Currently, a substantial portion of the money generated by athletes is flowing to both school administrators and coaches. What the coaches receive illustrates the problem. An NBA coach tends to be paid only about 2.4% of an NBA team’s revenue. A top men’s college basketball coach, though, tends to receive about 27.1% of their team’s revenue. If college coaches were paid the same share of revenue as we see in the NBA, a coach like John Calipari would see his pay go from more than $7 million to less than $700,000.
And this is why true reform is probably not coming to the NCAA anytime soon.
No shit.
Get The Picture 
I bet it’s even more pronounced in football even with the salaries of Belicheck and Gruden among others.
LikeLike
Can’t dispute what the argument is about, but the NBA? How about the comparing to the NFL. NBA was used to give a greater discrepancy, just not an apt comparison. I sometimes think these “journalist” try many tacks to find one that is so extreme that it will get their name in the press. Pathetic IMO,
LikeLike
Senator’s posts aside, the national discussion has been about the FBI probe in to NCAA basketball corruption, so the comparison to the NBA makes sense.
LikeLike
Because the NCAA doesn’t have anything to do with college basketball, or something?
Rhetorical question — we all know what you object to.
LikeLike
“Because the NCAA doesn’t have anything to do with college basketball, or something?”
The compare Caliparri’s salary to NBA coaches salaries maybe?
LikeLike
He’s not even the highest paid CBB coach.
If you’d like, do the math with Crean’s salary. The percentage isn’t as lopsided, but it’s still lopsided.
Just stick with “I don’t want players being paid”. Nobody’s gonna question you on that.
LikeLike
There is validity in the argument he makes. If you look at the highest paid CEO in 2016 — it was around $98M on a revenue of $41.2B (Charter Communications). The math works out to 2.4% of revenue. Seems to match the point the author makes about the top coaches. Of course it does not take into account monies made outside of the top programs. For giggles, I used to DOE link to look up Mercer. Mercer pays about 2.4% of the revenue to coaches. Then I looked up Georgia state, and it looks to average closer to 18%. (these are all programs, not just basketball)
I guess my point is depending on sample size, it can skew the results one way or another. It makes me wonder where the tipping point will be on ever increasing salaries or where the burden will fall. When players start getting more dollars (which will happen, just a matter of what it looks like), will coaches see dwindling salaries? I doubt it. You will just see an increase in ticket prices and donation requirements. (not sure how much more you can squeeze out of the networks who are showing the games — since they tend to overpay for “talent” as well — read ESPN.)
LikeLike