Great...

[nzm136]

Now we have an OC with 7 years of play calling experience that translated into 0 days of BCS playcalling experience before today. I don't think he even has Fbs playcalling experience, though I could be wrong. Am I the only one who thinks that if he was even remotely not terrible, he would have gotten the call long ago?

Why the heck didn't we just say that every assistant coach is coaching for their job for the rest of the season, and those who can't cut it will be replaced by someone with BCS success (which is what I said we should have done in the first place - check my posting history back when these schmucks were hired)? We *really* aren't hurting for money, so we could easily out bid weaker BCS schools for what good assistant coaches they do have (i.e. IU's offensive staff), and it would motivate the heck out of our current guys. I don't think that it would hurt our recruiting. Sure, the incoming recruits might not know the exact detail of some of our schemes/strategies, but the HC is staying and any incoming coaches would be pretty much guaranteed to be quality.

And before anyone tries claiming SUAD is poor, last I checked, we were between 30-35 in revenue and merchandise sales, and there's a lag on some of those numbers, so they're being influenced by BIG EAST membership, AND those are numbers with a mediocre to bad football team. With a good football team and ACC membership, I can easily see us moving up 10 spots, if not more. We also have a paid for stadium that we use year-round (i.e. we have lower overhead). We aren't poor by any means.

Edit: we also have a relatively small AD in terms of the number of sports sponsored. That means we can spend more on each sport. We aren't poor.

 

[nzm136]

To clarify, I'm OK with some young coaches who are unproven, but who on our staff has had previous success at a BCS level in a capacity that closely resembles their current job description? The *only* guy that I can think of is McD, and that's only true because he *just* got demoted. That's a problem. Thats a big stinking problem.

 

[rrlbees]

Now we have an OC with 7 years of play calling experience that translated into 0 days of BCS playcalling experience before today. I don't think he even has Fbs playcalling experience, though I could be wrong. Am I the only one who thinks that if he was even remotely not terrible, he would have gotten the call long ago? Why the heck didn't we just say that every assistant coach is coaching for their job for the rest of the season, and those who can't cut it will be replaced by someone with BCS success (which is what I said we should have done in the first place - check my posting history back when these schmucks were hired)? We *really* aren't hurting for money, so we could easily out bid weaker BCS schools for what good assistant coaches they do have (i.e. IU's offensive staff), and it would motivate the heck out of our current guys. I don't think that it would hurt our recruiting. Sure, the incoming recruits might not know the exact detail of some of our schemes/strategies, but the HC is staying and any incoming coaches would be pretty much guaranteed to be quality. And before anyone tries claiming SUAD is poor, last I checked, we were between 30-35 in revenue and merchandise sales, and there's a lag on some of those numbers, so they're being influenced by BIG EAST membership, AND those are numbers with a mediocre to bad football team. With a good football team and ACC membership, I can easily see us moving up 10 spots, if not more. We also have a paid for stadium that we use year-round (i.e. we have lower overhead). We aren't poor by any means.

We've been in the red many years. Revenue is only 1 side of the equation.

 

[nzm136]

We've been in the red many years. Revenue is only 1 side of the equation.

False

We are almost always *not* in the red, even nominally. And, when we are, it's because we distort costs by including scholarships in excess of the variable costs needed to cover the students. That artificially decreases the costs associated with the academic books, while artificially increasing the costs associated with the athletic books.

Anyway, retread my post. I addressed costs.

 

[jekelish]

To clarify, I'm OK with some young coaches who are unproven, but who on our staff has had previous success at a BCS level in a capacity that closely resembles their current job description? The *only* guy that I can think of is McD, and that's only true because he *just* got demoted. That's a problem. Thats a big stinking problem.

While having previous BCS success is nice, it should never be a game breaker. Chip Kelly had never even been a head coach, and the highest level he'd ever coached was as the OC at New Hampshire before Oregon took a shot on him. That seemed to work out pretty well for them.

Not saying Lester is Chip Kelly, just saying coming from a P5 school isn't the only barometer.

 

[nzm136]

While having previous BCS success is nice, it should never be a game breaker. Chip Kelly had never even been a head coach, and the highest level he'd ever coached was as the OC at New Hampshire before Oregon took a shot on him. That seemed to work out pretty well for them.

Not saying Lester is Chip Kelly, just saying coming from a P5 school isn't the only barometer.

Right. I'm ok taking some risks (see my second post). Taking a risk on every coach is a problem. Proven coaches represent less of a risk than unproven coaches.

 

[javadoc]

False

We are almost always *not* in the red, even nominally. And, when we are, it's because we distort costs by including scholarships in excess of the variable costs needed to cover the students. That artificially decreases the costs associated with the academic books, while artificially increasing the costs associated with the athletic books.

Anyway, retread my post. I addressed costs.

Whoa

Do you know this for a fact, or are you counting on sources? I was told by someone who is generally rock-solid that they have in fact been in the red as a department under Gross recently.

 

[CUSU]

Bullough I would say is qualified, I believe DC @ UCLA and coached in the NFL. Our RB coach is qualified and has been a RB coach at the D1 level, want to say UNLV and put people in the pros. We know what we have in Daost, I would say he is certainly qualified.

 

[nzm136]

Whoa

Do you know this for a fact, or are you counting on sources? I was told by someone who is generally rock-solid that they have in fact been in the red as a department under Gross recently.

Yeah. Gross said it in an interview when he was grilled on it. Anyway, the general concept is common knowledge amongst anyone who has taken anything higher than accounting 101. I think ESPN even ran a story on it (not SU-specific) about a year ago.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Or perhaps we could look at the new OC as a game changer and wish him the best.

 

[nzm136]

Bullough I would say is qualified, I believe DC @ UCLA and coached in the NFL. Our RB coach is qualified and has been a RB coach at the D1 level, want to say UNLV and put people in the pros. We know what we have in Daost, I would say he is certainly qualified.

He was thrown out of UCLA after a year for stinking.

I think the RB coach was at New Mexico. Regardless, he has never proven that he can succeed against quality defenses.

I'll give you Daost. That's 1 for what? 9?

 

[nzm136]

Or perhaps we could look at the new OC as a game changer and wish him the best.

I wish him the best. I'm just not stupid. Wishful thinking got us where we are today. I want results, and odds overwhelmingly say that he won't deliver.

 

[CUSU]

Clark Lea, LB coach at UCLA for two years.
Fred Reed, our DB coach has been DC at a MAC school, and coached DBs also.

Our RB has put guys into the NFL, how has he not succeeded against quality defenses? He also has experience at UNLV like I said, also at New Mexico among others.

Listen I have my questions about this staff too but we didn't pick them up off the street, and until we will spend more money this is what we get.

 

[nzm136]

Clark Lea, LB coach at UCLA for two years.
Fred Reed, our DB coach has been DC at a MAC school, and coached DBs also.

Our RB has put guys into the NFL, how has he not succeeded against quality defenses? He also has experience at UNLV like I said, also at New Mexico among others.

Listen I have my questions about this staff too but we didn't pick them up off the street, and until we will spend more money this is what we get.

Coaching at s MAC school is not the same as coaching at a high level. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. The same goes for UNLV. Also, putting players in the NFL isn't the same either for several reasons: 1. Much of that has to do with how long you coached, and 2. Once they're in the NFL (competing against real talent), they aren't your kids anyone if you're a college coach. My high school coach coached kids that made it into the NFL. That doesn't mean that he's fit to lead the Orange.

As for the LB coach at UCLA, how did he do? Did he have success there?

Like I said, none of these guys have had success at a high level. I'm ok with a mix of proven and unproven, but when there's only one proven guy, there are problems.

 

[CUSU]

Coaching at s MAC school is not the same as coaching at a high level. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. The same goes for UNLV. Also, putting players in the NFL isn't the same either for several reasons: 1. Much of that has to do with how long you coached, and 2. Once they're in the NFL (competing against real talent), they aren't your kids anyone if you're a college coach. My high school coach coached kids that made it into the NFL. That doesn't mean that he's fit to lead the Orange.

As for the LB coach at UCLA, how did he do? Did he have success there?

Like I said, none of these guys have had success at a high level. I'm ok with a mix of proven and unproven, but when there's only one proven guy, there are problems.

Did I say Deandre SMith was fit to lead the orange? No, but he is fit to coach RBs. I agree I would like more proven guys but we aren't pulling coaches from peer schools anytime soon unless we significantly up our pay.

 

[rrlbees]

False We are almost always *not* in the red, even nominally. And, when we are, it's because we distort costs by including scholarships in excess of the variable costs needed to cover the students. That artificially decreases the costs associated with the academic books, while artificially increasing the costs associated with the athletic books. Anyway, retread my post. I addressed costs.

That is incorrect. We have been in the red. Also scholies are "paid" for by the school the player is enrolled in.

 

[nzm136]

Did I say Deandre SMith was fit to lead the orange? No, but he is fit to coach RBs. I agree I would like more proven guys but we aren't pulling coaches from peer schools anytime soon unless we significantly up our pay.

I agree. We need to up our pay. That's my point.

 

[nzm136]

That is incorrect. We have been in the red. Also scholies are "paid" for by the school the player is enrolled in.

Now you're just making things up.

Scholarship expenses even show up on DoE filings. And no, until the athletic dept. needed to get out of getting stuck with the BE buyout tab, we were rarely in the red. Dr. Gross has even said so much. Unless you have better info than him on the matter, I'm sticking with the athletic director's words.

 

[rrlbees]

Now you're just making things up. Scholarship expenses even show up on DoE filings. And no, until the athletic dept. needed to get out of getting stuck with the BE buyout tab, we were rarely in the red. Dr. Gross has even said so much. Unless you have better info than him on the matter, I'm sticking with the athletic director's words.

I'll let the department head I know that says the home school gets docked for the scholie, is FOS. And yes, we've been in the red. The BE buyout had nothing to do with any of it since each university department shared the costs. Now with the ACC money I can see the schools pushing for the AD to fund all scholies.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I never understand the MAC school argument and because a coach has been fired before that he is no good. Coaches are fired all the time for different reasons. In addition, does anyone not realize that all coaches start somewhere. There are a ton of great MAC coaches and a ton that have made the jump from MAC to the BCS level with no problem. people can debate how good some of our assistants are all you want but just because they are from the MAC makes no sense to me. It's actually quite stupid really. I could come up with a huge list of successful coaches that started in the MAC and made the jump no problem.

 

[anglerman]

I never understand the MAC school argument and because a coach has been fired before that he is no good. Coaches are fired all the time for different reasons. In addition, does anyone not realize that all coaches start somewhere. There are a ton of great MAC coaches and a ton that have made the jump from MAC to the BCS level with no problem. people can debate how good some of our assistants are all you want but just because they are from the MAC makes no sense to me. It's actually quite stupid really. I could come up with a huge list of successful coaches that started in the MAC and made the jump no problem.

Completely agree with you IB. The MAC has always been fertile ground for finding good coaches that become very successful at the BCS level and beyond. This thread is based on sheer ignorance.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Completely agree with you IB. The MAC has always been fertile ground for finding good coaches that become very successful at the BCS level and beyond. This thread is based on sheer ignorance.

In addition three of the hottest coaches in the country right now are Freeze at Ole Miss, Malzahn at Auburn and Chip Kelly, I would look at their rise to where they are now, look how they started. Kelly went from New Hampshire to Oregon. The other two spent a ton of time at the high school level, sun belt, etc. Good coaches come from every level. The MAC argument is just foolish.

Debate their merit all you want but the MAC argument makes zero sense

 

[CuseOnly]

I'll let the department head I know that says the home school gets docked for the scholie, is FOS. And yes, we've been in the red. The BE buyout had nothing to do with any of it since each university department shared the costs. Now with the ACC money I can see the schools pushing for the AD to fund all scholies.

I know the school that the player is in gets docked for a scholarship. I think the whole idea of it is is ridiculous. I think they should be accounted for in some way but actually docking the AD for 85 schollies for football, docking the AD for 15 (or whatever #) for basketball, lax, soccer, olympic sports, etc is just dumb. The whole accounting for it is dumb.

SU scholarship 60K
U of Texas scholarship 8k for in state student athlete

Really, how much "extra" does it cost for SU to buy a desk and have a kid sit in it in learn. Especially when said kid helps generate advertising dollars and revenue for the school. I realize it costs some for housing and meals but really.

I just think the accounting for it is stupid. The AD is "paying" about 8 million in scholarships that just should be wiped off the books simply because the kids represent the school.

Just my opinion.

 

[CousCuse]

In addition three of the hottest coaches in the country right now are Freeze at Ole Miss, Malzahn at Auburn and Chip Kelly, I would look at their rise to where they are now, look how they started. Kelly went from New Hampshire to Oregon. The other two spent a ton of time at the high school level, sun belt, etc. Good coaches come from every level. The MAC argument is just foolish.

Debate their merit all you want but the MAC argument makes zero sense

The MAC ( Miami of Ohio in particular ) is known as the "cradle " of coaches. That is where you go to get the best new talent .

 

[JoeSU]

Isn't the MAC commonly referred to as "the cradle of coaches"?

Edit: you beat me to it CousCuse