Really bad publicity - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Really bad publicity (/thread-21749.html)

---

RE: Really bad publicity - Madera86 - 03-27-2021

(03-25-2021, 04:47 PM)donkey687 Wrote:  I am close to the situation but my info is second hand. My understanding is that the board was pitched this as financial and not admissions related. Bernard pitched coaches of the remaining 25 teams that they should support this as it means more resources for them.  This is pretty simple to me. Bernard wants to be as strong as possible in the major sports and viewed the other sports as a distraction and a resource drain. He thinks we need to be absolutely the best at everything we do which means keeping up with Ohio State and others for facilities and coaches and amenities in every remaining sport. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. It just isn't very Stanford like.

I agree. It's not very Stanford-like. Muir has it backwards: Ohio State and others need to keep up with us.

---

RE: Really bad publicity - GK3 - 03-27-2021

(03-24-2021, 11:39 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(03-24-2021, 11:35 AM)donkey687 Wrote:  

(03-24-2021, 11:22 AM)winflop Wrote:  Anybody still think Muir is doing a good job???? This is beyond shameful.

The irony is that the bad publicity results in it being more likely that we are stuck with him.  Muir has full backing of MTL and provost.  He isn't getting fired.  There was a decent chance that he would get Duke job or Pac-12 job.  That possibility has been lowered with his recent publicity.

As long as he follows orders and keeps his mouth shut he isn't leaving.

Muir will have the full backing of MTL and Drell, until he doesn't.  While I don't think they will cut him loose at this time, that doesn't mean they won't cut him loose.  And the longer this drags on, and the worse the publicity associated with it, the greater the odds that Muir is offered as the sacrificial lamb.

BC

---

RE: Really bad publicity - 82lsju - 03-27-2021

(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(03-25-2021, 09:18 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  

• "The average salary of an athletic department administrative employee is $209,000"
  
  Wow.

I would be curious what the source of that data was.  I think Stanford only discloses the salaries of its top 5 employees.  If that number were true, it would be substantially higher than our peer public institutions (whose salaries are a matter of public record).  For example, here is the directory of the Athletic department at Cal:

https://calbears.com/staff-directory

And as UC employees, you can easily look up their salaries:
https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/

Picking a couple at random (not all the salaries are available, and the data is a couple of years old):
Senior Associate Athletics Director, Facilities, Events & Capital Projects Josh Hummel: $157,542.00
Associate Director, Athletics Communications | Football, Lacrosse Herbert Benenson: $124,258.00
Director of Development, Leadership Giving, Brian Raney: $121,500.00
Athletic Eligibility Director, Josh Alley: $87,637

One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.

BC

the $209K/person appears to include benefits so comp is less.   Typically comp+benefits is 1.25 to 1.4 times comp 9not sure how costly the Stanford benefits package is) which would imply an average salary of $150K to $165K

---

RE: Really bad publicity - oldalum - 03-27-2021

Also, if coaches' salaries are included, the average employee compensation is skewed up by some high outliers. Median compensation would be of more interest.

---

RE: Really bad publicity - BostonCard - 03-27-2021

(03-27-2021, 02:17 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Also, if coaches' salaries are included, the average employee compensation is skewed up by some high outliers. Median compensation would be of more interest.

The quote in the piece is "The average salary of an athletic department administrative employee is $209,000."

As written, it suggests salary, and not total compensation, and "administrative employee" suggests it excludes coaching salaries.  However, the number is given without reference or context, and as I have noted, Stanford does not publish employee salaries.  If I had to guess, they probably found a line item in the AD budget for "employee compensation" and divided it by the number of employees in the org chart, and called it the average salary.  There are a lot of problems with this method, and to be honest, the number they got doesn't pass the smell test (or maybe the Stanford AD really is spending on salaries like a drunken sailor and we have a real problem).

There are a lot of things to disagree with the AD about, and people can be genuinely mad about the decision to cut sports.  But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all we have here is a bullet point in a piece that has an agenda.

BC

---

RE: Really bad publicity - 82lsju - 03-27-2021

(03-27-2021, 03:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(03-27-2021, 02:17 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Also, if coaches' salaries are included, the average employee compensation is skewed up by some high outliers. Median compensation would be of more interest.

The quote in the piece is "The average salary of an athletic department administrative employee is $209,000."

As written, it suggests salary, and not total compensation, and "administrative employee" suggests it excludes coaching salaries.  However, the number is given without reference or context, and as I have noted, Stanford does not publish employee salaries.  If I had to guess, they probably found a line item in the AD budget for "employee compensation" and divided it by the number of employees in the org chart, and called it the average salary.  There are a lot of problems with this method, and to be honest, the number they got doesn't pass the smell test (or maybe the Stanford AD really is spending on salaries like a drunken sailor and we have a real problem).

There are a lot of things to disagree with the AD about, and people can be genuinely mad about the decision to cut sports.  But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all we have here is a bullet point in a piece that has an agenda.

BC

I assumed total comp given the table shows comp/benefits

---