The Coyle decision

[Crusty]

Another follow up to post #241. Box rental, seats, food and drink averages $65-$70k per box - say 60 boxes (I have never counted them) equals $4 million. Season tickets average as low as $100 to as high as $250 so 20,000 season tickets X $150 conservative equals $3 million. Regular tickets at 15,000 x $20 x 6 games = $2 million. Advertising on the ribbon by companies is $30k so about $1 million. Local TV advertising, radio, etc just add another $1 million. Dome operations is a net zero based on profit from food & drink sales. Then you have to pay for rent to 6 other away game stadiums probably another $1-$2 million. Then there is other stuff that adds more.

So conservately a $12-$15 million drop in SUAD operating budget while Dome is being renovated due to football alone - that's not chump change. That's a killer to SUAD's operating budget and SUAD would probably need to "borrow" from SU the difference "especially if they had to double football coaching salaries" at this time. Now that would be a political hot potato up on the SU hill. Not saying it cannot be done but the timing is way off especially with a potential $2 billion capital campaign and the Dome getting up to 1/4 of the funding.

Personally I would look at it from this perspective. If we were to start winning again, with or without Shafer as I have to let the experts (Coyle & Sevyrud) make that decision, would be how much more revenue can I generate if I could create more of a demand for seating and therefore advertising. If we were to get to an average of 40,000 seats or more sold and raise the price per seat by $50 per seat over the season, there's another $2 million plus and extra 10,000 occupied seats at $150 per seat or another $1.5 million that's covers for the cost of paying what we need to be competitive in the P5 ACC conference. That doesn't include other positive revenue generated by increased demand to pay for double what we do now. I'm just looking at this from a business perspective - either lower costs (like how we pay current football salaries) or raise revenue to be competitive in the ACC at $2.5 million for HC and $500-$600 for each coordinator.

First of all, those are non-recurring expenses and should nof be viewed in the same context as normal operating results. Moreover, they might even be viewed as part of the capital budget. But even if capitalization is not permitted under FASB rules, it would certainly be reasonable for the Chancellor to recognize the temporary non-recurring nature and to not make long-term decisions based on such short-term term factors. Actually, it would be unworthy of such an intelligent guy as the Chancellor.

Also, next year already includes a ND Met-Life game.

 

[anomander]

One of the kids from STA had no 1a offers other than us. Like I said, not buying it and this is last I will post on this, agree to disagree.

Robinson was a late add as well, local kid who has contributed quite significantly. I don't see him being recruited over.

In addition, I will take Atkins/ Marrone experience at OL on who is worthy of an offer and who isn't than Shafer/ Adam. Call me crazy.

All day, every day.

If either of the STA kids start as many games as the B'ville kid during their careers I will be surprised. In fact they'd be lucky to combine to start the same amount as games as Robinson has.


As for recruiting as a whole I think Shafer's success has been greatly overblown by the TwitterArmy. I have said it numerous times that it isn't all that much better than what Marrone brought in, and if you factor in what Marrone had to work with, to what Shafer has to work with now, it really should be a whole lot more. Plus when it comes to identifying talent that fit their schemes, I don't think it's even comparable, especially on the OL.

 

[chakka3421]

First of all, those are non-recurring expenses and should nof be viewed in the same context as normal operating results. Moreover, they might even be viewed as part of the capital budget. But even if capitalization is not permitted under FASB rules, it would certainly be reasonable for the Chancellor to recognize the temporary non-recurring nature and to not make long-term decisions based on such short-term term factors. Actually, it would be unworthy of such an intelligent guy as the Chancellor.

Also, next year already includes a ND Met-Life game.

No no no. I'm approaching this from a budget and business perspective, not a fan perspective. This is a 1 year hit to the SUAD operating budget while the Dome is being renovated. The "mandate" has been to run SUAD as revenue neutral in relation to the overall SU operating budget. The old SUAD budget was out of control even though it looked like it was balanced (but to defend Gross not much money coming from BE vs ACC) - that's the real reason why Gross was removed just not good with numbers. I am not privy beyond this point about the "how" this all needs to be presented. Maybe it's an overall package I don't know. I do know that a lot of professors & deans do not like SUAD (or the previous regime) and that's what a political hot potato any borrowings from SU operating budget would create while all deans are being required to do the same thing. I don't think Sevyrud has consolidated all political power over this yet.

The strategic part long term is to determine our overall coaching pay philosophy. That goes for all sports including Olympic sports - don't pay up for Olympic if your not willing to do same for Football. Should we be low end like we are now - bottom 5 out of 65. Should our pay philosophy be even with the other private colleges around $2 to $2.5 million (between 45 to 60 in peer pay rank). Should we be upper P5 between $2.5 to $3.0 million (between 30 to 45). Should we be elite $3.0 million plus (top 30).

To add fuel to the fire I know some of our Olympic coaches are being paid elite at the expense of football. That's how messed up SUAD pay philosophy has been.

 

[Crusty]

No no no. I'm approaching this from a budget and business perspective, not a fan perspective. This is a 1 year hit to the SUAD operating budget while the Dome is being renovated. The "mandate" has been to run SUAD as revenue neutral in relation to the overall SU operating budget. The old SUAD was out of control even though it looked like it was balanced (but to defend Gross not much money coming from BE vs ACC) - that's the real reason why Gross was removed just not good with numbers. I am not privy beyond this point about the "how" this all needs to be presented. Maybe it's an overall package I don't know. I do know that a lot of professors & deans do not like SUAD (or the previous regime) and that's what a political hot potato any borrowings from SU operating budget would create while all deans are being required to do the same thing. I don't think Sevyrud has consolidated all political power over this yet.

The strategic part long term is to determine our overall coaching pay philosophy. That goes for all sports including Olympic sports - don't pay up for Olympic if your not willing to do same for Football. Should we be low end like we are now - bottom 5 out of 65. Should our pay philosophy be even with the other private colleges around $2 to $2.5 million (between 45 to 60 in peer pay rank). Should we be upper P5 between $2.5 to $3.0 million (between 30 to 45). Should we be elite $3.0 million plus (top 30).

To add fuel to the fire I know some of our Olympic coaches are being paid elite. That's how messed up SUAD has been.

Not a fan perspective. Football is now the main revenue driver. Anyone who demands that extraordinary non-recurring expenses like these hold up a critical long-term business decision is a fool - a complete and utter fool. I don't think TGC is a fool.

 

[Cusefan78]

No no no. I'm approaching this from a budget and business perspective, not a fan perspective. This is a 1 year hit to the SUAD operating budget while the Dome is being renovated. The "mandate" has been to run SUAD as revenue neutral in relation to the overall SU operating budget. The old SUAD budget was out of control even though it looked like it was balanced (but to defend Gross not much money coming from BE vs ACC) - that's the real reason why Gross was removed just not good with numbers. I am not privy beyond this point about the "how" this all needs to be presented. Maybe it's an overall package I don't know. I do know that a lot of professors & deans do not like SUAD (or the previous regime) and that's what a political hot potato any borrowings from SU operating budget would create while all deans are being required to do the same thing. I don't think Sevyrud has consolidated all political power over this yet.

The strategic part long term is to determine our overall coaching pay philosophy. That goes for all sports including Olympic sports - don't pay up for Olympic if your not willing to do same for Football. Should we be low end like we are now - bottom 5 out of 65. Should our pay philosophy be even with the other private colleges around $2 to $2.5 million (between 45 to 60 in peer pay rank). Should we be upper P5 between $2.5 to $3.0 million (between 30 to 45). Should we be elite $3.0 million plus (top 30).

To add fuel to the fire I know some of our Olympic coaches are being paid elite at the expense of football. That's how messed up SUAD pay philosophy has been.

Those elites paid Olympic coaches are all on gross and from what I was told is because he had bonus money on his contract contingent on Olympic sports doing well instead of basketball and football which pay the bills. If true that is on gross, cantor, and the bot for structuring his contract that way and gross not seeing the bigger picture.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

To add fuel to the fire I know some of our Olympic coaches are being paid elite at the expense of football. That's how messed up SUAD pay philosophy has been.

We have a better chance of winning a National Championship in Field Hockey or Women's Lacrosse than we do in Football.

 

[orangenauburn]

So, essentially Coyle is awaiting final numbers from BOT before a decision is announced?

 

[TheCusian]

All day, every day. If either of the STA kids start as many games as the B'ville kid during their careers I will be surprised. In fact they'd be lucky to combine to start the same amount as games as Robinson has. As for recruiting as a whole I think Shafer's success has been greatly overblown by the TwitterArmy. I have said it numerous times that it isn't all that much better than what Marrone brought in, and if you factor in what Marrone had to work with, to what Shafer has to work with now, it really should be a whole lot more. Plus when it comes to identifying talent that fit their schemes, I don't think it's even comparable, especially on the OL.

I agree with most of this take.

But Lester went out and found a guy that fits his scheme perfectly at the most important spot QB. Marrone found some linemen and Smith at RB. The rest of the very good 2012 offense was largely Robinson guys. And a part of why we are playing so many freshman and sophomores at the skill positions lands in Marrone's lap.

 

[anomander]

I agree with most of this take.

But Lester went out and found a guy that fits his scheme perfectly at the most important spot QB. Marrone found some linemen and Smith at RB. The rest of the very good 2012 offense was largely Robinson guys. And a part of why we are playing so many freshman and sophomores at the skill positions lands in Marrone's lap.

There is 1 huge difference. When Marrone signed on he was able to hold onto Lemon, and Pugh, as well as getting guys like Shamarko and Sharpe to commit.

When Marrone left and Shafer took over, Shafer wasn't able to hold onto anybody, including guys he recruited personally.

The reason we don't have any upper classmen is because Shafer couldn't keep the 2013 class together.

 

[rrlbees]

at this point it begs the question: Why did we even enter the ACC? If the extra money doesn't add up to competing or having a competitive team, we would be better served in AAC, no Dome expansion, and the hoops team in some sort of a big east hybrid still. Of course that's a flippant way to look at things but the financials seem to be VERY dire or the message from Chakka's sources is "we want people to think it's dire." It's important to note imagine we had a HC who was making a much larger salary and we were winning 3 games per year and he had 3 years left. There's zero chance we could do anything about it.

We'd be flush in money if not for the Dome and west campus reno. If all we did was replace the roof, the numbers would look great. But the university is looking big picture with their 20 year $2B plan. Of course ideally they also want to be able to get the football program back to where we all want it.

 

[dasher]

There is 1 huge difference. When Marrone signed on he was able to hold onto Lemon, and Pugh, as well as getting guys like Shamarko and Sharpe to commit.

When Marrone left and Shafer took over, Shafer wasn't able to hold onto anybody, including guys he recruited personally.

The reason we don't have any upper classmen is because Shafer couldn't keep the 2013 class together.

you are fighting a losing battle if your argument is that Marrone was a better recruiter than SS has been. He wasn't and isn't.

 

[TheCusian]

There is 1 huge difference. When Marrone signed on he was able to hold onto Lemon, and Pugh, as well as getting guys like Shamarko and Sharpe to commit. When Marrone left and Shafer took over, Shafer wasn't able to hold onto anybody, including guys he recruited personally. The reason we don't have any upper classmen is because Shafer couldn't keep the 2013 class together.

We lost Edwards, Allen, and that other RB to Indiana.

That class was decimated by a career ending injurie to Zeke, Williams getting booted this year, and Cooper transferring.

We added Estime late - and he along with Winfield, Hodge, Arcinega, Kirkland, Kelly, Moore, and Scissum have all seen the field. Estime is what our 2nd - 3rd best playmaker?

What am I missing? Losing Edwards hurt. The other two? Meh.

 

[Alsacs]

you are fighting a losing battle if your argument is that Marrone was a better recruiter than SS has been. He wasn't and isn't.

To be fair we have no clue how DM would have done with an ACC schedule and the IPF. I just believe the myth that SS is a great recruiter is overblown. I would concede he has been slightly better than DM at recruiting but not enough to compensate for the downfall in other areas DM was better.

 

[anomander]

you are fighting a losing battle if your argument is that Marrone was a better recruiter than SS has been. He wasn't and isn't.

Given similar resources I don't think it's a definite. I mean his classes were rated slightly below Shafer without ACC affiliation, without renovated facilities, and without an IPF. Not to mention coming off 10-37 over 4 years. I am not arguing that Marrone did a better job. It's a fact that he didn't. But given a similar situation, who knows? Just because he didn't like it doesn't mean he couldn't have got it done. Plus he had guys like Wheatley, and Atkins.

 

[dasher]

To be fair we have no clue how DM would have done with an ACC schedule and the IPF. I just believe the myth that SS is a great recruiter is overblown. I would concede he has been slightly better than DM at recruiting but not enough to compensate for the downfall in other areas DM was better.

I didn't say SS was a great recruiter. More that Marrone wasn't. We also don't know what Marrone would have done playing against the ACC schedule. That door opens both ways.

 

[GoSU96]

I didn't say SS was a great recruiter. More that Marrone wasn't. We also don't know what Marrone would have done playing against the ACC schedule. That door opens both ways.

He must of done something right, he took a program that went 10-37, turned over the roster, and while doing so built a program that had three winning seasons and three bowls wins in four years after a transition year.

People complain about lack of upper class depth this year. On the 2012 team there were 8 Robinson recruits on the roster, 5 5th year players and 3 guys that were in left over in Marrone's first class. Off those 8, only four were starters, Nassib, Sales, Pugh, and Lemon. The other guys were depth guys, two that played, Stevens and Vaughan, and two guys that saw spot duty, Phillips and Cutler.

Somehow this program managed to go 28-23 without any players I guess.

 

[dasher]

He must of done something right, he took a program that went 10-37, turned over the roster, and while doing so built a program that had three winning seasons and three bowls wins in four years after a transition year.

People complain about lack of upper class depth this year. On the 2012 team there were 8 Robinson recruits on the roster, 5 5th year players and 3 guys that were in left over in Marrone's first class. Off those 8, only four were starters, Nassib, Sales, Pugh, and Lemon. The other guys were depth guys, two that played, Stevens and Vaughan, and two guys that saw spot duty, Phillips and Cutler.

Somehow this program managed to go 28-23 without any players I guess.

The NFL draft was just littered with Marrone guys. He took G-robs skill guys and got to .500 A very good game manager. But in 4 years, he didn't bring in a solid qb. Or running back for that matter. And what is this 28-23 record you speak of? He was 25-25

 

[TheCusian]

To be fair we have no clue how DM would have done with an ACC schedule and the IPF. I just believe the myth that SS is a great recruiter is overblown. I would concede he has been slightly better than DM at recruiting but not enough to compensate for the downfall in other areas DM was better.

Well sure, but the argument was why there are very few senior/juniors on the roster. Whatever the reason - BE affiliation, lack of resources, Marrone's departure, etc - there is a gap created by less than ACC level recruiting in 2012 and 2013. A slight uptick has been helpful the last two years, but as you say - not enough to compensate for Shafer's other failings.

This started when someone said a coaching change wouldn't affect recruiting. It almost always does. I'm okay with that if they get the right guy, but it will hurt this class. (Especially if we go HC from a lesser conference. P5 coordinators might stem that a bit with guys they might bring with them).

 

[anomander]

The NFL draft was just littered with Marrone guys. He took G-robs skill guys and got to .500 A very good game manager. But in 4 years, he didn't bring in a solid qb. Or running back for that matter. And what is this 28-23 record you speak of? He was 25-25

I don't think it was a coincidence that all of Marrone's guys got better as their careers progressed. Sr year Nassib certainly wasn't anywhere near the QB he was his Fr and So. year. Same with Sales, Provo, Wales, Mackey, Rome, etc. I don't think he got credit for the player development that he should. We certainly don't see the same level of player development frkm this current staff, and for a program like ours that is essential.

Out of these guys who have improved throughout their career? AC, Bris, Parris, Wilson, Robinson, Turdo, Lasker, Foy, Morris, McFarlane, Moore, Hodge, Whigham, Morgan, Scissum, Etc.

Point being there is more to it then just recruiting. The kids we are getting aren't plug and play guys. We have to get kids with potential, then be able to do something with them. I think that has held us back more than anything.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

First of all, those are non-recurring expenses and should nof be viewed in the same context as normal operating results. Moreover, they might even be viewed as part of the capital budget. But even if capitalization is not permitted under FASB rules, it would certainly be reasonable for the Chancellor to recognize the temporary non-recurring nature and to not make long-term decisions based on such short-term term factors. Actually, it would be unworthy of such an intelligent guy as the Chancellor.

Also, next year already includes a ND Met-Life game.

Amen.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I don't think it was a coincidence that all of Marrone's guys got better as their careers progressed. Sr year Nassib certainly wasn't anywhere near the QB he was his Fr and So. year. Same with Sales, Provo, Wales, Mackey, Rome, etc. I don't think he got credit for the player development that he should. We certainly don't see the same level of player development frkm this current staff, and for a program like ours that is essential.

Out of these guys who have improved throughout their career? AC, Bris, Parris, Wilson, Robinson, Turdo, Lasker, Foy, Morris, McFarlane, Moore, Hodge, Whigham, Morgan, Scissum, Etc.

Point being there is more to it then just recruiting. The kids we are getting aren't plug and play guys. We have to get kids with potential, then be able to do something with them. I think that has held us back more than anything.

Doug could coach em up indeed. It's not rocket science, look at the staff Doug had put together, not only was his staff capable of this but Doug himself with taking A raw young coach such as the hip hop dancer and making him a viable 1A coordinator. Look at the job Moore did with the receivers, the job Donnie H did with the secondary as well. Look at the O Line as well.

Syracuse is and always will be a developmental program, if our coach isn't capable of coaching the kids up then he simply will not be successful here. This is 100 times more important than recruiting. Rob Moore case in point, guy can flat out coach the position. He wouldn't be where he is today if he could not.

Recruit best you can and develop, cut and dry

 

[Finwad32]

All day, every day.

If either of the STA kids start as many games as the B'ville kid during their careers I will be surprised. In fact they'd be lucky to combine to start the same amount as games as Robinson has.

And how's that worked out? Singlehandedly has blown more assignments than any other OL. I consistently watch him miss his mark. I'm not even talking about blocking, I'm talking about him even getting to his block.

My comment had nothing to do with development or coaching, simply talent. And the difference in this scenario isn't debatable IMO.

Nick's a great kid by all accounts, thought he was a better player two years ago than he is now. But, I know in looking at the scheme that he's being taught how and who to block, he's just struggling to get there.

 

[orangenirvana]

And how's that worked out? Singlehandedly has blown more assignments than any other OL. I consistently watch him miss his mark. I'm not even talking about blocking, I'm talking about him even getting to his block.

My comment had nothing to do with development or coaching, simply talent. And the difference in this scenario isn't debatable IMO.

Nick's a great kid by all accounts, thought he was a better player two years ago than he is now. But, I know in looking at the scheme that he's being taught how and who to block, he's just struggling to get there.

Then why hasn't he been recruited over?

 

[Finwad32]

For one because he's a 5th year Sr. with nothing but underclassmen behind him. It's not difficult.

 

[orangenirvana]

For one because he's a 5th year Sr. with nothing but underclassmen behind him. It's not difficult.

If he's as incapable as you say and Shafer is such a great recruiter then I'm shocked he's started every game this year.