Recruiting for Phillips should be good since the facilities and fan base sell the program to recruits. Recruits see Ohio on TV and know contending for a MAC title every year is the expectation along with Akron and Kent State. In the last fifteen years its been those three programs leading the MAC. Bringing in a coach with a history of taking teams to the NCAA tournament combined with a program with players returning from prior NCAA tournament teams make is an easier sell that they could go to then NCAA tournament in their early years and get on the national stage to showcase their talents to pro scouts either in the NBA or in Europe.

I approve of the economics of this move ... taking their BBall coach is a lot less travel cost all around than taking their BBall team.

(04-06-2014 10:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I approve of the economics of this move ... taking their BBall coach is a lot less travel cost all around than taking their BBall team.

Haha, well played.

I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  ...Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries...

That's because they don't share "their" BB money but take an unfair share of the FB money.

(04-07-2014 11:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  Again, this is a reason to align the football payout with performance just like the MAC does with basketball.

A byproduct of this sort of revenue distribution is that under-performing schools will "choke" themselves out of the conference by being unable to keep up due to lack of resources.

Certain posters (we all know what school most are from) love to talk about kicking members out but don't want to walk the walk. They'll take the extra BB money but don't want the same in FB because they know that their recently mediocre team will be regressing back to its historic putrid levels.

I say either do even splits in both FB and BB or go the "performance revenue distribution" route for BOTH. Enough of letting a certain school have its cake and eat it too.

You will have schools that excel in FB and are competitive in BB do quite well and conversely you'll have schools that excel in BB and are competitive in FB also do well. You may even see a school or schools that will do well in both FB and BB, and those schools will be fine.

However, the schools that cannot field competitive teams in either sport will find themselves in a hole that will be very difficult to dig out of and eventually can lead to a JUSTIFIED expulsion from the league.

This would only work to make the MAC stronger by cutting dead weight and maybe even allow the addition of a stronger more competitive school or set of schools.

The MAC needs to move to a "performance revenue distribution" for BOTH FB and BB.

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I saw nothing interesting in that article. Frankly, it lacked any clear point.

But every time I see someone arguing for higher coaches salaries, I wonder why.

Exactly what mechanism to success is provided by paying coaches more?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of this? If winning provides extra revenue, but that just goes to pay coaches, what is the true ROI for universities? Feel good for alumni?

I want MAC teams to win, but it's clear they can't win in an arms race, so why suggest participating?

(04-07-2014 12:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I saw nothing interesting in that article. Frankly, it lacked any clear point.

But every time I see someone arguing for higher coaches salaries, I wonder why.

Exactly what mechanism to success is provided by paying coaches more?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of this? If winning provides extra revenue, but that just goes to pay coaches, what is the true ROI for universities? Feel good for alumni?

I want MAC teams to win, but it's clear they can't win in an arms race, so why suggest participating?

The point is there is no brand name program in the MAC. Outside of the diehards, no one knows who is good in the MAC and largely because the MAC has done squat on a national level in recent years.

Higher salaries retain coaches and foster consistency. You cannot create a powerhouse over night and when it comes to the MAC, it seems team are getting exactly what they pay for. Mediocre hoops and a lack of relevance on a national level. Wichita, Gonzaga, and VCU are supposed to be peer teams yet all would blow the doors off any MAC team in hoops. All are relevant on a national level, and seem to be getting pretty good bang for the buck. The MAC is run is exactly like a low level mid major which is content with one NCAA bid.

I personally am glad Ohio is paying up for a coach. They have arguably the best hoops fan base in the league and hopefully it will allow them to become the face of the league and build a national brand. It is clear no one else is moving down that path and that is exactly what this league needs in hoops, an identity.

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I used to feel the same way but have altered my view lately. It is shown that a mid level can get a good coach for less money. I has also been shown that a $1M plus salary will not keep a coach. Tulsa just reached deeply into their pockets to offer Danny Manning $1.2M to stay. It is a great school, good fan base, and a good team returning. Did no good. Probably, $2-3M would not have done the trick either. Why be a fool as a mid major, and offer anyone a million? This argument will also work for many BCS level jobs if one of the 25 really good programs come calling.

(04-07-2014 12:50 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I used to feel the same way but have altered my view lately. It is shown that a mid level can get a good coach for less money. I has also been shown that a $1M plus salary will not keep a coach. Tulsa just reached deeply into their pockets to offer Danny Manning $1.2M to stay. It is a great school, good fan base, and a good team returning. Did no good. Probably, $2-3M would not have done the trick either. Why be a fool as a mid major, and offer anyone a million? This argument will also work for many BCS level jobs if one of the 25 really good programs come calling.

People will always walk for individual reasons but the guys that are staying at the mid-majors are getting paid and generating relevance nationally. Gonzaga, VCU, Wichita, many A-10 programs, etc. There are examples all around of mid-majors hanging on to guys and program playing at a much higher level than the current MAC lineup. Kent is probably the closest thing the MAC has had over the last decade to the powerhouse program and it is too bad they have regressed so far. I would thinking coaching turnover played into that though.

Your list of powerhouse mid-major basketball programs includes none that have BCS football. Coincidence?

one of the many, many complaints BC fans have expressed about the hiring of Jim Christian is that they think he's going to use Boston College as a stepping stone for a better job and not be committed to them long term. This is an ACC team we're talking about. Illinois fans expressed the same concerns after Groce lead them to the Rd of 32 his first year.

The truth is there are maybe 5 of the 351 college basketball programs who aren't concerned about losing their coach because of a better offer from somewhere else.

I like everything about what Ohio did here. There is a larger disparity in HC pay between MAC football and AQ football than there is MAC basketball and and top conference teams. There is no way the MAC is going to ever keep football coaches so I think the route to go is to pay for basketball coaches near the same level as top mid majors. If a bball coach is going to jump, then it will be to a higher level program and the MAC can continue to backfill will proven head coaches at the Division 1 level like Ohio and Toledo have done rather than take a gamble on an assistant who has never been a HC before. We can leave that hiring strategy to football.

(04-07-2014 01:14 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The truth is there are maybe 5 of the 351 college basketball programs who aren't concerned about losing their coach because of a better offer from somewhere else.

Even top programs worry that the NBA will lure their coach away. Although obviously a few coaches are entrenched at this point.

Remember Kansas lost its coach to another college team years ago.

Kentucky lost Pitino to the NBA. Duke fans worried they'd lose K to Los Angeles.

All this is why over paying for a coach is a fool's game.

(04-07-2014 01:14 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  one of the many, many complaints BC fans have expressed about the hiring of Jim Christian is that they think he's going to use Boston College as a stepping stone for a better job and not be committed to them long term. This is an ACC team we're talking about. Illinois fans expressed the same concerns after Groce lead them to the Rd of 32 his first year.

The truth is there are maybe 5 of the 351 college basketball programs who aren't concerned about losing their coach because of a better offer from somewhere else.

They should hope he uses the job as a stepping stone. If he does it would mean that he has returned their program to relevance and the next coaching search will be much easier.

(04-07-2014 12:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I saw nothing interesting in that article. Frankly, it lacked any clear point.

That is, it is a typical Elton Alexander article.

(04-07-2014 12:43 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 12:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:28 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  I like that Ohio continues to raise the bar for coaching salaries. This league sorely needs a team or two to break away from the pack and become a national brand. Ever Mid-Major league has that team but the MAC lacks it. Also think a coach or two needs to surpass the $1.0MM annually level in this league. This article raises some interesting points.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/...be_th.html

I saw nothing interesting in that article. Frankly, it lacked any clear point.

But every time I see someone arguing for higher coaches salaries, I wonder why.

Exactly what mechanism to success is provided by paying coaches more?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of this? If winning provides extra revenue, but that just goes to pay coaches, what is the true ROI for universities? Feel good for alumni?

I want MAC teams to win, but it's clear they can't win in an arms race, so why suggest participating?

The point is there is no brand name program in the MAC. Outside of the diehards, no one knows who is good in the MAC and largely because the MAC has done squat on a national level in recent years.

Higher salaries retain coaches and foster consistency. You cannot create a powerhouse over night and when it comes to the MAC, it seems team are getting exactly what they pay for. Mediocre hoops and a lack of relevance on a national level.

I think there is some question about being able to retain a coach for the long duration you're talking about, but I did want to acknowledge that you answered my question legitimately. Much better than someone insisting a statement is true just b/c it's conventional wisdom.

so, now we are talking about MAC coaches being millionaires, but the players are "acting entitled" for wanting to be able to organize and have a stronger voice