<p>Within the same week, within the same state, we get two widely different announcements concerning budgets for college football. </p>
<p>It was headline news in Seattle earlier this week when the University of Washington (NCAA Division I) disclosed they will pay a new assistant football coach a record annual salary of $700,000. In contrast, and just a few days later, the Western Washington University (NCAA Division II) administration announced they have made the difficult decision to eliminate their football program (a program with 100 plus years of history), effective immediately. </p>
<p>The contrast is stark. I dont pretend to be an expert in the ins and outs of college athletic department funding and revenue generation, and I realize there is a world of difference in the programs. I wouldnt argue that comparing the two programs is akin to comparing apples and oranges. WWU faced difficult and expensive traveling obstacles due to their somewhat unique geographical location in the most northwest corner of the United States. Still, with the entire Washington state education system (from elementary on up) facing major budget cuts over the next year, the move by WWU appears more in tune with the current economic reality of the state at this point in time.</p>
<p>I shared this topic with you today mostly because I think many of us on CC are wondering exactly what cuts we will see at colleges and universities across the nation over the next couple of months and years. This was a very high profile decision by WWU that may save other athletic programs at the school. Editorial comment: What do I think of the University of Washington decision to spend $700,000 per year on an assistant coach? Not so much. Full disclosure: I am a graduate of a UW rival. ;)</p>
<p>toneranger, your jaw will drop even further when you read this: the new UW football head coach will make $1.2M/yr! He is the highest-paid sate employee in WA! This is obscene and insane.</p>
<p>Bay, I agree, it is probably that simple. But, if WWU lost money on football, it can’t be that unique? Will many other Division II and III football programs fold in the coming year or two?</p>
<p>Continuing my editorial comments about University of Washington football: I hope the UW requests for major taxpayer subsidies for a renovated football stadium are dead in the water now. Any money for football at UW should be coming from football revenues and donations. Maybe the new football coaching team could be approached for a donation.
They appear to have some extra cash. :)</p>
<p>Alabama’s coach makes 4 million per year (and he lost his bowl game!)
Michigan’s new coach makes 2.5 million per year (and had one of the worst, if not THE worst season in Michigan’s history).
I know the Notre Dame guy makes a lot and they’re not doing well either.
Hey, so maybe the more you pay, the worse the team does!</p>
<p>This is out of control. Hopefully, the market for coaches will follow the market for houses. Sanity has to enter at some point.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that UW is part of a major conference, the Pac-10 and gets money from TV contracts and bowl games (yes, all teams get money from bowl games even ones that didn’t win a single game). </p>
<p>It isn’t fair to compare small football programs to the big ones. At USC, while the head coach makes nearly 4 Million, football pays for the entire athletic department and drives donations for the entire school.</p>
<p>$1.2 M will be cheap if he turns things around. UW once had a huge profit from football and over $30M in reserves. If he can bring back the Huskies he will have earned his $$$ and more. </p>
<p>I went to two games this year (for free!) and it was just sad to see the once proud Huskies now a laughing stock of a team.</p>
<p>I’m aware of the WWU announcement to eliminate their football program because I live in the same state. Are colleges and universities elsewhere publicizing relatively high profile cuts to athletic programs like this? </p>
<p>If the criteria for athletic programs is to be revenue positive, or at least revenue neutral, many more athletic teams will face the axe soon. Not all schools have the luxury of successful, revenue generating football and basketball teams to carry the other sports in their programs. My kids are not athletes, but if they were, I might be concerned that student athletes currently in high school might have significantly fewer options for sports assisted admissions and financial aid in the next few years.</p>
<p>$700,000? Gee that’s not even one one-millionth of the TARP bailout money, and if the coach doesn’t produce a winner he gets fired (unlike our friends at Treasury).</p>
<p>This was the latest story I could find on Rutgers, the state University of New Jersey where 10 (my guess) Olympic sports were eliminated. (fencing, tennis, diving… etc)<br>
</p>
<p>Then we move to Charlotte where UNC Charlotte has just decided to start a men’s football program.
The kids and alumni seem to like football.</p>
<p>NJres- Rutgers still offers more sports than just about any of it competitor schools. </p>
<p>I referenced barron in a thread about out of state students and the SUNY system in which I expressed my opinion that a successful football and/or men’s basketball program actually increase the applicant pool at a university. That is not to say I think a school should become a rogue university allowing in all types of thugs to be successful. Rutgers has a football academic success rate that is very high. I believe their entire sports program has done well in the measured academic index copmpared to their peers.</p>
<p>Like it or not football is very important to the image of a university.</p>