VPMK’s vision

[Outlaw]

1 hour ago, Ghostbuster said:

I am no apologist for MK by any means; I've said many times I didn't care for the Jeff Scott hire and I still don't.

HOWEVER, Michael Kelly is the literally the only one to make progress on the football facilities that are 15 years overdue: an IPF and OCS.  So he absolutely is the best in that particular category, which coincidentally is something that P5s seem to have as a very low bar of entry, for applicants.  Big12: "Do you invest in your own product?  No?  Then why should we?"

Nobody thinks the on the field/court results are good enough.  "tHeN wHy ThE eXtEnSiOnS?!?!" I hear ppl ready to yell.  To lock in costs so you have a known quantity when you bust out your spreadsheet and plan for the next investments of football.  Football is the single most important key to unlocking success everywhere.  Basketball (and every other sport for that matter) can crap the bed for all I care because it's never bringing us media money that will sustain athletics overall.

Football can.

So again, Michael Kelly is the only one proven to execute on a plan that gives a guaranteed 100% return on investment for football.

What I mean by that, is while replacing coaches who do bad is within his control, it is not 100% guaranteed to improve anything.  Ffs look at Scott *as* an example of that.  But us having facilities that we need is guaranteed to be better than us not having them.

Improving facilities is a must and the OCS news is big if it comes to fruition. The problem is CJS is failing in his first two years and looks lost.  All we can hope he learns how to coach, call plays, game plan, manage game, develop talent, and recruit better. He was rewarded with an extension with he had YEARS LEFT. It appears to be the same for MBB but I don't care for basketball in any form at all. If MBB does great that is a plus, but honestly I really only care about football.  Football is the money maker and always will be.  

[puc86]

17 hours ago, Ghostbuster said:

I am no apologist for MK by any means; I've said many times I didn't care for the Jeff Scott hire and I still don't.

HOWEVER, Michael Kelly is the literally the only one to make progress on the football facilities that are 15 years overdue: an IPF and OCS.  So he absolutely is the best in that particular category, which coincidentally is something that P5s seem to have as a very low bar of entry, for applicants.  Big12: "Do you invest in your own product?  No?  Then why should we?"

Nobody thinks the on the field/court results are good enough.  "tHeN wHy ThE eXtEnSiOnS?!?!" I hear ppl ready to yell.  To lock in costs so you have a known quantity when you bust out your spreadsheet and plan for the next investments of football.  Football is the single most important key to unlocking success everywhere.  Basketball (and every other sport for that matter) can crap the bed for all I care because it's never bringing us media money that will sustain athletics overall.

Football can.

So again, Michael Kelly is the only one proven to execute on a plan that gives a guaranteed 100% return on investment for football.

What I mean by that, is while replacing coaches who do bad is within his control, it is not 100% guaranteed to improve anything.  Ffs look at Scott *as* an example of that.  But us having facilities that we need is guaranteed to be better than us not having them.

This sounds pretty apologetic. The easiest way to lock in costs is by not having a coach you have to fire and pay not to coach, the position and the budget can be the line item on a spreadsheet. The budget blows up when you have to pay someone not to coach and that is increasing likely when you give long term contracts to people that are already failing. Winning is the best solution to athletic woes and people are more likely to pay for expenditures if you look like you are doing something with the money you are already receiving. 

[Ghostbuster]

5 hours ago, puc86 said:

This sounds pretty apologetic. The easiest way to lock in costs is by not having a coach you have to fire and pay not to coach, the position and the budget can be the line item on a spreadsheet. The budget blows up when you have to pay someone not to coach and that is increasing likely when you give long term contracts to people that are already failing. 

Lol we're saying the same thing yet you think I'm the apologist.

Buying a new coach blows the budget and Coach Scott (or Gregory or any other coach you're mad at) is a sunk cost.  Period.  There's no going back and making a different decision, and even if we had a different coach since 2019 with a few more wins it doesn't change how bad we've sucked for most of the past 12 years.  Furthermore, we didn't give Scott a *big raise* with that extension, we just controlled our future costs that would have otherwise been taken away from facilities investment.

Look around the world right now and try to tell me there isn't inflation or that you wouldn't have to pay more for a coach hired/extended today vs when Kelly extended everyone.

And this is absolutely about controlling costs for football facilities/OCS.  The athletics staff was extended til 2026, which is *exactly* the same year that the proposed stadium could open (earliest).  This is not an accident.  It is also not an accident that we got rejected by the Big12 and *then* USF trustees/presidents all got aboard the stadium hype train.  No conference wants to dole out money to leeches that can't be bothered to invest in themselves.  Saying to the Big12 "we have a plan to hire better coaches" won't get you in the door.  I mean, even replacement coaches, worth their salt, will say "what do you have in place to help me be successful here?".  If your only answer is "a short lease" then you're going to be in the loop we're in: Hiring unproven unknowns or overpaying for has-beens looking to revive their career.

So just eat your veggies that suck right now and you'll get your cake in a few years.

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Ghostbuster said:

Lol we're saying the same thing yet you think I'm the apologist.

Buying a new coach blows the budget and Coach Scott (or Gregory or any other coach you're mad at) is a sunk cost.  Period.  There's no going back and making a different decision, and even if we had a different coach since 2019 with a few more wins it doesn't change how bad we've sucked for most of the past 12 years.  Furthermore, we didn't give Scott a *big raise* with that extension, we just controlled our future costs that would have otherwise been taken away from facilities investment.

Look around the world right now and try to tell me there isn't inflation or that you wouldn't have to pay more for a coach hired/extended today vs when Kelly extended everyone.

And this is absolutely about controlling costs for football facilities/OCS.  The athletics staff was extended til 2026, which is *exactly* the same year that the proposed stadium could open (earliest).  This is not an accident.  It is also not an accident that we got rejected by the Big12 and *then* USF trustees/presidents all got aboard the stadium hype train.  No conference wants to dole out money to leeches that can't be bothered to invest in themselves.  Saying to the Big12 "we have a plan to hire better coaches" won't get you in the door.  I mean, even replacement coaches, worth their salt, will say "what do you have in place to help me be successful here?".  If your only answer is "a short lease" then you're going to be in the loop we're in: Hiring unproven unknowns or overpaying for has-beens looking to revive their career.

So just eat your veggies that suck right now and you'll get your cake in a few years.

No we are not saying the same thing, extending contracts of failing coaches increases liability for a longer period of time and introduces more volatility to your budget since the only way to blow the budget is to pay for two coaches. This is a dumb unforced error by someone that has successfully ran the destruction of our athletic department, there is a reason why no other person charged with running an athletic department has followed his idiocy. 

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, Ghostbuster said:

And this is absolutely about controlling costs for football facilities/OCS.

You realize this is falling on deaf ears. The one you're engaged with obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about facilities so it's a moot point ...

[Brad]

I just want Ws

[Triple B]

2 minutes ago, Brad said:

I just want Ws

Well sure, when you put like that ....

[Brad]

I was just trying to be representative of the deaf ears.

[puc86]

 

Show me a video not from the Glazer’s that says you play to get someone to pay for a new facility, which interestingly enough if we had put this money towards buying the Bucs when they were for sale we would have had the winning bid. Plenty of teams have failed programs with far nicer facilities than we intend to build and if you run the worst athletics program with facilities not up to your standards your probably going to still do poorly even if we build you a retractable roof or a field that rolls outside to get sunlight. Since players don’t get contracts yet, winning is free we should probably try doing that at least more than a single other athletic program in the nation. 

[Ghostbuster]

1 hour ago, Triple B said:

You realize this is falling on deaf ears. The one you're engaged with obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about facilities so it's a moot point ...

Yeah I know who I'm dealing with.  I enjoy his unbridled rage most of the time, but I just want the chance to counter it in case anyone else starts to be convinced that we just need to "win" or that the current coach or AD are the reason we sucked for over a decade when they weren't here. 

We really really reallllllly need everyone to buy into the fact that facilities upgrades are necessary when the fundraising starts or else it won't succeed.  And without those upgrades to make us attractive to recruits and the Big12, we'll be stuck spending the next 15 years still pining for Leavitt and the good ole days instead of winning meaningful games with top talent.