(11-30-2016 12:38 PM)Middle Ages Wrote: Sorry Ham- just getting to this.
on #1- I really don't remember us going round and round about WW. I went back and looked at archived posts and couldn't find anything- though that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just don't remember. What I did get was a little nostalgic looking at those old threads. Seemed more civil back then. I miss reading stompclapwhoosh, emmiesix, former owl dad, armychick, and others- notably of course Ricedoc. I don't miss sportdude.
Nope, you're right. It was Bay Area Owl. I'm sorry.
Agreed on the other posters
Quote:#2- My answer is not that meaningful because that's not reality. If we were spending that much on a HC then the rest of the coaches and overall budget would also be different/higher. I think your last comment is right. We have taken care of Bailiff but haven't really given him the tools (i.e. money for assistants, recruiting, etc) to succeed. As for the question of why doesn't he give some of his salary to the assistants- well I don't know but if that's really what it would come to then that is a terrible commentary on the program. Yes he is well paid in comparison to CUSA, but not for CFB in general, and this is his life. How many of us would do that?
Maybe I didn't ask it correctly. I'm trying to get your perspective (or anyone else's) on what we would do if we GOT what many people ask for. What I'm asking is that if a Rice donor decided to pull a Tillman Fertitta, or the Trustees decided to spend more on athletics, would you suggest we keep Bailiff or hire someone else? While it may not be the reality, it is certainly something that SOME people have suggested needs to happen... MOSTLY (and this is important) those who supported keeping Bailiff.
Yes, I agree it isn't his responsibility to do so... you're asking how many of us would do so... Some of us do similar things all the time. You're investing in a 'business'. That business is 'David Bailiff'. Certainly he is PERFECTLY entitled to take what he earns and 'take his chances' with recruiting and assistants and if it fails, blame it on the lack of support for recruiting and assistants, but at the end of the day, he's still likely looking for another job with a mediocre w/l record on his resume. I'd certainly CONSIDER it, IF I agreed that was the problem. Of course if it isn't, then that's another issue. Perhaps what I'm asking is rather than debate this with us internally... if DAVID really feels like these are the issues. As I recall, when he made far less, he shared 20-25% of his salary with his assistants. He may well be doing that now for all we know.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he owes anyone anything. I'm asking if it might not be a wise move on his part?
Let's say he diverted some of his salary this year to get some GREAT coordinators who take us to a bowl next year (not an outlandish expectation given we COULD have won 5 this year and we add UAB next year) and then compete for the conf championship in 2018, the last year of his contract.... He would have PROVED his point and if WE wouldn't pay him AND his staff, I'm betting someone else would.
Actually it almost argues that if he doesn't do something like that and succeeds, that he should have made changes far sooner.... and if he fails, he's likely gone anyway and taking a paycut.
It's an academic question that leads to wondering how serious people are about the idea that it's not Bailiff, but his assistants or recruiting budgets. I honestly have no idea what the answer is... but if it really is those issues, then I wonder if David has considered making an investment in his career? Heck, maybe make it part of the new assistants contract. You get 200 this year, but if you help me turn it around so that we get an extension, I'll bump you 50-100k.