When John Calipari signed an eight-year, $31.5 million deal to coach the basketball team at the University of Kentucky — an unprecedented salary for a college basketball coach — there was a collective shudder across the ranks of university presidents nationwide.

That it comes in the wake of several college football coaches making $4 million per year (Charlie Weiss at Notre Dame, Urban Meyer at Florida, Les Miles at LSU, Pete Carroll at Southern Cal, Nick Saban at Alabama and Bob Stoops at Oklahoma) only speaks to the escalating costs associated with competing at the highest levels of college athletics.

An October report by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics confirms the trend: Eighty-five percent of university presidents surveyed said compensation for football and basketball coaches is “excessive.”

Head football coach Steve Spurrier makes approximately $2 million in salary and other compensation per year. Photo by Chris Brunson

At the University of South Carolina, head football coach Steve Spurrier makes approximately $2 million in salary and other compensation compared to the national average for top coaches of $1.36 million. Additionally, several assistant coaches — Steve Spurrier Jr., Brad Lawing, Ellis Johnson, Eric Wolford and Lorenzo Ward — make $200,000, a salary that just 10 years ago would have been unfathomable for an assistant coach.

USC president Harris Pastides says such rising spending levels — aren’t sustainable for the long-term health of universities.

“I don’t believe that the escalation in coaches‚ salaries and facilities costs is sustainable, but I don’t think anyone knows what that ceiling is because it is driven by market forces and is not regulated,” Pastides says in an emailed response to questions. “Athletic spending is a matter of concern for me and many college presidents across the country and is something that is already being addressed outside the university borders.”

USC athletics director Eric Hyman shares that view.

“I don’t believe the escalation of coaches’ salaries and overall athletics spending is sustainable to the degree that it risen in the recent past,” Hyman says in an emailed response.

However, he says smaller schools are private schools are feeling the heat more than USC.

“Presidents of those schools have reason for concern about money that is being spent on athletics, because for a large number of those schools, athletics are not revenue producing, as they are in conferences like the SEC.”

Hyman operates one of the relatively few athletic departments in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I) that operate in the black. In fiscal year 2008, revenues exceeded outlays by more than $1 million.

Such results are not the norm, however. According a recent report by the NCAA, of 120 FBS schools, only 25 have athletic departments that turn a profit.

Still, in a limited survey of similar schools, USC’s athletic department contains a relatively high number of persons making more than $50,000. According to a list of USC athletic department personnel making more than $50,0000 obtained by Free Times under the Freedom of Information Act, a total of 86 people out of 188 are at or above $50,000, including an administrative assistant making $63,515. At Clemson, that number is 74, while at Kentucky the number is 79. (Spokespersons for the University of Tennessee, Georgia and Florida did not respond in time for this story.)

For Hyman, the numbers at the University of South Carolina are in line with, if not behind, USC’s Southeastern Conference competition.

“USC has not spent proportionately as much for athletics in the past as many of its competitors have,” Hyman says. “Currently, USC is having to catch up to its competitors, which has changed the expenditures at a more rapid rate than had the athletics department kept up with its competition.

“So, we have a more inflated expenditure rate now than in the past, but that will level out as we get caught up with our conference schools. Even so, our coaches and administrative staff members are paid less than 50-75 percent of our competitors. We are continually looking for ways to control our expenditures and be good stewards of our money, while at the same time building a nationally prominent program that competes for championships.”

Hyman says the introduction of enormous amounts of money from television contracts has fueled the recent spending sprees some colleges have embarked upon, adding that there will be a limit to what colleges can spend.

“To cash in on television opportunities, colleges demanded more success from coaches, who when successful, demanded more pay and the salaries for coaches in the revenue-producing sports became marketplace-driven,” Hyman says. “Just as in business, if the marketplace changes significantly, salaries will be adjusted. This is why smaller and private schools that aren’t in the television market have greater struggles with the cost of athletics.”

The benefits of athletic success to colleges are manifold, making the balance between the quest to win and what’s financially prudent a sometimes difficult one to strike.

“Athletics should not overshadow academics, but I think most would agree that a solid, well-run program contributes to the university in many ways, through increased applications, visibility, and school spirit,” Pastides says. “Just last December, the athletics department announced an agreement with the university to contribute $15 million from the
ESPN contract revenues to support need-based scholarships at the university, and athletics gives other monies to the university for scholarships. I believe that we were the first SEC school to adopt this and others have now followed similar approaches.”

For USC’s profitable department, Hyman says spending sustainability is thankfully not an issue.

“Since we operate in the black here at USC, our budget is not out of control,” Hyman says. 

Let us know what you think. Email rona@free-times.com.