FanDuel - WFBC

January 15, 2008

What's a coach really worth?: The knee-jerk perception isn't kind to Oxford. We live in a state that under funds important items, that ranks in the bottom percentile of most U.S. social and educational categories, and yet Oxford High School's football coach is being paid $105,000 a year. No prep football coach in Alabama makes more.

posted by Folkways to football at 04:54 PM - 38 comments

This just seems way out of line in a state that only pays it's teachers an average of about $40,000 a year. Are High School football coaches paid this much in other states? Having lived in the Oxford area for over 15 years and seeing the amount of poverty and business closings after the Gov. shut down Fort McClellan it is appalling to me to pay this guy 6 figures for doing something I have done for years as a volunteer.

posted by Folkways at 05:04 PM on January 15

Are High School football coaches paid this much in other states? Yes. I have been a teacher in Texas for 9 years and football coaches consistenly make about twice what my cieling is. I make a little over half my cieling.

posted by texoma-slim at 06:33 PM on January 15

In fairness to the coaches in question, one question does need to be asked: How much revenue does the coach help generate for the school? If a better coach results in higher ticket sales (and thus concession and merchandise sales), then it is perfectly fair that he gets paid more. Whether or not the amount he is getting paid is too much compared to what an average coach would bring in is a valid question, but why a football coach gets paid more than a teacher (who despite providing a valuable service for society generates no money for the school) is totally understandable. It's the same reason why colleges give scholarships to football players who can barely read while the straight-A students have to find another way...the athletes produce revenue for the schools, and the students don't. We live in a capitalist world, and for all its flaws, it beats the alternatives. This is just one of those flaws we have to live with.

posted by TheQatarian at 08:16 PM on January 15

"I have been a teacher in Texas for 9 years and football coaches consistenly make about twice what my cieling is." Mustn't make comment about spelling...mustn't make comment about spelling...

posted by mr_crash_davis at 09:01 PM on January 15

crash, do the coaches have to teach as well in texas? in indiana they do. look i think anyone who has dedicated their lives to the education of kids should make six figures, and a coaches work load (assuming the coach also teaches) is a little bigger than a regular teacher, but not so much so that a coach should make that much more. and certainly while teachers are making less than $40k, a coach shouldnt be making two and a half times as much. i love football, but clearly oxford has its priorities all screwed up.

posted by elijahin at 10:09 PM on January 15

Im sorry but the fact has been raised that a teacher shouldn't be paid as much as a couch because they dont generate as much money for the school and that works great as long as your just punching numbers but you forgot what pays the most for a school and thats its attedance and thats twice as much at a prep school so a teacher will generate probably about 3/4 of the number of kids they teaches attendance costs because if they are in a prep school they are forkin over major bucks and then there parents more than likly not always but more than likly enrolled them there because of a standard of excellance

posted by Scorpia184 at 10:09 PM on January 15

What do teachers and high school football coaches have in common? - They're both overpaid ! !

posted by LeftyPower at 03:38 AM on January 16

Lefty.....overpaid? Please. Every doctor, lawyer, politician, or any other professional got to where they are with the aid of a teacher. Teachers are surrogate parents, oftentimes seeing the child more than the biological parents. Ask yourself, what attracts young families to a community? Answer: effective schools. What makes a school effective? The teachers, not the admin., and not the sports program. Schools effectivness is measured by accademic performance, not success on the grid iron.

posted by FonGu at 05:20 AM on January 16

- They're both overpaid ! ! ...and what do you do for a living lefty? Did someone teach you that at some point? I bet it was a teacher. I need to move to Texas. I teach and coach. A varsity football coach in the area of PA I live in makes about $5,000 to $8,000 a year if they are lucky. As an assistant coach/defensive coordinator, I made $1,200 this year. Before tax. Broke it down with the time I put in, it works out to about .75 cents an hour.

posted by Debo270 at 08:56 AM on January 16

- They're both overpaid ! ! Speaking as a father of a special education teacher. Have you been living in cave and oblivious to the current salary structure of teachers?

posted by Nakeman at 11:19 AM on January 16

Im sorry but the fact has been raised that a teacher shouldn't be paid as much as a couch I work in education, get paid a decent wage (although it's not great money), but the day a couch makes more than a teacher, then we'll have a problem!

posted by dyams at 12:16 PM on January 16

Let's face it, many people are overpaid. Some teachers are, some coaches are, some transit drivers are, some presidents, some etc., etc., etc. Some of this is because they are paid on a scale, because unions have overinflated the value of what they do. If a teacher thinks they are underpaid, well, they should go find another job where you can get paid what you feel you're worth? I live in the Bay Area, and BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) drivers do all of sitting in the front, opening the doors, announcing the station, announcing when the doors are closing, and punching a button. For this, with overtime, they make more than 100K a year. What we need more of is people who are dedicated to doing the job they are in, whether it's managing a McDonald's or running a university. It helps, when you work at a job you truly enjoy, when the money coming in is less than what it should, or could be. There's lots of jobs out there that pay more than I make that I could do, but wouldn't want to. I'd get bored, I'd dread going to work, etc.

posted by drtherc at 12:30 PM on January 16

Any person in America, be it a coach, teacher, mill worker, doctor, or janitor makes what they are worth. If a coach makes 105K, that is what the job is worth. No one forces you to coach football in this country, and no one forces you to teach 3rd grade math. If you decide to take a teaching job at 40K, 20K, or 5K; that is what your job is worth. If you think your performance is worth more than your salary, make an offer to your employer, if the counter-offer isn't sufficient, start looking for a new job where once again you and your employer can agree on your worth. The constant cry that teachers don't make enough money is annoying. I assume teachers bothered to check what their profession makes a year before they paid for a four year college education. Only two logical conclusions can be made from this obvious point: 1. Prospective teachers decided on their own that the many non-economic factors/perks teachers get make up for the "loss" of salary, 2. teachers teach for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with money. Have you been living in cave and oblivious to the current salary structure of teachers? Have you? Has your daughter been living in the cave too? Did the current salary structure begin with the graduation of your daughter? Is asking rhetorical questions fun? Is Dan Patrick a monkey in disguise?

posted by r8rh8r27 at 12:40 PM on January 16

I recall reading that same diatribe in 1844's, "Children ought to work in the coal mines," pamphlet. Anyways, the use of "worth" in this context is obviously arbitrary and different people have different impressions of what it means. Really, what's a person's worth has no bearing on how much they want to make. I work a Catholic school because I love it and I could easily go to the public sector and more than double my salary. You're right- many factors do contribute to my staying here even with the loss of salary. Even so, does that really mean I shouldn't want to make more money? Just because somebody goes into a job making 20k/year doesn't mean that they shouldn't fight to make 30k/year. Just because I take a job at 20k doesn't mean I shouldn't be making more. Alas...For better or for worse, it all comes down to economics. Teachers don't create a direct infusion of money like other jobs do and hence the pay scales.

posted by jmd82 at 12:54 PM on January 16

I recall reading that same diatribe in 1844's, "Children ought to work in the coal mines," pamphlet. Interesting reading I suppose. But since the plight of children forced into servitude 160 years ago has absolutely nothing to with the agreed upon wages of voluntary adults who teach, coach, or sale insurance, I fail to see your point. Worth isn't arbitrary. It is static. It is decided upon by a complex formula between either a buyer/seller, or in this case employee/employer. Only those two parties can really know all factors to determine worth. The Oxford County school district thinks the football coach is worth 105K, the football coach agrees. That determines a specific worth, not an arbitrary one. Both parties have reason to believe they will profit from this transaction. You're right- many factors do contribute to my staying here even with the loss of salary. Even so, does that really mean I shouldn't want to make more money Of course not. We all want to make more money. That doesn't mean we deserve more, or that we are worth more. If you think you should be paid more, that is a private conversation you should have with your employer. Hopefully ya'll can come to an agreeable solution. If not, and you feel strong enough about your worth, and have evidence of your worth beyond how you "feel", then seek new employment, form a union, or have a strike. But complaining about a pay scale that you agreed to after the fact is, like I said, annoying. Teachers don't create a direct infusion of money like other jobs do and hence the pay scales. Excellent point. No direct infusion of money, unlike say, a 9-1 high school football team in BFE Alabama? Another reason for the "loss" may be there are plenty of happily child-less people (like me) who must support school budgets as much as parents with three kids. We think parents should suffer the burden of teaching their younglings. To us, the child-less products of private education, teachers have little worth in our lives. And since we help pay for these schools we help determine their worth.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 02:35 PM on January 16

Have you? Has your daughter been living in the cave too? My arguement is with being overpaid, she is satisfied with her current salary. Please read the whole comment before jumping on your high horse, please.

posted by Nakeman at 03:11 PM on January 16

We think parents should suffer the burden of teaching their younglings. To us, the child-less products of private education, teachers have little worth in our lives. And since we help pay for these schools we help determine their worth. Now I remember you. Your the guy that dislikes children. OK, you don't like to pay the feight for other peoples children that attend public schools. Well you also has a choice.. Try and find a school district with a age group, that are mostly senior citizens (who don't like paying taxes for schools). I'm not sure if your going to find any to your liking, however, if felt the way you do about it , I would certainly try. It's immaterial to me, my children went to private school K-12 and college. I still paid the taxes (and their tuition K-college, for 3) and voted to increase them in my school district. I should be just as pissed as you, however I have a sense of fairness that educators should be paid a living wage. Being nobel is great, but not at the expense of their family. It's also not society responsibility to bend to your will. If you don't want to have children. Nobody putting a gun to your head, but you know that others do and they have to educated. So you are forced into a situation that you feel is unfair. So what-life is not fair sometimes and deal with it, but don't throw your bitching on this sight , call your representative and complain.

posted by Nakeman at 03:31 PM on January 16

Another reason for the "loss" may be there are plenty of happily child-less people (like me) who must support school budgets as much as parents with three kids. I would contend, that wether you have kids or not, unless you were home-schooled, you are the benificiary of an education system. If your house hasn't ever caught fire, maybe you shouldnt pay for a fire department, but if it ever catches fire in the future, you'll damn sure want them to be there. if you ever need open heart surgery, you'll damn sure hope that the doctor is educated. You probably bitch about your taxes paying for welfare, but if the everyone had a good education, even just at the high-school level, we could cut the number of welfare recipiants in half. I was the benificiary of a great football coach. He was a mentor to me. Most kids dont have that kind of relationship with their coaches, but the ones who do well in the world, tend to have that type of relationship with a teacher. You can say that the market decides the price of a teacher. or a soldier (something i know about personaly), or a football coach, but the value can't be determined by the market. People who do the job of a teacher or a soldier, or a cop, or a fire fighter, don't do it for the money. they do it because someone has to. Some people are so selfish that they think that a person who does not demand more money doesn't deserve more. But where would that same selfish person be without the services of a teacher? How would he feel if there were not nearly enough police to help him if he got car-jacked? How well would he sleep, if there were no military to protect him from the whim of the evil men around the world would kill him just for the place in which he sleeps? We all have to pay for some services we don't use. It doesn't make those services less valuable.

posted by elijahin at 03:43 PM on January 16

Well you also has a choice.. Try and find a school district with a age group, that are mostly senior citizens (who don't like paying taxes for schools). I'm not sure if your going to find any to your liking, however, if felt the way you do about it , I would certainly try. Certainly the worth of a teacher is elevated in your opinion. Not just because your daughter is one, but because you seem in dire need of some assistance with the English language, and your reasoning skills. School districts for seniors? Really? I have a choice in paying property taxes? You lost me, pal. Completely nonsensical. It's also not society responsibility to bend to your will. Who said it was? I just think my opinion on the worth of a teacher is as meaningful as yours, or any one's. I help pay, so I get to help decide how and where the money is spent. So what-life is not fair sometimes and deal with it, but don't throw your bitching on this sight , call your representative and complain "deal with it" Remember those words when reading or scrolling past my drivel. I will "bitch" anywhere I choose. And I don't hate children, I just don't want to be forced into paying for their education whilst their preening, self-centered parents tell me they will decide how much I owe and I should just "deal with it".

posted by r8rh8r27 at 04:02 PM on January 16

Lefty, you have drawn my wrath. Overpaid? My wife is a special needs educator. She has been doing it for over 10 years now, and had she been flipping burgers for the same period, she would be making more per hour. Her benefits are a joke. Why does she continue? It's simple; the kids she works with (kindergarten and 1st grade level, mostly autistic) really need help, and really can respond and improve if the educators are patient and caring. As for the rest of the teachers in our school district, they are in their second year without a union contract. The Board of Aldermen has rejected any contract calling for even a modest raise, but for some unexplained reason there has not yet been a mass exodus of teachers from the system. The reason is dedication and professionalism. Are coaches overpaid? I can speak from some experience here. My son was a very shy, introverted young boy. He did well enough in school, but did not seem to enjoy it. Some of his friends got him into track and football in his junior year, and it was as if we had switched kids. All of a sudden he became poised, mature, and focused. He attributes it to the coaches who worked with him and helped him to realize his potential. He's now a young man at Penn State, and is doing well academically and socially. The coaches who worked with him in high school, all of them teaching at some level in the system as well as coaching, certainly deserve something more than what they would get as teachers alone.

posted by Howard_T at 04:04 PM on January 16

You lost me, pal. Completely nonsensical. Are you trying to tell me there are no areas of Florida, Arizonia or even California, where the medium age is alot higher due to the number of retirees? It's not nonsensical, we have a small school district here in St. Louis that couldn't get a school bond passed due to the amount of retirees. If bringing up my English skills will help your arguement, feel free. But, I don't see how it helps. I help pay, so I get to help decide how and where the money is spent. The worth of a teacher has very little to do with your arguement. Even stated, I sense the underpinnings of your arguement; to pay as little as possible due to the fact you are childless and resent what teachers make.

posted by Nakeman at 04:36 PM on January 16

unless you were home-schooled, you are the benificiary of an education system. Actually, no. My parents, like Nake, paid through the nose for private education while supporting a failed public education system in my home state. The other services you listed are paid for through state income and sales taxes. School systems are supported through local property taxes. So instead of everyone paying their share, only those with property pay regardless of how many children they have in the system. Also, everyone benefits from fire, police, and military, not so for public schools. Parents who get to send their kids to public school for free benefit much more than the property owners who pay for that school sans crotch-fruit. teacher or a soldier, or a cop, or a fire fighter, don't do it for the money. All the cries for more pay from teachers withstanding? As you have pointed out there is value to the service-giver not measured in money, right? So not only do these people get to do a job they love, that they have dreamed of, but they also get to be paid whatever they think their service is worth? Sorry, I'm not buying it

posted by r8rh8r27 at 04:53 PM on January 16

to pay as little as possible due to the fact you are childless and resent what teachers make. No. I don't want to pay ANYTHING for other people's children. And i don't resent what teachers make I have said I think what they make is about right.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 04:55 PM on January 16

No. I don't want to pay ANYTHING for other people's children. And i don't resent what teachers make I have said I think what they make is about right You made your point. Your opinion is superior and so are your writing skills. Happy.

posted by Nakeman at 05:05 PM on January 16

I completely echo Howard's statements. Coaches (provided they are quality ones) can have an immense impact on a person's life. There are many instances where participation in a sport has changed a kid's life for the better, and coaches have a very large influence on that change.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:11 PM on January 16

Also, everyone benefits from fire, police, and military, not so for public schools So you don't benefit at all from other's education? Education for future fire, police, military, computer technicians, lab researchers, etc? But complaining about a pay scale that you agreed to after the fact is, like I said, annoying. It's about as annoying as you complaining about us. You argument is the equivalent of, "if you don't like it, don't read it." Take this entire thread and thus agreed to hear about it. You don't like people saying teachers should make more? Great! Don't worry about it then. I say this because that's exactly what you're telling us about teachers deserving more money. And it's not just about me. It is also about other teachers and our education system as a whole. I see a lot of them leave because the pay scale sucks. It's not as difficult making a lower salary being young and single...things change when you get married, have kids, and that initial financial freedom from college evaporates. There was an awesome candidate for principal last year who turned it down because both parents on private school salary would loose too much money compared to public school educators. That is why I argue for teachers making more money- so those who do want to educate can also afford to and we don't loose them to other industries. And also because I don't think educators should be paid so little they need a second job to stay afloat, and this is about people I know who don't live extravagantly. And i don't resent what teachers make I have said I think what they make is about right. Do you even know what teachers make (or care?)? Or are you throwing that out there on the principal of your, "people's worth is based on what they agree to be paid," argument?

posted by jmd82 at 08:50 PM on January 16

My argument is here.

posted by BoKnows at 09:01 PM on January 16

If a coach makes 105K, that is what the job is worth. No one forces you to coach football in this country, and no one forces you to teach 3rd grade math. If you decide to take a teaching job at 40K, 20K, or 5K; that is what your job is worth. If you think your performance is worth more than your salary, make an offer to your employer, if the counter-offer isn't sufficient, start looking for a new job where once again you and your employer can agree on your worth. I couldn't disagree more. No two people are just alike, that alone mutes your "what you make is what your worth" argument. Two teachers both teaching third grade for the same salary are not going to be equally successful in the class room. Oxford High School regularly sells out its home games and the fans also travel well. I'm not so sure the school can bring in any more revenue by paying their head coach $105,000 per year. All they can shoot for is making the 6A championship game each year in Birmingham and there are several schools with better programs than Oxford that don't pay their coaches nearly that amount. No. I don't want to pay ANYTHING for other people's children. And i don't resent what teachers make I have said I think what they make is about right. You may not WANT to pay anything for other people's children's education but I put forth the idea that you WILL be paying for other people's children if they get no education by having to support welfare, unemployment benefits, medicare/medicaid for the uninsured and so on. So pay when they are in school or pay when they are unemployable due to the lack of education you still have to pay.

posted by Folkways at 09:00 AM on January 17

You argument is the equivalent of, "if you don't like it, don't read it." Take this entire thread and thus agreed to hear about it. You don't like people saying teachers should make more? Great! Don't worry about it then. I say this because that's exactly what you're telling us about teachers deserving more money. No, "don't worry about it" was Nake's, 'I'm throwing in the towel' argument. I was just repeating it faciciously. Like you, I don't take something like that seriously in a debate forum. I don't mind people saying "teachers should be paid more", I just don't agree; and my opinion on the matter is no more--or less--important than anyone else's. Do you even know what teachers make (or care?)? Slightly below the median 40hr week salaried employee of a given state, with better than average benefits. Which, as stated before, is about right IMNHO. They probably really enjoy their jobs, receive fulfillment that money doesn't buy, and live three months a year on the jib. You may not WANT to pay anything for other people's children's education but I put forth the idea that you WILL be paying for other people's children if they get no education by You are probably right. That is why the whole system is such a successful shake-down. "pay for my kids now or pay for 'em later" Brilliant. How about this concept instead: Let parents pay for the education of their kids. Let parents decide how much to pay teachers to teach/coach their kids. Instead of giving parents tax breaks, give them tax bills proportional to the actual services they receive? Crazy, huh?

posted by r8rh8r27 at 12:38 PM on January 17

r8, I have a better idea. Make people who live in houses have insurance. Let your insurance rates reflect how many occupants live in the house. Instead of giving small families (or singles) the same rates as those with large families, give them bills proportional to the amount of fuel and energy they use per occupant. Crazy, huh?

posted by canstusdis at 08:35 PM on January 17

1. No, "don't worry about it" was Nake's, 'I'm throwing in the towel' argument 2. to pay as little as possible due to the fact you are childless and resent I'm not sure how quote 2 got turned around to quote 1. I stopped my conservation with you because you kept posting directly and indirectly about my English skills. I disagree with you on the subject matter at hand, however I didn't insult you twice. So I chalked it up to immaturity on your part at the second jab, and decided to give up a intelligent discussion with you

posted by Nakeman at 09:04 PM on January 17

and decided to give up a intelligent discussion with you Yet here you are... you kept posting directly and indirectly about my English skills. One comment, and it was mild considering the abundance of errors you made whilst asking stupid rhetorical questions, and using the argument, "deal with it" as a crutch. I'm not sure how quote 2 got turned around to quote 1. Me either, because they have nothing to do with one another. #1 was a response to: "So what-life is not fair sometimes and deal with it, but don't throw your bitching on this sight..." This should be crystal clear in my 4:02 post to most, sorry I missed you. Canstusdis, Not sure what you are saying there, help me out. So you think my two person household is a bigger drain on the local public treasury than a family of five with kids in public school and big tax breaks? And this drain can be made up with higher insurance rates because my household uses more fuel per capita than a large family? Interesting. This relates to teacher/coach pay is what way?

posted by r8rh8r27 at 09:23 AM on January 18

No. I don't want to pay ANYTHING for other people's children. And i don't resent what teachers make I have said I think what they make is about right but because you seem in dire need of some assistance with the English language, and your reasoning skills. School districts for seniors? Really? I have a choice in paying property taxes? If these are not stabs at my English skills and your not aware of insults. Id say you need some lessons in what makes a good argument and how to talk to fellow bloggers, because recently I have learned a valuable lesson.

posted by Nakeman at 12:22 PM on January 18

Id say you need some lessons in what makes a good argument ROLMFAO Coming for the guy who's argument is essentially: "life is not fair, deal with it". So I will take your comment as a compliment. Thanks Tell me oh wise and noble blogger, is asking if a person is living in a cave a "good" way to debate a subject or not. I need clarity and you seem to know. Actually, scratch that. Go back to "stopping your conversation with me", that works better for ya. I'm about to break my personal 'no ad hominem directed at fellow SpoFits' rule. I don't want to do it. As since you have such thin skin, I don't want to be responsible for the results.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 12:52 PM on January 18

I think it is time for you two to take this to email.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:26 PM on January 18

No need, I will not respond. I'll not go there again, YYM. Lessons are sometimes learned hard, and I learned mine.

posted by Nakeman at 04:52 PM on January 18

27, This relates to teacher/coach pay in no way. I was trying to counter your argument by using an analogy.(a poor one, I admit) Please, let me make another attempt. To suggest that only people wealthy enough to pay for their children's education should have children is like saying only people wealthy enough to have health insurance should get sick. The wealthy in our community pay for the health care of the poor through taxes. If not, the community suffers because of contagious diseases, pestilence, loss of the workforce, epidemics, etc. If the wealthy in our community refuse to pay for the poor's education, the community, again would suffer: rise in crime rates, drug and alcohol abuse, lower wages, fewer skilled laborforce, etc. Surely this is obvious to you.

posted by canstusdis at 12:37 AM on January 19

Political discussions are pretty pointless here. It never ends well, and just ends up pissing people off and killing the thread; people just stop checking it because they know all they're going to see inside is a bunch of shitslinging.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:34 AM on January 19

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.