TCU putting $105mil into stadium

[MrTitleist]

This is insane.. HUGE upgrade. They could have built a new one for the same price. Anyhow, check the links.. looks like a good upgrade.

http://gofrogs.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081610aad.html
http://www.stadium.tcu.edu/

 

[Fullback41]

If I had the same amount of money for UW, I would invest it in a UW Football/Coaches Fund. At the end of each year the headcoach and assistants would be paid bonuses to bring their salary equal to or greater than every other team in the MWC we finished higher than.......and if ranked in the top 25 equal to or greater than every team we outrank.

For instance, (in a great year) lets say we finish ranked higher than Oklahoma. Oklahoma has one of the highest football payrolls and spends about 6.7 million on Stoops and staff. If the investments grew only 5% (about 5.3 million) we could make up the difference on investment income alone, assuming UW spends about 1.4 million on salary and bonuses for the whole staff for an exceptional year.

The fund could also sustain the same principles for wrestling, swimming, & women's basketball, etc. Maybe eventually be split to even cover men's basketball. We could offer salaries that compete with anyone and could get (or retain) the best coaches in the nation.

I am not saying our coaches are underpaid (in fact, I think a lot of us would consider it a dream job and would do it for free, if we felt we were any good at it). I just wouldn't want to lose any quality coaches or miss out on future hires based on pay.... And, of course, I start with football because it is the sport dearest to my heart, and it is the one that generates the most revenue for the school. But I would love to see UW build a wrestling program (or any other) that is winning national titles and no one can hire Branch away from us because he has built something here and no one can outbid us for his services...that would be awesome!

What else I like about it, is that it rewards production...not just shelling out a lot to a big name in base salary. Anyone that is willing to be compensated on production loves this, and those who don't......well you should be leary of, (they want the high pay even if the don't produce?) Incentive based pay is not new to football contracts, but I can't think of a better pay system at all that is tied to production than to just guarantee you will make more or equal to everyone you beat. We would have great coaches lining up for us, and be able to sustain a dynasty once rebuilt.

 

[zappinpoke]

If I had the same amount of money for UW, I would invest it in a UW Football/Coaches Fund. At the end of each year the headcoach and assistants would be paid bonuses to bring their salary equal to or greater than every other team in the MWC we finished higher than.......and if ranked in the top 25 equal to or greater than every team we outrank.

For instance, (in a great year) lets say we finish ranked higher than Oklahoma. Oklahoma has one of the highest football payrolls and spends about 6.7 million on Stoops and staff. If the investments grew only 5% (about 5.3 million) we could make up the difference on investment income alone, assuming UW spends about 1.4 million on salary and bonuses for the whole staff for an exceptional year.

The fund could also sustain the same principles for wrestling, swimming, & women's basketball, etc. Maybe eventually be split to even cover men's basketball. We could offer salaries that compete with anyone and could get (or retain) the best coaches in the nation.

I am not saying our coaches are underpaid (in fact, I think a lot of us would consider it a dream job and would do it for free, if we felt we were any good at it). I just wouldn't want to lose any quality coaches or miss out on future hires based on pay.... And, of course, I start with football because it is the sport dearest to my heart, and it is the one that generates the most revenue for the school. But I would love to see UW build a wrestling program (or any other) that is winning national titles and no one can hire Branch away from us because he has built something here and no one can outbid us for his services...that would be awesome!

What else I like about it, is that it rewards production...not just shelling out a lot to a big name in base salary. Anyone that is willing to be compensated on production loves this, and those who don't......well you should be leary of, (they want the high pay even if the don't produce?) Incentive based pay is not new to football contracts, but I can't think of a better pay system at all that is tied to production than to just guarantee you will make more or equal to everyone you beat. We would have great coaches lining up for us, and be able to sustain a dynasty once rebuilt.

Or we could just load up on hookers and beer...your call. :winky:

Sounds like a great idea. Now go find a couple of rich dudes, we got it made. Under funded... :brick:

 

[MrTitleist]

I vote hookers and beer.

Also, I wouldn't be a HC for free.. job is a pain in the ass, you have to answer to experts like us.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

If I had the same amount of money for UW, I would invest it in a UW Football/Coaches Fund. At the end of each year the headcoach and assistants would be paid bonuses to bring their salary equal to or greater than every other team in the MWC we finished higher than.......and if ranked in the top 25 equal to or greater than every team we outrank.

For instance, (in a great year) lets say we finish ranked higher than Oklahoma. Oklahoma has one of the highest football payrolls and spends about 6.7 million on Stoops and staff. If the investments grew only 5% (about 5.3 million) we could make up the difference on investment income alone, assuming UW spends about 1.4 million on salary and bonuses for the whole staff for an exceptional year.

The fund could also sustain the same principles for wrestling, swimming, & women's basketball, etc. Maybe eventually be split to even cover men's basketball. We could offer salaries that compete with anyone and could get (or retain) the best coaches in the nation.

I am not saying our coaches are underpaid (in fact, I think a lot of us would consider it a dream job and would do it for free, if we felt we were any good at it). I just wouldn't want to lose any quality coaches or miss out on future hires based on pay.... And, of course, I start with football because it is the sport dearest to my heart, and it is the one that generates the most revenue for the school. But I would love to see UW build a wrestling program (or any other) that is winning national titles and no one can hire Branch away from us because he has built something here and no one can outbid us for his services...that would be awesome!

What else I like about it, is that it rewards production...not just shelling out a lot to a big name in base salary. Anyone that is willing to be compensated on production loves this, and those who don't......well you should be leary of, (they want the high pay even if the don't produce?) Incentive based pay is not new to football contracts, but I can't think of a better pay system at all that is tied to production than to just guarantee you will make more or equal to everyone you beat. We would have great coaches lining up for us, and be able to sustain a dynasty once rebuilt.

I agree.

I think we would be wise to establish a coaching endowment, similar to the endowment that pays our distinguished professors. Get the state to set aside a couple of hundred million dollars and use the interest to pay a few key salaries: football, basketball, women's basketball, wrestling...

We desperately need to pay our coaches and start establishing some consistency. Our fan base can't take much more of the boom and bust cycle of coaching. We get a good one, he leaves, we get a bad one, we wait four years to fire them, we get a good one, he leaves...

 

[MrTitleist]

This has always been a problem at UW, and one I wish we didn't have. It's been annoying to see great coaches leave. Imagine the things we could have done w/ Tiller here for a few more years..

 

[kansasCowboy]

Tiller? Seriously? He was good but come on... Bob Devaney, Bowden Wyatt, Pat Dye, Just think if Lloyd Eaton would've coached more than 9 years? I really wish Paul Roach would've coached longer than he did.

 

[NowherePoke]

Tiller? Seriously? He was good but come on... Bob Devaney, Bowden Wyatt, Pat Dye, Just think if Lloyd Eaton would've coached more than 9 years? I really wish Paul Roach would've coached longer than he did.

Yeah, but neither Eaton nor Roach left UW for more money. The end of Eaton's tenure (and career) was his own doing, while Roach chose to retire and stay at UW in a different capacity.

Devaney and Wyatt were great coaches (before my time but the records don't lie) however we were able to replace them with comparable coaches (Wyatt was replaced by Dickens who had an even better winning percentage and he was replaced by Devaney and then Eaton).

Tiller is the most painful one because we royally f'd up the subsequent hires.