Crazy idea!

[OptionQB]

Pearl would unquestionably be at the top of any list I would have but he has 2 more years of a show clause which you have to have the NCAA's blessing just to hire him, let alone take the sanctions that come with such a hire. Would it happen at say a UTEP or SMU? Probably, but I can't see BGSU taking that chance as much as I would love for it to happen

[BleedOrange]

Hey folks, Ben Howland is available. If he would pledge not to work his players into the ground like he did at UCLA, maybe he'd be a good hire.

Tubby Smith hasn't been particularly successful at his last two programs. Admittedly, his competition has been tough. However, BG is a very difficult place to succeed for its own reasons.

I'm not sure how you hire a basketball coach before you have an athletic dire.....hey wait, does this give anyone any ideas?

[MarkL]

Pearl has a great on the court record but I'd have to say no. He's proven that he's willing to lie to his superiors and to the NCAA to cover up his mistakes. Big no no. The mistake he made was not big IIRC ... having some recruits over for a barbecue, but the coverup is what got him in trouble. He lied to his superiors and to the NCAA while contacting the recruits involved and telling them to lie about being there. I'd be excited to land a name as big as Pearl ... and a guy who loves to wear an orange coat on the sidelines ... but not with the scandal attached. In the hypothetical scenario we are within a year looking for a new basketball coach, I'd be interested in looking the direction of either a hot up and coming assistant (like Bergeron in hockey) or a good head coach at a lower level. But the realistic scenario is we need an AD first.

[BleedOrange]

OptionQB, if you want to raise $168,000 in the next few months, you better get on the stick. NOW! It'll take a lot of hustle to make that happen, and who else will step up?

Here's another crazy idea that's fun to ponder but will also go absolutely nowhere: Identify the basketball coach that we want, and hire him for one year as the AD. During this year, we tell Orr to stay home and let this temporary "AD" coach the basketball team. After the year, we put the temporary AD on contract for head basketball coach and fill the AD position in earnest.

(This raises the question: can the athletic department function without an AD for one year? Can the staff its handle the job, or can another administrator function in that role on occasion?)

[Falcon137]

I wouldn't worry about Pearl keeping his nose clean. He was great at Wisconsin Milwaukee, his only NCAA run in was the spraying beer after winning the conference tournament. He would be here 3-4 years just because I'm not sure a big name school would give him a chance that quickly. I don't know how big of a deal money would be to him, seems like for $200-250 he would do it, just to get his foot back into the door of basketball.

He just seems like such a perfect fit to energize this program. The guy is pure energy. I can see him showing up to women's games and having dinner at City Tap and engaging boosters, fans, anyone within speaking distance.

[toddpav]

Do you all really feel that buying out Orrs contract is even a viable option? Even if the money to do so was raised privately?

Can you imagine the PR nightmare that the administration would face if they were to do that? In the face of cutting teachers jobs and other staff, raising tuition, etc.... A move to spend any amount of money to buyout a coach wouldn't be viewed well from non-athletic types around the university (of which there are many).

Just a thought.

[It's the Journey...]

It should not be done at all with private money. If you cannot afford a buy out and new salary within the departments budget then there is no buy out. Private donations are for things like facilities, scholarship endowments, or equipment. It is not to develop a department slush fund to get out of bad hires. You signed a contract, live with it.

[OptionQB]

Privately funded buyouts do create the stigma of the inmates running the asylum. That said, someone made a great point a week or two back that you have ann acafemic budget and an athletic budget and never the two shall meet. I realize a large part of what football does by going to Gainesville and Blacksburg helps to fund athletics, but also other endeavors on campus.

I don't agree with the notion of "a bad contract is a bad contract so live with it" .... At what point is it a bad contract and at what point is it ok to break that contract? Would you keep a Jerry Sandusky on staff because he had a contract? At some point, the University didn't seek millions of dollars to have a new arena 1/3 full for the balance of its home schedule minus Michigan State. The point is continuing on this trajectory is not only costing athletics money, but it is also hurting the University and the community as a whole that depend on revenues these events attract

[transfer2BGSU]

I wouldn't have to worry about paying Sandusky because his butt is in jail and his contract would become null and void since he would not be able to fulfill the terms of the contract (and besides, there probably is a morals clause that would allow you to release him with due cause and not owe him anything).

As far as Louis Orr is concerned, it is your opinion and the opinion of some others that it is a bad contract. But there are folks who believe that he has brought the program from the bottom of the league to the middle part of the league. While not where they want to see the program, they are willing to allow him to work out the final year of his contract.

Some prospective coaches might actually like the idea that BGSU will give you the full five years (or whatever the terms of your contract are) to get the job done and not release you early.

[hammb]

I wouldn't have to worry about paying Sandusky because his butt is in jail and his contract would become null and void since he would not be able to fulfill the terms of the contract (and besides, there probably is a morals clause that would allow you to release him with due cause and not owe him anything).

As far as Louis Orr is concerned, it is your opinion and the opinion of some others that it is a bad contract. But there are folks who believe that he has brought the program from the bottom of the league to the middle part of the league. While not where they want to see the program, they are willing to allow him to work out the final year of his contract.

Some prospective coaches might actually like the idea that BGSU will give you the full five years (or whatever the terms of your contract are) to get the job done and not release you early.

Coaches that are worried about maybe getting fired rather than thinking how they want to move on are destined to failure anyhow. I couldn't care less what the impression is to prospective coaches in that regard. Coaches go into the business knowing that they better win or they'll be looking for work...that's the nature of the business.

Anybody who looks at Orr's record as anything other than mediocre is fooling themselves. He's been here 6 years so where the program was when he got here is irrelevant...he's already been through multiple recruiting classes. He's proven he's a mediocre coach that can build a mediocre program. I suppose you can say that's my opinion, but it's also the only opinion that's backed up by years of evidence.

Keeping Orr for another year is saying that mediocrity is acceptable. Be it because we're too cheap to pay the buyout or because we are on some holier-than-thou mission to let coaches stay out their contract, the reasoning doesn't matter. It's still a publicized acceptance of mediocrity. And it should be noted that it's really only mediocre in comparison to the crap that the MAC has become in recent years. If you're measuring it by the gauge of what should be the actual goal (NCAA tourney berths, perhaps even wins) then it's a LOOOONG stretch to call him mediocre...he's downright crappy as there wasn't a single year in his tenure where it looked possible to put together a title run.

[toddpav]

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.

[Globetrotter]

Do you all really feel that buying out Orrs contract is even a viable option? Even if the money to do so was raised privately?

Can you imagine the PR nightmare that the administration would face if they were to do that? In the face of cutting teachers jobs and other staff, raising tuition, etc.... A move to spend any amount of money to buyout a coach wouldn't be viewed well from non-athletic types around the university (of which there are many).

Just a thought.

But you can give Clawson a raise and extension?

[hammb]

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.

[toddpav]

Do you all really feel that buying out Orrs contract is even a viable option? Even if the money to do so was raised privately?

Can you imagine the PR nightmare that the administration would face if they were to do that? In the face of cutting teachers jobs and other staff, raising tuition, etc.... A move to spend any amount of money to buyout a coach wouldn't be viewed well from non-athletic types around the university (of which there are many).

Just a thought.

But you can give Clawson a raise and extension?

Did you hear the people grumbling when that happened? I sure did. But it wasn't a PR nightmare like buying out a coach and then hiring another one (essentially paying two salaries for one year).

[toddpav]

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.