Rick Gerlach
Heisman
Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: about $6 million give or take
(10-19-2016 07:57 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: (10-18-2016 07:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: (10-18-2016 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote: (10-18-2016 04:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?
I'm not sure how a bunch of fans, even some of whom are somewhat connected, can answer that question with any kind of intelligence. While we know Bailiff's rough salary (~$800,000), we do not know what his coordinators or assistants make. We do not know how much is currently spent on recruiting. Also, does your suggested figure include salaries for S&C, quality control, video folks, etc.?
Without the information of what is currently spent, it is hard to compare that figure to the $6 million you toss out there. And I'm assuming your suggestion is that the increase would be without strings (i.e., no cuts necessary elsewhere in the athletic program)?
Having no idea what the recruiting budget that is, $6 million sounds like a lot more than Rice would need to spend just on coaching & recruiting.
HC - $800,000 (this is already toward the top of the CUSA salaries, no need to increase it except to retain a coach proven to be "successful")
DC - $400,000
OC - $400,000
7 position coaches - $200,000 each
Total = $3 million
I have no idea how close those are to what Rice currently pays, nor how those stack up to what other CUSA coordinators & assistants make. I think those would probably all be on the high side for CUSA, but well below P5 averages.
*When I put the word successful in quotation marks - "successful" - I am not quoting someone. That is my way of saying that I'm not trying to argue about the definition of the word as it relates to Rice football.
I'm guessing that is more than we spend on our coordinators and position coaches now.
This gets back to the point of whether you cut other salaries to get the football salaries higher.
Should an OC or DC make as much money as Wayne Graham? (not sure where Wayne is at now, but back in the day, I thought he was around $250,000 at the program's highest point. I say this knowing I will likely be corrected).
How much should Rhoades make versus the football coordinators and assistants? If our AD upped the ante on Rhoades I could easily see it having an impact on other salaries in the department, and that seems appropriate.
Someone asked the question on another thread: What if giving a raise to Rhoades precludes a buyout? An AD makes those calls. We live in a fantasy world fraught with speculation.
To answer your questions: I'm looking for the number which includes just football salaries and coaching and recruiting expenses, without cutting anywhere else. A S&C coach can be included. facilities not--but to me that is a separate line item here (and I believe in still raising the funds for additional HRS improvements as previously alluded to by the AD).
Yes, it is speculation, since we don't have all the actual numbers. Bailiff is listed on Coaching Hot Seat as at at $925,000 per year (and he's up slightly to #17.)
My thought is that because the Rice job is currently not viewed as a premium job, and because we have additional self-imposed academic restrictions that we actually follow vs. most other schools, we need to pay a premium to attract the same coach as another school does.
I also don't believe it is correct to merely compare our coaches salaries to other CUSA schools because that is a mostly irrelevant comparison to me for a school that purports to want to move back up to P5 status. If we do, then we should only be comparing to median P5 coaching salaries and not CUSA or even G5 salaries.
So I do a ballpark figure of offering between $2 million and $3 million per to attract the next head coach with a reasonable upside: he would be considered for any median level P5 job available. Rice would pay him a premium to come to South Main because all things being equal, the guy would not seriously consider coming to Rice otherwise. We need to give him the ability to hire P5 level assistants. And we need more national recruiting since that is the scope and milieu of our school. So I'm ballparking about $6 million total per annum (5 year contract, wrth Owl69's low $100K buyout for either the school or the coach), which is likely somewhere about $3.5 to 4 more per year than we are currently spending with the present staff.
So, $3.5- $4 million more annually above what we spend now. I think it would make a big difference over the course of 2 or three coaches in the next decade (Boise State model of coach is successful, leaves for better position, and we reload and keep firing on all cylinders.)
Vs. spending the $2.5 million to $3 million on coaches and recruiting we currently do and being last (ok next to last, espn) in Div I.
I also don't think it should be approached by the school or the AD as an either/or with other sports, although I get that might be what actually is going on. Each sport should be funded to the median level of P5 schools if we aim to go back. They should not cannibalize eachother. It is one university we are trying to elevate, not only one sport.
Not arguing with your premise, just that it doesn't seem to fit the reality of Rice's budget, and it seems unlikely that the budget would change significantly enough to fund your premise. I suspect the budget for athletics has already been increased somewhat over the last couple of years. You are talking about a significant increase of the total budget for only one line item.
It's kind of like the conference realignment discussions where everyone realizes (or if they don't, they missed out on the direct statements to this effect made by the Big 12), that eyeballs and butts in the seat are as big a factor as any in determining who gets included and who doesn't. We have the second smallest enrollment in Division 1 athletics (for football at least), and anyone who comes to our games can quickly see the age deomographic of our alumni fan base. We nod our heads at our attendance and blithely avoid discussing this aspect of realignment when we compare ourselves to other schools hoping to 'move up'.
I get that Rice fans are upset about football results the last two years. But suggestions of boycotting games and withholding support are understandable, they are never going to be helpful in terms of realignment. Attendance will drop when results are bad. But even when results are bad at A&M, or Tennessee, the crowd drop off doesn't look like what some here are willing to contribute to by protesting and avoiding Rice Stadium.
I am not saying that people shouldn't react the way they are. But we need to remember that our fan base/alumni support is a huge issue.
The coaching salaries you advocate are great. At U of H, they are occurring because alumni are giving money specifically for that purpose.
The fact U of H can do that, and we don't (expecting the University to just blow up a line item in the budget) is why they were front and center in the recent Big 12 discussions, and we were in credits for the cast of the crowd scene.
|
|