I think the only programs that are truly still on the hot seat are ones that have struggled for their entire contract, not just had a bad 1-2 years. Schools like Portland State, Mount St. Mary's (maybe - tough place to win), FIU, Youngstown, and whoever is bottom of the SEC (Mizzou maybe). A lot I have missed in there or maybe a lot of explanations as to the whys, just an outsiders perspective.
Youngstown won't be on a hot seat. Brian is only in his 3rd year and they showed great improvement in year 2 from his first year. Also he's starting to get some decent players in. I would expect them to be relevant in their conference this year.
One game in so I get that it may not be fair, but Oklahoma looked as bad as ever. Texas was quite underwhelming also but I suppose it doesn’t matter how good or bad you look during this Covid period?
wow, pretty harsh on Oklahoma? Wouldn’t that be his 1st game as the Hc there? Wasn’t he just hired in the fall?
Kansas State is the only team that deserves a ton of scrutiny in that conference, IMO. But his contract is through 2023, and he’s the least paid HC in the Big 12. But that program has actually gotten worse record wise since he started it. K-State is 9/10 or 10/10 in the Big 12 in resources and funding, but Fannon at Iowa State beating Baylor in year one is literally more than K-State has done in their program’s history. Texas has probably underachieved but I think Ang is safe for awhile, certainly during this COVID time.
There is no hot seat this year. Anybody currently employed will be back next year barring a felony conviction. and you might want to check your Kansas State figures. Texas spends more and WVU spends WAY more. Texas Tech spends way, WAY more, according to filings with the federal government. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/
What I was saying is that K-State spends the LEAST. 9th out of 10 or 10th out of 10. Anyone who has been around the Big 12 knows this is the case.
Agreed no hot seat this year. But that will probably lead to even more change than usual after the 2021 season.
You’re right. I shouldn’t have posted that here. I was simply stating how terrible they looked in that game. I’ve watched Oklahoma play the last 5 years or so and that was one of the worst games I’ve seen.
I misunderstood, but this statement isn’t any closer. The EADA database shows Iowa state and Kansas expenses as less than K State and it is different than Baylor by about the cost of Gatorade and bagels for a year after you factor out the large tuition difference, so just a little lower than middle of the pack. coaching salaries are available for the public schools in the conference. I’ll let you look those up, but I don’t see KState being either a leader or bringing up the rear.
I disagree on the hot seat. If a coaches contract is up, has not been successful, and is not in tight with the AD, they could very well get told to move on. It will come down to their relationship with the admin and their reviews by their players (meaning if there are historically a lot of complaints about the coach the AD is not going to keep them on).
Really don't want to get into a back and forth, but I looked up the EADA numbers, and don't see the data you're reflecting...can you point me in the right direction? If you look at TOTAL expenses of women's teams, K-State spends 13.1 million, which is less than KU by 4 million and ISU by 2 million and a whopping 14 million less than Baylor, since you brought them up. They also are the least in recruiting expenses for women's teams of those 4 (when K-State is probably the hardest to get to of those 4). I grant you their total operating expenses of 4 million + is more than Kansas' 3 million, but it's still less than ISU (marginally). If you look at the numbers and take out sports EXCEPT basketball and football, the disparity is even greater to Kansas State's detriment. They're the only ones spending less than 10 million. Their women's sports DO bring in more revenue than Kansas, but almost 2 million less than ISU, and again, we will drop the Baylor comparison because it's not apt. If you look at expenditures and revenues NOT allocated by sports, they may have Kansas beat, but again, not ISU or Baylor. The general point I was trying to make is that K-State is in the bottom two in spending and funding and resources, and I think this data bears that out...I would imagine their Nike deal is smaller than Texas, TCU, Baylor, OU, OSU as well, maybe not ISU, but again, it's clear, those schools are in the bottom two-three. On the salaries. Which is the point I was actually trying to make, no doubt in my mind MD is the LOWEST paid in the Big-12. The most recent one I found had him making $97.5k in 2017, which increases by 2.5k yearly. So he could be making 105-107.5k now, and he's signed through 2023...which, unless Fannon signed for less than that (seems unlikely, TM was making 100k there in 2017) it would make MD the lowest paid head coach in the Big 12 (and after ISU I don't think it's particularly close). For example, Mark at KU was making 136k in 2010. Tech pays 140k+, Potter was 195k at OU (!!!), WVU is 185+, CC at OSU is over 200k, so is Ang at Texas. Not going to find exact numbers on TCU and BU, but no chance they're making LESS. My assertion is, the AD understands he's not getting anyone CHEAPER walking through that door, so, maybe that's why he's been given so much time and extended so long. His Big-12 Records: 1-8, 1-8, 0-9 Overall: 4-9-3 (non B12 season), 6-11-1, 4-12-2, 3-13-2 RPI: 206, 225, 159, 186 I'm probably not underscoring how difficult it is to start a program as he did, but I think it's fair at this point, especially if they go 0-9, 1-8 again, to wonder why he will get 3 more seasons after this. But the general sentiment that we won't see a lot of firings is true, UNLESS, in my opinion it is the end of a contract. I could see AD's using contracts ending to save a little money at some schools where the salaries are a little inflated, but overall, I see a ton of extensions, renewals, and no premature firings.
I agree with you! 1 caveat is how much of a season you get to play. Seems hard to evaluate a coach on a 10-game season, but if you can't win a game or two in conference play, and it's a historical pattern and a contract year, I could see it.
Select the school or schools you want to evaluate/ compare. For each team got to the revenues and expenses line for eachsport or team. There are two columns. One is individual player expense ( tuition, books, etc) and one is the team expense. Multiply the individual expense times the number of players listed. Then adding that to the team expense gives you a good indicator of the relative financial commitment the program has. It’s not perfect, as capital expenses aren’t included and are usually a general University expense. This is done so you don’t get a clue that the new billion dollar football stadium is paid for by taxpayers. Club coaching or facility use by the coach for his private coaching is hidden some places, others not. At some schools, the search proposals include expected club or camp coaching as part of salary. Other places it is not. So you have to dig a bit, this is on purpose, as many state laws prohibit taxpayers paying for Sports, so school shove money to capital expense or “ side job” accounting lines and such. but nothing I see has K State at the bottom of the conference or NCAA. It’s about middling. Private schools are less concerned about that issue, though they aren’t real anxious for you to know where those alumi donations are really going. The coaching salaries on the EADA database are lumped for the non-revenue sports, about all it tells you is how much men’s and women’s non revenue coaches get as a whole relative to each other ( title IX) So you have to go to the State employee salary websites most states mandate. Another place to look is the federal form 990 that must be public for all nonprofit corporations, including Univerities. It will list the top salaries ( theFootball coach almost always leads that list with the President far behind) and any salaries over 100k. Some schools make you ask for that in writing. Others publish on a website.but they must produce it on request. Schools aren’t Donald Trump. and many sponsors or schools will show the personal retainer or promotional contract the very top tier coaches get. None of Anson Dorrances income except maybe his club coaching is a mystery, for instance. And any coaches who part time for USSF teams will have their salaries on the USSF 990. so if you think KState is at the bottom in what is does to support women’s soccer, you have to do better than ‘everyone Knows’, because governments they report to think different. Come up with some verifiable numbers.
Did you literally not read the rest of my post? I literally talked about salaries, pulled from public info websites, and guess what? K-State salary is bottom (again, we don't know Baylor/TCU, not public) and Iowa State's new coach, but we know the old one was making more than K-State. I literally quoted from the EADA government website total expenditures. Kansas State is not middling. It's bottom. Compare to OSU, OU, Texas, Texas Tech, BU, TCU. The only one's MAYBE in its class is KU and ISU, literally read the thread I put together. All of the other schools spend MORE on women's sports than K-State. AND he makes LESS than any other coach in the league. What about that is funded at the middle of conference level? I've attached a few screenshots from the latest EADA reports available (2018). One shows expenses spent on Women's Soccer. If you want to calculate it per student-athlete, be my guest, but in actuality, what matters is how much the school SPENDS. Where is K-State? 3rd bottom with Iowa State and OSU (it actually shows OSU last, LOL). If you want to make the claim that OSU has less resources than K-State in women's soccer, you can, but this is 2018 and pre-dates their new soccer complex, which may not be included anyway due to private giftings, but again, bottom 2-3 is not middling, and if you want to pretend OSU is in the same world as K-State, please do. You'll also see their athletic department's total expenditure is second bottom, as is total expenditure on women's sports. Again, with Iowa State. They're actually third bottom in recruiting expenditures, too, again with OSU and also TCU. OSU also has a top 20 deal with Nike, ISU and K-State, don't. (KU, OU, Texas also have top 20 apparel deals)...again K-State is bottom 2. (https://247sports.com/college/kansa...-contracts-with-other-Big-12-teams-120714807/) This is the data I've found. Again if you want to calculate it per player on the team, I grant you, the numbers may look different, but it's up to each coach how many players to carry. I think it's far better to look at raw numbers of expenditures as an athletic department on a particular sport. But if my data is wrong, show me, and I'll be happy to concede to the numbers. But if you polled any Big 12 coach, any coach who has played at Big 12 opponents, etc. they'd all tell you what K-State is working with is one of the worst two set-ups in the Big 12, and it so happens, the numbers to me bear that out. My point is, the only way I can justify MD's job is the fact that he literally has some of the worst resources compared to Big 12 bretheren.
I think the absolute opposite. This fall season has told me a lot about programs. I really value a consistent environment that puts the athletes first. Times like this really highlight that. I mistrust any program who coaches materially differently from Spring to Fall. Spring is vitally important season for any player who wants to play beyond College. Off topic I know. Cheers
Players who play beyond college are 1% of players. School have players sitting out, there is no tournament at stake, and it’s more a teaching opportunity and coaches can try different things and not risk players for the Tournament season, which this fall is not.and several states restrict practices to socially distanced affairs, some where a player has her own ball. in a recent interview Krikorian remarked how some teams are sitting back more and he is figuring out how to be pushing up more in response than during a real season with a tournament spot to keep in mind.
Agree, which is why I qualified it. As far as MK comments, I dont think that is a new phenomenon. I would expect and coach to prepare his players for multiple situations throughout the year and focus on certain specifics for games. In Fall season there is very little time to improve players, but its vital.