Volunteer Positions in College Coaching

A firestorm brewed on Twitter this week when a coach posted information for a volunteer graduate manager position at an NCAA Division 1 program. Many criticized the position, suggesting NCAA programs with their generous budgets should not expect coaches to volunteer, as relying on volunteers for entry-level positions exacerbates inequality. Many others posted about their experience volunteering to get their start and listed the various jobs they held while trying to make it as a coach.

I volunteered in my first year as a college coach in my first year after graduating from college. I found a full-time, remote management job, which afforded me the freedom, the salary, and the company phone and cell-phone plan (my first cell phone) to pursue coaching. The job remains the highest annual salary I have had in my life.

I understand both sides. At 22, I would have jumped at the opportunity to volunteer for an NCAA Division 1; heck, I inquired about volunteering at an NCAA D3 program two years ago just to get back into the college game on the men’s side, as many men’s coaches view me as “just a women’s coach” (yes, a fairly prominent professional coach labeled me as such to a friend) after three seasons as a women’s junior college head coach.

I could afford to volunteer. I have monthly book royalties, and I was refereeing NCAA Division 1 soccer. Even as a head coach at an NJCAA D1 program I was a part-time employee and earned as much as a first-year NCAA + youth soccer referee as I did as a head coach, and nearly as much from book royalties. I also have a fairly inexpensive lifestyle.

However, just because I would have embraced an opportunity at 22, knowing my parents would have supported me if needed, and I can afford to volunteer now in midlife because of alternate income does not mean Division 1 programs should not pay coaches. Yes, there likely will be a waiting list of applicants a mile long trying to catch a break. That creates a myriad of problems, not the least of which is allowing colleges to get away with not paying entry-level positions.

There are three major problems with volunteer positions.

First, perpetuating inequality. A former player worked as a graduate assistant at an NCAA program. She worked overnight at FedEx to support herself while taking classes and coaching. She still could not pay all of her bills. She started to substitute teach during the day because the team practiced in the evening. Her boss gave her an ultimatum: Quit coaching or quit substituting. She quit coaching because she was near eviction and the electricity company had threatened to cut off her electricity. She was there for every practice and game, managed her scouts and recruiting, but the head coach demanded more time.

We want a person like her in the game. She is a great personality, an intelligent thinker, great communicator, super connected. She would be my first hire. I think so highly of her, I would hire her on my staff even if I returned to the men’s side. She was a player who I had no intention of recruiting because I did not want a transfer as we returned our starting five, and I had signed another international guard already. She showed up and talked herself into a scholarship. She intended to redshirt because she had an ACL injury, but worked so hard, she was practicing seven months after the injury. She helped me more with recruiting than my assistant coaches because of her personality and connections.

We often hear there are not enough African-American women in the coaching profession. She was one. She has everything necessary to be a great coach and a great mentor for women’s players. Instead, she quit so she can pay her rent. A coach with more affluent parents who could support her as she finished her Master’s degree, helping to pay her rent, would be coaching still and maybe moving onto a full-time coaching position. This is the problem with volunteer positions, as only certain people from certain backgrounds can afford to volunteer, and others may never be hired in the entry-level full-time job without the initial volunteer experience. We want certain types of people involved in the game and in coaching, but then put up barriers to make entry into the coaching profession even more difficult.

Second, how do we have coaches closing in on eight-figure salaries and volunteers at the same level? The situation is emblematic of most inequality in basketball and sports in the United States. The money stays at the top, and a comparative few are rewarded with generational wealth, but most struggle. We have billions of dollars in the game, yet we have children who cannot afford to play and colleges relying on volunteers. The free-market system benefits a few.

The line of candidates for a volunteer position in the hopes of one day earning a legitimate salary also demonstrates the larger problem beyond the college position: Full-time coaching jobs are few and far between, and nearly all are college or professional jobs. If the billions of dollars in basketball filtered down below the college level, creating more full-time jobs, we would not have hundreds of people applying to be a volunteer college coach. Instead, many NCAA D1 men’s basketball coaches make over a million dollars and coaching staffs have ballooned to include more coaches than players. Colleges have the budget to support these salaries because they do not pay players, and they do not pay the organizations who developed the players. The money stays at the top, enriching a few.

The absolute worst NCAA Division 1 head coach makes around $100,000, presumably (who knows who the worst coach is, but most NCAA D1 head coaches make around $100k and up). The absolute best high-school coach likely makes less than $5000 directly from coaching. I have never seen a high-school basketball coaching stipend over $5000; maybe they exist. I am not stating this as an absolute fact, but a general example. Why do we accept the worst college coaches making roughly 20x the best high-school coaches?

We often hear suggestions, especially from academics and administrators, that the best coaches should coach youth athletes. This may be true already. However, we use salary as a proxy for the best. We assume NBA and Power 5 coaches are the best because they are paid like they are the best. If we want the best coaches to coach youth players, we have to find a way to pay them like they are the best, or at least a living wage. Otherwise, potentially great youth coaches line up to volunteer for college positions in the hopes of working toward a full-time salary. Youth and high-school players lose out on the theoretical best coaches or the best coaches are severely underpaid, working a second full-time job (often teaching) to support themselves and their families. Our priorities are misaligned.

Finally, does the quality of coaching improve as staffs expand? Are these added positions justified? Is it a better use of money to have 7th assistants paid as full-time coaches as opposed to paying D3 first or second assistants a full-time salary? Or paying high-school varsity coaches as full-time coaches? The same criticism of the NBA: Do NBA teams need 12 coaches making six figures while asking Jr. NBA coaches to volunteer?

Now, the University of Kentucky has no incentive to cut a position to pay Lexington High School’s head coach a full-time salary, and there is no mechanism to spread the wealth. This is one disadvantage of the school system, the separate systems and governing bodies, and the recruiting/drafting model. If Lexington High School’s players matriculated to the University of Kentucky (or they sold their contract to the Division 1 program they wanted to play for), the university would be motivated to elevate the coaching those players received before college. A head coach might prefer his most trusted assistant to be the high-school head coach rather than his top assistant. Or he may fill both roles, potentially an on-court university assistant coaching position and the head coaching position at the high school. Imagine the changes in terms of coaching development, player development, and more.

Instead, colleges add more and more staff because they can. Assistants now have assistants; I have seen advertisements for the assistant director of basketball. The director of basketball position is basically the fourth or fifth assistant coach on the bench, and now they have assistants! I look at college staffs and wonder what they do with their time (especially when they can’t be bothered to respond to messages).

A friend introduced me to the university’s men’s head coach when I started my doctoral program. He asked me to attend an offseason (August) workout to see if I wanted to help. I was on a scholarship; I was not looking for payment. I was interested in helping to get back into coaching.

I attended a workout with two players, one on each side of the court. I counted more than 17 other people, various coaches, managers, graduate assistants, and more on the court. Each one offered feedback; they seemed to need to prove their value. Players dribbled and shot, and they received five pieces of feedback, as each coach had something to say.

What is a player supposed to do with five pieces of feedback on a single repetition? This is not coaching to elevate the player, but to demonstrate one’s own knowledge or importance.

The players hated the coaching staff (two took a class that I taught and had nothing positive to say despite being the best players; the star football player, on the other hand, had no complaints). The extra bodies did not improve the coaching.

I declined an opportunity to help because what does the 18th person on a college staff do? I coached high-school freshmen and worked as a junior-college strength & conditioning coach instead, and those two jobs together, for the season, paid what the lowest assistant coach on the university’s staff made in a month. Priorities.

Nearly every day, coaches argue about some aspect of the coaching and player development system in the United States. Generally, neither side is completely wrong, but both sides ignore the biggest cause. Like it or not, money changes systems, not opinions.

I would hope that if I made mid-six figures to coach basketball I would not ask anyone to volunteer to help me win and make even more money. For all the debate, it is possible the head coach in question will pay the volunteer coach out of pocket. My boss paid me in Subway sandwiches and chicken burritos when I volunteered, always paying for lunch or dinner when I was around. One meal a day or a few meals a week is not real payment, but I did appreciate the coach much more because he made the gestures, especially as his salary was barely full-time pay.

These gestures should be unnecessary. The money is there. We generate enough money in the United States in basketball to have fairly-paid coaches, affordable youth leagues, and more. We simply choose to chase wealth and reward the few instead of spreading the wealth as much as possible. We marvel at NBA franchise values nearing 11 figures, we celebrate LeBron on his road to being a billionaire, we love seeing Bill Self near eight figures in salary (and I am not arguing they do not deserve what they have earned), but we refuse to see the other side. Other countries have the will, but not the money; we have the money, but not the desire.

Just as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could eradicate homelessness and other social problems tomorrow with the wealth they have accumulated, the revenue generated in basketball, if used for the most possible good instead of to generate the most possible wealth, could solve many problems we argue about weekly on Twitter. We just lack the desire and the leadership to strive for these solutions. Instead, we are distracted by volunteer positions and NIL money.