it would be a big issues. As we have seen with Saban, the Athletic department, boosters, etc. al contribute to these salaries, and without these coaches winning and developing powerhouse programs the revenue streams for the athletic departments wouldn’t be nearly what they are now. How much of that revenue goes to provide scholarship for non-revenue (or non-profitable) sports? As one poster on that site pointed out, the effect of a tremendously successful athletic department reverberates throughout the university (and Texas has more than just football). I understand the frustrations from the rest of the faculty, but I seriously doubt any of the professors have to deal with the same pressure that the head football coach does.

If they want to blame someone, blame the culture of the state. People love college football, and Texas is just like Alabama – cashing in on it to provide a better college experience to all it’s students.

Revenues are huge when u are winning ball games. Mack has done this,in turn bringing piles of money back to the program.
Went into screen Tech yesterday and the Tide clothing was picked over so bad they had nothing that interested me. But the Auburn,Ga,Fl. St, and Troy stuff was full on every shelf. Same at Bama Fever/ Aub Pride in the mall.Point being, winning sells. Give CNS a raise( I Love You Man).
I would think that students would also want(prefer) to go to a winning school,hence bringing in more students keeps more teachers their jobs. These teachers are smart (I wud think) enuf to see this.
Maybe I’m just drinking too much Koolaid but thats the way I see it. If they went thru a few years of mediocrity , as we have, their tune might change.

Obama says he doesn’t like the “fat cat” bankers getting rich. So anyone making a lot of money is now a target. And on almost every campus the professors lean strongly left.

Eventually this kind of thinking will surface at Bama. But what these profs don’t realize is that without students they have no job. And in these tough times what is the incentive for students to come to a major campus rather than stay home at the community college? Well for some it is football or (at UK) basketball. So really a good coach helps the number of students which helps the faculty have kids to teach. But, they will cut their own throat for political correctness.

Words like “unseemly” and “inappropriate” are used to let you know that no one should be making this kind of money while others are struggling etc.

If you followed these folks they would let the government set salaries to be “fair” and “equitable” etc.

They (the prof’s) probably also feel that it is “inappropriate” for Wall Street “fat cats” to make all their money or for people to profit in a recession, etc.

And, I’m sure some of them are Texas fans. They just feel paying someone this amount of money is wrong. They raise a stink about this issue because if a bunch of prof’s protested a banker getting 10 million- no one would care. But this gets headlines and advances their agenda.

Coaches at universities are totally different from about the faculty. They are about the only ones who get hired and fired based on performance. The rest are tenured.

It is sort of like the free market (coaches) vs. government controls (faculty.)

For many academics, the issue is not “jealousy,” or anything so trite; nor is the issue that they don’t like athletics, which is a red herring argument.

Many professors believe — and not unjustifiably — that whether or not Texas’s Athletics Department can afford it (which as the wealthiest, by a wide margin, it most certainly can), the issue is whether Texas’s doing so is a good idea independently of that. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of FCS schools are getting hammered trying to keep up with the richest of the rich; in fact, a mere 6% of Athletics Departmens are running in the black these days.

The question is whether the current trajectory is sustainable, on the whole. At Texas it may be, but the professors aren’t crying that they don’t think Texas can keep it up. They’re complaining that our doing what we’re doing is not healthy and not sustainable for universities and university athletics on the whole.

Attacking scare crow arguments is easier than thinking hard about the actual problem they’re insisting demands consideration, but if you really want to address the issue, you have to think about this much more broadly and in its entire context. It’s complex and hard, and it’s not a sure thing that they’re right, but the concerns are absolutely valid and demand real thought.

and patience of your coach in waiting? Will Muschamp is prolly looking around and thinking how many years am I going to have to sit here and wait for my shot. Texas Football is thriving right now. With Brown getting a pay hike it doesn’t look like he leaving anytime soon. Will it take the demise of the program before I get my shot. If so, who wants to be on the hotseat from day one. That scenario could hurt my resume. (ie Gene Chizik). Muschamp’s in a bind IMO if he waits it out he could miss his coaching prime getting his shot only when the getting is so so. Plus 12/12/2012 is around the corner and I dont think we’ll be playing football after the Sun lobs solar flares and gamma rays all over the planet. That is unless the Rushians are putting a football field in that 400 square mile underground city they are building in preparation for Doomsday.
-
The coach in waiting title is a risky and strange situation. In one sense it offers stability and in another sense you prolly wont get your shot untill the current HC is fired for lack of production. Thus putting you in a get it done or get gone scenario.