Should Your Taxes Pay for Athletes?

Interesting article. A Utah state senator is proposing $1.5 million in tax funds be provided to USU so they can pay athletes. Suppose it was a matter of time.



This bothers me, but on the other hand USU is already a tax-funded/subsidized school. What's another $1.5 million.



Still, if a school's athletic program can't generate enough money to support itself, why should tax payers foot the bill?



http://www.sltrib.com/news/2168618-155/usu-with-help-from-sen-hillyard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any politician who agrees with or votes for this should be kicked from office

Absolutely not.



I would appreciate it actually if legislation were passed requiring state funded institutions athletic programs fully self-funded.

Hell, no!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I fully agree with Spiff and Hawk. Perhaps that senator should be kicked out of office for even proposing such a socialist abomination.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

He can propose it all he wants, but my representatives better not support it or I'll be voting in someone else next election. Of course the USU fans are comparing it to having tithing money go to BYU tuition subsidies for athletes. lol

What is the reason institutions of education exist? I believe it's education! Sports educate. I learned a lot from sports. I have loved them but I feel it's getting out of hand. Even at the Alabama's and Ohio States education should be first. If not they should either join the nfl or start their own league and drop education. This sounds crazy but I don't think this is going the right direction. I hope this gets resolved before some things get ruined.



I was bothered by the church ending sports at Ricks College but in view of where this is going it appears they were prophetic.



After you've left your education institution, your ability to support your family and yourself and contribute to yours and others quality of life should be more important than any sports accomplishment of that institution.

No. But then all these taxes going to education are a waste of money so why should we be bothered about another 1.5M when were' already tossing nearly $950B down the drain every year anyway.



Here we are at a time when it should cost pennies to get an education dropping $10K/year per kid in k-12 and even more for the privileged who go to college. All this just support a bunch of overpaid teachers and university professors on the backs of people who actually produce something other people are willing to buy of their own free choice.

jvquarterback wrote:
No. But then all these taxes going to education are a waste of money so why should we be bothered about another 1.5M when were' already tossing nearly $950B down the drain every year anyway.



Here we are at a time when it should cost pennies to get an education dropping $10K/year per kid in k-12 and even more for the privileged who go to college. All this just support a bunch of overpaid teachers and university professors on the backs of people who actually produce something other people are willing to buy of their own free choice.

Oxymoron? lol :bug: Nevermind the teachers providing the education that enabling the opportunities that are available to you because of your education. Would the research they do that advances technology, medicine, etc. qualify as "producing something"?

jvquarterback wrote:
No. But then all these taxes going to education are a waste of money so why should we be bothered about another 1.5M when were' already tossing nearly $950B down the drain every year anyway.



Here we are at a time when it should cost pennies to get an education dropping $10K/year per kid in k-12 and even more for the privileged who go to college. All this just support a bunch of overpaid teachers and university professors on the backs of people who actually produce something other people are willing to buy of their own free choice.

I've been expecting this to ruin college football for a while now. If I want to watch professional baseball I watch the MLB not triple A. The P5 schools are trying to turn themselves in to minor league football instead of college football programs. How many non P5 schools are really going to be able/willing to pay students what will eventually become a sizable amount for a college kid? I'd bet there's some P5 schools that will be very unwilling/able to do it as well as some of them really are P5 because of academics and not sports.

Fido wrote:
Nevermind the teachers providing the education that enabling the opportunities that are available to you because of your education. Would the research they do that advances technology, medicine, etc. qualify as "producing something"?

Overpaid =/= worthless.



My daughter's class of 24 kids generates $280,000 of revenue for the school district. Can you imagine what I could get on the free market for that? Teacher's and administrators are so overpaid it is ridiculous. Anyone who says otherwise isn't looking at the numbers. If they weren't teaching they would be flipping burgers or something else people actually value.



The same is true for university professors. Here we have a group or incredibly intelligent people who could be producing something of actual value. Instead they waste a fortune studying useless things. I was forced during my residency to waste a year doing "research" and so were all of the other residents in my program. What a waste. And I know enough to tell you that 95-99% of the research done by the PIs, post docs, and grad students was also a waste. Oh they get papers published and do the dance so they gt tenured but not a dime of their research would be funded if they had to do it on their own or find another private source.



And if they weren't wasting their time away while simultaneously wasting money they got the government to steal from the rest of us on their behalf they might actually produce something of benefit. Something the rest of us might actually find value in without being coerced to buy it by some thug in Washington or Salt Lake or Sacramento.

I gotta disagree with the "overpaid" part of being a teacher. My wife teaches elementary school. If it were a simple matter of teaching kids 6 1/2 hrs a day and having summers off, I would agree. Instead, I see the woman who goes in at 7:00 each morning and stays until 5:00 each afternoon to prepare to be a good teacher. I also see the numerous days of training she is required to attend. Effective training? No. But still hours she is required to put in in order to keep her job. From that standpoint, teachers are not overpaid.



My gripe comes with the countless dollars that get hung up at the district offices promoting programs which are not created to benefit students. Instead they are created to preserve someone's job who hasn't been in the classroom for years and the programs are approved by people who can't even remember what a classroom looks like.

My wife also teaches elementary school with a class of 30 kids. She is probably 10 years into her teaching career and is paid well below the average Utah teacher salary of $49k (2013's number). The average teacher salary has only increased $5k since 1980. SINCE 1980!



While the average salary is competitive with surrounding states, the class size is MUCH larger than other western states.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/utah-s-teacher-pay-hits--year-high/article_0defdae4-2ef0-5264-aa36-7540b7bb4a5a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



If my wife wasn't teaching, she definitely wouldn't be flipping burgers. Her bachelor's degree and teaching certificate training would definitely over-qualify her for that.



You have some pretty wacky pre-conceived notions about teachers that don't seem grounded in reality. Now if people waste their time doing worthless research that is one thing. But branding all teachers as overpaid people who otherwise could only qualify to do menial labor is inexcusable and arrogant.

1967cougar wrote:
I gotta disagree with the "overpaid" part of being a teacher. My wife teaches elementary school. If it were a simple matter of teaching kids 6 1/2 hrs a day and having summers off, I would agree. Instead, I see the woman who goes in at 7:00 each morning and stays until 5:00 each afternoon to prepare to be a good teacher. I also see the numerous days of training she is required to attend. Effective training? No. But still hours she is required to put in in order to keep her job. From that standpoint, teachers are not overpaid.



My gripe comes with the countless dollars that get hung up at the district offices promoting programs which are not created to benefit students. Instead they are created to preserve someone's job who hasn't been in the classroom for years and the programs are approved by people who can't even remember what a classroom looks like.

I lean pretty far right and am happy to challenge any teacher that says they're underpaid but I don't think it's the teachers that are overpaid. The bureaucracy is where the money is lost in education (which includes the bad teachers that shouldn't be getting paid). Why they need the levels of administrators and the incredible facilities that they build now is beyond me.

Stirfry wrote:

I gotta disagree with the "overpaid" part of being a teacher. My wife teaches elementary school. If it were a simple matter of teaching kids 6 1/2 hrs a day and having summers off, I would agree. Instead, I see the woman who goes in at 7:00 each morning and stays until 5:00 each afternoon to prepare to be a good teacher. I also see the numerous days of training she is required to attend. Effective training? No. But still hours she is required to put in in order to keep her job. From that standpoint, teachers are not overpaid.



My gripe comes with the countless dollars that get hung up at the district offices promoting programs which are not created to benefit students. Instead they are created to preserve someone's job who hasn't been in the classroom for years and the programs are approved by people who can't even remember what a classroom looks like.

I lean pretty far right and am happy to challenge any teacher that says they're underpaid but I don't think it's the teachers that are overpaid. The bureaucracy is where the money is lost in education (which includes the bad teachers that shouldn't be getting paid). Why they need the levels of administrators and the incredible facilities that they build now is beyond me.

Amen.

Not sure how it is in Utah, but in California it's the administrators that are eating up fat sums of cash.



The districts get the mandate to cut costs and rather than lay off one administrator making 250k/year they pass reductions down onto the teachers, laying off 5 teachers instead. Why? Two reasons: 1) They don't want to fire one of their own; and 2) Laying off teachers creates public sympathy. With the sympathy they are able to propose and often times pass either new property taxes or bond measures, which bring in additional funds. Since the district has already absorbed the loss of the 5 teachers the new funds are used to pay for raises for the administrators.



Notice after a school bond measure or property tax for school supplies, etc. there rarely are new school supplies. And if there are new supplies it's far less than the amount collected.



My sister works as a teacher within the community college system here in California. She used to be all about the "greedy Republicans" not wanting to spend on education. Then she was given an administrative position and was shocked at how little they actually did, how much they got paid, and how despite budget cuts the administrators still got raises.

It's valuable to consider the other side.



I don't have statistics, but the image and perception of a university's athletic department does have a correlation to the number and quality of new student enrollment applications. And, largely, the win-loss record and perception of the football team correlates strongly to the image and perception of the university's athletic department.



So, if $1.5 million helps to improve the win-loss record and perception of the football team, which enhances the image and perception of the university's athletic department, which increases the number and quality of student applicants, which helps the university to raise its academic profile and improve its academic programs, which ultimately means that the university can charge higher tuition and receive larger research endowments and funding opportunities, THEN $1.5 million is a paltry amount to help the university achieve its goal to improve its academic profile and programs.



HOWEVER, I would think that USU could easily find $1.5 million in a combination of expense cuts elsewhere and raising ticket prices and Dairy Ewete Club donation requirements. If a university can't figure out how to make it work with what they have, that's on them.

Stirfry wrote:
I lean pretty far right and am happy to challenge any teacher that says they're underpaid but I don't think it's the teachers that are overpaid. The bureaucracy is where the money is lost in education (which includes the bad teachers that shouldn't be getting paid). Why they need the levels of administrators and the incredible facilities that they build now is beyond me.

How much or how long someone works has no correlation to what they should be paid.



If the teacher's all lost their jobs (like a significant number did in California a couple years ago) what do you think they would make as private tutors? I can tell you it wouldn't be close to what they make now. It would be closer to what someone makes at Burger King. Sorry if I offended anyone about that comment about flipping burgers - I think working in food services is a very honorable job. (The school administrators are another story -- all of them would be out of work entirely because they aren't worth the $7.25 the kids are making at McDonalds).



What would be more likely if we abolished government schools is that teacher's would go start businesses (and might stop living off the government teat). That would benefit everyone. Kids can educate themselves for a few hundred dollars a year with online courses, but we're paying 30-50x that amount per child just because someone thinks working from 7-5 nine months a year entitles them to something.

My question is:



Is it better for BYU to have a strong Utah State?



Personally, I think BYU is better off with a weaker USU. Why?



#1 - The bygone 2-for-1 and even 3-for-1 scheduling arrangements are sorely missed. If BYU could count on a series substantially in BYU's scheduling favor with a team that has some local intrigue, it would do wonders for BYU's independent schedules. As is, BYU not only misses out on the advantages of a favorable 2-for-1 that would offset 2-for-1 series with elite programs, but we concede a road game every other year.



#2 - A weak USU means more W's for BYU. A strong USU makes those W's hard to come by.



#3 - A strong USU eats into BYU's recruiting success, especially in-state.

Perhaps we need a new thread. this one has been hijacked about the anti-teacher faction.



With that said. I teach at a community college in Oregon. I'm in at 7am and leave around 7pm. But then I am on CougarCorner a lot. If I was not teaching here, I would be working at a CPA firm most likely. The stats say I would be making more at the firm.



The cost problem is that the Feds and accreditation require so many things. We have to have financial aid and student services and . . .