|
Post by hookem1 on Mar 20, 2024 14:29:28 GMT -5
Most of what everyone is saying makes sense. But is Washington really limiting themselves recruiting-wise based on academics? It’s on the same level as Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and some others who don’t let that significantly impact their athletic recruits.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 20, 2024 14:43:05 GMT -5
Most of what everyone is saying makes sense. But is Washington really limiting themselves recruiting-wise based on academics? It’s on the same level as Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and some others who don’t let that significantly impact their athletic recruits. I don't think academics plays a role, at least for Football recruiting, for pretty much any major D1 program. Dannen's job didn't come down to athlete recruiting being easier at Nebraska than Washington. That just doesn't matter for the AD role. If I had a guess, If Dannen could make similar (or better) money, Nebraska AD is just an easier job - I mean, the football program has had losing seasons in 8 of the past 10 years and BOTH AD's during that time frame actually had to QUIT rather than be fired. Also, some people prefer a midwest lifestyle, Dannen is from there. Some insiders mention he had some internal conflict at Washington despite his short stint, not sure if that played a role or not, but perhaps. In any case, I just don't think this is that big of a deal. Washington has plenty of money to recruit quality staff to run the organization. Whether or not that manifests into results on the field is an entirely different question. We've all seen programs with far fewer resources and departments and coaches making a fraction of what some of the bigger programs make end up putting quality teams on the field and giving their fans quality experiences, and on the flip side we see programs like USC throw tons of money at coaches for middling results or Texas A&M whose boosters wasted 75 MILLION dollars to FIRE their underperforming coach. I think universities spending money on particular athletes may pay off for results on the field, I'm not convinced that schools paying obscene amounts of money for admin and coaches see a return on that investment on the field.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 20, 2024 15:01:31 GMT -5
Most importantly, I hope this continues to give everyone - not just Husky fans - plenty of pause as it comes to the commitment of college athletics. There is plenty of carouseling going around in college sports, from admin to coaches to players. There may be people out there that actually have loyalty and mean what they say, but until proven otherwise, I'm going to operate under the assumption that, despite what these talking heads say in their interviews and puff pieces etc., I'm going to believe that they are only doing what they are doing for themselves and everything else they are saying about the program or community is fleeting, at best, and, at worse disingenuousness / a lie to placate those that are listening.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Mar 20, 2024 15:15:12 GMT -5
I find it a little odd that Dannen whacked the men's basketball coach on March 8th. Doesn't it seem likely that Dannen was already having discussions with Nebraska?
Not suggesting that Hopkins deserved another year, just seems peculiar that a guy with one foot out the door is making that kind of decision.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 20, 2024 15:18:11 GMT -5
As for what it means for Washington, at least in the short term, I'm unphased. Other than finding a quality basketball coach, I don't think this is going to matter. As what happened when Washington picked up Dannen (which was just last year out of Tulane), I'm sure there are a number of quality AD's out there looking at opportunities to be at a deep pocketed Power 4 school in the Big 10. There is untapped talent everywhere and I'd much rather Washington be a program that makes smart money decisions with the knowledge that money for admin and coaching is NOT a guarantee for success rather than having a reputation of just overpaying a bunch of money for otherwise proven admins and coaches at other big money schools and hoping things turn out well when they move to Washington.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 20, 2024 15:41:17 GMT -5
I find it a little odd that Dannen whacked the men's basketball coach on March 8th. Doesn't it seem likely that Dannen was already having discussions with Nebraska? Not suggesting that Hopkins deserved another year, just seems peculiar that a guy with one foot out the door is making that kind of decision. There may have been a few key behind the scene people in the know who knew Alberts was leaving and needed to try and find a replacement on the big hush, however Trev Alberts didn't announce he was leaving Nebraska until last week (after Dannen fired Hopkins) and it was a surprise to many in the Nebraska administration, so I dunno how likely this is. Either way, Washington has made 1 NCAA tournament in the last 7 years. Hopkins had to go.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 20, 2024 20:07:48 GMT -5
There is plenty of carouseling going around in college sports, from admin to coaches to players. There may be people out there that actually have loyalty and mean what they say, but until proven otherwise, I'm going to operate under the assumption that, despite what these talking heads say in their interviews and puff pieces etc., I'm going to believe that they are only doing what they are doing for themselves and everything else they are saying about the program or community is fleeting, at best, and, at worse disingenuousness / a lie to placate those that are listening. Either way, Washington has made 1 NCAA tournament in the last 7 years. Hopkins had to go. So loyalty should only go one way?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 20, 2024 20:23:36 GMT -5
There is plenty of carouseling going around in college sports, from admin to coaches to players. There may be people out there that actually have loyalty and mean what they say, but until proven otherwise, I'm going to operate under the assumption that, despite what these talking heads say in their interviews and puff pieces etc., I'm going to believe that they are only doing what they are doing for themselves and everything else they are saying about the program or community is fleeting, at best, and, at worse disingenuousness / a lie to placate those that are listening. Either way, Washington has made 1 NCAA tournament in the last 7 years. Hopkins had to go. So loyalty should only go one way? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Hopkins simply wasn't not doing good enough for Washington basketball, so the fact that Washington no longer wanted him shouldn't come as a surprise REGARDLESS of the AD. However, if I were the AD, I would have kept Hopkins for one more year and told him we weren't renewing. We owe him the money anyway and it would have given the administration a buffer to find a replacement while already having a year of Big 10 adjustments under the programs belt - THAT, IMO, would be "loyalty", let him finish out the contract but do everything possible (above board) to secure a strong replacement for continuity of the program.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 20, 2024 20:35:16 GMT -5
So loyalty should only go one way? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Hopkins simply wasn't not doing good enough for Washington basketball, so the fact that Washington no longer wanted him shouldn't come as a surprise REGARDLESS of the AD. However, if I were the AD, I would have kept Hopkins for one more year and told him we weren't renewing. We owe him the money anyway and it would have given the administration a buffer to find a replacement while already having a year of Big 10 adjustments under the programs belt - THAT, IMO, would be "loyalty", let him finish out the contract but do everything possible (above board) to secure a strong replacement for continuity of the program. Conventional wisdom is that if you tell someone you are going to fire them, they aren't really motivated to do a great job for you while they are waiting to be fired. Although, possibly that wisdom is incorrect. Certainly in pro sports, athletes seem to be extra motivated in their "free agent year".
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Mar 20, 2024 22:54:56 GMT -5
I said "we're at a disadvantage when it comes to matching 'athletic' salaries," not because I think we should throw money at the issue, but because we're getting "Pac-12 money," and will continue to get "Pac-12 money" in the Big Ten for some time, to fund our athletics. Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, USC, and UCLA are getting twice the money than we are. Oregon, which will also get half-money, has Phil McKnight's money.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 20, 2024 22:57:15 GMT -5
I said "we're at a disadvantage when it comes to matching 'athletic' salaries," not because I think we should throw money at the issue, but because we're getting "Pac-12 money," and will continue to get "Pac-12 money" in the Big Ten for some time, to fund our athletics. Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, USC, and UCLA are getting twice the money than we are. Oregon, which will also get half-money, has Phil McKnight's money. Oregon doesn’t pay coaches exorbitantly. Uncle Phil’s money primarily goes to facilities and institutional things.
|
|
|
Post by hanmertime on Mar 21, 2024 0:10:45 GMT -5
Addition through subtraction. AD situation.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 21, 2024 0:32:27 GMT -5
I said "we're at a disadvantage when it comes to matching 'athletic' salaries," not because I think we should throw money at the issue, but because we're getting "Pac-12 money," and will continue to get "Pac-12 money" in the Big Ten for some time, to fund our athletics. Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, USC, and UCLA are getting twice the money than we are. Oregon, which will also get half-money, has Phil McKnight's money. To be clear, most of the schools you mention are getting twice as much TV revenue. Athletic departments have multiple sources of revenue to pull from. Sure, outsized TV revenue helps throw a lot more money at non-football related activities, which can be hard to compete with (see Keegan Cook and Minnesota) but eventually we'll have excess funds to do the same (though I hope we are smarter about the money). Also, we are only talking about a handful of schools that actually make more make more money than Washington and are willing to spend it on outsized admin/coaches salaries, so as long as those specific programs don't have openings, Washington isn't likely to be poached. In terms of the donor pool, Washington is no slouch - there is plenty of money in the greater Seattle alumni sphere. Of the future Big 10 programs, Washington donors ranked 5th, only behind Phil Knight University, Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State (https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-sports-top-donors-ranking-the-most-generous-athletics-boosters-214986422/#2225305) Like I said earlier, the only recent departure of the program that the University should have went higher on was Jen Cohen. Apparently people think USC is a more prestigious job, but IMO that's a baby boomer thing and as that donor class and the talking heads on ESPN die, so will the prestige of USC football/athletics - people don't even go to the games, even when the team is seemingly doing well. Re Deboer, Washington just isn't in a position to compete against Alabama Football, and IMO, we never should be, at least not when it comes to the money spent. The amount of money that gets thrown around in the south over something as inconsequential as college football is absolutely ridiculous. Re Cook, Volleyball isn't important enough and Keegan Cook just isn't a strong enough recruiter to have warranted doubling his salary. I'm not sure Washington's record and recruiting would have looked all that different this past year and this upcoming year with Cook v. Gabriel, however the school is paying far less for Gabriel than what Minnesota had to pony up for Cook. Re Dannen, Washington was his first Ad job at a big time athletics program, If Nebraska wanted to take a gamble by paying him more, I say good riddance and good luck. And this isn't a knock on any of these people, I just have a hard time believing that a well resourced program like Washington can't find and groom new blood to do the job, and at a much better value, rather than just throwing a bunch of money to try and convince people to stay - especially Dannen, who was barely even at Washington.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Mar 21, 2024 0:32:33 GMT -5
Most likely: AD to Nebraska: $500k pay bump and lower academics makes easier recruiting; DeBoer: Core of UW team graduating and a marquee program wanted him; Cohen: Changes in personal life made it a good time to start over and much more$; Cook: Uncertainty about future if the Pac12 Add a ton more money for DeBoer AND a much lower cost of living and less travel playing in the SEC, also add in a lot more money for Cook than Washington was willing to pay for womens volleyball. From this list, the only real loss, IMO, was Cohen, Washington should have done everything to keep her, everyone else, let them go - IMO, the money wasn't worth what they brought to the program. I'd much have a carousel of coaches that are appropriately paid for what they bring to the program, rather than being one of those programs that just throws obscene amounts of money around without anything to show for it. UW's last offer to DeBoer was $9.4m per year (which he did not respond to). His contract at Bama is $10m, so in that stratosphere, not really a ton more money.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 21, 2024 1:00:00 GMT -5
Add a ton more money for DeBoer AND a much lower cost of living and less travel playing in the SEC, also add in a lot more money for Cook than Washington was willing to pay for womens volleyball. From this list, the only real loss, IMO, was Cohen, Washington should have done everything to keep her, everyone else, let them go - IMO, the money wasn't worth what they brought to the program. I'd much have a carousel of coaches that are appropriately paid for what they bring to the program, rather than being one of those programs that just throws obscene amounts of money around without anything to show for it. UW's last offer to DeBoer was $9.4m per year (which he did respond to). His contract at Bama is $10m, so in that stratosphere, not really a ton more money. DeBoer stands to make a sizable amount more at Alabama. The UW offer came out to 66 million over 7 years with somewhere about 75% of it guaranteed if he was fired without cause, whereas Alabama's contract is 87 million over 8 years with 90% of it guaranteed. That is a pretty sizable difference over the long run. In addition, Alabama committed to at least 9 million+ for on field assistant salaries, which is 2 million more per year than Washington currently pays. UW came in hard, for sure, but we are talking about an athletic department spending millions more in coaching salaries every year, to live in...checks notes, middle of nowhere Alabama. There is going to be a lot more money in Deboer and his assistants pockets at the end of the year than if he stayed at Washington. Now, whether or not it was actually a good move will remain to be seen. Personally, I think coaching at Washington would have been A LOT less stressful and the large, albeit reduced salary, would have probably been worth it. Washington fans are perfectly ok NOT being in the national semi-finals every year, the same cannot be said of Alabama. The horror stories coming out the South when teams lose games, yikes....heck some crazy person called into a sports talk radio show talking about a hitman to takeout Fischer at A&M. The south really do love Football, and sure it comes with a lot of money but it also comes with a lot of stress and high (sometimes crazy) expectation fans. I sure hope Deboer can keep Alabama at the top, for his sanity and, more importantly, his safety.
|
|