Why Extend Coaches Contracts?

[gmujim92]

You are altering the scenario. Again, we aren't getting a worse coach. We paid our current coach more and he still jumped at the one job that fit his current parameters. He didn't get that job so he is still our coach. The increased money had nothing to do with it. The odds are that he would still be our coach at his previous contract level.

This whole thread is my version of moneyball for basketball (credit to someone else for that analogy who shall remain nameless so he isn't implicated in this).

To take the discussion more in the direction I was I intended, I'll ask the question a different way to see how you guys would run the program. Here is the scenario:
Let's say that Mason has pool of money in the amount of $3.5M for the combination of men's basketball head coach and players pay.
Assume that GW and, more importantly, vcu have $3.5M for players alone. Their current head coaches salaries don't come out of that $3.5M.
We expect that if our coach is reasonably successful, that, he will be leaving every 2-4 years.

If you are the AD, how do you split the money into two pools, head coach and players?
If you are the coach, and somehow you have control over it, how do you do the split?

If the coach is still responsible for identifying talent, recruiting and getting commitments from the players he wants in the program, I can’t see how it helps Mason in any way to spend less on the coach.

There are plenty of P4 schools out there that spent a bunch of $ on their rosters and weren’t successful because they were either poorly coached, the talent was incorrectly evaluated or the players didn’t mesh.

As @mkaufman1 noted, it all starts with the coach.

 

[gmujim92]

Thanks for not cheating like Matt . I am in the same ballpark as you. We should be able, in today's dollars, to hire the next up and coming coach in the $1M range.

But then never give them a raise?

 

[mkaufman1]

You kind of cheated by choosing Tony's salary exactly. LOL. I guess I wasn't specific enough. Let's say we lost Tony to MD this year and we need to hire a new one. What is your allocation for the new coach? For reference, Eric Olen was successful at UC San Diego this year and jumped to New Mexico. I'd say that is a reasonable type of target when we are searching for a new coach. His new salary at New Mexico is $1.2M.

Are you still offering your new coach $1.7M or more of the going rate for a successful coach from a step below. If you paid him $1.2, you have $2.3M for players.

The answer is really "it depends". I know its lame to say that but you have to look at a lot of criteria.

1) What are they asking for in totality?
2) Are they new to coaching or seasoned?
3) Compare them to peers and similar market value. League, location etc.

We did dodge a bullet with Kim at 1.8 it appears, but thats a totally different topic. If all goes well with the elevator contract Tony received, we're paying below market for a gem of a coach.

Bottom line is that we have a gem of a coach, and Mason finally compensated a gem of a coach (and one of our own) appropriately. We can do what ifs, we can worry about tomorrow, but we're better off doing all we can today to help invest in today's product.

I would much rather debate a topic like this in the off season (although we'll need a good topic for July).

 

[gmubrian]

There are plenty of P4 schools out there that spent a bunch of $ on their rosters and weren’t successful because they were either poorly coached, the talent was incorrectly evaluated or the players didn’t mesh.

Fair point, but, in the long run, I think you are going to see those that spend more do better. There will always be outliers.

But then never give them a raise?

I would build something reasonable into the initial contract. Maybe $100k like Tony's new contract (I guess I am cheating now). What is kind of weird and to the crux of what I am getting at, with coaches, at least at our level (where there are behemoths above us and smaller programs below us) it seems to be more expensive to try to keep a coach than to find your next quality hire. Interestingly, this is the opposite in normal work circles where keeping an employee tends to be cheaper than hiring a new one. I think we all accept that we are going to be on a merry go round where if our coach is successful, we are going to have to reload every 2-4 years. Additionally, continuity isn't what it used to be with the portal and having to rebuild your roster almost completely every year.

So, in this age of schools paying players, and with it being reasonable to assume that every dollar you pay your coach, potentially, takes a dollar away from your players, we are in a whole new world and you have to consider those tradeoffs going forward.

 

[gmubrian]

The answer is really "it depends". I know its lame to say that but you have to look at a lot of criteria.

1) What are they asking for in totality?
2) Are they new to coaching or seasoned?
3) Compare them to peers and similar market value. League, location etc.

We did dodge a bullet with Kim at 1.8 it appears, but thats a totally different topic. If all goes well with the elevator contract Tony received, we're paying below market for a gem of a coach.

Bottom line is that we have a gem of a coach, and Mason finally compensated a gem of a coach (and one of our own) appropriately. We can do what ifs, we can worry about tomorrow, but we're better off doing all we can today to help invest in today's product.

I would much rather debate a topic like this in the off season (although we'll need a good topic for July).

What a cop out. I see you are refusing to play the game.

Isn't this the off season?

 

[mkaufman1]

What a cop out. I see you are refusing to play the game.

Isn't this the off season?

Yes of course this is the offseason, lol. I'm happy to discuss because its a good topic.

But I can't go theoretical because there are so many different variables when it comes to hiring a coach.

In general, if we are hiring a seasoned coach I expect them to cost more up front (probably more in the range of what Tony is getting now). If we are going again with a young up and comer, say we are hiring Simpkins (hes not young but for sake of quick and simple example lets use him), then its going to be more of the 1m-1.2 market and then you look to build them up if they succeed.

Then you also have a guy say like Alan Huss. Huss is killing it at High Point and well on his way to a P5 job. A guy like him isn't coming to Mason for 1m even though he is relatively new. He probably gets seasoned coach money even though he isn't really that seasoned as a HC.

 

[gmujim92]

Fair point, but, in the long run, I think you are going to see those that spend more do better. There will always be outliers.

I would build something reasonable into the initial contract. Maybe $100k like Tony's new contract (I guess I am cheating now). What is kind of weird and to the crux of what I am getting at, with coaches, at least at our level (where there are behemoths above us and smaller programs below us) it seems to be more expensive to try to keep a coach than to find your next quality hire. Interestingly, this is the opposite in normal work circles where keeping an employee tends to be cheaper than hiring a new one. I think we all accept that we are going to be on a merry go round where if our coach is successful, we are going to have to reload every 2-4 years. Additionally, continuity isn't what it used to be with the portal and having to rebuild your roster almost completely every year.

So, in this age of schools paying players, and with it being reasonable to assume that every dollar you pay your coach, potentially, takes a dollar away from your players, we are in a whole new world and you have to consider those tradeoffs going forward.

It’s more expensive to keep high-end coaches because of Econ 101 — the supply of them is extremely limited, demand for them is high and the process of identifying and hiring a new one is fraught with uncertainty (or worse). See: replacing Larranaga, Jim with Hewitt, Paul.

If we can keep Tony for 4-5 years instead of 2 by giving him this raise, I predict those extra 2-3 years will be worth every penny and then some. Coaches who can thrive in this crazy-a** environment simply do not grow on trees.

 

[gmujim92]

Also no offense to our players, but the reason Tony was the obvious choice for A-10 COY isn’t just that Mason went 15-3 and shared the regular-season title. Going into the season I don’t know anyone who thought we had the second-most talented roster in the league. Some folks thought it was a stretch to pick us 6th in the preseason poll.

That’s exceptional coaching and that’s what we’re paying for.

 

[Pikapppatri8]

It’s more expensive to keep high-end coaches because of Econ 101 — the supply of them is extremely limited, demand for them is high and the process of identifying and hiring a new one is fraught with uncertainty (or worse). See: replacing Larranaga, Jim with Hewitt, Paul.

If we can keep Tony for 4-5 years instead of 2 by giving him this raise, I predict those extra 2-3 years will be worth every penny and then some. Coaches who can thrive in this crazy-a** environment simply do not grow on trees.

Agreed but the University needs to look at overall investments into athletics and that ties to the other thread on student fees and direct funding of athletics through those fees. The two are inextricably tied.

 

[GSII]

Are you saying the $3.5 mil from rev share is also used to pay coaching staff? If so, is it 100% for staffing or in part?

I thought the 3.5 mil rev share was just for mens bball players.

 

[undertherock]

The good news is I don't think there is a more ideal job for Tony than the Maryland job and that's filled... maybe Georgetown?

This

 

[TheStringer]

New thing: Huss left High Point to be coach in waiting for McDermott. Wild times

 

[Walter]

I could see HC contracts go in a different direction in the future. Two year highly incentivized contracts instead of 4 to 6 year contracts. With the portal, fans and ADs are not going to be as patient.

Would we have been better off with a two year $2.5M per year contract for The Virus or a five year $1M per year contract?

 

[GSII]

I could see HC contracts go in a different direction in the future. Two year highly incentivized contracts instead of 4 to 6 year contracts. With the portal, fans and ADs are not going to be as patient.

Would we have been better off with a two year $2.5M per year contract for The Virus or a five year $1M per year contract?

No year, no dollars contract would of been great.

 

[MasonFanatic]

I think extensions still have value in ensuring that our coach only leaves for a true upgrade in job instead of leaving for a lateral move just to pull in a few extra dollars. They also demonstrate to recruits and potential future hires that we are serious about investing in the program. But would I have liked to see a buyout for Tony that was more in the $2-3M range? Absolutely. That wouldn't deter a school like Maryland, but it would really help us out whenever the time comes. So would the vcu home-and-home clause, but we probably need a better track record over a longer time period before any agent would agree to it. And we have to be realistic. We may have reduced the number of jobs Tony would take to a very small number, but it will never be zero. And any good agent is going to push their client for jobs and make sure they have as much information as possible about what their client is worth on the market. So Tony's name almost certainly will come up in rumors again.

All that said, I 100% understand @gmubrian's frustration.

 

[MasonFanatic]

I could see HC contracts go in a different direction in the future. Two year highly incentivized contracts instead of 4 to 6 year contracts. With the portal, fans and ADs are not going to be as patient.

Would we have been better off with a two year $2.5M per year contract for The Virus or a five year $1M per year contract?

Hewitt was 46-25 those first two years. We would have had to extend him.

 

[mkaufman1]

I could see HC contracts go in a different direction in the future. Two year highly incentivized contracts instead of 4 to 6 year contracts. With the portal, fans and ADs are not going to be as patient.

Would we have been better off with a two year $2.5M per year contract for The Virus or a five year $1M per year contract?

Interesting perspective. Logically you would think that if players can be year to year, coaches can be as well. Of course I think no coach is going to sign up for a role that doesn't give job stability even though there is less need for "build out time".

 

[gmubrian]

Are you saying the $3.5 mil from rev share is also used to pay coaching staff? If so, is it 100% for staffing or in part?

I thought the 3.5 mil rev share was just for mens bball players.

This is all hypothetical. An extra dollar spent on a head coach (or player) has to come some a budget somewhere. Schools seem to be adept at getting money to the right budget pool, possibly by directing donors to give to B instead of A, for example. So, it isn't unreasonable for their to ultimately be a tradeoff between dollars for coaches vs. dollars for players.

 

[99 Patriot]

In your scenario I guess sign me up for spending as much of that money as needed on the coach. That's the only somewhat controllable item these days. Players have made themselves commodities, and with more supply than demand, a great coach will find guys who fit his system and can win games within whatever budget he is given. It sort of sucks for fans to really grow little allegiance to players anymore, but that's all the more reason to spend and make your coach the face of the program.

 

[bravesfan]

ESPECIALLY in a market where your mid-major HC can leave and get a HM assistant job that pays them 1M+.

Would never happen...

Huss to Creighton as HC-in-waiting, sources say

High Point's Alan Huss is stepping down and will rejoin Greg McDermott's staff at Creighton, where he will be named head coach-in-waiting, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com