Coaching Carosel: Pay for Performance?

[RamJamFan]

Sports writer Paul Woody in today's RTD says college presidents should apply the same failed economic prinicples of price controls that past US President's have pursued in attempts to manipulate life as they wish it was, not as it actually is. Whether you agree or disagree with Woody, I encourage you to read his comments:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/columnists/article/WOOD01_20091031-223204/302992/

I believe comrade Woody's comments sound like change you might want to believe in, but that they are actually based on one part frustration, one part envy, and one part wishful thinking. Only Obama's pay Czar's are as misguided.

Several years ago the RTD wrote a column something to effect of concluding Grant was gone because VCU wouldn't/couldn't keep him because they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't pay him. This was before VCU rightfully upped his salary to close to $900k with perks.

Irritated by the signular doom and gloom nature of the article, I responded with an editorial to tweak some additional thinking on the subject, and counter the RTD's kiss-Grant-good-bye tone at that time [long before Alabama]. The RTD published the editorital, as reprinted here:

Coaching Carousel Not Only Option at VCU

Sports Editor:
Must VCU be resigned to a revolving-door fate for its men’s basketball coaches? The newspaper’s coverage has suggested that is VCU’s only option.
What if every penny of a typical year’s ticket and broadcast revenue is signed over to one guy? Why should anyone care if 10 percent of VCU’s entire athletic budget of $11 million is paid to one head coach if the school and community think that person is worth it—and payment reflects fair market for his/her value?
These questions weren’t addressed because the conclusion was already reached that no one is worth 10 percent of the budget. Is this because the free market price is wrong? Or is it because the budget can’t be applied as desired by university officials or alumni interests because of the ongoing influence of social engineers—via lawsuits—and so-called equality clauses between men’s and women’s funding?
In a two-hour span at the end of the NCAA tournament basketball game between VCU and Duke, VCU’s web site got more than 600,000 hits. The other sports don’t attract that level of interest to VCU—no matter how many games the volleyball, soccer, field hockey, golf (or you name it) team wins.
VCU can’t magically increase its budget to offer more funding to women’s (or men’s) lesser-attended sports, so what if VCU alumni and officials decide other sports need to take a lesser role in order to move men’s basketball forward?
Would leadership suggest other sports could be eliminated? James Madison did it. Will students suddenly stop attending JMU? Will JMU be removed from the CAA? Don’t bet on either happening.
So, why can’t VCU align its budget to reflect the market rate to retain its men’s basketball coaches? While the social engineers are gnashing their teeth at the thought of a university embracing free market principles (such as James Madison’s approach) can someone please explain to readers in more detail what the true options are?
If VCU wants to pay fair-market values to keep a coach it likes, why not let it? Intramural sports, anyone?
RamJamFan
Midlothian

I no longer send editorials to the RTD, but I am interested in hearing what RamNation folks think of this topic--both Woody's comments and mine? This issue is a major one if VCU wants to become the force I beleive it can be in college basketball. A force that will not happen with social engineering leading he way, unless a mega donor steps forward.

 

[RamJamFan]

I would greatly apprecaite some honest feedback. I am not advocating we eliminate non-revenue sports but I am advocating they take priority based on economics, not politically correct interests.

I believe when Grant left VCU went from top compensentation in the CAA for men's basketball coach to middle of the pack.

If we know we're constantly in the hunt for top recruits and know those recruits are being told by competing schools "don't go to VCU because you don't know how long their coach is going to be there", do we think this is real? If so, suggestions?

 

[ramnation]

I would greatly apprecaite some honest feedback. I am not advocating we eliminate non-revenue sports but I am advocating they take priority based on economics, not politically correct interests.

I believe when Grant left VCU went from top compensentation in the CAA for men's basketball coach to middle of the pack.

If we know we're constantly in the hunt for top recruits and know those recruits are being told by competing schools "don't go to VCU because you don't know how long their coach is going to be there", do we think this is real? If so, suggestions?

Hard to argue with that point. The only thing being even if we pay Shaka 750,00-850,000 bucks a year from the get-go, we are still no more guaranteed to keep him then if we pay him 350K a year. First off, he's an unproven head coach, so we have no reason to pay him that salary until we know he can get it done on the court. Shaka hasn't stayed anywhere long enough to warrant the idea that he's gonna be here any longer than our last couple of coaches. Watch the RamNation interview of Coach Smart. He's obviously a very wise, intelligent guy and he tried to measure his words carefully, but his views on the whole coaching thing came out. He said that Coach Grant and Coach Capel had a tremendous amount of success at VCU, and they were 'rewarded' for that. His exact words. You don't think Shaka wants that same reward? Coaching in a major conference? Talking about the conference disparity against some of our recruiting targets also is telling.

At the end of the day, it's frustrating that you're probably working doubly as hard as a CAA coach trying to get the attention of these fringe major college prospects and then having a BCS school swoop in and take em away in a week just based off their conference affiliation. We all but had Reggie Johnson committed to VCU except for the fact that Miami was in the ACC and Reggie knew what most of us wouldn't accept or believe; that Grant was going to be gone long before Reggie finished at VCU. Everyone of these young, great coaches wants to be the best and play the best and beat the best. At the end of the day, after a couple of years of beating CAA competition, a great, young, mobile coach will naturally want more. That is what we have to address if we want to keep great coaches at VCU. Throwing money at them won't do anything. We have to build the VCU brand like Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler etc. have.

 

[RamJamFan]

At the end of the day, after a couple of years of beating CAA competition, a great, young, mobile coach will naturally want more. That is what we have to address if we want to keep great coaches at VCU. Throwing money at them won't do anything. We have to build the VCU brand like Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler etc. have.

Well said, and I agree. Your comments on schools are excellent [and we could add other conferences/schools such as Houston, Memphsis [Conf. USA] and other schools]. My point is I have resolved the CAA is the place for VCU, and remain excited about building it.

I struggle with compensation. I am fully behind AD strategy of gettting the young up-and-comers. Only other tweak I can think of is expanding incentive pay for performance while making sure we tie academics/graduation into it. Assuming academcis are met, if Smart wins CAA regular season title, tournament and get's VCU into NCAA with a first round win I would hope we would shoot up his base to $500k to $600k after first year--and do so quickly. And if he does it the following year take him to $800k to $1M.

The comments recruits make is "VCU is a winning program". If we keep doing above and still lose Smart, then so be it. We will continue to be winners and attract winners, for the next coach--who will be excellent.

This cycle is fine but being a consistent top 20 program requires recruiting consistency and quality. We have quality, but no consistency.

 

[MarcusNation]

Watch the RamNation interview of Coach Smart.

That was my favorite part.

 

[ramnation]

Watch the RamNation interview of Coach Smart.

That was my favorite part.

Heck, watch all of the RamNation videos. The production quality is through the roof. VCURamNation is certainly the envy of the CAA as far as a fan site goes. Nothing else comes even remotely close to the level of quality work coming from you guys. Whether any other fanbase cares to admit it, you set the standard in the CAA.

GoHens? Nope. MonarchNation? Not even remotely close. DieHardDogs? Nope.

VCURamNation is where it's at.

 

[districtballer]

At the end of the day, after a couple of years of beating CAA competition, a great, young, mobile coach will naturally want more. That is what we have to address if we want to keep great coaches at VCU. Throwing money at them won't do anything. We have to build the VCU brand like Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler etc. have.

Well said, and I agree. Your comments on schools are excellent [and we could add other conferences/schools such as Houston, Memphsis [Conf. USA] and other schools]. My point is I have resolved the CAA is the place for VCU, and remain excited about building it.

I struggle with compensation. I am fully behind AD strategy of gettting the young up-and-comers. Only other tweak I can think of is expanding incentive pay for performance while making sure we tie academics/graduation into it. Assuming academcis are met, if Smart wins CAA regular season title, tournament and get's VCU into NCAA with a first round win I would hope we would shoot up his base to $500k to $600k after first year--and do so quickly. And if he does it the following year take him to $800k to $1M.

The comments recruits make is "VCU is a winning program". If we keep doing above and still lose Smart, then so be it. We will continue to be winners and attract winners, for the next coach--who will be excellent.

This cycle is fine but being a consistent top 20 program requires recruiting consistency and quality. We have quality, but no consistency.

You said it. The key is consistency. We had a great shot at it with Eric Maynor the past 3 years. We beat Duke which elevated our program into another stratosphere in terms of exposure, losing in overtime to 3rd-seeded Pitt. We were essentially the cinderella darlings of the 2007 tournament. Then we flopped hard against W&M the next year when we were all but expected to win the league. That hurt us more then we realize. We returned last year and almost pulled the upset over UCLA. If we had won that game, again we would have been elevated into another stratosphere in terms of exposure. Missed opportunities cost us a bit...but we still have a lot to be proud of.

We must strive for the next step...and that is winning the CAA consistently or at least putting ourselves in a position to garner an at-large bid every year. Then winning games in the tournament. That was what got, Xavier, Gonzaga, and Butler to the status they are as perennial top 20 programs, despite playing in lower level leagues. As a result, they have elevated the level of play in their respective leagues. That's what we have to do. George Mason is right there with us and probably further ahead just on virtue of the Final Four. That is something they can talk about 10 years from now and it will still resonate with recruits, whereas our Duke win will fade with time. We have to make the next step in getting to and winning in the tournament every year. That's a really big step for a CAA school...but if we're serious about basketball, that is the next step we have to take.

 

[ramramthankyoumaam]

At the end of the day, after a couple of years of beating CAA competition, a great, young, mobile coach will naturally want more. That is what we have to address if we want to keep great coaches at VCU. Throwing money at them won't do anything. We have to build the VCU brand like Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler etc. have.

Well said, and I agree. Your comments on schools are excellent [and we could add other conferences/schools such as Houston, Memphsis [Conf. USA] and other schools]. My point is I have resolved the CAA is the place for VCU, and remain excited about building it.

I struggle with compensation. I am fully behind AD strategy of gettting the young up-and-comers. Only other tweak I can think of is expanding incentive pay for performance while making sure we tie academics/graduation into it. Assuming academcis are met, if Smart wins CAA regular season title, tournament and get's VCU into NCAA with a first round win I would hope we would shoot up his base to $500k to $600k after first year--and do so quickly. And if he does it the following year take him to $800k to $1M.

The comments recruits make is "VCU is a winning program". If we keep doing above and still lose Smart, then so be it. We will continue to be winners and attract winners, for the next coach--who will be excellent.

This cycle is fine but being a consistent top 20 program requires recruiting consistency and quality. We have quality, but no consistency.

I have always been a proponent of base salary plus productivity incentives at least initially. Obviously you work hard, produce, you should be rewarded. I hate to see other college athletics programs cut to fund bigger ones. I think this goes starkly against the fundamental principles of what colleges should be about, and detracts from a diverse University environment.

ON the flip side you could argue that building a successful, nationally competative mid-major program could be a very attractive option. Mark Few at Gonzaga makes a very respectable salary (perhaps not what some BCS level coaches make) but on the other hand he has pretty good job security to go along with that. His contract guarantees him a coaching job through 2018. With greater salary also comes greater expectation and greater risk. How long do you think Anthony Grant will survive at Alabama if he doesn't produce a winning program?? I would have to believe that building a successful mid major program that can consistently compete for conference championships, and NCAA championships could be very rewarding and lucrative. Not every coach defines success as a BCS gig. Perhaps we should search for promising Villa 7 prospects with more local ties, as I think this ends up being a factor in many successful coaching tenures as well.

 

[districtballer]

Perhaps we should search for promising Villa 7 prospects with more local ties, as I think this ends up being a factor in many successful coaching tenures as well.

To be quite honest, I don't think we have to look for anyone from Villa 7. We have a guy sitting on our bench who might just be that guy. Mike Rhoades.

 

[RamJamFan]

Great feedback from all...

The comment regarding not eliminating non-revenue sports to fund revenue generating sports in the name of "college mission" I agree with intellectually, but struggle with economically.

I'm reminded of my son's experiences years ago in little league soccer. He would keep asking me the score (while running up/down the field) because the pee-wee league and social enginners wouldn't keep score, apparently having determined that somehow admiting that there are winners and losers in life should be kept a secret? I'm baffled by this same logic warp in colleg sports funding. Are we teaching life's lessons or subsidizing the way we wish things were?

Why do volleyball players, golfers, etc. have a seat at the same funding table when their return economically (and exposure) for the school are so much lower? Might it be because we're crafting a make believe environment which better aligns with how we wish things were rather than how they actually exist?

We talk about taking the next step toward football, but should we when we haven't shown an ability to economically maximize our one potential revenue generating sport in men's bb?

I plan on going to one of the "meet new VCU president Dr. Rao" meetings around Richmond this month. If this topic comes up and I positon my concerns, what do you think the odds of him saying "I love revenue generating sports and plan to take VCU the way of JMU"? The politically correct forces in university politics would throw a fit.

You might think I'm rambling? This all ties back to consistency. The oil lubracting an on-going top 20 basketball machine is green. It is money. Grant leaves, causing existing pg to bolt and incoming signee pg recurit to follow him. That in turn causes Smart to chase all decent combo guards available [and what a great job he has done under the circumstances]. It's also why we are holding our collective breath we now sign a center (size).

It is all related.

 

[Whoooosh]

Perhaps we should search for promising Villa 7 prospects with more local ties, as I think this ends up being a factor in many successful coaching tenures as well.

To be quite honest, I don't think we have to look for anyone from Villa 7. We have a guy sitting on our bench who might just be that guy. Mike Rhoades.

I like this idea. As long as Rhoades has been the head coach at RMC he's got to be hungry for a D1 head coaching gig. He has had tremendous success as a DIII coach, leading RMC to 4 NCAA DIII tourneys.

Few D-III head coaches get the chance to jump directly to Division I as a head coach. And that's Rhoades' eventual goal.
"I had an itch professionally to keep climbing," said Rhoades, who is 36. "There are windows in your life. This was a window I had to go through.

I'd be willing to give him a shot at the HC spot if Smart decides to run off to BCS-land anytime soon. Plus he seems like a guy who's commited to his players...

"I told my players, 'I'm only two blocks away. I'll still be at your graduations.' It's tough to say goodbye, but I told them I'm not saying goodbye. I'm just not working with them every day."

quotes taken from Few D-III head coaches get the chance to jump directly to Division I as a head coach. And that's Rhoades' eventual goal.
"I had an itch professionally to keep climbing," said Rhoades, who is 36. "There are windows in your life. This was a window I had to go through.

take it with a grain of salt, as it's from the RTD, but still speaks to what Mike is about as a coach: winning

 

[Ramdog]

I'd be willing to give him a shot at the HC spot if Smart decides to run off to BCS-land anytime soon.

Let's let Coach Smart coach a game before we make plans on replacing him

 

[ramramthankyoumaam]

Great feedback from all...

The comment regarding not eliminating non-revenue sports to fund revenue generating sports in the name of "college mission" I agree with intellectually, but struggle with economically.

I'm reminded of my son's experiences years ago in little league soccer. He would keep asking me the score (while running up/down the field) because the pee-wee league and social enginners wouldn't keep score, apparently having determined that somehow admiting that there are winners and losers in life should be kept a secret? I'm baffled by this same logic warp in colleg sports funding. Are we teaching life's lessons or subsidizing the way we wish things were?

Why do volleyball players, golfers, etc. have a seat at the same funding table when their return economically (and exposure) for the school are so much lower? Might it be because we're crafting a make believe environment which better aligns with how we wish things were rather than how they actually exist?

I might argue that those sports that don't fund themselves are funded, at least in part, by the very tuition and fees the student athlete pays to the college; similar to how we all pay the "registration fees" to watch our children play pee wee sports and pay for that experience. You might also be able to make the argument that by maintaining a diverse set of athletic activities at a University, you are more attractive and marketable and thus stand a better chance of maintaining enrollment numbers (thus not visable in the accounting sheets of the athletic department). I don't think we ought to be basing the college experience on purely economic grounds.

 

[Mistachill]

RamJamFan - you do a great job hiding your political views.

Sports writer Paul Woody in today's RTD says college presidents should apply the same failed economic prinicples of price controls that past US President's have pursued in attempts to manipulate life as they wish it was, not as it actually is. Whether you agree or disagree with Woody, I encourage you to read his comments:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/columnists/article/WOOD01_20091031-223204/302992/

I believe comrade Woody's comments sound like change you might want to believe in, but that they are actually based on one part frustration, one part envy, and one part wishful thinking. Only Obama's pay Czar's are as misguided.

Several years ago the RTD wrote a column something to effect of concluding Grant was gone because VCU wouldn't/couldn't keep him because they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't pay him. This was before VCU rightfully upped his salary to close to $900k with perks.

Irritated by the signular doom and gloom nature of the article, I responded with an editorial to tweak some additional thinking on the subject, and counter the RTD's kiss-Grant-good-bye tone at that time [long before Alabama]. The RTD published the editorital, as reprinted here:

Coaching Carousel Not Only Option at VCU

Sports Editor:
Must VCU be resigned to a revolving-door fate for its men’s basketball coaches? The newspaper’s coverage has suggested that is VCU’s only option.
What if every penny of a typical year’s ticket and broadcast revenue is signed over to one guy? Why should anyone care if 10 percent of VCU’s entire athletic budget of $11 million is paid to one head coach if the school and community think that person is worth it—and payment reflects fair market for his/her value?
These questions weren’t addressed because the conclusion was already reached that no one is worth 10 percent of the budget. Is this because the free market price is wrong? Or is it because the budget can’t be applied as desired by university officials or alumni interests because of the ongoing influence of social engineers—via lawsuits—and so-called equality clauses between men’s and women’s funding?
In a two-hour span at the end of the NCAA tournament basketball game between VCU and Duke, VCU’s web site got more than 600,000 hits. The other sports don’t attract that level of interest to VCU—no matter how many games the volleyball, soccer, field hockey, golf (or you name it) team wins.
VCU can’t magically increase its budget to offer more funding to women’s (or men’s) lesser-attended sports, so what if VCU alumni and officials decide other sports need to take a lesser role in order to move men’s basketball forward?
Would leadership suggest other sports could be eliminated? James Madison did it. Will students suddenly stop attending JMU? Will JMU be removed from the CAA? Don’t bet on either happening.
So, why can’t VCU align its budget to reflect the market rate to retain its men’s basketball coaches? While the social engineers are gnashing their teeth at the thought of a university embracing free market principles (such as James Madison’s approach) can someone please explain to readers in more detail what the true options are?
If VCU wants to pay fair-market values to keep a coach it likes, why not let it? Intramural sports, anyone?
RamJamFan
Midlothian

I no longer send editorials to the RTD, but I am interested in hearing what RamNation folks think of this topic--both Woody's comments and mine? This issue is a major one if VCU wants to become the force I beleive it can be in college basketball. A force that will not happen with social engineering leading he way, unless a mega donor steps forward.

 

[RamJamFan]

Re: Coaching Carosel: Pay for Performance?
by Mistachill on Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:05 am

RamJamFan - you do a great job hiding your political views.

I believe in honest communication, so I really don't try to hide my political views or my passion for the Rams. I've found if I have to hide something, than I can't logically, morally or intellectually defend it. I'm not afraid of the disinfecting nature of shedding sunlight on core views. That's why I scratch my head at those who hide in the shadows of political correctness. And why I honestly ask RamNation what it thinks.

Either we move our passion [VCU bb] forward, in a morally, academically and intellectually honest way, or we drink kool aid--believing cotinually embracing the same actions will somehow yield a different future outcome.

I'd love Coach Smart to be wildly successful AND end up retiring from VCU. IF he doesn't and the cycle we have embraced as a strategy doesn't take us to the next level, then what? Blame our parents? Blame UVA? Blame the RTD? Or perhaps get on the Paul Woody bandwagon of having an Obama equivalent pay czar appointed for college sports, thus lowering the playing field into mediocricy for everyone so VCU "equally competes".

Life's not fair. What are we going to do about it?

I love this feedback, as to me it is dealing with the core coaching/recruiting issues VCU is facing. I don't take disagreement personally, and will not attack those who disagree with me--in fact, I'm asking so I can learn! How do I move forward? Right now I ear mark my money to VCU basketball only, yet the AD wants me to give to all--should I? I can't justify it, but am willing to listen. I know VCU pays incentives to to solicit money from us to give to all sports. I understand the system. Should I be part of it based on what I believe are issues not being openly addressed?