Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ACC HC Salaries
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 150722" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>Well, there's a lot to reply to here.</p><p></p><p>First, it isn't revenues to the athletic programs that drive the proliferation of college sports. Most <em>football</em> programs don't pay for themselves, not to mention the "non-revenue" sports. So why have them? Competition for students and the need to retain those you have. A lot of what goes on in modern post-sedondary education is the functional equivalent of cruise ship activities. You get students "engaged" (i.e. entertained) and you'll attract more of them and, not coincidentally, get more money from the alums. State funding for colleges and universities is down substantially and the administrations have to make up the slack. Sports programs, even operating at a loss, can help to do that.</p><p></p><p>Second, doctors are a particularly bad example of a sometimes valid point. Why are doctors paid so well? Because the state, for <em>really</em> good reasons, drastically restricts the supply. Same for the supply of hospitals; that's pretty carefully regulated in most states. If the example had been pro basketball players the point would be more valid, though even there it's the taxpayer that picks u a lot of the tab by providing venues.</p><p></p><p>Third, teachers and the military do, in fact, generate revenue, largely by providing public goods that have general benefits. Problem = it is pretty hard to put a figure on their contribution since the services they provide can't be priced efficiently by markets. Consequently, we turn to a single price (taxes) that everybody has a personal interest in reducing. And, since in the US the mantra is always "Swedish level social services; Mississippi level taxes", we always have problems attracting and keeping any personnel in either calling that doesn't feel a professional obligation to keep at it.</p><p></p><p>This isn't intended as a put down, btw; these ideas are fairly widespread. But I had to reply to this. Oh, and Coach is worth every penny. The big surprise is how little Duke is paying Cutliffe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 150722, member: 265"] Well, there's a lot to reply to here. First, it isn't revenues to the athletic programs that drive the proliferation of college sports. Most [I]football[/I] programs don't pay for themselves, not to mention the "non-revenue" sports. So why have them? Competition for students and the need to retain those you have. A lot of what goes on in modern post-sedondary education is the functional equivalent of cruise ship activities. You get students "engaged" (i.e. entertained) and you'll attract more of them and, not coincidentally, get more money from the alums. State funding for colleges and universities is down substantially and the administrations have to make up the slack. Sports programs, even operating at a loss, can help to do that. Second, doctors are a particularly bad example of a sometimes valid point. Why are doctors paid so well? Because the state, for [I]really[/I] good reasons, drastically restricts the supply. Same for the supply of hospitals; that's pretty carefully regulated in most states. If the example had been pro basketball players the point would be more valid, though even there it's the taxpayer that picks u a lot of the tab by providing venues. Third, teachers and the military do, in fact, generate revenue, largely by providing public goods that have general benefits. Problem = it is pretty hard to put a figure on their contribution since the services they provide can't be priced efficiently by markets. Consequently, we turn to a single price (taxes) that everybody has a personal interest in reducing. And, since in the US the mantra is always "Swedish level social services; Mississippi level taxes", we always have problems attracting and keeping any personnel in either calling that doesn't feel a professional obligation to keep at it. This isn't intended as a put down, btw; these ideas are fairly widespread. But I had to reply to this. Oh, and Coach is worth every penny. The big surprise is how little Duke is paying Cutliffe. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ACC HC Salaries
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top