All of this talk makes me think it warrants a separate discussion. Since we're staring down the barrels of a job many of us thought would be one CLF would consider...what do you think would be a contract worth staying for, while being reasonable enough for the University to swallow?
I would think an extension through 2027, with AAV around $3.2M with seasonal incentives would be solid...include a negatively scaled buyout (starting at $8M, down $1.25M per year). Would give longevity, protection for a down year or him leaving early, wouldn't be completely bank busting on our end (would only increase his annual salary by roughly $750,000) and basically all but assure the man would have a statue erected in his honor when he's done here.
(02-05-2020 11:00 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]All of this talk makes me think it warrants a separate discussion. Since we're staring down the barrels of a job many of us thought would be one CLF would consider...what do you think would be a contract worth staying for, while being reasonable enough for the University to swallow?
I would think an extension through 2027, with AAV around $3.2M with seasonal incentives would be solid...include a negatively scaled buyout (starting at $8M, down $1.25M per year). Would give longevity, protection for a down year or him leaving early, wouldn't be completely bank busting on our end (would only increase his annual salary by roughly $750,000) and basically all but assure the man would have a statue erected in his honor when he's done here.
I think it's impossible to put a number on it. Given his on field success and recruiting success I think he's proven to be the perfect fit here. Our Athletic department already operates at a significant deficit; if you're willing to go $20 million in the red for athletics wouldn't you rather go an extra million or two to ensure success in the highest profile sport? Given that rationale I don't see any reason not to go over $3 million but I'd also imagine that the AD has to get board permission to go further into the red.
Unfortunately, many of the academic types like to believe that the cheapest coaching option available is preferential to the most cost-efficient option. The way they see it, if we're already 20 million in the hole, it would be ludicrous to pay more. But, as RealDeal mentioned, that deficit becomes far less managable when your $1 million/year coach is going 4-8 in front of 20,000 people/game than when your $3.5 million/year coach is going 11-2 in front of 35,000/game and playing in the Cotton Bowl for an additional sum.
I only hope Neville Pinto is aware of that, and the Board of Trustees remembers what happened with Tuberville. That's the nature of trying to build an athletic department at a research university without a rich tradition of football.
Also, not sure how contracts are set up now, but there should be huge incentives for his recruiting classes. The staff knows they can tap that well on a yearly basis and even if it doesn't immeadietly translate to success on the field you're rewarding the long-term establishment of talented pipelines. That's just as important to a program as success on the field.
(02-05-2020 11:17 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Also, not sure how contracts are set up now, but there should be huge incentives for his recruiting classes. The staff knows they can tap that well on a yearly basis and even if it doesn't immeadietly translate to success on the field you're rewarding the long-term establishment of talented pipelines. That's just as important to a program as success on the field.
While I agree, I'm not sure if that's legal, as that would constitute an enrollment performance incentive, which is something that was outlawed (at least at the state level) for employees in undergraduate admissions a few years back. That's a high risk game, as that money could easily just be funneled directly to recruits.
(02-05-2020 11:13 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]But, as RealDeal mentioned, that deficit becomes far less managable when your $1 million/year coach is going 4-8 in front of 20,000 people/game than when your $3.5 million/year coach is going 11-2 in front of 35,000/game and playing in the Cotton Bowl for an additional sum.
I don't think we're talking about the difference between 1-3.5 million. Fickel signed around $2 million, right? In my scenario I was imagining a difference between $2-$3.25 mil. But my point remains; if you're going that deep into the red anyway you may as well go a little further to someone who's shown a track record of success. That extra 1-1.5 million will be lost in donations if the replacement isn't successful.
If they can invest in Fickell and Fickell can show he's committed here with high buyouts with an exception to two schools (that's been brought up previously here and I like the layout of that. We know what he's interested in and as a school there's nothing we can do about but if he can show he's committed otherwise). Fans need to show they're committed to the program and Fickell as well.. selling an extra 10,000 season tickets at $30 a ticket over 6 games is $1,800,000 which should go directly to Fickell and his staff.
Edit: in the same avenue of finding extra cash in the pockets, would students be willing to start paying a small fee for tickets say $10/game? I know student season tickets already cost roughly $60 for the year but if they charged for single game would there still be a demand? 5,000 student tickets at 6 games, 30,000 total student tickets is an extra $300,000
(02-05-2020 11:23 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 11:17 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Also, not sure how contracts are set up now, but there should be huge incentives for his recruiting classes. The staff knows they can tap that well on a yearly basis and even if it doesn't immeadietly translate to success on the field you're rewarding the long-term establishment of talented pipelines. That's just as important to a program as success on the field.
While I agree, I'm not sure if that's legal, as that would constitute an enrollment performance incentive, which is something that was outlawed (at least at the state level) for employees in undergraduate admissions a few years back. That's a high risk game, as that money could easily just be funneled directly to recruits.
Is that just ohio? I feel like this was a thing at one point.
Looks like Jeff Brohm gets 45K for top 25 classes at Purdue.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
(02-05-2020 11:35 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 11:23 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 11:17 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Also, not sure how contracts are set up now, but there should be huge incentives for his recruiting classes. The staff knows they can tap that well on a yearly basis and even if it doesn't immeadietly translate to success on the field you're rewarding the long-term establishment of talented pipelines. That's just as important to a program as success on the field.
While I agree, I'm not sure if that's legal, as that would constitute an enrollment performance incentive, which is something that was outlawed (at least at the state level) for employees in undergraduate admissions a few years back. That's a high risk game, as that money could easily just be funneled directly to recruits.
Is that just ohio? I feel like this was a thing at one point.
Looks like Jeff Brohm gets 45K for top 25 classes at Purdue.
I'm not sure how many states have some form of law against that (Ohio and Michigan definitely do), but there are probably ways Athletics Departments can get around it.
Use PI Fleck’s deal Cunningham was involved with at Minnesota as a guidepost and work back a bit for not being in the P5
We are currently paying the head coach of our preeminent sports program $2.3M [base]. That ranks #63 on USA Today's list of coaching salaries. Hold that thought...
Navy's coach made $2.3M [#60], Norvell made $2.6M [#54], and Mr. Swirly Dome in Houston made $3.7M [#35] to round out the non-P5 coaches above Fick. Hold that thought...
How are we performing as a non-P5 program? The record the past two seasons speaks for itself and the trajectory moving forward gives no indication that we are going in retirement mode any time soon. Hold that thought...
In three seasons, has there been any issues of note on or off the field that reflect poorly on our head coach or on his staff? How about in the classroom for the student-athletes? Hold that too...
So, it comes down to this IMO. Are we willing to pay more than $2.3M for a coach that is performing at a level above his pay grade relative to other programs? Yes, I get that we are not P5 money but when was the last time we felt we had a program that could compete for conference chips and a big time bowl? When was the last time we had recruitment at this level, and in particular, tie-ins and strong relationships with the State of Ohio high schools? When was the last time we felt good about how the coach respects/relates to his players, the program, the university, and the community? An Ohio guy to boot. I'm listening...
BearcatMan is very reasonable with his proposal. I feel that we need to negotiate with Fick to get him closer to Holger-bun's salary AND to increase the coaches' pool. At $3.2M you still rank below the top 40 salaries. Pay the man! Show Fick you want him and will pay him to the utmost limits of what is financially feasible and on terms that are favorable to him. I mean, he holds all the cards in this right now. I would also add our big donors to give some thumbs up of approval or at least keep them in the loop on this.
If you are going to pay him, if the budget doesn’t jibe, people have to be willing to kick in more for season tickets, etc. That’s the trade off
Believe they're restructuring ticket prices this off-season, correct?
(02-05-2020 12:02 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Believe they're restructuring ticket prices this off-season, correct?
They just sent out the renewal email yesterday. My prices didn't change but haven't compare other areas to see if others had changed.
(02-05-2020 12:04 PM)Racinejake Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 12:02 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Believe they're restructuring ticket prices this off-season, correct?
They just sent out the renewal email yesterday. My prices didn't change but haven't compare other areas to see if others had changed.
I renewed yesterday. My price was the same.
A few weeks back a bunch of folks were complaining that they had an increase in prices. But seeing as that was Sosna's department, it's possible they dropped the idea entirely.
I just renewed at the same $ as last year. Tix are too cheap and other season tix holders I know agree. UC is leaving money on the table IMO.
(02-05-2020 12:13 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]A few weeks back a bunch of folks were complaining that they had an increase in prices. But seeing as that was Sosna's department, it's possible they dropped the idea entirely.
https://www.csnbbs.com/thread-890239-page-3.html
this is the thread you're referencing.. people were apparently notified last week that the price increase plan was scraped. I still get young alumni tickets so I'm not familiar with full stadium pricing.
(02-05-2020 12:07 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 12:04 PM)Racinejake Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2020 12:02 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Believe they're restructuring ticket prices this off-season, correct?
They just sent out the renewal email yesterday. My prices didn't change but haven't compare other areas to see if others had changed.
I renewed yesterday. My price was the same.
One of the first things Cunningham did was renounce the price increase supposedly due to the outrage from the fans.
If the outrage was widespread, then the fans don’t deserve CLF.