoever the market says we are going to be paying him at least $2 million per year and he will have a 5 year contract with annual extensions.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that 9 win seasons are a the level of success that should be rewarded? Again, 6 of the guys that you are refereing to that make $2 million or more actually did something more recently than Fulmer to actually earn it. What did Fulmer do in 2003 to deserve getting a raise/extension the week of the Peach Bowl blow up against Clemson?
 
#503
#503
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not many people are complaining about SOS's pay. I'm not sure, but Spurrier was making about $1,5 million to not go to BCS bowl games or win SEC championships. Fulmer is being paid $2 million.
Click to expand...

Spurrier is making $1.77 million which puts him in 8th place in the SEC.
 
#504
#504
hatvol96 said:
You're going to have a tough time being taken seriously if you're calling for "merit pay" in the same thread where you say Summit is overpaid.
Click to expand...

She's the highest paid women's coach already. But you also have to look at if market forces are also pushing you to keep her salary any higher than it is right now. Summit and Fulmer on the open market would struggle to find another coaching job that would pay them the same as or more than what they are being paid right now. Fulmer's problem would deal with his resume over the last 9 years. Summit's would be because there are not many people beating down doors looking to pay $1.3 million dollars to a women's basketball coach. :unsure:
 
#505
#505
Rasputin_Vol said:
Are you saying that 9 win seasons are a the level of success that should be rewarded?
Click to expand...

No, for the 4th time what I am saying is that the median income in the SEC is around $2 million so logically it follows that Tennessee hires is going to be in that neighborhood due to market conditions. Even if they hire a coach for less than that, a successful year or two will get him bumped into that range immediately.
 
#506
#506
Rasputin_Vol said:
She's the highest paid women's coach already. But you also have to look at if market forces are also pushing you to keep her salary any higher than it is right now. Summit and Fulmer on the open market would struggle to find another coaching job that would pay them the same as or more than what they are being paid right now. Fulmer's problem would deal with his resume over the last 9 years. Summit's would be because there are not many people beating down doors looking to pay $1.3 million dollars to a women's basketball coach. :unsure:
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is one's salary should be driven by merit while the other's is driven by market value. There's a slight inconsistency there.
 
#507
#507
GAVol said:
Spurrier is making $1.77 million which puts him in 8th place in the SEC.
Click to expand...

I knew it was less than $2 million, but wasn't exactly sure how much. In any event, the point is that not only is Fulmer overpaid at $2 million, but he is not even worthy of a raise/extension. Spurrier at USC has been to as many BCS bowl games and SECC as Fulmer over the last 3 seasons. They both have a 1-1 bowl record during that same time period.

What market force is dictating that Fulmer based off of that deserves a raise? Or even more egregiously, what justifies Hamilton to finance most of this on the backs of the students?
 
#508
#508
Rasputin_Vol said:
What market force is dictating that Fulmer based off of that deserves a raise? Or even more egregiously, what justifies Hamilton to finance most of this on the backs of the students?
Click to expand...

For the 5th time, set aside whatever you think of CPF. The cost of freight in the SEC for a football coach is around $2 million. A program like Tennessee is going to pay a coach somewhere close to that figure regardless.

If you don't like it, go pay $800,000 and become Mississippi State.
 
#509
#509
jjay2518 said:
So what you're saying is one's salary should be driven by merit while the other's is driven by market value. There's a slight inconsistency there.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. Those have been the two main drivers of salary since before Adam Smith. Supply/demand of labor differentiates one job/profession from another. That is why engineers and doctors are paid more than fast food workers. There are fewer of them and their skills are more technical than a cook/server. Merit differentiates people within the same job class. That is why salesmen that bring in more sales usually make more than other salemen/peers that don't. Fulmer, when compared with his peers, is overpaid. Spurrier, Brooks and the like have as much hardware to show over the last few years as Fulmer does. Summit, on the other hand, faces a problem in that there is very little demand for her services on the open market. Not many schools in the country are going to pay $1.3 million dollars to a women's basketball coach because women's basketball is a net loser of revenue at 99% of the schools.
 
#510
#510
hatvol96 said:
Nobody is "making" them pay anything. Period. Hence, the definition of a discretionary cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they don't have to. They could just sit at home or in the dorm, which even you suggested earlier would be a blessing for Mike Hamilton, because he could turn around, reduce student allotments and sell those same tix to the general public at a higher cost. If that is his goal, then fine. But let's not have these schools ever again get on their high sanctimonious horse and start babbling about it being for the students and enhancing the student life on campus and what not in their glossy brochures or on their halftime commercials in the fall. Heck, they don't even need to be talking about having a care for the student-athletes. What this is all about is a money grab, plain and simple. They could care less if 13,000 students come or 0 come. That is the truth about the matter and what it all boils down to. That is why I'm not thrilled about this idea. And yeah yeah yeah... so what is everybody else does it? That doesn't make it right. Yeah, charging the kids is legal, but I don't think it is right to have have kids pay this additional fee to see a team that is supposed to be the team of that university.
 
#511
#511
Rather than me get a headache reading this economic gobbledygook, wouldn't it be easier if the SGA just hired Sally Stuthers to do some "feed the college students" commercials to solicit donations for those poor kids that can't pay $15 for a ticket?
 
#512
#512
...or perhaps Freak and I could coordinate a time and place where we could get the Mods and Gurus together to record a Volnation version of "We are the World" and donate the proceeds.
 
#513
#513
GAVol said:
...or perhaps Freak and I could coordinate a time and place where we could get the Mods and Gurus together to record a Volnation version of "We are the World" and donate the proceeds.
Click to expand...

And still, the price isn't as big of an issue with me as it is the principle. I mean, Hamilton did come out and say that the reason for the $90 was to help pay for salaries and other costs, right? Well, who is the biggest whale over there when it comes to salary? The price could have been $90 or $19... my point is that they should be looking at cutting some of the expenses before they start going to the students to cover these costs. The first bit of fat over there was a problem that Hamilton created by giving Fulmer his raises/extensions. As I have said, if Fulmer was sharing in some of this pain and had to sacrifice a little to keep the students from paying, that would be one thing. Or (and the more important point), if Fulmer was actually putting something in the trophy case, there wouldn't be much to complain about. But for a guy to get paid so much for doing so little, and as a consequence of that, the students have to finance some of his salary... I just can't defend that.
 
#514
#514
If you feel so strongly about the issue, what difference does it make whether Fulmer wins games or not? The principle is still the same.
 
#515
#515
GAVol said:
If you feel so strongly about the issue, what difference does it make whether Fulmer wins games or not? The principle is still the same.
Click to expand...

If he's winning, they still would need to look at cutting fat, but it would be alot easier to take if it was actually a good product on the field. I mean, we're coming off beatdowns of 59-20 and 41-17 against our two most bitter conference rivals, going on 10 seasons without any hardware or BCS bowl appearances, and here is Hamilton going to this extent to pay Fulmer a few more clams with the college students picking up most of the tab.
 
#516
#516
I don't understand why there is a budget shortfall. I always thought that the men's program was very healthy financially. Are donations down? Is the university not getting the endorsement money that they once did? Serious question, I am not trying to stir the pot.

As far as Fulmer, he should not receive a raise until he brings some hardware home. He is compensated based on what he did in 98, and is quite overpaid for the results he has been producing since then.

What Pat Summit gets is a non-issue as it is part of a different budget. Even at $1.3 million, I think she deserves it. First she wins championships in a sport that does get national exposure. She is advertising for the university. This is coming from me, who is happy when the Lady Vols win, but doesn't really care that much at all about women's basketball.

I feel bad for the students but I do not think $90 is that big of a deal. It is the principle of it, I know. But if the football team were producing better results, would there be less complaining?
 
#517
#517
Godfatha said:
What Pat Summit gets is a non-issue as it is part of a different budget. Even at $1.3 million, I think she deserves it. First she wins championships in a sport that does get national exposure. She is advertising for the university. This is coming from me, who is happy when the Lady Vols win, but doesn't really care that much at all about women's basketball.
Click to expand...
At this point, I have to question that. I realize the men' and women's programs are split depts., but the get money from the students activities fees (which according to MH's public relations girl has been going on for about 20 years). And judging that nearly every other university in the country has football revenue that has to finance the majority of the other sports, I would be really interested to know if the women's athletic dept. isn't getting some of that money also.
 
#519
#519
Rasputin_Vol said:
I would be really interested to know if the women's athletic dept. isn't getting some of that money also.
Click to expand...

So now there's a conspiracy between the mens and womens Athletic Departments? Are those black helicopters now circiling the Hill?

I seriously doubt that the mens department is out of the goodness of their heart subsidizing the womens programs under the table.
 
#520
#520
dobre_shunka said:
So now there's a conspiracy between the mens and womens Athletic Departments? Are those black helicopters now circiling the Hill?

I seriously doubt that the mens department is out of the goodness of their heart subsidizing the womens programs under the table.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be "under the table". I'm sure they have to keep an account on where their sources of revenue are coming from.

Nice conspiracy/black helicopter rhetoric, btw.
 
#521
#521
dobre_shunka said:
So now there's a conspiracy between the mens and womens Athletic Departments? Are those black helicopters now circiling the Hill?

I seriously doubt that the mens department is out of the goodness of their heart subsidizing the womens programs under the table.
Click to expand...

Just by doing a quick GOOGLE search, I found some numbers from 2005-2006. Football and men's basketball brought in roughly $22 million that fiscal year in revenue, while the Lady Vols and all other sports combined brought in just under $2 million. :unsure:

I'm sure there is some place out there that actually has seperate balance sheets for the athletic depts that is more recent.
 
#523
#523
billbattle said:
This whole issue is an example of the entitlement mentality that seems to permeate society these days.
Click to expand...

If Joan Cronan is able to pay to out a coach $1.3+ million off of revenue that is several times lower than the men's revenue stream, then Mike Hamilton needs to be fired and let Cronan take over both departments. She's doing more with less if that is the case.
 
#525
#525
utvolpj said:
here's what I did when a little short on cash. 3 times and the tix are paid for

Locate a Plasma Donation Center
Click to expand...

Put's a new meaning to blood money. That would put Phil in the same category as Saddam and Mugabe. :p

Again, it's more about the principle of adding on this $90 fee for student tix a year after this team has gotten blown out by it's two most bitter rivals and we are entering our 10th season since our last BCS bowl or SEC championship. Instead of squeezing $90 out of the students, what about holding the football coach responsible for his recent history and make him feel some of this pain?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top