Tar Heel coach deserved his big raise
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Jerry Clark
I feel compelled to respond to Rosemary Roberts' column, "Bad call: UNC rewards coach for failure" (Nov. 30).
I, too, am a proud graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill and love my university. I would like to speak to the two points Roberts was trying to make in her column.
First of all, Ms. Roberts, you may attend football games at UNC, but you know nothing about the game of football. It takes skilled athletes to win at this level of competition; coaches can do only so much. It takes time to recruit, instruct and coach a group of men into a winning team.
Duke's coach, Ted Roof, was given ample time to recruit his own players and produce a winning team. He won four games in the last four years. Coach Davis was able to win four games his first year at UNC with very little talent.
Way to go, Coach. You deserve the raise, and maybe in four years when you win a national championship with players you have recruited, like you did at the University of Miami, Ms. Roberts will print a retraction.
Second, Roberts mentioned the large salary disparity between professors at UNC-CH and Coach Davis. This country's most valuable resource is our teachers. I agree with Roberts that most teachers are woefully underpaid. I am willing to make a concession.
As soon as professors are hired and fired on merit the same as Coach Davis, then I will agree to raise their salaries. Eliminate tenure and make the professors' individual salaries negotiated, just like Coach Davis'. When the professors start to instruct in a fair and balanced manner, I will be first in line to fight for their raises. Until then I agree with Roberts that the disparity is unfair and I believe Coach Davis should be paid even more to make up for the gap that exists between expectation and performance. Go Heels!
The writer, UNC Class of ‘65, lives in Greensboro.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
You're actually comparing UNC's football program to Duke's to justify the raise?!?!? Why not compare it to Georgia Tech's where the coach was just fired after delivering a winning season (ie 3 more wins than Butch Davis). The fact is people in the real world don't get raises for what they might accomplish four years from now, they get raises for what they've actually done for their CURRENT employer already.
Also, you need to check your facts - Butch Davis has never won a national championship as a head coach.
If you really wanted to make up for the gap between expectation and performance regarding Davis you would be advocating a cut in pay not a raise.
Posted on December 6, 2007 8:48 AM
Thanks for putting your '2 cents' in.
Anybody who thinks 4 wins is laudable and deserving of a raise is an idiot.
I wonder what Chuck Amato would think.
Posted on December 6, 2007 9:40 AM
Face the facts, UNC is much more adept at handling round balls versus oblong balls. UNC hasn't won an ACC championship since 1980 and hasn't played in a bowl game since 2004 which it lost.
I do agree with the writers statement that professors should be paid based upon performance instead of tenure. Likewise so should a coach, and as 2cents aptly notes a 4-8 record isn't exactly great performance especially when they have to go to OT to beat Duke.
For those who whine about the disparity between coaches and professors salaries please consider that a good coach molds a good team. That results in a good record which results in more $$ for the university. I would guess that Roy Williams brings much more income to the university than a philosophy professor. Just a wild guess.
Posted on December 6, 2007 10:52 AM
"When the professors start to instruct in a 'fair and balanced' manner, I will be first in line to fight for their raises."
Snicker. In other words when they twist the truth to their narrow beliefs benefiting a particular party give them a raise. Thanks for putting that phrase in. Made my day.
"I would guess that Roy Williams brings much more income to the university than a philosophy professor."
But the philosophy professor is more the reason that there is a university in the first place.
Dukes coach increased his winnings 100% over last year. He got fired. Where's the justice in that Mr. Clark?
Posted on December 6, 2007 12:37 PM
Carolina has a football team?
Posted on December 6, 2007 12:51 PM
"Carolina has a football team?"
That's a question for Dans philosophy professor. (;-}
Posted on December 6, 2007 1:06 PM
Sports programs do offer students and players opportunities, outlets, connections to their respective universities, a collective identity and so forth.
To me, when a coach gets paid, he gets paid like a teacher for doing a particular job i.e. teaching his/her squad how to be good in their particular sport.
A good philosophy teacher educates students in a particularly difficult subject. They study the quality of human existence and so forth. They may go on to influence and enhance many facets of peoples' lives. The question here is "Do you put a dollar value on that?" And if you want to, how do you accomplish this in a way that brings the university visibility and handsome financial rewards so that philosophy teachers then make more money.
Because if you look at coaches' salaries, then the model is set.
A football coach has an undefeated season, 12-0, perfect season. But just looking at that record by itself, what does it really mean? What is its core value. How does this magnificent record enhance the quality of our collective lives? In a "University Setting", should winning and or losing have the central place that it does have and especially in regard to salary?
The real value that universities place on a winning season is that they can play in a BCS bowl and ,win or lose, bring home millions of dollars to their respective universities. So, 12-0 equals 13 million dollars. So maybe the real bottom line is that a "good coach" brings mega bucks to the university; in essence he/she is a highly paid fund raiser and his/her strategy is to create that winning season. So let's just call it for what it is.
Posted on December 6, 2007 3:06 PM
"So, 12-0 equals 13 million dollars."
That's exactly my point, although in a less philosophical manner than your post joejoe ;--) Good post however.
Posted on December 6, 2007 7:28 PM