|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 16, 2015 19:01:23 GMT -6
"Where Dayton or Xavier count revenue from men's basketball at 10 or 11 million, and produce a net revenue stream for other athletics teams, we produce about 2 million and need to count student fees... Our entire men's athletics revenue is 10 mil, a huge part of that student fees allocated to football..."
I propose that, on this board, we never speak of those student fees as "revenue". That's a common, but idiotic and extremely dishonest little scam that universities try to run which might fool really, really stupid people, but I think we can put ourselves above that.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 16, 2015 19:17:54 GMT -6
"Where Dayton or Xavier count revenue from men's basketball at 10 or 11 million, and produce a net revenue stream for other athletics teams, we produce about 2 million and need to count student fees... Our entire men's athletics revenue is 10 mil, a huge part of that student fees allocated to football..."
I propose that, on this board, we never speak of those student fees as "revenue". That's a common, but idiotic and extremely dishonest little scam that universities try to run which might fool really, really stupid people, but I think we can put ourselves above that.
Boy do we agree on that!
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Oct 16, 2015 20:48:43 GMT -6
Mills - I was completely enamored with Whitford upon his hiring. Of course I knew enough to take a wait-and-see attitude also, but I really really liked what I knew about him. Maybe some remember me making a post quoting Whitney Houston lyrics "AND IIIIIIIII-EEEE-IIIIIII WILL-A ALWAYS LOVE YOUUUUUUUUUU" You can't get much more supportive than that. I was especially hopeful, with his background in high-level recruiting, that he woud soon sign a HS or transfer dominating big man. Sigh. I do vaguely remember that now, but considering that song was involved in the post, I hope you might understand why I attempted to purge it from my memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 6:16:32 GMT -6
"Damned funny to say tight budgets matter?" I never said or even insinuated budgets don't matter. Damn................Let's go ahead and start that board for people who can't read. Sure you did. You said that you thought budget models being a cause of our funding problems was damned funny. But they do cause a budget cut for us. The budget models hurt Ball State and create loss of state money and makes other cuts hurt even worse, and is very certainly one cause of our pinched budget. You compared budgets to private schools. The difference with those private schools turns out to be budget. Most of my post was about comparing state and private budgets and how we operate on a short budget. Since budget, you now say does matter, and the models produce the budget, then you have to consider those models. No private school gets any kind of state budget cut, no private school has to face cuts to achieve an arbitrary standard for graduation rate and STEM degrees. Private schools don't have to answer to legislatures when they raise tuition if they do have a cost increase. Budget models count a lot if budget as you now agree counts. Create a board for those who can't read and you will have to join it. I clearly insinuated blaming state budget models for BSU's poor decision making was amusing. Sheeesh.................................
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Oct 18, 2015 9:53:42 GMT -6
One thing we hear repeated over and over on this board is the need to have patience with our coaches. Why? Is it a common pattern for a coach to lose for three years and then suddenly become good? Have the people advocating patience studied the record of successful coaches and brought us the fruits of some resulting wisdom? No, not at all. It's more wishful thinking, timidty, a mindless repetetion of lame conventional wisdom, and a general loser attitude. The truth is the exact opposite of what they say. Winning coaches who climb the ladder of success win and win early. They don't stop to trouble with excuses and pleas for patience, they just start winning. Maybe some of these coaches walked into a favorable situation at some of their stops, but I'm sure in the majority of cases they had a rebuilding task on their hands. But they still won early. linkHere's a link to a site that has a list of 100 or so successful coaches. You can look up the season records of these coaches as they climbed the ladder. Almost invariable, they won early at every stop. I looked at a dozen or so, and did not find a single example of one who had losing records each of their first three years, at any of their schools, and then eventually ended up being successful. Winning coaches win. That's the obvious lesson. With this pattern being so obvious and so strong, I'd say the onus is on the "patience" people to explain to us why we should expect any other pattern. Certainly our own experiences here at BSU do not suggest patience brings anything other than frustration. The Sherman Three Year Rule for coach evaluation is a strong, evidence-based plan. Patience is for losers. I would agree with the 3 year rule. Not that you need to hit the pinnacle after 3 yr as much as by that 3rd yr you can say yes Coach Whitford is building a respectable foundation and it's showing up a little more in power metrics and our in conference record compared to yrs 1 and 2. Granted as bad as the start had been that's an incrdibly attainable achievement this yr. And barring a rebuilding yr or a rash of injuries to the corps of the team said trend needs to be there years 4 and if applicable 5.
|
|
|
Post by proctorp on Oct 18, 2015 14:25:53 GMT -6
I guess the three year rule does not apply to mediocre football coaches. Agree with the General.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 18, 2015 17:46:53 GMT -6
It does apply. But just because a rule applies doesn't mean people won't break it and suffer the consequences.
Wait...actually, I don't know. Is it as rare in football as it is in basketball that coaches who look bad after three years become good? With the prevalence of red-shirting, maybe it becomes the four year rule. Off the top of my head, maybe it does seem like football coaches take a little bit longer to get traction. After all, football coaches can't utterly transform a program with two or three key recruits like a basketball coach can. I don't know. Somebody else is going to have to come up with the rule for football.
But anyway, since the BSU football program is essentially a bonfire of hundred dollar bills, couldn't just about anyone oversee it adequately? A dream season would just culminate in the Step Fresh Kitty Litter Bowl, and that is just more money down the pit.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Oct 19, 2015 7:55:58 GMT -6
I guess the three year rule does not apply to mediocre football coaches. Agree with the General. If referring to Lembo IMO this is the first season where it's truly fair to consider firing him. Last year was bad but given he just signed a 5 yr extension and he built up at least a little equity in 2013 and 2014 given 2 of the 7 best seasons in school history arguably to make it to this season. 3 yr would have applied to Lembo if he went 6-6, 7-5. 6-6 or something to that effect.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Oct 20, 2015 16:04:06 GMT -6
In fairness, although Stan Parrish was a poor head coach he had an eye for talent and didn't Lembo live off of some of the Parrish recruits??
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 20, 2015 17:10:22 GMT -6
In fairness, although Stan Parrish was a poor head coach he had an eye for talent and didn't Lembo live off of some of the Parrish recruits?? Yes, Pete's success at Bsu so far was with Brady/Stan recruits. Stan seems to have brought in more athletes and play makers than Pete has gotten. I will say Neal, Green, Gilbert, Hogue, Reece, gives Pete a good foundation for His recruiting of skill position players. Unfortunately Pete has not had good success recruiting defensive players. We clearly lack play makers and impact players on that side, especially in the secondary. Patterson was about it there. Couple that with poor defensive coaching and you've got the recipe for what we're going through. Add in an unwillingness to adapt the offense to take full advantage of the talent we have there and you can see why we are struggling.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 20, 2015 17:49:42 GMT -6
Hey! You with the bolts sticking out of your neck. This is the basketball forum.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 20, 2015 18:10:56 GMT -6
Oh, right. Er.... Putin onarrrrrrrrrriiii. (Putting on the Ritz!!!)
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 20, 2015 20:25:55 GMT -6
Yea Sherman has respected our wishes and kept his ramblings on the basketball board. Lets not give him a reason to come bother us. In other basketball news one of our many transfers Marcus Posely was named preseason all A-10 today. We sure could have used him
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 21, 2015 5:56:24 GMT -6
Actually, it was more out of disrespect. The argument against the football program was just too easy to make, and none of the supporters could make a coherent, rational retort. I got bored with the whole topic.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 21, 2015 6:11:36 GMT -6
Actually, it was more out of disrespect. The argument against the football program was just too easy to make, and none of the supporters could make a coherent, rational retort. I got bored with the whole topic. There is no entirely rationale basis for anyone to follow college sports with as much passion as they do. Football may be harder to approach from a rationale basis because it is somehow deeper in the DNA or culture of college life, at least it has been longer a prominent part of the mix of college life. Like it or not, people really care. A lot of the "rational" basis for a basketball program is that we might hope to fill the arena with paying fans, something almost certainly related to the entirely irrational culture that is part of Indiana's history.
|
|