Little pups.

[jacks1]

Re: Little pups.

That's rough when an alumnus turns you down to stay in Terre Haute...

Now that's high quality smack.

[BTownJack]

Re: Little pups.

By gosh...how could this be??? I mean the Summit League is so far superior to the MVC!

[Jackedforlife]

Re: Little pups.

This is interesting. Apparently former player and current ISUb b-ball coach turned down the yappy dogs.

https://twitter.com/tribstartodd/status/981213304046702597?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's rough when an alumnus turns you down to stay in Terre Haute...

[thumper_76]

Re: Little pups.

This is interesting. Apparently former player and current ISUb b-ball coach turned down the yappy dogs.

https://twitter.com/tribstartodd/sta...046702597?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sodakbull]

Re: Little pups.

This discussion has taken some weird turns, especially for a smack thread. We start off smacking USD, a topic-rich target, then we turn the guns on each other and debate imaginary issues. Coyote fans are probably happy because we're not speculating about Matt Mooney's likely grad-transfer out of Vermillion or Austin Hansen's poor career moves.

I'll give it a shot then. I think FWIW that Austin Hansen would be foolish to stay in Vermillion if Smith is willing to bring him along as an assistant. I also think there is a danger for Smith to take Mooney with him as it may be an issue with his new teammates watching him take 30 shots a game like he did in his last few loses as a coyote.

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Little pups.

This discussion has taken some weird turns, especially for a smack thread. We start off smacking USD, a topic-rich target, then we turn the guns on each other and debate imaginary issues. Coyote fans are probably happy because we're not speculating about Matt Mooney's likely grad-transfer out of Vermillion or Austin Hansen's poor career moves.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: Little pups.

Justin Sell has a good track record of hiring the right coach at the right price. He understands what are budget can afford and I trust his judgement. Interesting how some on here advocate for spending beyond low mid major salaries. Easy to say when you don't have to manage a fixed athletic budget. It's not always being "cheap" by being strategic and getting best/price value.

[thumper_76]

Re: Little pups.

Going cheap or going for broke, we can land in NDSU's shoes. The difference is, at the end of the day one of those scenarios means you are broke. There are no guarantees with a new head coach no matter how little or how much they are paid.

Sure, but I bet that was said by a ton of detractors during the move to DI as well.

However, you’re just automatically assuming that we would be paying a coach at a rate that would make the athletic department broke, which is quite a jump from what people were saying. People are saying that’s what it will likely take to either A) keep a great coach or B) take the program up a level. With how our budget for the athletic department has grown, I’m not sure it’s far outside the realm of possibility that we will be able to afford to pay a coach at a rate competitive with high mid majors. Sure there’s no guarantees but being able to hire or keep a coach with a prior list of success at the DI level is going to have a higher success rate than an assistant or lower division coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Little pups.

Reality is in most things in life is you get what you pay for.

But hey, let’s stay cheap and not try to further the program, we’re pretty good now and should be happy about it. Let’s just stay where we’re at and be happy with close losses in the big dance and hope we get a W every ten years or so there. We’re one of two good programs in the Summit, and I’m sure going cheap will never land us in the situation that NDSU is in right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Going cheap or going for broke, we can land in NDSU's shoes. The difference is, at the end of the day one of those scenarios means you are broke. There are no guarantees with a new head coach no matter how little or how much they are paid.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Little pups.

I think the likilihood of hiring a bad coach is much higher under option 2. Not every coach who has a high market value is worth it (see Lane Kiffin), but most are a proven commoditity and have earned that value.

You're making the pitch that we'll be hiring a new coach every four years anyways, so why does it matter?

My guess is the likelihood of making a bad hire goes up quite a bit at the lower salary end than it does at the other.

We have to offer enough to attract a pool of qualified candidates. From what I can see, attracting qualified candidates hasn't been a problem at all at for SDSU or USD.

[thumper_76]

Re: Little pups.

So... the possiblilities are:

We pay a salary in line with the MVC:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

We pay a more modest salary:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

Based on my own experience and anecdotal evidence from hiring, each outcome is equally likely. Based on my observance, college athletics isn't really much different.

Reality is in most things in life is you get what you pay for.

But hey, let’s stay cheap and not try to further the program, we’re pretty good now and should be happy about it. Let’s just stay where we’re at and be happy with close losses in the big dance and hope we get a W every ten years or so there. We’re one of two good programs in the Summit, and I’m sure going cheap will never land us in the situation that NDSU is in right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr_Tibbs]

Re: Little pups.

So... the possiblilities are:

We pay a salary in line with the MVC:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

We pay a more modest salary:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

Based on my own experience and anecdotal evidence from hiring, each outcome is equally likely. Based on my observance, college athletics isn't really much different.

I think the likilihood of hiring a bad coach is much higher under option 2. Not every coach who has a high market value is worth it (see Lane Kiffin), but most are a proven commoditity and have earned that value.

You're making the pitch that we'll be hiring a new coach every four years anyways, so why does it matter?

My guess is the likelihood of making a bad hire goes up quite a bit at the lower salary end than it does at the other.

[Mr_Tibbs]

Re: Little pups.

Did we underpay to get TJ? If we did how did we get him? You pay what you can afford and not the going rate. If we continue to average less than 3,000 fans per game there is a cap on what we can afford. We are getting outdrawn by some of the DII schools in the state. There will always be talented P5 assistants who are looking for that first head coaching job and will come to one of the better mid-major programs. I'm sure Justin also would not be afraid to pursue someone at a lower level with the right pedigree. I'm all for paying what you can afford and then have incentive laden provisions to pay for performance. Most coaches are always going to move on for money, but also for new challenges in a better conference etc...I would argue Wright State was not necessarily a better job or conference, but Nagy had to move out to move up.

No, I wasn't referring to TJ. But we were underpaying Nagy, which is why TJ started at a higher salary than Nagy finished with. Nagy was grandfathered in at a lower rate, and we paid TJ a higher salary because that's what was needed to get him here. Otherwise, he'd be making the same as Nagy was when he left. Do you think he would have accepted at Nagy's last salary? Maybe, it was his first opportunity at a head job. My guess is that we offered higher to begin with because we knew he wouldn't want to start at the same level, or he negotiated the contract for a higher salary.


You may be confused by my "going rate" comment. I'm not implying we shell out 1 million+/year to get the best coach in the country because that's what the big schools are doing. But it does mean that we should be prepared to pay the next guy a competitive salary if our profile continues to rise and we want to gain a competitive edge. And that might be more than TJ makes right now. Or, to change the context, to keep TJ when the next job comes calling. It happened last year with Smith leveraging Drake for more money from USD, and it'll happen to us at some point too.

We are always one bad hire from setting a program back several years. If we aren't prepared to bump up pay to get a proven winner, it could bite us in the ass. There's always the risk of over paying and not seeing results, but that's part of the game, and every school has that same risk.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Little pups.

You let him go and you start over, just like anywhere else.

So... the possiblilities are:

We pay a salary in line with the MVC:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

We pay a more modest salary:

We are fortunate and hire a good coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to success.

We are unfortunate and hire a bad coach, and are out looking for a new coach in a few years due to lack of success.

Based on my own experience and anecdotal evidence from hiring, each outcome is equally likely. Based on my observance, college athletics isn't really much different.

[wcbsas]

Re: Little pups.

Because it doesn't work like that. They only will move on if they do well, and if we underpay and get a mediocre cabdidate, they won't be moving anywhere, until SDSU decides to part ways with them. The market is competitive, and you pay the going rate. SDSU has been getting a steal on their big 3 coaches for years now in a cost vs results comparison to our peers. If we want to stay competitive, it will cost more than we've been accustomed to because we've been able to pay low for the caliber of coaches we've had.

BUT ... there are only so many D1 coaching positions available. Supply and demand ... TJ got turned down by Drake, UW-Milwaukee in formal final interviews and several others in the preliminary discussion stage. He came to SDSU as credentialed as any P5 assistant ... he was on many different "potential head coach" candidate lists. Despite 2 years of good success including two NCAA trips he's not on anyone's hot list at the moment. Heck Porter Moser from Loyola got fired from Illinois State before getting the Loyola job 4 years later. NDSU has had several guys move on to take the next step and for most it has worked out for most.

SDSU probably doesn't have to offer big money because they recognize that they are who they are ... a top tier program in a one-bid league that will have the occasional coaching turnover - voluntarily or involuntarily every 5 years or so.