Crazy idea!

[Falcon137]

Boy, the ol faculty bitching is getting old. Clawson deserved a raise because he did a good job and the university wanted to retain its highest profile employee.

If the psych 101 professor is bringing in students and is one of the top experts in his or her field, give that person a raise so they don't go elsewhere.

[It's the Journey...]

Damn straight! Who needs the University, we have athletics..... Let's get our priorities in order here folks!

By "most" do you mean those who have expressed that opinion to you or is it just a generalization?

[Falcon137]

Damn straight! Who needs the University, we have athletics..... Let's get our priorities in order here folks!

By "most" do you mean those who have expressed that opinion to you or is it just a generalization?

I think you responded while I was editing my post.

By most I meant the faculty who I've spoken with and have a disdain for athletics. Specifically many of the tenured professors who feel its a waste of money that we spend 21 million on athletics and they can't get research money for a paper they're writing on the effects of rain and voter turnout.

[Globetrotter]

Being too cheap to buyout their contract?

You do realize what kind of financial state the university is in, right? Being cheap has nothing to do with it.

The financial state of the university should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to buy out a coach.

Hmmmm... thats.... ironic.

If they do not have the funding to buy out one of the lowest paid coaches in Division 1 then they shouldn't be fielding a team.

I can't really argue with that.

But I've posted countless times, if you're going to field the teams you simply must invest in making them viable. I find it impossible to believe that the continued lost revenue will prove less costly than the measly $168k to buy him out. Given the crappy attendance seen at men's basketball it wouldn't take real long to recoup that investment.

Commit to winning or get rid of athletics altogether.

So you're saying that the program could make up 168k in ONE year with a new coach at the helm? That, I find hard to believe. A couple of years, sure you could recoup that cost. But the opportunity cost? No way. Because that's what we're talking about... ONE more year. A few years ago, same conversation, I'd agree with you. Not with one year left, though.

I believe they could make it up in one year and even if they couldn't this sets them back for years. He will get 4 scholarships to pee down his leg and how many current BG students won't be alums who give to the program because they never got tied into to because he was so bad?

They will easily lose 168K by bringing him back.

[BGFalconfromCincy]

Boy, the ol faculty bitching is getting old.

It might be old, but its never going to go away as long as BG, or any school for that matter, has athletics. Everyone thinks they are most important and that the money should go to them

[BGSU33]

Tubby Smith made 2 million dollars a year and had problems with players getting in trouble and transferring out of the program.

Sorry, 2 million a year should get you more than a losing Big10 record and an NCAA tournament appearance every now and then.

To me, if you were going to go retread, there is only 1 guy. Bruce Pearl. Even if he came with NCAA sanctions for 1 or 2 years. He would energize the fan base, is a terrific coach and recruiter, and most importantly he gets out in the community and gets involved. He loves the fans.

Wow I hadn't even thought of him. I'd love me some Bruce Pearl. The 1 or 2 years of sanctions wouldn't really concern me a ton just because we're probably going to need a few years to be ready for the big dance anyhow.

The big difference is Tubby is (maybe) looking for one last hurrah, whereas I would expect Pearl to take a job and bolt for greener pastures ASAP. Not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out.

Personally I LOVE Pearl's personality and he's a pretty damn good coach as well. He'd be taking a paycut to go from ESPN/CBS to BG though.

I am desperate for a winner at BG. Even if we had a guy come in for one year, win the MAC Tournament and simply gets us to the NCAA Tournament (he doesn't even have to win a game there, just get us there), I would help him pack for his next job after us. While I would much prefer a guy who can get us there and he stayed at BG, being that none of those things above have happened in my lifetime, I would cherish the mere though of a least experiencing it simply once on my lifetime.

[Rollo83]

I prefer we go the up-an-coming assistant route when it comes time to replace Orr. Don't want Pearl, Smith or Howland. I was against the Orr hire for the same reason. If they didn't have enough sucess at their prior job to keep it, why would we think they would be sucessful at BG? Smith was fortunate to land the UK job and won with Pitino's players. Once they left he couldn't sustain the same level of success. Don't trust Pearl... not someone I'd want associated with the program.

[BleedOrange]

Being too cheap to buyout their contract?

You do realize what kind of financial state the university is in, right? Being cheap has nothing to do with it.

The financial state of the university should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to buy out a coach.

If they do not have the funding to buy out one of the lowest paid coaches in Division 1 then they shouldn't be fielding a team. Given the current financial state of the university if you (or the administration) wanted to argue the merits of fielding athletics at all, I'll listen. I could even be convinced since fielding D1 athletics at the MAC level is so costly and the marketing potential is limited.

But I've posted countless times, if you're going to field the teams you simply must invest in making them viable. I find it impossible to believe that the continued lost revenue will prove less costly than the measly $168k to buy him out. Given the crappy attendance seen at men's basketball it wouldn't take real long to recoup that investment.

Commit to winning or get rid of athletics altogether. If the university is dictating athletic budgets based on their faculty expenses (or vice versa) we have major issues already.

If we cannot buy out one year for $168K (which is not even a competitive MAC salary), what will we offer the next coach? $175K? $200K? With those numbers, our overall athletic funding, and the overall student/community culture surrounding BG hoops, the BG coaching position is NOT an attractive option to top-notch candidates. The upper tier of candidates wouldn't consider BG anyway, but I wonder if we could compete against 67% of mid-majors with our opening. Sure, many people will apply, but how many will be genuinely desirable if we want a winner?

It's funny that you mention the questionable merits of fielding athletic teams at all. How much longer will MAC level programs continue to justify their D1 football programs? With BG basketball, we just built a $36M basketball facility that been discussed off and on for 25 years. It could be re-purposed quickly for art shows, indoor festivals, anime gatherings, musical productions, large theatrical productions, dance teams, student group activities, and miscellaneous philanthropic events. The practice facility could become a warehouse for university supplies and equipment. Who beyond just a few of us diehards would even think twice about it?

[TG1996]

We keep throwing out this "It only costs $168K" figure, but is that really accurate? I hope that the next coaching hire is someone that would demand (and be able to be paid) a more competitive salary for the MAC, say low-end, that's $200K. So now you're paying $368K in head coach salary for a year. Someone said assistants often work year-to-year, but if there are assistants to buy out, you're adding more to that total. Then you're bringing in assistants, most likely, add some more. The point was brought up about having a "veteran" coach to oversee operations and assist on the bench. How much does a decent veteran demand?

Seems like the entire deal would hit the $500-600K range pretty quickly. Maybe my knowledge (or math) is wrong, but it seems like it would be a lot more involved that "just" $168K.

[factman]

We're saving $20,000 a month not having to pay An AD until we hire a new one!

[Falcon137]

We're saving $20,000 a month not having to pay An AD until we hire a new one!

Here's here til May 2nd.

[transfer2BGSU]

So you're saying that the program could make up 168k in ONE year with a new coach at the helm? That, I find hard to believe. A couple of years, sure you could recoup that cost. But the opportunity cost? No way. Because that's what we're talking about... ONE more year. A few years ago, same conversation, I'd agree with you. Not with one year left, though.

And he suggests we do that by cutting the price of season tickets, provide vouchers for free parking, and then give season ticket holders an additional $30 voucher to use in the team store.

BG fans want to be a big time program, yet don't want to pony up the $$$$. "Fire the head coach with a year left on his contract, but I'm not giving another dime to men's basketball until they produce a good product on the court." Is it any wonder the athletic department is on such a tight budget?

[guest44]

BG fans want BG to do what any other MAC school would have already done, which is no longer have Louis Orr as coach. What is the current going rate for competence within an athletic department? $168,000? I've wasted more money on 6 years of Louis Orr coached basketball, yet have about 2 lasting memories of anything his teams have done. Amazing considering I have countless memories of the teams before his. It's not real complicated. I'll watch other basketball in the area until that happens. If and when BG decides it cares, I'll be back.

[hammb]

So you're saying that the program could make up 168k in ONE year with a new coach at the helm? That, I find hard to believe. A couple of years, sure you could recoup that cost. But the opportunity cost? No way. Because that's what we're talking about... ONE more year. A few years ago, same conversation, I'd agree with you. Not with one year left, though.

And he suggests we do that by cutting the price of season tickets, provide vouchers for free parking, and then give season ticket holders an additional $30 voucher to use in the team store.

BG fans want to be a big time program, yet don't want to pony up the $$$$. "Fire the head coach with a year left on his contract, but I'm not giving another dime to men's basketball until they produce a good product on the court." Is it any wonder the athletic department is on such a tight budget?

I don't know that you'd recoup those costs back in a single year. Given our abysmal attendance figures in such a nice arena if you brought in a coach that could provide some excitement and win right away, I do believe it'd be possible. Not sure if it's possible to win in your first year though with this roster and an incoming recruiting class already inked. But I definitely think if you got the right guy you'd be able to recoup the costs in a couple years.

By letting Orr go through a lame duck year you are effectively pushing any hope of contention back a couple years. You're basically costing yourself two recruiting classes. This year's class may end up proving me wrong, they look like they could play, but I start to question how many options they really had if they are choosing to play for Orr on a lame duck season. And next year's recruiting class is basically shot...you either have Orr recruiting guys that he won't coach; or you don't let him recruit and the new guy is behind the eight ball having missed the early signing period.

When it comes to building a winner I fully believe that letting a coach go to a lame duck status sets the program back multiple seasons. Perhaps you couldn't recover the financial hit of a buyout in one year, but if you got back to winning sooner I don't think it's impossible to think it's a financially positive move in the long term.

As for giving some concessions back to the fans, yeah, you're damn right. Give some food/parking vouchers to help build your season ticket base. Make the lesser seats General Admission or reduce the prices drastically. Get some asses in those seats. The seats are paid for, the more people in them the better. You're better off selling 3 seats at $8 than you are 2 seats at 12. And do you really thing that giving those sorts of perks to season ticket holders is an actual negative in the ledger? That $30 voucher to the team store likely results in somebody spending $50 in there, more times than not. Even selling that sweatshirt for $20 they're still probably taking a profit...and even if it's only break-even offering that perk might increase the season ticket base...again more butts in seats to buy concessions and build a fanbase.

Right now BG sports are overpriced compared to their competition. BG fans will pay the prices and not care. The local family that wants to take their kids to a ball game are more likely to go to a UT game because the product is better and the prices are much cheaper. I think the new AD needs to commit to winning and commit to building a fanbase. That means getting younger kids into games. It means bringing back stuff like the Junior Falcons. The AD & coaches need to embrace the community and make people want to go games. It also may mean lowering prices and/or providing incentives to build a season ticket base...that's your guaranteed revenue.

[factman]

As usual.....well said, hammb!