Sunday, October 26, 2014

Parity At The Top?

Coach Kellogg with a future recruit for the UMass women's team

UMass/Amherst has the distinction once again of having the highest paid employee in the entire education oriented state of Massachusetts, a man who coaches a team of college aged youth on how best to put a round ball through a slightly larger circle of metal with a net attached. 

With a 109-86 win/loss record at UMass, the state's flagship of higher education, there's no question Derek Kellogg is successful at it. And obviously his employers showed some price point sensitivity as they kept it under $1 million, but not by much.

Of course local newspapers are quick to point out that Kellogg's new $994,500 salary only places him at #38 in compensation for coaches in the 2014 NCAA tournament.

Fair enough, it's a high paying field for sure.

But still, how does UMass/Amherst justify paying the women's basketball coach one-third of the men's coach?  And since Mr. Kellogg's new raise now puts Sharon Dawley's salary at one-quarter of his, are they at least going to give her a piddly $100K raise so she stays at only one-third of his salary?

Apparently gender discrimination is par for the course in Massachusetts

You also have to wonder how the five labor unions on campus are going to take this?  They are being offered table scraps in their contracts yet the University sees fit to cook up a sumptuous raise for this one rather high profile position?

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the little host "college town" of Amherst where the highest paid person in public service is a woman, School Superintendent Maria Geryk


Nina Koch said...

Just a mathematical correction: the relationship between the salaries is not "three times less"-- that would be a negative number. Instead, the lower salary is one third of the higher salary.

On another note, I thought Title IX meant that your pie chart should be 50-50. I thought that they somehow had to make the total expenditures come out equal for men and women. Maybe I have oversimplified the situation.

Larry Kelley said...

Thanks Nina, as you can see my little Catholic school was a tad more word oriented.

Title 1X simply says you, "have to be making progress" towards 50/50 equity.

Dr. Ed said...

The problem with Title IX is female students aren't as interested in sports as male students are, and that female sports don't have the audience that male sports do.

The larger problem is that while Baseball has it's own farm team system and "minor league" teams, higher education has permitted itself to become the unpaid farm system for Professional Basketball & Football. (Remember Marcus Camby?)

Why should the students (and parents) who are paying massive amounts of money for a college degree (and, theoretically, an education worthy of the degree) be asked to subsidize the operating expenses of quite profitable private businesses?

And don't think for an instant that the students (the vast vast majority of whom will never have a chance to play a sport) aren't subsidizing college athletics. Don't think for an instant that costs aren't being shifted to academic and student affairs accounts.

Students literally wind up being double-charged for other things -- because the initial revenue has been shifted to subsidize the sports teams, new revenue is needed to provide the already=paid-for services.

Kinda like how BigDig costs were shifted to the Turnpike -- drivers are now paying a second time for a road they already paid for. The "DeathStar" is a good example of this -- If you look at where the money to build that came from it's one thing, and yet the students (including the majority who DON'T use it) are required to pay (to the Athletic Department) several hundred dollars a year for the ability to use it.

It's supposed to be about education, that's what students & parents are paying for, and I'd like to see the entire UM Athletic Department abolished outright. If there is a demand for a semi-pro basketball team, let some private company set it up and run it. Without asking the students and taxpayers to pay for it.

Dr. Ed said...

No, Nina, one can say that Alpha is paid "three times less than Bravo is paid" -- it would be written mathematically as X/3 (X over 3) where X is the larger salary. For this to be a negative number, X has to be negative -- and it is far from that...

Now it would be more understandable to define the lower salary as Y and then say that "Bravo is paid three times more than Alpha" -- writing it mathematically as 3Y (3 times Y) -- but Larry wasn't wrong here.

And the really interesting question about Title IX is what does it mean in a state where your sex is whatever you think it is? Seriously Nina, fill out this form and you are now a guy --

Why do we have segregated sports?

Anonymous said...

Have you seen her record? She should be paying us? 4-27 overall last year and 1-15 in league play. That's an embarrassment and its not an aberration. She was 3-26 and 1-13 league play the year before. Her teams have stunk for 4 years. She's terrible. You think she deserves a raise? C'mon.

Larry Kelley said...

And how did our football team do last year?

Anonymous said...

Please don't perpetuate the myth that women make less into this. You get what you deserve. Men's basketball is far popular than women's. Clearly it makes enough to support his salary or someone isn't reading the spread sheet right. These college teams are sprayed with money by corporations so if he's making that much then they can afford it. It isn't about tuition. Just look at the major corp ads on the Umass sports site. College sports is money to be made. ADIDAS and all the others pay a nice price to have their names associated with the school. I think the Adidas deal now is for upwards of $500k for three years. Take that and all the other advertizing/sponsorship and you have a bank in sports at UMASS. Judging by the women's team record, this women is a shitty coach and doesn't deserve more. When the women's basketball is as popular and as profitable as Men's, then and only then does the women's coach deserve more.

Larry Kelley said...

According to the New York times:

"For Division I basketball, the median salary for coaches of a men’s team in 2010 was $329,300, nearly twice that of coaches for women’s teams, who had a median of $171,600. Over the past four years, the median pay of men’s head coaches increased by 40 percent compared with 28 percent for women’s coaches."

Surely SOME of those women's coaches have a favorable winning record.

umass student said...

In order to comply with Title IX, Kellogg's base salary is $281,000 for the remainder of 2014. It will fall to $225,000 in 2015 and beyond. Note that this puts him in the same range as Dawley.

The difference comes in "other compensation", which is a result of media appearances (i.e. the UMass Coaches Show at the Hangar every Monday night, interviews, recruiting events, etc.) and performance bonuses.

I think it is also important to note that UMass sponsors more women's teams (12 - which includes cheerleading and dance team) than men's, which only have 9. So, yes, the three big money making sports of men's basketball, hockey, and football are all due to make more individually because the women's sport dollars are more spread out.

You can also now update this map to show that 40 out of 50 states' highest paid employee is an athletic coach. Yes, Kellogg is 38th out of NCAA tournament teams, but many of those are private schools. This map is more relevant because it shows where state dollars are going:,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ykdkqhstdm1ptubyuct2.jpg

Also, note that UConn's highest paid state employee is the Women's basketball coach.

Anonymous said...

It's not about record, it's about return. Show me a women's program that generates as much interest as men's and you will find a better paid woman. Of course she has to be a negotiator too, just like a man.

The highest paid women's basketball coach is a man named Geno Auriemma, who just signed a deal for $10.8 million, not including bonuses. Why? Because UCONN women's has a huge following and gets sponsorship up the ass.

Would a woman coach in the same position get the same pay? If she had the same record, history and attitude she could certainly negotiate a similar contract.

Truth is in the last few years there has been a dramatic rise in the pay of women coaches overall.

Larry Kelley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry Kelley said...

"Umass student": you were doing pretty good there until the last sentence.

Anonymous said...

And he is a he because he is a successful basketball coach in one of the nations most coveted women's teams. Before Geno at UCONN Jean Balthaser was a very successful women's couch who dramatically grew the franchise and enjoyed many perks and pay because of it.

And don't forget when Geno was hired for UCONN he was paid $29,000 for his first year. Much of his salary today is supplemented by Nike and others. He built a team and a reputation after Balthaser paved the way, and now is paid well for what he has done.

In sports you are paid for what you are worth and what your team does, and what you do to get that team there, not because you are a man or a woman or a color. And much of the supplementation for college coaches comes not from tuition but advertizing, corporate sponsorship/camps/etc.

Please Larry, stop this perpetuating the .77 cents myth.

Larry Kelley said...

For every women's coach who wins a game, one loses. The math is pretty simply. So the spread of winning and losing overall records is probably very similar to that other gender.

And the facts about differing pay scales between the genders is indisputable.

Again according to the venerable New York Times:

Women’s coaches like Pat Summitt and Geno Auriemma are the outliers,” said Robert Lattinville, the chairman of the sports division at the law firm Stinson Morrison Hecker, which represents numerous coaches. “In most cases, the coaches of women’s basketball teams earn about one-half or one-third of the amount of the men’s basketball coach.

Anonymous said...

The position of Division I college basketball coach includes some of the biggest con men our country has ever seen.

And what they do is basically evil (with some exceptions): with tremendous salaries for themselves, they exploit the physical efforts of predominantly minority men, with no pay for them, leaving them frequently without the college degree that should have been their due, and often with no prospects in life. Some players overcome this; many do not.

Whenever you see a Division I college basketball game being played on TV on a weekday night, with at least one of the teams having flown in from some great distance, ask yourself: how can any really productive studying be getting done by these guys under these conditions?

It's a scam. And it cries out for reform.

Anonymous said...

UMass student:
In mentioning the big 3 of men's basketball, men's hockey, and football, are you trying to suggest that all 3 make $ for UMass. I highly doubt that football does given all the recent stadium improvements, & 100 students on the team, & the high salaries. ... and with UMass football team's record, I hope those coaches are getting big raises like Kellogg is.

Anonymous said...

Larry, Thank You for posting about Male–Female Income Difference. I hope that it will become one of your "pet" issues.

Larry Kelley said...

So many pet issue, so little time.

Anonymous said...

The men's basketball teams attracts 7K+ people to the Mullins center for the 14+ homes games each year. At $12-$18 per ticket plus concessions that sure helps pay for his salary... the football team also draws a good crowd and with both sports on TV often it also gives the college good exposure. By contrast the women's basketball home games bring in maybe 300 people a game..if that. And because of Title 9 they have to play all the women's games in the Mullins Center which cost more to open and operate for women's games than they make for these games. You want to bark at the college about over paying for sports go after them for wasting money on women's basketball.

Larry Kelley said...

Actually sexist smart ass, big time Umass football in FY13 cost $7,639,732 in overhead, took in $1,995,633 in revenues for a loss of $5,644,099.

Anonymous said...

$5.6 million loss from football in one year. Just think how that money could have been put to better use on the university's primary mission: educating its students.

Anonymous said...

Geesh LK, how many TV contract do women's sports get? It may not be "right" or "fair" but it is reality. Big time football and basketball programs bring substantial monies into schools. Win = get paid. The windfall from these big sports often times pays for ALL OTHER PROGRAMS. It is about time that the U invests in these programs as TV visibility brings the message of your U to the masses. How else would an 18 YO kid know all about Michigan, ND, Miami, FSU, UNC, Duke, LSU..etc etc. Sports put schools into pop culture, merchandizing,ESPN…the big 2 are the most vissble.

Larry Kelley said...

And maybe if the University invested more money in women's sports they would see a return as well.

What is it about a loss of $5.6 million for "Big Time Football" you don't get?

You can't very well invest a negative number into "ALL OTHER PROGRAMS".

Anonymous said...

With casinos and Division I football, and all the corruption that all of that entails, soon we'll be like every other stupid state in the Union!

Anonymous said...

UMASS is always held down by their own people, who refuse to spend money to make money. Marketing is a poor area of weakness for UMASS-sports can and do help. If you complain about UMASS spending money on sports, you should be screaming about the catholic schools, who spend more money, create major revenue(tax free) and enjoy the benefits of a non profit.

Nina Koch said...

Hey Larry,

It's not one-third less. It's one third of. The smaller number is one third of the bigger number. Like when a lawyer takes one third of the payment in a settlement.

And thanks for taking a stand on the gender gap in wages. I don't know which Bureau of Labor Statistics some of these commenters are consulting to say that it's a myth. The gender gap has been documented repeatedly. Here's one example:

Anonymous said...

No, leave the Catholic schools out of it.

UMass should be focused on being a first-class academic institution. Division I football has nothing to do with that.

There's nothing wrong with joining four other New England state universities (and the SUNY system) and keeping the emphasis where it belongs, not on football.

If Larry's numbers are correct, this is an awfully expensive way to raise the University's profile.

Anonymous said...

UMASS has always been a laughingstock, mainly because it is always being torn done within, making outsiders leery of supporting an organization which eats it's own. It isn't athletics vs. academics at most other institutions. Just like it isn't the art department badmouthing the history department. But at UMASS everyone must badmouth everyone else. No wonder the state support has never been strong. While alumni enjoy their time in Amherst, but never return, since they view the place, just a little out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

first pic: look at how big the ball looks in that cute little girl's hand and how little the ball looks in that big happy dude's hand...

..and how little the cute girl looks in the hands of the happiest man with the biggest salary in the state.

Dr. Ed said...

To understand why women earningless than men DOESN'T MEAN THAT women are PAID less than men, consider the following:

Women weigh less than men.

My MD recently told me that he'd like me to weigh 200 lbs, he'd be concerned if I weighed less than 190 lbs, and it'd be unhealthy for me to weigh less than 180 lbs.

Is it wrong that women weigh less than 200 lbs? While such a weight would be ideal for me, what would it mean for a woman to weigh that much? Medically -- as well as personally & socially -- what would it mean?

Should we round up every woman who weighs less than 180 lbs and force her to gain weight? Put her in a cage (aka "hospital") and force feed her if she won't eat fattening foods on her own?

I once had to make the "high-stakes decision" that a woman weighing 087 lbs wasn't anorexic, even if I had trouble believing that a healthy adult could weigh less than 100 lbs.

Women earn less than men because women WORK LESS THAN MEN.

Women work fewer hours per week, women are the ones getting pregnant (and unlike men who takes a month or year off, have a job to return to), and women tend towards types of work which pay less. (Men, such as myself, who choose fields such as Education are also paid less.)

Hey Nina, aren't you working part-time? You could have chosen a full=time and far more lucrative career such as being a lineman for WMECO. You could be out in the rain/ice/snow replacing poles and other such fun things while working around 13,600 volt power lines...

And if a crew's got a woman whom they can trust, they'll usually insist that she be the "man" in the (dry/warm) cab running the drill/hoist/etc. while they're out in the nasty weather. Hydraulic equipment is controlled by valves, women inherently have both better hand/eye coordination & fine motor skills than men, and a woman willing to put the time/effort into learning how is almost inherently going to be better with the hydraulic equipment than a man.

Telephone poles weigh over 500 lbs -- it sorta sucks to have one dropped on you.....

Hey Nina, I don't see you working for WMECO....

Dr. Ed said...

One other thing -- the problem with average pay is that workers aged 55-65 are paid a lot more than workers aged 20-30.

There are studies that show that a never-married/childless college educated woman under age 30 actually earns MORE THAN a similar man. It's just that the boss earns more than both of them combined.)

The boss, a man in his 50's or 60's, skews the average -- and he is a historical legacy of an earlier era, not today.

A woman can earn as much as a man if she WANTS TO, if she is willing to make the necessary sacrifices == AND MANY WOMEN CHOOSE NOT TO.

When you talk about coaches, you must also consider the opportunity cost paid by those who weren't able to get the position -- many of the people who sought to coach the men's team weren't able to and wound up earning less than the coach of the women's team...

Dr. Ed said...

"...UMass sponsors more women's teams (12 - which includes cheerleading and dance team) than men's, which only have 9. So, yes, the three big money making sports of men's basketball, hockey, and football are all due to make more individually because the women's sport dollars are more spread out."

The untold national scandal is the extent to which men's teams in less lucrative sports are being eliminated.

In cases where there is both a men's and a women's team (e.g. skiing) and considerable cost savings in the inherent ability to share resources (e.g. coach, bus) even though they compete individually, this is often jeopardizing if not eliminating the women's team as well.

Even if it doesn't, where is the gender equity in having a women's team in a sport men wish to play -- and have the ability to earn a place on the women's team -- without also having a men's team?

What this is also doing is eliminating obscure men's sports such as wrestling -- and wrestling has a surprising amount of support in Congress because a lot of Congressmen were collegiate wrestlers.

That's what's going to be changing things -- and what the feminists fail to understand is that it may not go back to just what it was intended to be. No, by going for the "whole loaf", women may wind up with nothing.

After all, exactly how many women's sports would there be if all sports had to pay their own way? How many sports would there be --of either gender -- if groups of athletes had to lobby reluctant administrators into creating/retaining a team for them to play on?

Why doesn't UMass have a Men's Studies program similar to the Women's Studies program? There's no demand -- and in a free market, there'd be no women's sports either.