|
Post by jim64 on Nov 5, 2018 19:10:57 GMT -5
While the website did not give specific head coaches salaries, it did give averages for all HCs at each school, given the low budget at WCU, I'm surprised at where WCU's average end up: Average Annual Institutional Salary per Head Coach (men): 9- VMI $67,726 8- Wofford $99,120 7- ETSU $109,828 6- Citadel $112,089 5- Samford $113,494 4- Mercer $123,263 3- Western $125,992 2- UTC $147.463 1- Furman $167,362 Jerry, I vaguely remember when Coach Speir was hired that his salary would be among the best in the SoCon.
|
|
|
Post by jim64 on Nov 5, 2018 19:24:40 GMT -5
While the website did not give specific head coaches salaries, it did give averages for all HCs at each school, given the low budget at WCU, I'm surprised at where WCU's average end up: Average Annual Institutional Salary per Head Coach (men): 9- VMI $67,726 8- Wofford $99,120 7- ETSU $109,828 6- Citadel $112,089 5- Samford $113,494 4- Mercer $123,263 3- Western $125,992 2- UTC $147.463 1- Furman $167,362 This pretty much destroys the comments on this board about our coaches being underpaid. The problem we have is not pay, its coaches underperforming on the field & poor team preparation. Jerry, I would like to thank you for your efforts to keep us informed & posts that contain facts that people can not dispute. Great Job Jerry, keep shooting down the poor excuses by the Administration and the Athletic Department.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 5, 2018 19:42:25 GMT -5
While the website did not give specific head coaches salaries, it did give averages for all HCs at each school, given the low budget at WCU, I'm surprised at where WCU's average end up: Average Annual Institutional Salary per Head Coach (men): 9- VMI $67,726 8- Wofford $99,120 7- ETSU $109,828 6- Citadel $112,089 5- Samford $113,494 4- Mercer $123,263 3- Western $125,992 2- UTC $147.463 1- Furman $167,362 This pretty much destroys the comments on this board about our coaches being underpaid. The problem we have is not pay, its coaches underperforming on the field & poor team preparation. Jerry, I would like to thank you for your efforts to keep us informed & posts that contain facts that people can not dispute. Great Job Jerry, keep shooting down the poor excuses by the Administration and the Athletic Department. HC - Mark Speir - $213,928.00, this is the base salary and does not include any incentives pay, which would be per his new contract. OC - Brad Glenn - $96,831.00 DC - John Wiley - $93,000.00 I don't want to post he assistant salaries as there is a major drop off for everyone except Mark Rhea.
|
|
|
Post by wcugrad95 on Nov 5, 2018 21:17:25 GMT -5
Also, the listing above was average across all men's head coaches. I listed Speir, Hunter, and Moranda for 2017 because I didn't know where to get 2018 numbers. Those 3 averaged over $174k, meaning we must not pay the head coaches of the other men's sports very well to drag the average down $50k.
The poor pay issue is for our assistants. Those guys make $30-$60k and it is no wonder they leave for either bigger job titles or more money (or usually both) as soon as they get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by kudzu on Nov 6, 2018 16:31:34 GMT -5
If the Catamount Club giving has more than doubled in 5 years......how much has WCU increased funding to our athletics?
|
|
|
Post by wcugamer2 on Nov 6, 2018 20:09:40 GMT -5
If the Catamount Club giving has more than doubled in 5 years......how much has WCU increased funding to our athletics? Wcu has not increased funding to the athletic department since before 2012. Also remember, athletic coaches salaries are not state funded, even though they are state employees (someone explain the logic on that?)
|
|
|
Post by wcu77 on Nov 7, 2018 11:10:35 GMT -5
If the Catamount Club giving has more than doubled in 5 years......how much has WCU increased funding to our athletics? Wcu has not increased funding to the athletic department since before 2012. Also remember, athletic coaches salaries are not state funded, even though they are state employees (someone explain the logic on that?) Exactly..... and what has many folks upset...per previous posts on this topic, the administration is using the increased Catamount Club funds as a substitute for what they might otherwise have to use on athletic funding. Club members have given record amounts under false pretense that their gifts were being used to additionally fund athletics when it has not been used for that.
|
|
|
Post by FLCATAMOUNT on Nov 7, 2018 13:42:42 GMT -5
Wcu has not increased funding to the athletic department since before 2012. Also remember, athletic coaches salaries are not state funded, even though they are state employees (someone explain the logic on that?) Exactly..... and what has many folks upset...per previous posts on this topic, the administration is using the increased Catamount Club funds as a substitute for what they might otherwise have to use on athletic funding. Club members have given record amounts under false pretense that their gifts were being used to additionally fund athletics when it has not been used for that. You are correct but it is worse than that. If you look at the numbers, the part the university contributes has gone down proportionally to the amount given by the Catamount Club. So if the university was contributing $1,000,000 and the Catamount Club was contributing $1,000,000 in 2012 and then in 2013 the Catamount Club contributed $1,250,000, the administration was only chipping in $750,000 so the total remains at $2,000,000. So in reality, the administration is using the extra $250K given to strengthen athletics to funnel money from the Catamount Club to other areas of the University. That is why overall funding for athletics has remained exactly flat since 2012. Look at the numbers. They prove my point. I guess the Chancellor and BOT have a right to do that, but that is dirty anyway you slice it.
|
|
need special prosecutor
Guest
|
Post by need special prosecutor on Nov 7, 2018 14:29:01 GMT -5
Exactly..... and what has many folks upset...per previous posts on this topic, the administration is using the increased Catamount Club funds as a substitute for what they might otherwise have to use on athletic funding. Club members have given record amounts under false pretense that their gifts were being used to additionally fund athletics when it has not been used for that. You are correct but it is worse than that. If you look at the numbers, the part the university contributes has gone down proportionally to the amount given by the Catamount Club. So if the university was contributing $1,000,000 and the Catamount Club was contributing $1,000,000 in 2012 and then in 2013 the Catamount Club contributed $1,250,000, the administration was only chipping in $750,000 so the total remains at $2,000,000. So in reality, the administration is using the extra $250K given to strengthen athletics to funnel money from the Catamount Club to other areas of the University. That is why overall funding for athletics has remained exactly flat since 2012. Look at the numbers. They prove my point. I guess the Chancellor and BOT have a right to do that, but that is dirty anyway you slice it. People give to the Catamount Club, thinking they are helping athletics, when in reality the more they give, the more the administration can then move to other priorities away from athletics. To me, the university begs for money to improve athletics, then does not utilize those funds for that reason, seems like a scam to me, and maybe even Illegal.
|
|
|
Post by catamount87 on Nov 7, 2018 17:22:48 GMT -5
You want to hear a scam. Well each university (and state agency) gets an approved budget. The GA will come back at some point during the year and then tell said university or state agency that they can only spend X% of said approved budget. So, if they say we can only spend 98% of our budget they have essentially cut the budget an additional 2%. Said university or state agency then has to scramble to readjust spending mid year. In other words, rob Peter to pay Paul to keep within their new "revised" budget. This is the kind of shady, behind the scenes, politically motivated shenanigans that get pulled on a regular basis.
|
|