|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 16, 2023 12:30:03 GMT -6
I think we should all look at this as an audition for Kelly and a chance for him to get some legitimate film. If this staff remains the same Semonza is the guy next year Yep. Kelly is putting tape out there for his next school because I am convinced Neu will go right back to Semonza next year. IMO A LOT depends on if Neu is retained. If he is I think Kelly will have no choice but to bounce. If Neu is retained Semonza will be the qb. I’d be stunned if he’s not. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 16, 2023 13:35:13 GMT -6
I think we should all look at this as an audition for Kelly and a chance for him to get some legitimate film. If this staff remains the same Semonza is the guy next year Yep... IMO A LOT depends on if Neu is retained. If he is I think Kelly will have no choice but to bounce. If Neu is retained Semonza will be the qb. I’d be stunned if he’s not Who can predict which players return? Semonza and others easily could be gone. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 16, 2023 14:19:08 GMT -6
I have a fairly accurate magic 8 ball
|
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Oct 17, 2023 7:07:52 GMT -6
The huge payout is a testament to the lack of judgement that runs through the powers that be in Muncie.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 17, 2023 7:31:07 GMT -6
The huge payout is a testament to the lack of judgement that runs through the powers that be in Muncie. It's really just part of what makes CFB so expensive. Every coaching hire is expensive and all have long contract terms. You decide to extend as is common, and if it doesn't workout... You don't extend and you enter another expensive lottery lose a coach that's been a success and make another risky hire. Hindsight when you regret a hire makes it seem worse, an unnecessary mistake, but c'mon we bought a coach with no experience, no staff, for a reason. Hoped to save money, guess right. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 17, 2023 7:34:47 GMT -6
I suppose the whole system of buyouts can benefit a program that consistently picks good coaches and can lead to a windfall when a coach moves up the ladder to a bigger program.
However our administration, shall we say, does NOT have a history of picking good coaches and thus the buyouts become a huge diarrheatic albatross hanging around the neck of the program.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 17, 2023 10:58:47 GMT -6
I suppose the whole system of buyouts can benefit a program that consistently picks good coaches and can lead to a windfall when a coach moves up the ladder to a bigger program. However our administration, shall we say, does NOT have a history of picking good coaches and thus the buyouts become a huge diarrheatic albatross hanging around the neck of the program. It is possible, but those consistently successful AD's aren't just smarter than the rest, they have more resources. Pick a MAC school that is consistently "good at picking" and you find they pay more, have more money for assistants, often just had a successful coaches leave, and give the incoming coach a cupboard not usually bare. The rich get richer in a pool like the MAC with a significant difference between the bottom dwellers, the consistent top schools, with large variation for the middling schools.
There was a fairly short period of time when BSU was closer to the top. When cardfan talks about schools "at our level" finding resources, he's partially right. BUT only for SOME of the MAC schools is that a reasonable assumption. I can't think of a hire in decades we've had in a buyout or otherwise where we were found funding to do it "right." Assuming funding a top MAC FB program is in fact the "right" choice. To be middling we have usually hurt other programs, sometimes for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by coastalcard on Oct 17, 2023 12:18:49 GMT -6
I can’t get past diarrheatic albatross…..
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 17, 2023 13:30:58 GMT -6
I suppose the whole system of buyouts can benefit a program that consistently picks good coaches and can lead to a windfall when a coach moves up the ladder to a bigger program. However our administration, shall we say, does NOT have a history of picking good coaches and thus the buyouts become a huge diarrheatic albatross hanging around the neck of the program. It is possible, but those consistently successful AD's aren't just smarter than the rest, they have more resources. Pick a MAC school that is consistently "good at picking" and you find they pay more, have more money for assistants, often just had a successful coaches leave, and give the incoming coach a cupboard not usually bare. The rich get richer in a pool like the MAC with a significant difference between the bottom dwellers, the consistent top schools, with large variation for the middling schools.
There was a fairly short period of time when BSU was closer to the top. When cardfan talks about schools "at our level" finding resources, he's partially right. BUT only for SOME of the MAC schools is that a reasonable assumption. I can't think of a hire in decades we've had in a buyout or otherwise where we were found funding to do it "right." Assuming funding a top MAC FB program is in fact the "right" choice. To be middling we have usually hurt other programs, sometimes for a long time.
Toledo Ohio Miami never too many monetary issues... WMU never an issue with football monies would dropp everything to continue football |
|
|
|
Post by cbcjanney on Oct 17, 2023 13:58:16 GMT -6
I suppose the whole system of buyouts can benefit a program that consistently picks good coaches and can lead to a windfall when a coach moves up the ladder to a bigger program. However our administration, shall we say, does NOT have a history of picking good coaches and thus the buyouts become a huge diarrheatic albatross hanging around the neck of the program. It is possible, but those consistently successful AD's aren't just smarter than the rest, they have more resources. Pick a MAC school that is consistently "good at picking" and you find they pay more, have more money for assistants, often just had a successful coaches leave, and give the incoming coach a cupboard not usually bare. The rich get richer in a pool like the MAC with a significant difference between the bottom dwellers, the consistent top schools, with large variation for the middling schools.
There was a fairly short period of time when BSU was closer to the top. When cardfan talks about schools "at our level" finding resources, he's partially right. BUT only for SOME of the MAC schools is that a reasonable assumption. I can't think of a hire in decades we've had in a buyout or otherwise where we were found funding to do it "right." Assuming funding a top MAC FB program is in fact the "right" choice. To be middling we have usually hurt other programs, sometimes for a long time.
Would Toledo, Miami, Ohio, and WMU be considered the big spenders in the MAC?? I don't know what level of funding that CMU has for assistants and overall resources but their level of success seems like it would hit the satisfaction mark at BSU. They clearly don't have any geographic location advantages over other MAC schools. Last 20 seasons CMU = 124W - 118L. 5 coaches in that span, 2 which moved up, first to Cincy, then to Power 5. They've won at least 8 games 7x out of 20. Four bowl wins in eleven appearances. Four seasons with 3 or less wins NIU is similar but slightly better over last 20 seasons = 134W - 105L. Again 5 coaches, 3 who left for greener pastures with 2 landing Power 5 gigs. At least 8 wins 10 times. Three bowl wins though with 10 bowl losses. Just two seasons with 3 or less wins. Hitting the success rate of a CMU would at least put us squarely in the middle of the MAC with more occasional "big years" to be enjoyed than "dud years". |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 17, 2023 14:11:48 GMT -6
Yep. Others like EMU, NIU have had a windfall here and there and burn money then.
We belong in the MAC as educational institutions and in most athletics. We have overcome funding issues and managed budgets there very well. There just isn't the revenue to catch up to the top schools in FB though. The pinch is hitting all of the schools and isn't getting better for anyone. Sooner rather than later it will catch up to the conference. We're along for that ride, it looks.
By and large I like that when we have had money we or the donors want it spent on facilities and improving the lot of athletes. That gives us baseline support that we can maintain. The escalation in staff salary expense, the MAC-wide decline in gate revenue, absence of media rights income, has changed the landscape. Especially compared to the top few second tier programs in FBS. I don't think any MAC schools qualify as top tier mid major.
Of course our market is massively different than any P5 program, even the bottom feeders. We pay staff much more like top 1/3 FCS schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 17, 2023 15:32:55 GMT -6
Niu no monies but what they do have most goes to football. EMU 1 Gigantic donor. Western a few very big football only donors... Ball state really does as Best it can to at least try and evenly distribute money. Football of course gets more but not to extreme as above
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 17, 2023 15:36:59 GMT -6
Toledo and WMU far and away big spendors and its not close.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 17, 2023 15:38:54 GMT -6
Both could go better G5 con and not suffer. Most of the rest of us would die
|
|
