"According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Talk about overpaid.

"Amateurism"

Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

(05-24-2019 07:59 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  "According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Gee. Wonder why. The power conferences control the NCAA. He is doing his job keeping them out of trouble.

(05-25-2019 04:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 07:59 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  "According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Gee. Wonder why. The power conferences control the NCAA. He is doing his job keeping them out of trouble.

Actually, I think it's clear that the NCAA, for all its bad media publicity, has done its core job of increasing revenue across the board, which does benefit everyone.

The NCAA has also been surprisingly effective at minimizing the threat to the core
100+ year old model of "amateurism" model of athletics that has proven lucrative for the schools, in the face of numerous lawsuits that would seemingly have the potential to bring the whole house down, and which legal experts have said the NCAA is on soft ground to stand on.

Again, that benefits San Jose State, not just Ohio State.

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Somehow in what is supposed to be a non profit that argument just doesn't wash with me. If he's the CEO of a fortune 500 then yes a % of the overall profit might be in order, but he is an academic who found a way to go "corporate" with a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy swells its own endowment with over 70 million a year gleaned off of the basketball tournament, money that could be going to some schools which do need it and could use it to cover costs, which after all is what helps it to remain a non profit, other than designation.

The massive self perpetuating endowment is only justified by the specter of the lawsuit bogeyman.

Mark Emmert has helped to create a new top to the pyramid of university presidents who depending upon the school may make in the low six figures to the low 7 figures. Emmert has now raised the bar for that bureaucratic genre. I really don't call that an accomplishment.

(05-25-2019 09:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Somehow in what is supposed to be a non profit that argument just doesn't wash with me. If he's the CEO of a fortune 500 then yes a % of the overall profit might be in order, but he is an academic who found a way to go "corporate" with a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy swells its own endowment with over 70 million a year gleaned off of the basketball tournament, money that could be going to some schools which do need it and could use it to cover costs, which after all is what helps it to remain a non profit, other than designation.

The massive self perpetuating endowment is only justified by the specter of the lawsuit bogeyman.

Mark Emmert has helped to create a new top to the pyramid of university presidents who depending upon the school may make in the low six figures to the low 7 figures. Emmert has now raised the bar for that bureaucratic genre. I really don't call that an accomplishment.

I see your point, and e.g., the head of the Red Cross, a $3B organization, makes $500,000 a year.

But on the other hand, aren't the conferences I mentioned officially "not for profit" as well? If so, then I think those are valid comparisons, more closely related ones.

As a former coach once said, “worth every penny.”

Of course, we won’t look at how programs who have safely harbored sexual predators or academic fraud still have functioning athletic departments. No, he’s “worth it” because he is allowing the money makers to still print money for the entire organization.

Could also be that nobody in their right mind wants the job after the lows to which he’s taken it. Never be the guy who follows that kind of legend.

(05-25-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 09:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Somehow in what is supposed to be a non profit that argument just doesn't wash with me. If he's the CEO of a fortune 500 then yes a % of the overall profit might be in order, but he is an academic who found a way to go "corporate" with a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy swells its own endowment with over 70 million a year gleaned off of the basketball tournament, money that could be going to some schools which do need it and could use it to cover costs, which after all is what helps it to remain a non profit, other than designation.

The massive self perpetuating endowment is only justified by the specter of the lawsuit bogeyman.

Mark Emmert has helped to create a new top to the pyramid of university presidents who depending upon the school may make in the low six figures to the low 7 figures. Emmert has now raised the bar for that bureaucratic genre. I really don't call that an accomplishment.

I see your point, and e.g., the head of the Red Cross, a $3B organization, makes $500,000 a year.

But on the other hand, aren't the conferences I mentioned officially "not for profit" as well? If so, then I think those are valid comparisons, more closely related ones.

Emmert's salary is in line with the CEOs of other nonprofits-that-aren't-really-nonprofit, like large hospital systems. Of course that just underlines what it a sham it is that both those hospital systems, and the NCAA with its $800 million/year in TV revenue, can call themselves "nonprofit".

(05-25-2019 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 04:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 07:59 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  "According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Gee. Wonder why. The power conferences control the NCAA. He is doing his job keeping them out of trouble.

Actually, I think it's clear that the NCAA, for all its bad media publicity, has done its core job of increasing revenue across the board, which does benefit everyone.

The NCAA has also been surprisingly effective at minimizing the threat to the core
100+ year old model of "amateurism" model of athletics that has proven lucrative for the schools, in the face of numerous lawsuits that would seemingly have the potential to bring the whole house down, and which legal experts have said the NCAA is on soft ground to stand on.

Again, that benefits San Jose State, not just Ohio State.

Maybe not so lucrative to San Jose State than to Ohio State. I do not know how much SJS brings in but doubt that it pays for the entire athletics department than an Ohio State, something that I think when payday comes for the NCAA, they pay attention.

(05-25-2019 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Emmert's salary is in line with the CEOs of other nonprofits-that-aren't-really-nonprofit, like large hospital systems. Of course that just underlines what it a sham it is that both those hospital systems, and the NCAA with its $800 million/year in TV revenue, can call themselves "nonprofit".

(05-25-2019 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 09:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Somehow in what is supposed to be a non profit that argument just doesn't wash with me. If he's the CEO of a fortune 500 then yes a % of the overall profit might be in order, but he is an academic who found a way to go "corporate" with a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy swells its own endowment with over 70 million a year gleaned off of the basketball tournament, money that could be going to some schools which do need it and could use it to cover costs, which after all is what helps it to remain a non profit, other than designation.

The massive self perpetuating endowment is only justified by the specter of the lawsuit bogeyman.

Mark Emmert has helped to create a new top to the pyramid of university presidents who depending upon the school may make in the low six figures to the low 7 figures. Emmert has now raised the bar for that bureaucratic genre. I really don't call that an accomplishment.

I see your point, and e.g., the head of the Red Cross, a $3B organization, makes $500,000 a year.

But on the other hand, aren't the conferences I mentioned officially "not for profit" as well? If so, then I think those are valid comparisons, more closely related ones.

Emmert's salary is in line with the CEOs of other nonprofits-that-aren't-really-nonprofit, like large hospital systems. Of course that just underlines what it a sham it is that both those hospital systems, and the NCAA with its $800 million/year in TV revenue, can call themselves "nonprofit".

Some people make the mistake of thinking that "not for profit" means "small" or "doesn't bring in more money than it spends". But that makes little sense. Sometimes, a not for profit has goals that require it to be big, and if you start out small, the only way to get big is to grow your revenues. E.g., a Red Cross that only brings in $50 million in annual revenue would be ineffective at responding to large emergencies, so it has to be big to be effective. And that means earning more revenues than you pay in expenses, so that the additional revenues above expenses can be reinvested to grow the organization.

So it's not contrary to the ethos of being "non profit" to be big, or to make more money than you spend. To the contrary, it is part and parcel.

The real difference between "for profit" and "non profit" is what is done with the extra revenues generated, not in the fact that extra revenue is generated. ALL organizations have to do that to survive and thrive.

(05-25-2019 09:08 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 04:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 07:59 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  "According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Gee. Wonder why. The power conferences control the NCAA. He is doing his job keeping them out of trouble.

Actually, I think it's clear that the NCAA, for all its bad media publicity, has done its core job of increasing revenue across the board, which does benefit everyone.

The NCAA has also been surprisingly effective at minimizing the threat to the core
100+ year old model of "amateurism" model of athletics that has proven lucrative for the schools, in the face of numerous lawsuits that would seemingly have the potential to bring the whole house down, and which legal experts have said the NCAA is on soft ground to stand on.

Again, that benefits San Jose State, not just Ohio State.

Maybe not so lucrative to San Jose State than to Ohio State. I do not know how much SJS brings in but doubt that it pays for the entire athletics department than an Ohio State, something that I think when payday comes for the NCAA, they pay attention.

Ohio State makes a lot more athletic money than San Jose State for a lot of reasons. The way the NCAA distributes money really isn't one of them.

But no matter what SJS's situation, they would probably be worse off if the traditional NCAA "amateurism" model was thrown out, and they had to start paying all players directly or something. So they benefit from the NCAA fighting that too.

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Partly true.

He IS overpaid because he's incompetent.

(05-26-2019 06:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 09:08 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2019 04:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 07:59 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  "According to Yahoo! Sports, NCAA Pres. Mark Emmert received a 60 percent increase in compensation between Sept. 1, 2017 and Aug. 31, 2018, according to the NCAA’s 990 financial disclosure. Emmert’s pay skyrocketed from $2.4 million the previous year to $3.9 million, thanks to what was described as a one-time, $1.4 million deferred payment that was written into his contract. Three other NCAA executives also earned over one million in 2017."

I'm so glad to know it's all for the students.
What a kindly non-profit organization the NCAA is.

Gee. Wonder why. The power conferences control the NCAA. He is doing his job keeping them out of trouble.

Actually, I think it's clear that the NCAA, for all its bad media publicity, has done its core job of increasing revenue across the board, which does benefit everyone.

The NCAA has also been surprisingly effective at minimizing the threat to the core
100+ year old model of "amateurism" model of athletics that has proven lucrative for the schools, in the face of numerous lawsuits that would seemingly have the potential to bring the whole house down, and which legal experts have said the NCAA is on soft ground to stand on.

Again, that benefits San Jose State, not just Ohio State.

Maybe not so lucrative to San Jose State than to Ohio State. I do not know how much SJS brings in but doubt that it pays for the entire athletics department than an Ohio State, something that I think when payday comes for the NCAA, they pay attention.

Ohio State makes a lot more athletic money than San Jose State for a lot of reasons. The way the NCAA distributes money really isn't one of them.

But no matter what SJS's situation, they would probably be worse off if the traditional NCAA "amateurism" model was thrown out, and they had to start paying all players directly or something. So they benefit from the NCAA fighting that too.

Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

(05-26-2019 07:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-24-2019 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not overpaid for running a billion-dollar organization.

Remember, his real pay is $2.6m, the $4m comes from a one-time payment.

The PAC commissioner, who is responsible for far less, makes more. Mike Aresco, commissioner of a G5 conference, makes $1.9m a year, probably $2m now. That's about 7% of total AAC conference revenues. Even when they start getting $7m a school, it will still be about 2% of conference revenue.

Emmert makes about .4% of NCAA revenues.

Partly true.

He IS overpaid because he's incompetent.

Incompetent? When I grew up, I would always do the best job to impress my employers that paid my salary.

(05-26-2019 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

Tell that to all those schools alumni. It would not only mean the football team but all Olympic sports, also, since football is the most money driven.

(05-26-2019 03:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well they are all competing on bells and whistles and creating 5 star locker rooms that have no value but for recruiting. Maybe if they actually paid players, San Jose would drop football and be better off.

That's a point I can agree with. Heck, probably 50% of all FBS schools would be better of without football.

Tell that to all those schools alumni. It would not only mean the football team but all Olympic sports, also, since football is the most money driven.

Most olympic sports don't cost that much. Its football that drives the expenses. Until the last round of contracts, that meant football bled money from all but 20-30 schools. Now the P5 pretty much all makes money from football. But it bleeds the rest more than ever.