Oklahoma AD deserve $30,000 bonus?

John E. Hoover:

It has become en vogue to pile on the NCAA or university presidents or athletic directors or coaches for the exorbitant amounts of money they are paid while student athletes are left to fend for themselves with little more than a scholarship and monthly room-and-board checks. …

This narrative paints athletic directors as villainous slumlords, cold, calculated masters motivated only by the profit they can pocket from free labor, thousand-dollar suits perched high in their shuttered offices tallying up all the money their poor athletes can earn for them.

But reality is different.

ADCastiglione oversees an athletic department teeming with the success for which he is almost solely responsible. …

His tireless and prolific fundraising efforts have more than tripled donor contributions in the past 10 years alone, from $10.1 million in 2005 to $32.6 million in 2012 (the last full year of available data).

OU is one of just seven athletic departments in the country that turns a profit without relying on government subsidies or student fees. …

… consider that it’s Castiglione who hired women’s gymnastics coach K.J. Kindler. Kindler goes out and finds the gymnasts and coaches them. But it’s Castiglione who approves her recruiting budget, as well as any spending for the latest equipment and technology (and whatever other amenities the gymnasts enjoy) because he wants OU to field a championship team.

Same for men’s gymnastics (five national titles under Mark Williams) and softball (two under Patty Gasso) and football (one under Stoops). …

Does Castiglione deserve a $30,000 bonus simply because the women’s gymnastics team won a national championship?

No.

He probably deserves more.

Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione deserves bonus for program’s success

Thanks Dave.

6 comments ↓

#1 Dave on 04.29.14 at 6:27 am

ADs incentivized for success in ALL sports, with gymnastics being closest to my heart, and not just football and basketball is a good thing, in my book. Anything that keeps gymnastics relevant at the college level is a bonus.

#2 Oklahoma AD deserve $30,000 bonus? | Gymnastics News Network. on 04.29.14 at 7:03 am

[…] Oklahoma AD deserve $30,000 bonus? […]

#3 Christian on 04.29.14 at 9:59 am

He’s obviously doing good work, and a bonus isn’t a bad thing – but $30,000? I mean that’s really a LOT of money for his own personal use, it’s not like it’s going directly back into the programme (except to the extent that it incentivises him to do well … but it’s his job, shouldn’t he want to do well anyway?).

#4 Dave on 04.29.14 at 10:09 am

He’s got a $905,000 base salary. $30,000 is nothing. It’s like a $250 Christmas bonus if you make $40,000/year. Nice, but far from life changing.

The same article says that Kindler got $70,000 in bonus on top of her $175,000 salary. That’s far more significant, percentage-wise and, frankly, a bonus amount higher than most college coaches actual salary. That money is also, clearly, for her “personal use,” and doesn’t go back in the program. Is that wrong?

I’d say not. Kindler obviously negotiated a good deal and she reached the milestones in her contract that earned her that bonus. I say good for her, and good for gymnastics.

While I’d love to have $175k/year job. In terms of college coaching salaries, gymnastics lingers fairly low on the scale, on both sides of the sport. I’d bet that the next article we see shows Kindler will soon be making a lot more than that now that she’s got a National Championship under her belt.

Anyone who thinks that if the AD didn’t take that bonus it would go “back into the program” is kidding themselves. Big time.

#5 Ono No Komachi on 04.29.14 at 10:32 am

The OU AD deserves a bonus for work directly related to the performance of his job, such as running the department efficiently and increasing donations.

The objection here is that he’s getting a bonus for work mostly done by others, namely the athletes.

#6 Dave on 04.29.14 at 1:36 pm

So with that logic should coaches be paid at all? They’re not doing any routines.

And the logic is further faulty as OU makes NO money “off the backs” of gymnasts. The women’s program lost $1.5 million dollars for the 2013-14 season, according to that article. Women’s basketball lost 3.5 mil based on that same original article, while the coach made 1.5 million.

The only sport in Oklahoma making money is football. And they’re spending plenty, too. The little scraps they leave behind are what ALL the other sports exist on.

By the way, if you take donations out of the equation, no school or program anywhere, TV deals or not, could be profitable based solely on earned revenue–e.g. tv contracts, ticket sales–alone.

In fact, even with donations I think there’s less than 20 schools nationwide, OU being one of them, where the athletic department is self-supporting. Ohio State is another.

You can’t really play both sides. Either it’s a for-profit model where only the sports that can pay can play, or there’s value in supporting sports, like gymnastics, even when the costs vastly outweigh the profits.

Leave a Comment