(12-04-2015 10:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 10:55 AM)nole Wrote:  UVA could buy and sell about anybody.....they are one of those rare schools that have more money than that need and simply don't give a damn about football.

Not great for the ACC....but it is who they are.

NEVER believe they couldn't outbid Miami.....or FSU....they just don't have alumni that care about football.


Don't believe me? Pretend that say Texas came along and tried to double UVA's basketball coaches salary....think they could steal him? UVA would find the money.


..................................


Miami did make a great hire....but folks always ignore that HC salary is only PART of the commitment.....the other part is asst coaches/support staff.

HUGE part that is often underfunded at ACC schools.

Now you have me confused, nole. How is it that Virginia, with revenues of $87 million a year, has more money than it needs, but Florida State, which has revenues of $121 million and sponsors fewer sports, doesn't have enough money to compete in football?

I get that Florida State cares more about football than Virginia does. What I don't get is why that is a bad thing for either FSU or the ACC. Personally, it seems to me that you just like to complain. If FSU felt the way you seem to, they would have left the ACC a long time ago. There must be something about being in the ACC that they like.

1. He's saying that UVA, as a whole, has the money to outbid FSU. And, if the alumni cared about football, in times of emergencies (i.e. after some bad seasons), they would funnel their donations to the AD (instead of the academic side), demanding that they be spent on football.

2. He then said that UVA's indifference to football is bad for the conference because if they were to go "all in," they could field really good teams.

3. Finally, he said that the ACC, as a conference, doesn't support their HC's with top level assistant coaches, but you didn't address this point, one way or the other.

IMHO, he's partially right with point #1. However, UVA has been that way for a long time, so everyone in the conference except Clemson is apparently either OK with it, or knew what they were getting when they joined (your point). Additionally, there are constraints on how things like endowment money can be spent. It's harder than it sounds to go "all in" on something, and that's especially true when you factor in opportunity costs.

I think that he's right about point #2, to the extent that the conference, as a whole, would be better off if UVA turned into Michigan. But, like I said above, pretty much all the schools in the ACC knew what they were getting when they joined, and it's MUCH harder to go "all in" than it sounds - especially after years of not.

Finally, you didn't argue about point #3, but I think that it bears repeating in general (i.e. not because of anything that you said). The ACC doesn't spend enough on assistant coaches. THAT is what is costing us football success more than any other factor. Hopefully assistant coaching salaries are increasing with the new HC hires. This conference could be very good if it just tried a little harder.

**I added a couple of words to what nole said, but I think that the added words more clearly conveys his sentiment**

It's been said that VT & Miami have both increased the budget for assistant coaches but have they been increased enough?

(12-05-2015 10:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 10:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 10:55 AM)nole Wrote:  UVA could buy and sell about anybody.....they are one of those rare schools that have more money than that need and simply don't give a damn about football.

Not great for the ACC....but it is who they are.

NEVER believe they couldn't outbid Miami.....or FSU....they just don't have alumni that care about football.


Don't believe me? Pretend that say Texas came along and tried to double UVA's basketball coaches salary....think they could steal him? UVA would find the money.


..................................


Miami did make a great hire....but folks always ignore that HC salary is only PART of the commitment.....the other part is asst coaches/support staff.

HUGE part that is often underfunded at ACC schools.

Now you have me confused, nole. How is it that Virginia, with revenues of $87 million a year, has more money than it needs, but Florida State, which has revenues of $121 million and sponsors fewer sports, doesn't have enough money to compete in football?

I get that Florida State cares more about football than Virginia does. What I don't get is why that is a bad thing for either FSU or the ACC. Personally, it seems to me that you just like to complain. If FSU felt the way you seem to, they would have left the ACC a long time ago. There must be something about being in the ACC that they like.

1. He's saying that UVA, as a whole, has the money to outbid FSU. And, if the alumni cared about football, in times of emergencies (i.e. after some bad seasons), they would funnel their donations to the AD (instead of the academic side), demanding that they be spent on football.

2. He then said that UVA's indifference to football is bad for the conference because if they were to go "all in," they could field really good teams.

3. Finally, he said that the ACC, as a conference, doesn't support their HC's with top level assistant coaches, but you didn't address this point, one way or the other.

IMHO, he's partially right with point #1. However, UVA has been that way for a long time, so everyone in the conference except Clemson is apparently either OK with it, or knew what they were getting when they joined (your point). Additionally, there are constraints on how things like endowment money can be spent. It's harder than it sounds to go "all in" on something, and that's especially true when you factor in opportunity costs.

I think that he's right about point #2, to the extent that the conference, as a whole, would be better off if UVA turned into Michigan. But, like I said above, pretty much all the schools in the ACC knew what they were getting when they joined, and it's MUCH harder to go "all in" than it sounds - especially after years of not.

Finally, you didn't argue about point #3, but I think that it bears repeating in general (i.e. not because of anything that you said). The ACC doesn't spend enough on assistant coaches. THAT is what is costing us football success more than any other factor. Hopefully assistant coaching salaries are increasing with the new HC hires. This conference could be very good if it just tried a little harder.

**I added a couple of words to what nole said, but I think that the added words more clearly conveys his sentiment**

FSU has $34 million a year more athletic revenues, and lower athletic expenses outside of football. It really doesn't matter how much money UVa has, no university is going to take that kind of money away from academics to support their football team. And I doubt anybody planning to give large donations to the general funds of the university is going to insist that they be used for football instead of academics.

But at the end of the day, if you gave every P5 school the same amount of money to spend on football, they still aren't going to be equal in strength. We aren't going to see 64 schools with .500 records. Nor do we want to. More money isn't the reason some schools are perennial winners. They have more money because they are perennial winners, not the other way around.

As for assistant coaching salaries, the equation is similar. Virginia, and other P5 schools like them, could bid more for their assistants. The result, ultimately, is that the power schools would just outbid them at a higher level than they are currently paying. All assistants around the country would be richer, but they wouldn't be better coaches because they are richer. And they still wouldn't choose to coach at Virginia if Alabama or Oklahoma want them.`

(12-05-2015 12:26 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. He's saying that UVA, as a whole, has the money to outbid FSU. And, if the alumni cared about football, in times of emergencies (i.e. after some bad seasons), they would funnel their donations to the AD (instead of the academic side), demanding that they be spent on football.

2. He then said that UVA's indifference to football is bad for the conference because if they were to go "all in," they could field really good teams.

3. Finally, he said that the ACC, as a conference, doesn't support their HC's with top level assistant coaches, but you didn't address this point, one way or the other.

IMHO, he's partially right with point #1. However, UVA has been that way for a long time, so everyone in the conference except Clemson is apparently either OK with it, or knew what they were getting when they joined (your point). Additionally, there are constraints on how things like endowment money can be spent. It's harder than it sounds to go "all in" on something, and that's especially true when you factor in opportunity costs.

I think that he's right about point #2, to the extent that the conference, as a whole, would be better off if UVA turned into Michigan. But, like I said above, pretty much all the schools in the ACC knew what they were getting when they joined, and it's MUCH harder to go "all in" than it sounds - especially after years of not.

Finally, you didn't argue about point #3, but I think that it bears repeating in general (i.e. not because of anything that you said). The ACC doesn't spend enough on assistant coaches. THAT is what is costing us football success more than any other factor. Hopefully assistant coaching salaries are increasing with the new HC hires. This conference could be very good if it just tried a little harder.

**I added a couple of words to what nole said, but I think that the added words more clearly conveys his sentiment**

FSU has $34 million a year more athletic revenues, and lower athletic expenses outside of football. It really doesn't matter how much money UVa has, no university is going to take that kind of money away from academics to support their football team. And I doubt anybody planning to give large donations to the general funds of the university is going to insist that they be used for football instead of academics.

But at the end of the day, if you gave every P5 school the same amount of money to spend on football, they still aren't going to be equal in strength. We aren't going to see 64 schools with .500 records. Nor do we want to. More money isn't the reason some schools are perennial winners. They have more money because they are perennial winners, not the other way around.

As for assistant coaching salaries, the equation is similar. Virginia, and other P5 schools like them, could bid more for their assistants. The result, ultimately, is that the power schools would just outbid them at a higher level than they are currently paying. All assistants around the country would be richer, but they wouldn't be better coaches because they are richer. And they still wouldn't choose to coach at Virginia if Alabama or Oklahoma want them.`

1. I don't disagree that you're describing reality. His point is more that *shouldn't* be the reality. I don't want to keep putting words in nole's mouth, but I think he's saying that UVA alums should be more interested in funding the football team (presumably at the expense of academics and other sports) than they currently are. You can disagree with that belief, and I probably do. However, you can't realistically dispute that UVA, as an institution (i.e. the AD, the school, the students, and the alumni), couldn't do it if it so wanted to.

2. I think it's a chicken and the egg issue. Sure, there are other factors, but there is a correlation between spending more money on football and winning. Similarly, there is a correlation between winning and fan support. His point still stands.

3. You're assuming that everyone increases by the same amount (or at least maintains the same ranking). I don't think that's a valid assumption. I believe, and I think that nole would probably agree (step in if I am wrongly putting words in your mouth), that the ACC is underachieving. We should spend more on assistants than we currently do relative to everyone else. As a conference, if we all tried as hard as OU, schools like OU would keep some of their good assistants and lose others. Ultimately, that would lead to the gap closing between the ACC and the conferences ahead of us. And, it can be done. Look at the Pac-12.