New Law under Obama = Death for Most College Track Programs

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

U. R. Stupid wrote:

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

Of course! Who cares if other people are poor. If that's the case they must be lazy.

As I understand it, higher education (including coaching staff) have special exemptions. Coaches' primary responsibility is teaching student-athletes and will be exempt from overtime compensation. Recruiting responsibility also results in exemption.

No one is making them babysit young adults for 3 hours a day as their profession. Should they make 80k ?

U. R. Stupid wrote:

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

I'm fine with that. My xc program had 1 coach for around 20 runners of both genders and we did alright.

U. R. Stupid wrote:

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

Actually, it is the opposite. I love that coaches now have the opportunity to make a living wage. Although, this law is going to have the opposite effect, AD's are going to just cut the program rather than actually care.

This isn't going to end track.

Track is already being ended athletic departments looking for profit and cutting track because it doesn't generate revenue.

L L wrote:

This isn't going to end track.

Track is already being ended athletic departments looking for profit and cutting track because it doesn't generate revenue.

bullshit. If a college track team has 10 scholarships and has 100 people on the team, and the college costs 40,000 a year, those 10 scholarships don't cancel out the money coming in from the other 90 student athletes if you divided it into scholarship vs non scholarship. That program even with the overhead costs is still making money for the school by students paying to attend. I realize ADs dont count that as revenue , but thats because theyre not only stupid, but theyre underhanded and slimey. Its a game they play. Let the enrollment go down to 30 total on the team though, and that coach would get fired. Because it's real money. It's revenue as far as I'm concerned.

Bye Bye Track wrote:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/18/obama-administration-releases-final-rules-overtime-pay-including-some-exemptions

In a nut shell,

"The key part of the new regulations will increase from $23,660 to $47,476 the pay level below which salaried employees at virtually all companies and employers are presumed to be eligible for overtime.

I dont understand this. Can someone please explain it as though you are talking to the dumbest person on earth? Like, in story form? John is a track coach. John makes x amount per year , whatever that is. How does Johns life change after this law? what if john made over 47,476 dollars a year? compared to under 23,660, or what about between 23,660 and 47,476? I'm LOST.

It means the assistant ticket office manager and sub-assistant facility director will make more money than the head track coach. Even if it applies to coaches, do all the coaches get paid the same then? If head coach currently makes around 45-50k and you have to increase his subordinates to 47k, what's acceptable for his pay? It's a dangerous situation.

Straightcashcoachey wrote:

It means the assistant ticket office manager and sub-assistant facility director will make more money than the head track coach. Even if it applies to coaches, do all the coaches get paid the same then? If head coach currently makes around 45-50k and you have to increase his subordinates to 47k, what's acceptable for his pay? It's a dangerous situation.

i want the assistant ticket manager to make more

Coaches don't want all that money, Coaches should coach for THE LOVE OF THE SPORT! NOT for profit!

I was a part time assistant at a D3 school 5 years ago and was on a very small salary. I would fill out a time sheet after each week and if it turned out I was working for less than minimum wage that week they would pay me more.

I know the football coaches at my school would under report their hours on their time sheets so they wouldn't hit that threshold and take extra money away from the program. I don't know if this was their choice or if the head coach was telling them to do this. My coach wanted me to get all the money I could.

Smooth Playa wrote:

Coaches don't want all that money, Coaches should coach for THE LOVE OF THE SPORT! NOT for profit!

lol whatever

U. R. Stupid wrote:

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

I am fine with people being paid the amount that they agreed upon when they signed on. I don't have such a dim view of people as to assume that a grown adult needs me to intercede in his or her employment decisions and negotiations.

Anyway, $47K is nowhere close to the poverty line. A family with two adults earning $40K makes well over the median family income.

Bye Bye Track wrote:

U. R. Stupid wrote:

So your okay with coaches living below the poverty line as long as your sport isn't affected? Nice.

Actually, it is the opposite. I love that coaches now have the opportunity to make a living wage. Although, this law is going to have the opposite effect, AD's are going to just cut the program rather than actually care.

Good synopsis.

For the people unsure how this works, here is a simple example. Suppose there is a track coach currently making $30,000. He shows up at the office M-F at 8am, and stays till the end of practice at 6pm. Twice a week he makes recruiting calls in the evenings for 2 hours. 20 weekends a year he goes to meets where he spends 20 hours per meet on coaching-related duties. 10 weekends per year he spends 5 hours facilitating official and unofficial visits, and 5 times per year he spends 5 hours on home visits. He takes a total of 15 business days off throughout the year. This is based on my experience coaching at a D1 program- your mileage may vary.

In total then, he works about 3125 hours per year but his pay is only based on 40 hours per week, or 2000 hours per year ($15/hour). So he gets time-and-a-half for the extra 1125 hours. So the new law requires he gets paid $30,000 for the first 2000 hours, plus $25,313 in overtime ($22.50*1125 hours), which puts him over the cap of $47,500ish. So the university would be better off just paying him a flat salary of $47,500.

Universities aren't going to be content with their coaching staff salaries going through the roof, so it's likely that certain programs will trim their coaching staffs or entire programs.

I fear they are going to cut jobs too. It's a nice idea but its too totalitarian in a nation wide sense and removed from the specifics of each institution. It's a one size fits all attempt. However coaches are getting ripped off all the time on compensation. I don't know what the answer is really, but it needs to change without ending up in job cuts.

It doesn't apply to coaches or teachers. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/05/19/new-overtime-rules-what-need-to-know.html

We need a coach's union.