Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DannyHoke

Back when cutting sports seemed like the abyss...

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2020 at 4:46 PM, clarkwgriswold said:

Not that it equates to a lot, but the UA students as a whole could get a little more of their money's worth by taking the opportunity to go to the damn games for free.  Back in the dark ages the excuse was that it was a commuter school and students weren't on campus to go to the games.  That's not the case any more.  Those kids are living in or around campus and there can't be that much else to do.

They don't go for 'free'. Just like I didn't go for 'free'(as I posted earlier) in 1970,1971,1972,1973 or 1974. My student fees helped pay for the athletic programs just as they do, even more so, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, UA1987 said:

I believe what you are referring to is an article written by young Cameryn Justice of WEWS news on 5/14 where she says - 'The school said that while football remains, the scholarships players receive will likely be reduced while they work on making the program more lucrative.' I don't see anything about a value reduction in her vauge article and I still believe they are referring to the scholarships that the football program awards will be down (now in the mid-seventies or so) as the University works through this crisis (and NCAA recruiting rules). I also beleive that our OOC schedule going forward is going to require that we get to full strength in scholarships (eighty-five) as we will be playing in alot of big stadiums each year (more than prior years - $$$$).          

Even fewer schollys,even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

The bottom 10-11 scholarship players on FBS rosters would definitely be getting scholarship offers at FCS schools. I'm not opposed to it. I just feel it's disingenuous to state those players would have no other options.

 

I've actually stated a few years back I'd like to see the NCAA reduce the scholarship to 80 as that would trickle some of the talent from schools like OSU down to schools like Iowa. In turn players who normally would go to Iowa would then trickle down to other schools like Akron. This would help create a more level playing field. The current 85 scholarship limit makes it easy for OSU to hoard a player like Warren Ball on their 3rd or 4th string when in reality he's good enough to start at a school like Akron.

But for the playing field to be 'even' all FBS schools,OSU,Mich.,Alabama etc. have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lee Adams said:

They don't go for 'free'. Just like I didn't go for 'free'(as I posted earlier) in 1970,1971,1972,1973 or 1974. My student fees helped pay for the athletic programs just as they do, even more so, now.

 

My post acknowledged the fees. By "free" I meant not paying at the door.   My point was that they could get more out of those fees by attending games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lee Adams said:

Even fewer schollys,even worse.

I think total scholarships on the football team will track up (not down) from here (currently mid-seventy's), but will depend on senior graduation, transfers (quiting), and scholarships pulled due to a problem or another (I hope that is mostly over). As has been discussed on other forums, there can be NCAA limits on how many can be offered each year. The previous coaching regime did a nice job of manuvering around these rules and I expect Arth to try and do the same as long as he gets his student athlete with what he considers are suitable moral qualities.               

Edited by UA1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

This right here. If we're not prepared to keep a coach around for 5 years, we shouldn't be offering him a 5-year deal. If it's deemed it takes 3-4 years to effectively evaluate a coach, we should be offering coaches a 3-4 year deal

If you don't think a coach can be successful, you shouldn't hire him. You hire coaches assuming they will be successful. 

 

This is a ticket sales conversation. The extra year between four and five is irrelevant. It is the cost of doing business. It is customary. Not offering it can impact recruiting because other schools will use it against us. We would be the only school offering contracts like that. It would be setting ourselves up for failure, again. How does Akron do when it acts unilaterally?

Edited by GP1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems if they allow a waiver for one FBS school they would have to be consistent with all the other schools which could lead to a bloodbath for men's and women's teams and scholarships. I read the CMU pres. or AD said they won't be bringing back track so it will be interesting to see what new men's sport they start up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ZippyRulz said:

It seems if they allow a waiver for one FBS school they would have to be consistent with all the other schools which could lead to a bloodbath for men's and women's teams and scholarships. I read the CMU pres. or AD said they won't be bringing back track so it will be interesting to see what new men's sport they start up.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GP1 said:

4 years would be good after taking over a disaster. 


Only having him 4 years will look stupid if he fixes it and leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GP1 said:

If you don't think a coach can be successful, you shouldn't hire him. You hire coaches assuming they will be successful. 

 

This is a ticket sales conversation. The extra year between four and five is irrelevant. It is the cost of doing business.It is custom ary. Not offering it can impact recruiting because other schools will use it against us. We would be the only school offering contracts like that. It would be setting ourselves up for failure, again. How does Akron do when it acts unilaterally?

 

We've been doing this and where exactly has it gotten us? There is no rule that states you have to give a coach 5 years nor is there a rule that says you have to pay them $500k/yr. When we extended Bowden after his deal expired, we give him a 2-3 year extension, not 5. The vast majority of FBS coaches have less than 5 years left on their current contracts. I suppose all of them must have it used against them when it comes time for recruiting...

 

Edit: Also, I think you're going to see things change. Coaches are going to be getting lower salaries and fewer fully guaranteed years. You already seen it happen at WMU with their basketball coach. Akron throwing money around loosely for the previous 3 decades (not just on athletics) is why we're in the financial mess we've been in and that predates covid. Continuing to try to operate the way we have in the past won't fix anything. Maybe to you 500k isn't a lot of money (must be nice), but that's probably nearly enough to cover the cost of cross country for a year, which is one of the sports we just cut

Edited by kreed5120
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

 I suppose all of them must have it used against them when it comes time for recruiting...

*Looks up recruiting rankings and results*

 

Yeah this checks out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

We've been doing this and where exactly has it gotten us? There is no rule that states you have to give a coach 5 years nor is there a rule that says you have to pay them $500k/yr. When we extended Bowden after his deal expired, we give him a 2-3 year extension, not 5. The vast majority of FBS coaches have less than 5 years left on their current contracts. I suppose all of them must have it used against them when it comes time for recruiting...

i think 5 year initial contracts are pretty standard. Doing the math in this article, we gave Bowden a 5 year deal initially. 

https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/akron-football-coach-terry-bowden-receives-contract-extension-112113

 

Jim Mcelwain was given a 5 year deal.

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2019/12/05/central-michigan-coach-jim-mcelwain-no-one-has-contacted-him/2614839001/

 

Sean Lewis was given a 5 year deal.

http://www.kentwired.com/sports/article_e0c5dc3e-e90c-11e7-a597-97420013e357.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

We've been doing this and where exactly has it gotten us? There is no rule that states you have to give a coach 5 years nor is there a rule that says you have to pay them $500k/yr. When we extended Bowden after his deal expired, we give him a 2-3 year extension, not 5. The vast majority of FBS coaches have less than 5 years left on their current contracts. I suppose all of them must have it used against them when it comes time for recruiting...

 

I think the 5 year deal is that norm and that any school going outside of that norm would be at a disadvantage in the short term.  I say short term as I think we're about to enter into a new era of coaching contracts with schools backing away from long term big money deals that tie them down in the event of bad hires.  This will happen more on the level of the UA's than the Alabamas, but it is coming.

 

An early example is what Western Michigan did with basketball.  Pressed by the coronavirus and financial concerns, they hired an assistant of Hawkins (the coach they canned) on a two year deal at $120K salary and $100K for media obligations.  Hawkins was making $225 salary plus $160 for media obligations.  Hawkins last deal was signed in 2014 and still had a year left on it when they recently canned him.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

 

I think the 5 year deal is that norm and that any school going outside of that norm would be at a disadvantage in the short term.  I say short term as I think we're about to enter into a new era of coaching contracts with schools backing away from long term big money deals that tie them down in the event of bad hires.  This will happen more on the level of the UA's than the Alabamas, but it is coming.

 

An early example is what Western Michigan did with basketball.  Pressed by the coronavirus and financial concerns, they hired an assistant of Hawkins (the coach they canned) on a two year deal at $120K salary and $100K for media obligations.  Hawkins was making $225 salary plus $160 for media obligations.  Hawkins last deal was signed in 2014 and still had a year left on it when they recently canned him.   

 

Yes, I'm not saying giving 5 year deals hasn't been the norm in the past. I just don't feel it should be the norm moving forward. It seems our logic is very similar behind this as I actually mentioned the WMU hire in my edited post. The guaranteed money is the bigger thing for me. If they wanted to sign a guy to a 5 year deal, but only the first 3 years were fully guaranteed, I'd have no problem with that. Ianello was the university's 3rd (behind Dambrot & Bowden) highest paid employee for 3 years despite working as an assistant at some other college. That can't happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clarkwgriswold said:

 

I think the 5 year deal is that norm and that any school going outside of that norm would be at a disadvantage in the short term.  I say short term as I think we're about to enter into a new era of coaching contracts with schools backing away from long term big money deals that tie them down in the event of bad hires.  This will happen more on the level of the UA's than the Alabamas, but it is coming.

 

An early example is what Western Michigan did with basketball.  Pressed by the coronavirus and financial concerns, they hired an assistant of Hawkins (the coach they canned) on a two year deal at $120K salary and $100K for media obligations.  Hawkins was making $225 salary plus $160 for media obligations.  Hawkins last deal was signed in 2014 and still had a year left on it when they recently canned him.   

IMO most MAC BB and Football coaches should be paid in the $150-$200K range. 

Edited by morris buttermaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, morris buttermaker said:

IMO most MAC BB and Football coaches should be paid in the $150-$200K range. 

Based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, morris buttermaker said:

IMO most MAC BB and Football coaches should be paid in the $150-$200K range. 

 

This article is now 2 years old but it sets out the pay for some of the top Ohio college coaches.  Some of them are astounding.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/sports/erry-2018/05/571c0d0f7b6137/49_ohio_college_head_coaches_p.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, morris buttermaker said:

IMO most MAC BB and Football coaches should be paid in the $150-$200K range. 

You couldn't get a decent assistant from a P5 school to apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

Based on what?

Magical thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what?... based on the fact that they all run programs that lose money. Just because colleges are going broke paying coaches $300,000 - $700,000 to coach teams in front of 1,800 - 4,000 fans doesn't mean they are worth it. The market is broken. You want to be a coach? well you better coach a program that has some value, or take salary that is more in line with what you do (coaching teams that nobody will pay to watch).. don't want to coach a MAC team for $200,000/yr?... find something else to do.  Colleges have overpaid for years.

Edited by morris buttermaker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, morris buttermaker said:

You want to be a coach? well you better coach a program that has some value, or take salary that is more in line with what you do (coaching teams that nobody will pay to watch).. don't want to coach a MAC team for $200,000/yr?... find something else to do.  

I would prefer the Zips become a D1-A program that is competitive and fun to watch. To me, the on-field results are what everyone should be complaining about. Not the budget. It's in-line with all other MAC schools.

 

Toledo football has shown it's possible to win at a high G5 level, consistently, over multiple coaching regimes, and draw 20k crowds. Toledo is demographically no different than Akron. Why can't we be "Toledo?" Is that asking for the moon?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...