UT athletics is not alone in being an independant, highly profitable auxilary of the university. It is singular in how profitable it has become. The University places restrictions on salaries for such auxilary agencies (UTIMCO, J.J. Pickle Research Campus, on-campus research facilities, among others) even when funding is entirely external. It appears that administration asserts no such control over the Department of Athletics and I beleive the question of whether this is appropriate is warranted outside of the scope of its effect on the “arms race”.

I should add, I haven’t formed an opinion on this, but I do think its worth a discussion.

Exactly 0 dollars of UT’s funding go towards Mack’s salary. What the FC is really criticizing is UT’s fans and alumni for providing the resources to fairly compensate a uniquely talented individual. Well, FC, I don’t need you telling me or any longhorn fan how to spend our money. The longhorn football program raises the entire university’s profile, particularly among potential students. Students, who, in turn apply to and enter the university thereby paying the FC’s salary. So please, FC, sit down and STFU.

When I joined the Longhorn Foundation in 1996, there were less than 40k season tickets sold, and Texas struggled annually to crack the top 10. Now season ticket sales are over 85,000 and Texas is consistently in the MNC discussion. Texas is pulling in huge revenue and a lot of it can be attributed to Mack.

That said, Mack isn’t going anywhere, I’m not sure why they went from $3M to $5M. I’m more concerned about Muschamp, I think he is getting paid about $925k. Why not a cool $1M ? He is worth every penny ! I don’t want him even thinking about going elsewhere.

Cash or check are acceptable forms of payment. There will be $35 fee assessed for returned checks.

It seems as if the faculty has no idea.

University Lands http://www.utlands.utsystem.edu/

I personally have worked many wells over the years and can give a general idea as to how much they can produce.

University 20-16 #1 40 MCF

I did get a little bit tired of the few professors that were nothing more than “football haters” as far as I was concerned. I didn’t enjoy their class or their personality obviously.
However, we always like to point out, we’re not the SEC. We’re Texas. We do take pride in our academics and the fact that we are the best public university in the region. Mack and his wife, Sally, take pride in the university as they endowed a “chair” along with the athletics dept. for $2.65 million last year. The faculty sure have a short-term memory as they didn’t mention that or the $6.6 million contributed to academics from athletics last year either.
At the end of the day, Mack will probably need to endow another chair, scholarship or help build an academic building to make some of them happy and who knows then?….One way or another, Hook’em!

I can see valid arguments on both sides of this issue and I really hate when that happens.

Research Funds Obtained in 2009: $596 million
Applied Research Laboratories: $928 million (over 10 years)

Lets calm down about the $6.6 million.

The AD can do as it please with the money it generates, and Mack Brown definitely deserves the raise; however, I don’t see that there was an economic need to do so. He has no intention of leaving UT for somewhere else at his current salary, so there was no reason to incentivize the situation. As for Muschamp, he’s basically being paid an average of head coach (~$2M) and DC (~$500k). I think it’s a bit steep to pay him that much, but 1) he’s probably worth it after our revolving door of DC’s, and 2) it was probably necessary to keep other programs from poaching him. Once Muschamp becomes HC, I assume he’ll be paid $2-$3M with various bonuses, but I wouldn’t think he’d start at $5M. As for the $5M, Mack should give it back to UT in his name…either as another endowed chair, funds for building and infrastructure, etc…it’d be good PR all around.

Spend at least some of that $5 million on a giant statue of a man flipping the bird with both hands at the building where most of the voters in this farce work, then endow another chair, and call it the “Eat that motherf***ers!” Professorship.

A way of enticing Muschamp to hang around for a few years? “Hey Ma, look what I’ll be making if I stay.”

I might take this “vote” more seriously if it were something new.

I was at Texas in the early to mid-90s. During the Mackovic era. There were no top-10 rankings. No big raises. No performance bonuses for the coaches. Attendance was low in the revenue-producing sports, and students didn’t wear burnt orange. The athletics department stayed in the black – somehow. But not with ease.

So were these same professors happy? Did they avoid complaining, since the AD budget was extremely modest, compared to today? Did they happily accept the coaches’ salaries, since raises were few and numbers were comparatively low?

NO. They sat around and bitched about the athletic department, same as they do now.

The football team establishes a “bring your favorite professor to spring game” tradition, complete with catered dinner. The athletic department gives significant money to academics, rather than stowing it in retained earnings (could this literally be unprecedented in college athletics??), the football coach and athletics department establish an endowed chair.

What’s more, the AD raises the profile of the school, brings in better academic recruits, directly results in better fundraising across all categories, and drives licensing revenues.

Does this make the professors happy?

No. They will never, ever, ever be happy. Ignore them.

First, it really is useless to argue with someone who relies on the market forces at work mantra. The dilemma is clearly one of money vs. education. And while I concede that in today’s world a better education generally costs more money, it is important to keep a clear mind about our priorities, which speaks more of current societal trends. By the way, please do not tell me that selling 80,000 tickets gives the University greater exposure, which somehow ensures that more people apply for admission. This is simply asinine.

I enrolled in 1987, arguably one of the darkest periods in Texas football. I loved my college experience, and enjoyed everyone of the games where really all we had was Eric Metcalf — who was outstanding in his own right — but nothing of the athletic magnitude we enjoy now. My pride in the University stems from my education, and how it formed the foundation for my very survival, and productivity as a member of society. I earned two degrees from The University, and while its nice to speak of our football tradition, it pales in importance to what The University stands for, at least in my mind.

I love our football team (and really all that is UT), and wish the Horns a victory against the tide, but my pride in the University will remain forever strong, regardless of its athletic success. I think that there is a seriously substantive issue raised by the academia. The focus on ever-increasing salaries and the cost associated with everything college sports — including the price of tickets for games and merchandise — shows how we continue to become less interested in academics, generally in this country, and are more concerned about making the big bucks, at whatever cost, and in whatever fashion, and of course, make more of it, since a lot is seemingly not ever enough. Seriously folks, where is education in all this — why isn’t teacher pay (generally, especially in our public school environment) ever a winning argument for politicians? It speaks of a bigger issue, that cannot be fully addressed in one post. I have nothing against making a living in an honest fashion, and even without a formal education, but steadfastly adhere to the belief that education, with the right values, makes us better, in every sense of the word.

Suggestions? Many here will laugh, but here they are:

1. Require that if a scholarship college-athlete is ever going to be employed in professional sports (NFL, NBA etc.), an agreement be made where the professional ranks agree to not hire the athlete until a degree is earned. With the proper “coaching,” most athletes can earn a degree, even if without academic distinction. The important thing, in my mind, is that they finish what they started, develop a sense of responsibility, and develop sufficient sophistication to be able to handle the pressures of wealth (for a small number), not to mention more maturity, as they will be older when they become, well, professional.

2. Conversely, of course, this would eliminate the situation, particular to basketball, where athletes leave after one or two years, to join the professional ranks, after they earned a free academic ride (that other athletically deprived kids don’t enjoy), and really build an incomplete, if not unsubstantive academic formation. Our athletic graduation rate is something that really speaks to this issue.

3. What are we teaching our young people? That academics are really a necessity for the athletically deprived? That the best of all worlds is one where you get to live a life of luxury and excess, with little regard for knowledge?

My five cents, but we should try and right the ship before it keels over.

You just don’t like my answer. What I said was … you have a problem with the raise, but UT spends a heckuva lot more on education than football. And looking at Mack’s salary in a vacuum misses this point. If your point is that spending a bunch of money on a football coach while the faculty gets passed over, you are missing a whole bunch of points.

You say your argument “involves the lack of priority given to education”, but you don’t cite any examples of what this would look like, other than (I guess) not giving our football coach a big raise. But Mack’s raise has nothing to do with prioritizing education. No one cut the education budget to give this raise.

More fundamentally, though, do you know how much a Marine Lance Corporal who will get shot at in Afghanistan … or maybe dive on a grenade … makes? A lot less than a U.T. prof. So, I guess we don’t value their service as much? Or do we? Does talking about it (“propagandizing”, as you call it) make it valuable … or the paycheck?

Money doesn’t define value in anything other than an economic sense. But the market does tell us the economic value that people are willing to ascribe to it.

Incidentally, if you think Americans haven’t had a healthy sketicism for “intellectuals”, supposedly elite academics and such for longer than a generation … well, you must have taken history at an SEC school.