Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Every other story on my social media feed is about the number of jobs that are available and that businesses are reducing hours/services in order to make due with the workers they have. Many people claim that the answer is pay those workers more and they will come back. Most bring the idea of the $15 minimum wage. 

I bring this up, because every year, we seem to lose coaches to other states or seem to lose coaches as they give up coaching. Even young promising coaches seem to give up on assistant coaching after 4-6 years because on some level the pay is not equal to the commitment. So my question is how do you keep coaches in your program?
There are two "types" of coaches:
School-Based coach... A coach who is at the high/middle/elementary school. They receive their pay based on being a teacher first and a coach second. If we go by the Governor's goal of 47.5K, how much more than that should a Head Coach receive in terms of a stipend? How much more than that should an assistant coach receive? Just as football coaches? We are not counting if they are the Weightlifting or Track Coach. 

The other type of coach is the community coach, who coaches, but has another job, not related to the school that provides for most of their bills. This could be construction, realtor, florist, landscaper, social worker. They are coaches (usually assistants, but not exclusively), how much should they be paid to be coaches?

 


Posted

Great questions, Gatorman.  I'm not sure I can give you definitive answers, but I'll definitely join the conversation because it's an important topic.   While I believe that coaches should be paid more (as should teachers), the Adam Smith in me understands, generally, how a free market system works.   If there is always a new crop of "young promising coaches" willing to fill the void, either to make whatever [additional] money they can or in hopes of kick-starting a career in coaching, it's hard for the employer to justify paying more . . . unless the employer (i.e., the various school districts around the state) are willing to pay more for experience, commitment and quality. 

I've noticed the same thing you have.   The other/additional factor that you did not specifically mention has to do with where the coaches are in their life.   Coaches who start out single then get married.    A couple of years later, if that, their wives have babies.  Perhaps it's the pressure to bring home more money or the legitimate desire on the part of the coaches to spend more time with their own kids than somebody else's kids, but I've seen more than one or two coaches make the decision to 'go in a different direction' and give up the coaching.   

And then there's the handful of coaches that also have teaching jobs, who may be pulling down $50K if you combine their teacher's salary, their coaching stipend, and any extra money they may earn.  If they are successful (and don't wait too long), they may have the opportunity to step up to the collegiate ranks and easily double or triple their income.  Tough to say 'no' to those offers. 

Again, I don't have any immediate solutions - other than increase their pay across the board.  If you have kids who are playing (or who have played sports), you'd probably vote in favor of this proposal.   But, if you have kids who don't play sports, you may not be as inclined to support such a position. 

Again, great questions. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


  • Posts

    • I suddenly wish Bridgewater had known he was breaking the rules and kept it on the DL.  He obviously cares a lot about that program and those kids.  Hate to see a guy who cares like that get taken down while the true cheaters are out there doing their thing.
    • Yes, the free market should be allowed to draw the lines between amateurism and professionalism. The beauty of playing strictly for the love of the game will certainly be allowed to persist. And, kids and adults alike play A LOT of games for fun as it is. See adult rec leagues, intramurals etc. This includes those who've been able to become wealthy through playing the sport as well!  I think that, eventually, people like most all of us are going to recognize that it is preposterous to have teenagers getting paid to play high school sports, and/or get a free college education along with the extra compensation. Most of us have been fans of the game and of the school, not the "star" athletes. In the long run, I don't think there will be much of a market for paid teenager athletes. But, if someone is willing to part with their $ to allow a kid to be less poor, and that means that School A easily crushes the competition, I don't think that's a bad thing. It IS a thing that will cause a great many people to lose interest. And that will in turn diminish the market, which will of course mean kids aren't making any money anyway. At issue, as I keep harping on, is the fact that the "big time" sports world where NIL money is available is an entirely different, beast of an animal that K-12 schools and even universities are not equipped to manage. Nor should they be. Big time, for profit sports should be separated from schools. The mission of the two entities is competely misaligned. 
    • It is somewhat understandable for a guy who's passionate about the sport, and who reached very close to the pinnacle of it, to be dismissive of the many dimwits making the rules who have none of the above characteristics. And, he may also be considering the possibility that calling attention to the (perhaps) absurd nature of the rules and/or the dearth of funding in high school football may be worth it in the big picture. He's almost certainly going to have the opportunity to coach at the higher levels, and is not likely to be at Norhwestern for very long, anyway. He may make a bigger impact long-term/big picture doing this sort of thing than just winning a couple state titles and jetting.
    • I think the argument is this:  if 'free adults are allowed to give gifts to poor kids who happen to be good at sports,' we move from an amateur environment into a professional environment.   Historically, high school sports, college sports and even the Olympics were reserved solely for amateur athletes.  Within the last couple of decades, the barriers for professionals started to erode for the Olympics.   You may recall that Jim Thorpe won gold medals in track in the 1912 Olympics, but was stripped of those medals because he had played minor league (or "semipro") baseball prior to participating in the Olympics.   Ultimately, those medals were restored a few years ago.  The USA Olympic basketball team used to be comprised only of college players.  Now, it's all pros (with one or two college stars).  Within the last 5-10 years, NIL changes have permitted college athletes to receive compensation. Before then, the rules in place for decades allowed college student-athletes to receive room, board and tuition.  The $100 post-game handshakes from alums in the locker room and brown paper bags filled with money - although they happened everywhere - were illegal (and arguably still are; they just don't happen as much because the athletes can receive money legally through NIL). The NIL world is quickly filtering down to the high school level.  However, the rules in most all states, and certainly in Florida, are rooted in the concept that only amateur athletes can compete in high school sports.   And if you allow athletes to receive gifts, or otherwise compensate them or their families, such athletes are no longer considered amateurs.   Simply put, the rules has always been that if you get compensated to do play a sport, you are considered a professional.  And professionals cannot participate in amateur sports.  Again, the rules in place (FHSAA Rules) are rooted in a clear distinction between amateur sports and professional sports.  There was a clear line that is slowly becoming more and more blurred. If you want the argument as to why the rule makes sense, I think it is this:   there is a certain beauty in amateur sports, knowing that everyone who is playing is playing for the love of the game and not for money.  Everything changes once you start compensating athletes.  As I have stated before, the concept of compensation is a slippery slope.  What do you allow and what don't you?   FHSAA rules prohibiting impermissible benefits were written before Uber even existed. But the rule is pretty clear:  if you give something to football players that you don't give to all other students, that's an impermissible benefit - especially if the benefit is given to entice a kid to come to your school.   If you allow schools/coaches/alums to compensate kids to play sports, then you take away the somewhat-level playing field.  And, over time, certain schools will dominate high school sports because they will have the financial wherewithal to attract the most talented athletes.  While this might be good for the handful of select, talented athletes, everyone else suffers.   I guess the real question is whether we just want to eliminate the distinction between amateur athletics and professional athletics altogether and simply allow the free-market system to play out for all athletes and all schools?  If you're inclined to answer this question with a "yes," I have only six words for you:  be careful what you wish for.   
    • Yes of course big shot, how dare anyone try to help some young man out with a generous offer from his own pocket! Did the new pinstripe suits arrive yet from Brooks Brothers, F. Lee Bailey, Clarence Darrow Jr?!  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...