This is Viewpoints for Saturday, Dec. 12, 2015

Why coaches get paid more

There is a reason why college football coaches make more money than tenured Ph.D.'s. A winning football program generates vast sums of money. It pays for the low-profit and nonprofit sport programs. It funds mandated woman's sport programs. And some of the money goes to the school's general scholarship fund. When a school has a winning football team and goes to a major bowl it receives more and larger contributions from alumni and fans. These fund the school's enhancement programs.

Most of a coach's salary is paid by the school's athletic association. Football scholarships provide financially disadvantaged students the opportunity to obtain a college education. Also, football scholarships provide educationally disadvantaged students the opportunity to take remedial courses that will enable them to attend regular college classes and eventually obtain a college degree. Some athletes will use their playing experience to become high school or college coaches. A few athletes will become professional players. And, many of them become major contributors and sponsors of their former schools.

The football program provides job opportunities, not only for coaches, but trainers, equipment managers and support staff. Also, on game days students can earn money by working during the game or cleaning the stadium. Football funds the bands, cheerleaders and dance teams.

Their is no correlation between the salary of a professor and a coach. Each is hired to perform a specific function. Published professors attract gifted students and a winning coach attract talented athletes. Both are required if a school is to succeed. And there are some students who pick a school solely based on its football team.

Their is no correlation between a coach's salary and the amount of a student's loan. Academically gifted students can obtain scholarships. Or they can earn money tutoring athletes. Or they can attend a small college.

— Jim Costello

Perry

Trump must keep going

I am sending this to your paper because of the apparent racist comments you allow contributors to make. In Rekha Basu's article she tries to cover her racism, censorship and bigotry with quotes from other sources as though she is a serious writer. She said that a movie from 1979, "Being There," is synonymous with Donald Trump's rise to wealth and fortune. She quotes, "It's for sure a white man's world in America." Since when is it OK to racially indict someone because they are white and wealthy?

Donald Trump isn't running because he needs the money. He doesn't need the notoriety. His message of America first is needed as the invasion of people coming here don't want our freedom, they want to take it away. The silence is deafening from Muslims who are decrying the acts of those who kill in the name of Islam. If a Christian were doing anything like this, those of us who love Jesus Christ would point out the obvious. Those murdering KKK members who bombed black churches had no more to do with Christianity than the so-called extremists of Islam.

I would also like to comment on the political cartoon that indicates the terrorists are winning because of Trump. They started this war of terror. They flew airplanes into buildings with innocent men and women. They have beheaded thousands in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria. They hated us long before Trump was a candidate. The Jordanians, also known as Palestinians, were given land from Israel, and did they decide to live side by side with the Jews? No.

There needs to be a much more aggressive and thorough vetting of any immigrant coming from the Middle East. It isn't racism to ban Muslims from coming to America within whose ranks jihadists lurk. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians during the hostage crisis. We stormed a compound in Waco, Texas because there was a chance children were being abused inside. No religion that uses murder to justify or further its agenda should be able to hide its evil. Trump simply has to keep going.

— Anthony Smith

Byron

Esoteric versus productive

The recent Telegraph and Viewpoints non-continuing opinion columns have been very good encouraging thought and action. James F. Burns' "Getting to the other side of the mountain" was exceptional and deserves to be read by all, especially those in grade school as part of our history, and by those of us older citizens as a story of thankfulness that we are Americans. Charles Pecor's "Starbucks cup" sounds like "fighting windmills" and I volunteer to assist having been previously dubbed as Don Quixote, always searching for windmills by the sage of Warner Robins, Frank Gadbois.

Steven Reiss' lengthy "Giving thanks, but to whom?" deserves significant comment but one question rises above others. Do polls correctly reflect the opinion of the public or are the results skewed by the questions/options listed, including the bias of the pollster? Drawing hard conclusions for decision making from polls about politics/religion and other "colored-word subjects" that evoke emotion such as "Mother," "Home," etc., are fraught with opportunities of faulty conclusions.

As for giving thanks, I'm thankful that psychologists are not more involved in our lives. Otherwise, when combined with politicians, we would be more involved in esoteric conversations instead of needed productive pursuits of life for our citizens and other countries such as an improved economy, more employment opportunities and enhanced national security.

— Arthur D. Brook.

Macon

One hell of a treaty

Iran continues to flout U.N. resolutions and their "supposed" nuclear agreement with President Obama. Fox News reports that Iran tested another missile. It was a Ghadr-110 with a range of 1,200 miles and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Can you guess the response of the Obama administration?

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers said, "The U.S. is conducting a serious review of the reported incident." In case you missed it, the IAEA's much-anticipated report on whether Iran had previously engaged in nuclear weapons research was released last week. Their conclusion, as reported by the Associated Press: "Iran did work related to developing nuclear arms in the past," despite the regime's denials over the years."

That was one hell of a treaty.

— Hill Kaplan

Macon

This story was originally published December 11, 2015 at 10:15 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Saturday, Dec. 12, 2015 ."