Jump to content

Search For The Next Head Coach


LZIp

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

If we're losing coaches every 4-5 years to better jobs, that means we're doing something right. When we want to fire a coach 3 years into a 5 year deal but can't because we can't afford his buyout plus pay his replacelant, that's when we'll have a problem.

Hopefully Larry has some more sense than TW and makes the new coach's buyout to leave something more than chump change. The search firm we are paying along with other time/resources used probably easily surpasses the amount we received from KD's buyout.

Edited by LZIp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Saying that sports results at Akron have never attracted a single student or benefactor is unsubstantiated and flat out wrong. I'm sure all of those large spikes in donations and applications/enrollment for those schools were just coincidences :rolleyes:

 

Unless you have a designed study you cannot say x = y.  But dude seriously use your head for a moment, the bottom of this conversation is that people SAY because more students apply therefore the spending is justified.  I'm arguing that this is garbage justification. The impact it has is negligible at best, if at all.  3-cherry-picked cases that don't actually show the connection they claim, totally justifies what 347 programs spend each year.  :rofl::rolleyes:  

If you want to make the claim that success in college athletics = "large" increases in enrollment, teachers and donations, you need to define each one of those criteria; success, "large" increases, etc... and then analyze ALL 347 programs (or perhaps for Akron all Mid-majors).  Cherry-picking over a 15-year span, picking three three-year instances where your claim was true, isn't proof.  It isn't scientific.  The claim is noise until it supports itself.  Cherry-picking isn't proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Hopefully Larry has some more sense than TW and makes the new coach's buyout to leave something more than chump change. The search firm we are paying along with other time/resources used probably easily surpasses the amount we received from KD's buyout.

 

You have to remember that Dambrot was in the middle of a 10 year contract and his buyout actually started at $300k had he left after year one and got smaller with every passing year. That's a pretty standard setup in today's world with coaching contracts.

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 But dude seriously use your head for a moment, the bottom of this conversation is that people SAY because more students apply therefore the spending is justified.  I'm arguing that this is garbage justification.

It's easily justifiable if it is determined to be a net gain. I don't see how its really debatable. Cheaping out and spending 250k on a coach who sucks and in turn losing 300k in season ticket holder revenue/donations/general admin sales/vendors/etc is not justifiable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Blue & Gold said:

So this, IYHO, Hilltopper, rules out Boals and Paris?  Or were you simply referring to anyone on the current staff - Thomas, Wiegand, Mcfadden?

The current staff. There is no upside for Boals to come. He just has to keep winning where he is and the next big job will find him. I don't see Paris as head coach material. Great recruiter though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Boals seems to be a candidate, and a year ago he was willing/ seeking HC opportunities that paid $365,000 +.... in the tri-state ($). There should be no shortage of capable applicants looking for a bump to $250,000 and an opportunity to get paid (somewhere else) further down the road if they are successful. 

 

Edit to reflect $365,000

 

 

Edited by morris buttermaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, morris buttermaker said:

Jeff Boals seems to be a candidate, and a year ago he was willing/ seeking HC opportunities that paid $258,000 +.... in the tri-state ($). There should be no shortage of capable applicants looking for a bump to $250,000 and an opportunity to get paid (somewhere else) further down the road if they are successful. 

 

 

$365,000

http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/stony-brook/stony-brook-men-s-basketball-coach-jeff-boals-contract-worth-more-than-1-875m-1.11793870

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is coaches are grossly overpaid at the mid-major level. Bowling Green's basketball coach who came in with 0 prior head coaching experience is making $450k to coach one of the worst teams in the MAC in front of an average attendance crowd of 1,606 fans. If anything he's providing that university negative equity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, lilroodude said:

#1 I want to hire a guy that gets us to the next level.

 

#2 I want to hire a guy that gets poached by the next level. 

 

Either scenario works for me, because more than likely, they are synonymous. 

 

 

 

I want a guy who gets us to the next level and then realizes once we are there that we can continue to grow and that most potential moves become lateral or so close to it that it may not be worth uprooting everything. I know that is a pipe dream for a mid-major but I do think it is the ideal.

That being said in a normal scenario we are nowhere near being in position to keep a successful guy for over a decade like we just did. The only hope of anyone coming in and challenging Dambrot's longevity and/or wins record would have to be an alum of the school that never wanted to leave or someone who views the Akron area as home and doesn't want to move away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

BG coach...is making $450k to coach one of the worst teams in the MAC in front of an average attendance crowd of 1,606 fans.

Odd that the new 32 million dollar Stroh Center hasn't helped the attendance, talent or coaching?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Anyone else know that Geno Ford is on Boals' coaching staff? Along with Brian Weber (Akron) and Andrew Goldstein (OSU). A lot of Ohio ties there....

 

I believe that he is... and I believe this would be a good hire.  Weber is not a coach. Met him a few times. Goldstein, I believe, was a walk on at tOSU. Is he from Ohio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clarkwgriswold said:

Strange that we have to wish for a guy that won' be here long term, but that's the nature of the beast.  Success leads to moving on at this level.  Otherwise, you end up with....Rob Senderoff.

Senderoff kicked our butts in the MAC finals and had his team play great basketball against UCLA in the NCAA tournament.  They were only down 5 points late in the second half.  I also admire the guy on that senior night he started his bench and non scholarship senior players and also got them into the NCAA game the last minute.  Our non scholarship player never saw the court after the MAC season started.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LZIp said:

It's easily justifiable if it is determined to be a net gain. I don't see how its really debatable. Cheaping out and spending 250k on a coach who sucks and in turn losing 300k in season ticket holder revenue/donations/general admin sales/vendors/etc is not justifiable.

 

:rofl:

 

It isn't.  Even using your example:  $300,000 Lost in Revenue from all those things.  With previous coach you paid $600,000, pay the next one $250,000 (saving $350,000).  Um now you're in the hole $50,000, as opposed to in the whole $300,000 with a successful coach.  The University would probably be better off taking that $50,000 a year and play powerball.  At least that way they might actually gain money as opposed to constantly pissing it down the toilet and spouting bullshit about some magical benefit that it has for the University (which it verifiably and observationally does not).


I made this graph for the attendance thread I started.

 

58800105211e7_ZipsMBB.png.d9b0dceb89db6443bb3bae78e2134b02.png

 

Yes, the Trend is upward after all this success that we've had.  But even this raw data disproves your contention  We went to the NCAAA tournament in 2009, 2010 we had a DECREASE.  There are years we had an increase of the average 200-300 people.  Assuming $10 a person...300 increase per game...16 home games...a $48,000 increase in revenue.  I mean, compared to what you pee down the drain on the program, that's not a justifiable reason IMHO.  It's bullshit clear and simple.  But someone's gotta justify it right!  Culture of Resume-Building.

It literally doesn't add up for a school like Akron.  To be a successful program (20+ wins a season) we pee hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars down the drain that IS NOT recouped due to increased student enrollment (which hasn't increased) or Season ticket holder sales/donations etc.  If you simply cut the damn program you're actually better off financially, like that's objectively true.  The University SUBSIDISES the program because it doesn't raise enough on it's own.  That's objective fact, and objective fact for most mid-major universities.

 

So those defending the spending jump to arguments over "exposure!"  and "increased applications" things that aren't monetarily quantifiable in reality.  They avoid assigning $ amounts or talking any financial numbers because they know how bad it looks.  If you added up the $100s of millions of dollars that Universities get in subsidies (student fees) in order to support programs that can't support themselves on their own...I HIGHLY doubt that you can find $100s of millions of dollars of actual benefit.

I like college athletics.  I love the Zips.  But don't pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining.  College athletics is a shell game of smoke-and-mirrors where a lot of people make a lot of money, and must spew bullshit in order to justify the system.  I personally don't care for bullshit and call it out whenever I encounter it.   Net Gain my ass.  Sorry I don't agree with the people who make the "net gain" argument to justify their own positions.

Edited by Balsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...