Loser reporter asks Jim Calhoun about his salary....

[BayBuck]

Why is a reporter afforded respect when his sole purpose there is to attack, embarrass and mock someone?

Um hello, ever heard of the First Amendment?

 

[MaxBuck]

Um hello, ever heard of the First Amendment, Comrade?

FIFY

 

[jwinslow]

Um hello, ever heard of the First Amendment?

If so, then he has the right to ask the question and be absolutely crushed in response. :p

Press conferences are not unrestricted venues however. They can be denied access for good if they step out of line.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Is revenue all-inclusive here? Is this just ticket sales, ticket sales & concessions, does it include any TV contracts, merchandise sales, booster support, etc?

From the Indy Star's database, that's total revenue for the basketball program, including program specific donations.

 

[osugrad21]

the reporter's "history" has nothing to do with the validity of the question.

I can see your side, but I'll disagree. His history taints the question's validity...his choice of forum further taints his question. Instead of getting a decent discussion on a decent topic, he chose to possibly incite a reaction...wish granted.

From the Indy Star's database, that's total revenue for the basketball program, including program specific donations.

Gotcha...still would like to see a more detailed breakdown for curiousity's sake though.

 

[DaytonBuck]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX6FDEDbesE"]YouTube - UCONN's Jim Calhoun likes the f word[/ame]

not the first time Calhoun has blown up

 

[jimotis4heisman]

I give Jim Calhoun some credit here, he could have been a lot worse; just imagine how Bob Knight would have answered that reporter's question.

SI.com - College Basketball - Men - Knight won't accept $250K salary - Thursday March 13, 2003 01:59 AM

well he turned down a 250k salary since his team sucked(16-11) in 2003. so...

 

[BayBuck]

Gotcha...still would like to see a more detailed breakdown for curiousity's sake though.

IndyStar also lists $7M+ as advertising/sponsorship revenue that is not allocated to a specific sport, but clearly some of that is due to the success/prominence of the men's basketball team.

 

[sepia5]

The AD, UConn administration, etc. are the representatives of the state institution. Calhoun represents himself.

Maybe you're misinterpreting what I said (or maybe I could have been clearer). I agree with you that, as the basketball coach at UConn, Calhoun represents UConn.

I think it was probably the latter, that you weren't too clear if your original stance was that Calhoun does, in fact, represent UConn and the state.

However, when it comes time to negotiate a new contract, he's representing himself and his own interests, much like every other state employee. Are you to tell me that all state employees have the obligation, when negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment, to figure out exactly what their services are worth, and to decline any higher offer from the state? That's ludicrous. Neither Calhoun, nor any other state employee, nor you (I presume) would turn down more money if offered (and neither they nor you have the obligation to do so). Accordingly, it is the UConn administration that is the proper party to complain to if this clown thinks Calhoun makes too much money.

Of course no state employee would turn down more money if offered, and they shouldn't be expected to, but that's beside the point (and I would note that not too many state employees actually directly "negotiate" their compensation as Calhoun did here--unions may negotiate for them, or there may be no negotiation at all; depends on the state). The question at hand, which has always been at hand in this thread, is whether it is legitmate to ask the head basketball coach at a flagship state university, who also happens to be the highest paid state employee, whether his salary is justified, especially in time of great financial crisis in which the state/employer is laying off, downsizing, and cutting programs left and right. I say absolutely, that is a legitimate question. The question has nothing to do with whether I, Calhoun, you, or anyone else should be expected to turn down money offered to him by the state acting as an employer. You're simply reinventing the question at this point.

Once again, this would be a legit question to pose to those who represented the state on the other side of the contract as well, but that doesn't alter the legitimacy of the question as posed to Calhoun himself.

To be clear, I am not saying state employees, at any level, have a responsiblity to make an independent determination regarding what their services are worth and then refuse to accept more. I've never said that. I said the question as posed to Calhoun was legit and newsworthy, especially in times like these. If Calhoun had simply responded, "Well, the market sets the worth of my service, that's what number was agreed upon, and here's why I think I continue to be worth this much," this thread would not exist. Instead, he played into the hands of the politically-motivated dumbass "journalist" and in doing so proved himself to be something of a dumbass as well.

 

[buckeyesin07]

The question at hand, which has always been at hand in this thread, is whether it is legitmate to ask the head basketball coach at a flagship state university, who also happens to be the highest paid state employee, whether his salary is justified, especially in time of great financial crisis in which the state/employer is laying off, downsizing, and cutting programs left and right. I say absolutely, that is a legitimate question. The question has nothing to do with whether I, Calhoun, you, or anyone else should be expected to turn down money offered to him by the state acting as an employer. You're simply reinventing the question at this point.

I disagree. The question has everything to do with whether Calhoun should turn down money. The "journalist" is attacking Calhoun for not having a bleeding heart, but instead "taking" (as I'm sure the clown would put it) so much money from the state for coaching basketball (which the clown apparently has concluded is a trivial expense). This "journalist" is asking the question of Calhoun because it's easier to pick on the rich guy who's standing behind the microphone. If the journalist stepped back and looked at the situation for a second, he'd realize that if anyone's to be criticized, it's the person at UConn who decided it was a good idea to pay Calhoun $1.6 million per year.

 

[MaxBuck]

...Instead of getting a decent discussion on a decent topic, he chose to possibly incite a reaction...

Not to argue with you here, grad, but for better or worse "inciting a reaction" seems to be what journalism has devolved into in the 21st century. :(

 

[sepia5]

I disagree. The question has everything to do with whether Calhoun should turn down money. The "journalist" is attacking Calhoun for not having a bleeding heart, but instead "taking" (as I'm sure the clown would put it) so much money from the state for coaching basketball (which the clown apparently has concluded is a trivial expense). This "journalist" is asking the question of Calhoun because it's easier to pick on the rich guy who's standing behind the microphone. If the journalist stepped back and looked at the situation for a second, he'd realize that if anyone's to be criticized, it's the person at UConn who decided it was a good idea to pay Calhoun $1.6 million per year.

So I guess all these "repuatable" major news organizations should start asking ONLY the boards of major financial institutions about the corporate bonuses handed out these days, and not those receiving them themselves. Face it--there's two parties to a contract, and both can rightly be questioned about that contract. This is especially true when the employer is the state, and the contract terms are, by law, public knowledge. If you don't want to be questioned about those terms, don't work for the state.

 

[osugrad21]

Not to argue with you here, grad, but for better or worse "inciting a reaction" seems to be what journalism has devolved into in the 21st century. :(

I agree.

 

[BrutusBobcat]

Sepia, you keep hammering home this idea that Calhoun represents the state, as if he's an elected official. He does not. He is a private citizen indirectly paid by the state, just like any professor or administrator at the university.

If a prof is nailing undergrads, does HE represent the state? What about a DOT construction worker who hits the strip clubs after a shift? Is HE representing the state? If you work for a company that has a state contract, are YOU representing the state when you post your opinions on BP? What about a student at a state university whose education is partially subsidized by the state? Are OU students who riot at Halloween "representing the state of Ohio"?

Head Men's Basketbal Coach is not a state official in any way, shape or form, and he's no more a "public servant" than you or I.

I'll tell you what -- the next time a cop pulls you over, why don't you question his salary and demeanor, point out that he's "representing the state of Ohio" and that you expect better conduct from a "public servant" and see where that kind of populist rhetoric lands you.

 

[BB73]

I don't think it''s been mentioned yet in this thread, but the coaches at Arizona State, as well as Clemson and Maryland, are subject to some days without being paid as part of their respective states' salary furlough program.

That situation makes the topic of coaching salaries a more legitimate topic.

azcentral.com

ASU coaches not exempt from furloughs

The economic downturn is becoming a leveling force between some NCAA Division I athletics departments and their universities at-large, including Arizona State.

Clemson, Maryland and Utah State also are in the middle of mandatory furlough programs that apply to all school personnel, including coaches.

Cont'd ...