On Sat, 22 Apr 1995, Ryan Robbins wrote:
 
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950418224626.5077A-100000@pegasus>, "Richard C.
> Crepeau" <[log in to unmask]> says this about coaches:
> >
> >The reason is simple. They are worth much more to the average American
> >university than faculty or presidents. That is not a value judgement, and
> >not a qualitative judgement, just an economic fact.
>
> Although this has been a popular belief for awhile now, I would like to
> know whether there are any studies that support this assertion. It's
> so easy to assume something. But has anyone actually looked into this?
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Robbins               "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
> University of Maine                                  -- Andy Rooney
> _____________________________________________________________________
> [log in to unmask] ____________________________________________
>
There have always been a number of people making this claim, mostly in
athletic departments, although occasionally in alumni and fund raising
offices which produce data showing sharp increases in alumni organization
membership and sharp increases in fund raising success in the wake of
championship sports programs. Most of these studies are in dispute from
other sources, especially those who try to do a cost\benefit analysis and
suggest that millions spent on the athletic program is not an efficient
use of funds for fund-raising purposes. The main problem with most of
these studies is that there are simply too many variables which can not
be isolated to give any certainty to the claims made on either side.
 
There also have been studies of incoming students which try to show that
students choose a particular school on the basis of athletic success.
 
What we do know however is that since the appearance of high powered
incollegiate athletics late in the 19th century, it has been assumed by
university presidents and other administrators that winning athletic
programs are a great form of advertising, a means to hold alumni support,
a way to entice state legislatures to fund universities, and a means to
reach into the pockets of big contributors many of whom did not attend
the university. And so universities have been willing to put out major
dollars to pay coaches, just as long as they win. Winning teams are good
advertising, but losing teams are the worst form of advertising. This is
the one source of the great pressure on coaches to win. The need to get
rid of a losing coach, by the way, is the best argument against making
coaches tenured faculty members and comparable in salary to other
professors. Coaches also like to point out that they should be paid more
because they are the only persons on campus whose daily work is put on
public display on a regular basis and is open therefore to public scrutiny.
 
The differences in salary structure across the athletic department for
coaches depends in part on the level of popularity of the sport being
coached, although Title IX is changing that variance.
 
Dick Crepeau
 
"You don't have to be a good sport to be a bad loser."--Morgan Mundane