Above average: UL football season in review

[DestinCajun]

That is correct. Dooley was already making in the upper 300k range, and the AD position added 40-60k. I do, however, agree with Zephyr's assessment. I think Bustle is giving us what we pay for. I also do not want this admin siding with some fans and just "swapping out" a coach. They have not given us, as an admin, a system that pays and surrounds our program with the package necessary for beating down the SBC in football.

There are a whole lot of speculators in this "game" that have no real skin in it other than emotion. It is easy as pie to talk about some heralded high school coach, or some D1AA coach coming in here and "obviously doing more than Bustle". That is bunk. Bustle is a key part of the football equation... but until our admin comes out with a program elevation engine, we cannot expect a coaching "swap out" by these guys to mean anything more than "the next excuse".

Bustle is here next year... and I will not allow, for myself, to use the Fenroy, MD, Chery being gone as an excuse for anything. I firmly believe we are in better shape next year due to the experience offensive and defensive lines. I also believe the defense will be better overall. The skill players will perform... I have no doubt... and if the cast of players around them are even marginally better... I expect better next year.

Or else... one less year of contract... less money to replace... but again... admin has to come thru with a better program package and commitment themselves prior to another coaching "swap". That is where "our" pressure needs to be exerted... admin.

Beware: making sense like this might cause you to be labeled a "ringleader" in the great "Keep Coach Bustle" conspiracy.

[Parrott]

_ According to Parrott, who has reviewed the contract, the contract is scheduled to terminate in January 2010, i.e. after next season. The extra years are incentive years for benchmarks that have not yet been met. Secondly, if bought out, there is a stipulation in there that says he is required to pursue a job with an FBS school. If hired, UL's financial obligation to him is decreased by his new salary. And, failure to pursue employment in the FBS will result in termination of the contract. _

Rhineaux: You must have caught me on a bad day. Bustle's contract expires January 2011, running through the 2010 season. Sorry for the confusion.

[zephyr]

_ According to Parrott, who has reviewed the contract, the contract is scheduled to terminate in January 2010, i.e. after next season. The extra years are incentive years for benchmarks that have not yet been met. Secondly, if bought out, there is a stipulation in there that says he is required to pursue a job with an FBS school. If hired, UL's financial obligation to him is decreased by his new salary. And, failure to pursue employment in the FBS will result in termination of the contract. _

Sure about that? Parrott was one of the people I had checked with a while back after the USM game about his contract and I want to say it was stated to me that it went until 2011. I understand about the incentive years but thought those were on top of what he was getting.

[zephyr]

_ That is correct. Dooley was already making in the upper 300k range, and the AD position added 40-60k. I do, however, agree with Zephyr's assessment. I think Bustle is giving us what we pay for. I also do not want this admin siding with some fans and just "swapping out" a coach. They have not given us, as an admin, a system that pays and surrounds our program with the package necessary for beating down the SBC in football.

There are a whole lot of speculators in this "game" that have no real skin in it other than emotion. It is easy as pie to talk about some heralded high school coach, or some D1AA coach coming in here and "obviously doing more than Bustle". That is bunk. Bustle is a key part of the football equation... but until our admin comes out with a program elevation engine, we cannot expect a coaching "swap out" by these guys to mean anything more than "the next excuse".

Bustle is here next year... and I will not allow, for myself, to use the Fenroy, MD, Chery being gone as an excuse for anything. I firmly believe we are in better shape next year due to the experience offensive and defensive lines. I also believe the defense will be better overall. The skill players will perform... I have no doubt... and if the cast of players around them are even marginally better... I expect better next year.

Or else... one less year of contract... less money to replace... but again... admin has to come thru with a better program package and commitment themselves prior to another coaching "swap". That is where "our" pressure needs to be exerted... admin. _

But the bigger question is who is it that can actually help us increase the budget? I do not know the ins and outs of the state school system from which UL operates but is the current administration even able to just increase the budget like that or does the system have to approve an increase for both us and Monroe? This is the real question. Until we know, we are just spitting in the wind. The RCAF will surely help but it will NEVER put us on a more level playing field by itself no matter who donates.

[Just1More]

_ Beware: making sense like this might cause you to be labeled a "ringleader" in the great "Keep Coach Bustle" conspiracy.

_

Have no fear... I will soon offer up some more irrational ramblings that firmly yet loosely tie me to all conspiracy plots as well as their counter movements.

[rhineaux]

_ Rhineaux: You must have caught me on a bad day. Bustle's contract expires January 2011, running through the 2010 season. Sorry for the confusion. _

Sure about that? Parrott was one of the people I had checked with a while back after the USM game about his contract and I want to say it was stated to me that it went until 2011. I understand about the incentive years but thought those were on top of what he was getting.

You know what's funny, back in September when there was a lot of talk about his contract, it seemed like every post claimed a different length remaining on the deal. I got tired of trying to put all the pieces together to figure it out, so I just forgot about the whole deal. Then last week, you stated the following, and I thought 'finally, a clean and simple post about the current length of the deal'. Not so.

I'll accept that it was probably a "bad day" that day. You probably had too many deadlines and weren't handling it well.

His current contract expires in January 2010. That would mean after the 2009 season.

From what I've heard, coach Bustle will meet with director of athletics David Walker sometime in the next week or so.

[Just1More]

_ But the bigger question is who is it that can actually help us increase the budget? I do not know the ins and outs of the state school system from which UL operates but is the current administration even able to just increase the budget like that or does the system have to approve an increase for both us and Monroe? This is the real question. Until we know, we are just spitting in the wind. The RCAF will surely help but it will NEVER put us on a more level playing field by itself no matter who donates. _

We are going to have a hard time increasing our budget via state funding. There is a very slight benefit, however, to UL, that this straps all other Louisiana state schools as well. That isn't going to change, much, if any, and that is why a huge private funding system is the ONLY way. There is much more to be had with the properly implemented RCAF than the dollars alone. Those dollars are not allowed to fall into black holes by administrators. The benefits that must be supplied for those dollars places motivated people inside the business of our program. The campaign that takes place with a properly implemented RCAF generates a buzz that supercedes by 100 fold any other marketing effort for the program. Just having a large private funding group has a cerebral effect on the 10 varieties of available fans. They begin to march to the beat of what they start perceiving as a "real show". Take who shows up at our stadium on Saturday now... there are 5x that many people available as spectators and highly interested parties (not all show up, but they are "interested"... mechandize, etc)... if and when they believe there's a show to be had. That, in and of itself, generates a better show. It all feeds itself. Once something has the "sex appeal" generated by only a few important contributors... the effect becomes exponential. Winning games also becomes an inherent result.

The critical benefit to a properly operated, massively benefited RCAF isn't actually in the dollars themselves. That is the historically short-sighted argument leveraged against it. "We already have a private fund... just donate". "Where is all this money going to come from?" It isn't the key. The key is the assocation of people who become stakeholders above and beyond the administration. They make sure the program is successful. They work their connections with politicians, numerous other business associates, and the thing takes off like a rocket. Bodies start showing up in stands like crazy. The money is a bi-product of a properly orchestrated private funding system. It is the people that you begin to include. It works. There are numerous models to investigate and emulate. We do not have to be pioneers.

The part that causes administrators a lot of hesitation is the perceived loss of control. They also fear that something large and that involves substantial private people, will consume their time and that they, personally, will "fail" in the end. There are models that work and have been working at some solid academically-centered institutions for quite some time. The key is that the primary administrators (98% The President of the University) has to be more passionate about athletic success and the massive benefits it pays to the entire university, than his fear of this kind of funding system. The president can decide anything and make the difference immediately. If he leaves this up to his staff, with his occasionally trumping, it will never launch. If he and his staff just play closed circle with their usual group of current supporters, it will never launch. It has to be the president investigating the systems of other similarly structured programs, hiring their consultants, letting them do what they do, and approving each step in the process to get there.

I can tell you what I think is going on and will continue to go on... We will take exactly what we have right now and maybe, just maybe, slowly and carefully consider one small element of private funding component to be added to the current system, every 2 years. We might as well do nothing. Dr. Savoie needs to go out and get hammered with one of the consultants one night and let that person penetrate the academian titanium skull that generally resides on the forehead of most administrators... maybe not his... we shall see. If he has a bone of Cajun passion in him, buried under 5 billion layers of conservative academic spreadsheet management, that can still be lit up like a torch... we have a chance. Being treated like goat shat over our bowl wishes... essentially laughed at by everyone outside our program in the state over it... hopefully, ever so slightly, got under even Dr. Savoie's skin. Maybe. If so, that is when others with that passion have to pound on the gates of the administration and ask how many more decades do we have to be everyone's doormat in football... except for a couple of other lowest low-tier programs!?!?

[CajunZ1]

_
I can tell you what I think is going on and will continue to go on... We will take exactly what we have right now and maybe, just maybe, slowly and carefully consider one small element of private funding component to be added to the current system, every 2 years. We might as well do nothing. Dr. Savoie needs to go out and get hammered with one of the consultants one night and let that person penetrate the academian titanium skull that generally resides on the forehead of most administrators... maybe not his... we shall see. If he has a bone of Cajun passion in him, buried under 5 billion layers of conservative academic spreadsheet management, that can still be lit up like a torch... we have a chance. Being treated like goat shat over our bowl wishes... essentially laughed at by everyone outside our program in the state over it... hopefully, ever so slightly, got under even Dr. Savoie's skin. Maybe. If so, that is when others with that passion have to pound on the gates of the administration and ask how many more decades do we have to be everyone's doormat in football... except for a couple of other lowest low-tier programs!?!? _

That was fun to read. Gets me fired up.

Suggestion: email this exerpt to him

[Parrott]

_ You know what's funny, back in September when there was a lot of talk about his contract, it seemed like every post claimed a different length remaining on the deal. I got tired of trying to put all the pieces together to figure it out, so I just forgot about the whole deal. Then last week, you stated the following, and I thought 'finally, a clean and simple post about the current length of the deal'. Not so.

I'll accept that it was probably a "bad day" that day. You probably had too many deadlines and weren't handling it well. _

After I saw your most recent post, I went back and checked what I wrote earlier in the fall. Two previous times I mentioned the end being after the 2010 season. That is correct.

[California Cajun]

The Cajuns finished 3-3 after the first six games, five of which were on the road. How they handled that stretch was the big test for me, and demonstrated to me that there was improvement.

Then they beat Arkansas State without Desormeaux not playing at all. It looked like they were on their way.

Afterward, I heard that they had suffered too many injuries to put their real team on the field, and at that point they suffered a couple of blowout losses.

Then they finished on a high note with the win over MT.

Overall, I'd say they handled the things within their control very well and nearly went to their first bowl game in 38 years despite all the difficulties. And I'm not hearing cries for a coaching change like I heard last year.

The season left me with the impression that we aren't as far away from success as I previously thought.