Crickets.....

[ficoho]

Ron Zook was an amazing recruiter and brought nothing to the X's and O's of the team. With Hoke as HC we have a slightly better version of Ron Zook, and one could argue that it's the fact that he has the Michigan brand name behind him that makes Hoke slightly better.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

Ron Zook was an amazing recruiter and brought nothing to the X's and O's of the team. With Hoke as HC we have a slightly better version of Ron Zook, and one could argue that it's the fact that he has the Michigan brand name behind him that makes Hoke slightly better.

And Zook was at least given a chance to prove otherwise. You might be right, Hoke might only be a better version of Ron Zook, but before we can really tell he needs at least 4 (maybe 5) years. Worst case scenario though is Hoke will set up the next guy for success with his recruiting.

 

[jalopy]

And Zook was at least given a chance to prove otherwise. You might be right, Hoke might only be a better version of Ron Zook, but before we can really tell he needs at least 4 (maybe 5) years. Worst case scenario though is Hoke will set up the next guy for success with his recruiting.

No, the worst case scenario is the next coach isn't half the coach that Urban Meyer is.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

No, the worst case scenario is the next coach isn't half the coach that Urban Meyer is.

The problem is that we need to just spend the money - and for some reason, we haven't. Even with RR, we hired a guy that was on the outs with his current program, had this radical offense and entire shift in ideology. We don't need to do that. Go out, spend $8 million bucks and get one of the best head coaches in the country. End of story. To quote our current HC, "we're Michigan fergodsakes".

At minimum, we should be able to do that with any offensive coordinator we want. If Hoke isn't going to take responsibility of the offense, he needs to find a guy that's basically head coach caliber to lead that side of the ball.

 

[jalopy]

The problem is that we need to just spend the money - and for some reason, we haven't. Even with RR, we hired a guy that was on the outs with his current program, had this radical offense and entire shift in ideology. We don't need to do that. Go out, spend $8 million bucks and get one of the best head coaches in the country. End of story. To quote our current HC, "we're Michigan fergodsakes".

At minimum, we should be able to do with with any offensive coordinator we want. If Hoke isn't going to take responsibility of the offense, he needs to find a guy that's basically head coach caliber to lead that side of the ball.

I've had this conversation with our past AD and it is the only major area I side with the athletic department over the educational side. Mary Sue feels that the financials will only be hindered if we spend more on a coach and the revenue is unaffected by winning. Delaney has done such a good job that it almost seems as if the B1G has de-emphasized winning.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

I've had this conversation with our past AD and it is the only major area I side with the athletic department over the educational side. Mary Sue feels that the financials will only be hindered if we spend more on a coach and the revenue is unaffected by winning. Delaney has done such a good job that it almost seems as if the B1G has de-emphasized winning.

How exactly will spending a lot of money on a coach effect the financials of the education side of Michigan? The athletic department is financially separate from the rest of the university. It makes and spends it's own money, and it makes a lot of money.

 

[jalopy]

How exactly will spending a lot of money on a coach effect the financials of the education side of Michigan? The athletic department is financially separate from the rest of the university. It makes and spends it's own money, and it makes a lot of money.

Where do you come up with this stuff? The athletic department budget must be approved by the board of regents. The athletic department runs a surplus ($8.9MM forecast for '13-14) but it is absolutely not financially independent from the university. It doesn't sound like you understand what that means. A contract for a head football coach would have to be approved by the same board of regents.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

Where do you come up with this stuff? The athletic department budget must be approved by the board of regents. The athletic department runs a surplus ($8.9MM forecast for '13-14) but it is absolutely not financially independent from the university. It doesn't sound like you understand what that means. A contract for a head football coach would have to be approved by the same board of regents.

Dave Brandon debunks top myths about Michigan's athletic department

Although most university athletic departments lose money —105 of the 127 Division I schools that report their finances lost money last year— U-M's department is part of the minority that turn profits each year. The school's lucrative football and basketball programs bring in the money needed to finance the athletic department's $135 million budget.

I could ask you where you come up with your statements, because to be frank, a lot of it sounds like you are talking out of your ass. Yes, they need to go to the regents to get approval of the budget, but that budget doesn't take a dime from the general university fund. And the profit sports (football, basketball and to a lesser extent hockey) make more than enough money to pay top dollar for a head coach and his staff. So again I ask you, how exactly is money a concern here?

 

[jalopy]

I give up. You just don't understand what you are talking about. I have a five year old with a better grasp. It it's irrelevant whether the athletic department its in the black. It will never be financially independent of the university. At the current time, the athletic department is not supported financially but it is still a part of the overall financial pie and, as such, all financial decisions are controlled by the university s board of regent. The university could choose to squeeze the athletic department for a larger capital contribution if it chose to. More to the point, the board off regent could choose how much to pay the head football coach, and they do.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Where do you come up with this stuff? The athletic department budget must be approved by the board of regents. The athletic department runs a surplus ($8.9MM forecast for '13-14) but it is absolutely not financially independent from the university. It doesn't sound like you understand what that means. A contract for a head football coach would have to be approved by the same board of regents.

I think what he means is that it's financially self supportive; meaning no academic money is used to support the Athletic Department. Which is different than most Universities around the country who do use academic funds to support athletics. You are right in that the regents must approve all the spending the AD does and is the same governing entity over all aspects of the University but for most purposes it's an independent entity from the academic side of things -- other than who approves the budget.

If the AD stopped existing, the money would go away with it. There wouldn't be a surplus to use on academics. The regents could choose to scalp money off the Athletic Department to pay for anything they want but the unit itself is self sufficient but It's still a University unit. And if they started scraping money away, eventually there would be less and less money to take because the unit would start to fail and need money from the academic unit to support itself.

 

[jalopy]

I think what he means is that it's financially self supportive; meaning no academic money is used to support the Athletic Department. You are right in that the regents must approve all the spending the AD does and is the same governing entity over all aspects of the University but for most purposes it's an independent entity from the academic side of things -- other than who approves the budget.

If the AD stopped existing, the money would go away with it. There wouldn't be a surplus to use on academics.

The claim was the university had no control or voice in how much a head coach is paid because the athletic department is autonomous. That claim is 100% false.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

The claim was the university had no control or voice in how much a head coach is paid because the athletic department is autonomous. That claim is 100% false.

True. However, it's in the best interest of the University to keep the Athletic Department self sufficient. If they fail, there's a possibility that they'll need Academic funds to exist. Which means, it may be in their best interest to let the AD spend the money it needs to spend on coaches to continue charging people $100 a ticket to watch a game so that their budget continues to be in the black.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

The claim was the university had no control or voice in how much a head coach is paid because the athletic department is autonomous. That claim is 100% false.

No, now you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that there is no money flow from the athletic department to/from the rest of the university. Yes the president and board of regents have final say on a coach's salary, but you made it sound like they are hesitant to pay big bucks because it would take money away from academics. Which since we've established that there is a firewall between the athletic department and the general fund, it is not an actual problem.

So once again I ask you, why is money a concern?

 

[jalopy]

No, now you are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that there is no money flow from the athletic department to/from the rest of the university. Yes the president and board of regents have final say on a coach's salary, but you made it sound like they are hesitant to pay big bucks because it would take money away from academics. Which since we've established that there is a firewall between the athletic department and the general fund, it is not an actual problem.

So once again I ask you, why is money a concern?

I will go in reverse;
My original point was in voicing frustration that the university viewed paying additional monies to coaches as unnecessary and wasteful. Money isn't a concern. The ROI is the debate. My feeling is that spending top dollars for a top coach CAN be a wise investment and yield a very good return. Certainly the ROI on Hoke has been a disaster. Ask local business owners how they feel about Michigan's Football program right now.

As for the lack of money flow, you are partially correct. Currently, the only transfer of capital annually is $2MM from the AD to the General Fund for scholarships. The AD is run similar to a not for profit entity. Despite a small "profit", the capital remains with the AD for re-investment (capital improvements, debt service,etc.)

Currently, the AD has approximately $240MM of debt on its books which it services as part of expenses. However, as Brandon notes, the AD is not a business model that any sane person would invest in (paraphrase). As such, that debt is guaranteed by the university because without it, the cost to borrow would be prohibitive. That is a significant financial relationship.

Now, if Hoke were fired by Brandon tomorrow, the AD would not have the funds within the budget to hire a new coach and would need to go to BoR to get approval to hire a new coach despite having the available funds. This is where the head scratching part kicks in. The BoR refuses to go over a certain amount and deems it as excessive despite the fact that boosters will often kick in the costs to cover the difference. Part of it has to do with being a public university and the obligations that involves. Back to my original question. Why hire Hoke instead of offering a blank check to Harbaugh or Miles? His answer? Authorization for a new HC was capped at xxxxx amount.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Well, USC is now taking the right approach:

Is Kevin Sumlin a coaching fit for the USC Trojans? - College Football - ESPN

How serious are the Trojans? One industry source told me this week that USC is willing to extend an offer of up to $6 million a year to get its man. Yes, that’s more than Nick Saban makes (for now).

That's just how it needs to be done today.

 

[jalopy]

Well, USC is now taking the right approach:

Is Kevin Sumlin a coaching fit for the USC Trojans? - College Football - ESPN



That's just how it needs to be done today.

That's the neighborhood Michigan needs to play in if they want to compete.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

I will go in reverse;
My original point was in voicing frustration that the university viewed paying additional monies to coaches as unnecessary and wasteful. Money isn't a concern. The ROI is the debate. My feeling is that spending top dollars for a top coach CAN be a wise investment and yield a very good return. Certainly the ROI on Hoke has been a disaster. Ask local business owners how they feel about Michigan's Football program right now.

As for the lack of money flow, you are partially correct. Currently, the only transfer of capital annually is $2MM from the AD to the General Fund for scholarships. The AD is run similar to a not for profit entity. Despite a small "profit", the capital remains with the AD for re-investment (capital improvements, debt service,etc.)

Currently, the AD has approximately $240MM of debt on its books which it services as part of expenses. However, as Brandon notes, the AD is not a business model that any sane person would invest in (paraphrase). As such, that debt is guaranteed by the university because without it, the cost to borrow would be prohibitive. That is a significant financial relationship.

Now, if Hoke were fired by Brandon tomorrow, the AD would not have the funds within the budget to hire a new coach and would need to go to BoR to get approval to hire a new coach despite having the available funds. This is where the head scratching part kicks in. The BoR refuses to go over a certain amount and deems it as excessive despite the fact that boosters will often kick in the costs to cover the difference. Part of it has to do with being a public university and the obligations that involves. Back to my original question. Why hire Hoke instead of offering a blank check to Harbaugh or Miles? His answer? Authorization for a new HC was capped at xxxxx amount.

That assumes that Miles (who is vastly overrated as a headcoach and I will take Hoke over Miles) or Harbaugh were willing to come to Michigan in the first place. It is a fair bet that no matter the money offered Harbaugh would have still gone to the NFL and Miles would have stayed at LSU. I really doubt there is some kind of cap on head coach salary.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

And oh, for a team that is leaderless and the head coaching spot, they showed a lot of grit and determination in that Northwestern game. It would have been easy to fold on the game (and by extension the rest of the season) going into the second half, but they fought it out. I'm sorry, but to me that speaks volumes about the team and their head coach.