Printable View
Hiring on the cheap was someone else's words. The budget was set and they went out and hired a coach that not only was willing to work for the budget but that they believed provided many more intangibles which other coaches at that salary level probably would not have provided. He also provided the one intangible that only he had . . . he coached under and had 4 years of watching while he waited under a coach that did extremely well here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayWalker
OK fine. You didn't say the exact words.
But you certainly said it without saying it.
"That is one of the reasons why we spent $750,000 on a new coach and not $3,200,000 to retain the old one.
At $750,001, we would have been broke and we are not allowed to be broke.
All of the other information gives insight why the level of broke was what it was at the time CMD was hire."
In other words, we hired the cheapest coach we could find. Got it. Again.
NO, WE HIRED THE BEST COACH WE COULD FIND AT THAT NUMBER.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayWalker
HOW HARD IS THAT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
Because it isn't accurate. Dr. Maggard was not told he couldn't spend more than $750,000. He hired Mike because he thought Mike was the right choice and paid him a competitive salary with other first year coaches in our league.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
I think you are totally off base with your hypothesis.
And, don't yell at me.
At the possible risk of setting this program back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
Because both can grow weed being they are agricultural and mechanical colleges. Within their defined mission. They’re Aggies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon King
There's a difference between paying the going rate for a new coach and settling for what you can get with what you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
If UL had said "starting salary at $1.25 million" we are recalibrating what we are willing to pay for being the "stepping stone" for coaches looking for upward mobility.
Would we have had "better" candidates if we DID offer that? Maybe, maybe not.
Would Mike have gotten the job at the salary? May, maybe not.
Saints did the same thing with Dennis Allen. Continuity.
I just hope it works in both instances.
I don't think we did that. I believe the budget set was $750,000 and the target was CMD because with him, you get a lot more intangibles that you would not get with any other candidate at that salary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajun Monkee
It's kind of a chicken and egg thing at this point. I believe they had a budget and that they believed that the best candidate they could find with that budget was right here and they suceedded.
"Athletic departments are never broke, it just depends on how much academics wants to invest in their advertising arm."Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
That is the key question! Athletics is an investment for the university and is its window to the world. However, academics doesn't always seem to view it that way. Now that we have achieved Tier 1 academic status and are well on our way to a half billion dollar endowment, it is time to take athletics to a Tier 1 status as well. Our main campus has been rebuilt and worthy of its academic standing. How did we fund the total campus transformation? Can we similarly fund the athletic campus transformation? We didn't first grow our endowment then rebuild. Why fund athletics infrastructure differently? This is an important investment by the university that can visibly change the perception of UL by its alumni and public. People who become successful want to support success. Let's give them something to support instead of asking for support in hopes that one day we will achieve success.
It was reported that UCLA is operating with a $100M deficit in athletics. Fortunately for UCLA, it looks like the BIG 10 will bail them out of that financial crisis. OK State was in a financial crisis until Boone Pickens stepped in. I read some time ago that Houston operated in the past with a $40M deficit, but the President decided that athletics was a key to national recognition for UH and continued to fund it. Then, along came Tillman Fertitta and look at where UH is today. We don't have a Pickens or Fertitta as yet. We don't seem to have a handle on who our successful alumni are across the US. What would motivate such an alumnus to do what Pickens or Fertitta did? We can't wait for that miracle that may never happen.
So, create our own miracle and make a major commitment to similarly completing that athletic campus transformation. Have a major announcement outlining its steps towards achieving that to include completing the building of the athletic infrastructure like we did on campus and not let this drag on year after year. Use that as a national springboard to building an athletics endowment. Business as usual is not moving the needle. If we want to motivate people to financially support success in athletics, first show to our alumni and to the public the university's commitment to success.
Y’all see what is happening here, right? This thing about money was brought up in multiple threads and didn’t get the desired traction, so now it has blossomed into its own thread. How glorious.
The agenda here isn’t exactly a secret. There only a certain few goals with this discussion:
- Erode confidence in CMD (by insinuating that he’s all we could afford)
- Erode confidence in Maggard (by insinuating that he mismanaged various things related to the budget)
- The notion that we aren’t prepared to pay the money to be big time like we think we are (kinda sounds like “know your place, little brother”, huh?)
I suggest we all just let this discussion die.
For goodness sakes, it’s homecoming week. No need to rattle this pointless saber.
We are all frustrated. But we all want to move in a positive direction. Not this crap.
By all accounts, we interviewed other candidates from bigger schools but decided on Desormeaux. We paid him that because that pay is in line for his resume, not because its all we had. Had we hired Lanning, it wouldn't have been for $750k.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
If I post a job and someone applies with an ask way below what I am expecting, I am as skeptical of that person as the one who wants double the market. I will still hire them if qualified. I will also often pay at the level I think they are at regardless of ask because down the road, it's worth it. Going 100k below Napier's starting salary is concerning to me. Whether it's budget constraints or what CMD's resume says he should be making doesn't matter. I feel like our program has progressed to where that floor moves higher, not lower...Quote:
Originally Posted by zephyr