Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 5689275, member: 40"] That's fine -- but we have to look beyond just the initial salary as the only "cost." For example, what is Red "costing" the University / athetic department, given waning attendance and concession sales at home games? We might have saved some money in terms of initial salary, but offsest it with the fanbase voting with their wallets becaue the product on the court is subpar. If they look at a better qualified coach, but opt for a cheaper alternative just to save some short-term dollars, it is going to blow up quicker than it did for Red if that coach struggles. The goodwill / patience won't be there for Hopkins the way it was for Red. So should salary be an evaluative criteria? Yes, but within limits. And certainly not the only factor tipping the scales between Candidate A versus Candidate B. [/QUOTE]