Interesting concept - could USF pull it off?

[Jim Johnson]

A lot of schools use money from donors to fund their coaching salaries (annual fund donations through their charitable foundations) ... Pete Thamel wonders if a school that does this might explore hiring lower-cost coaches, and direct that money to NIL processes to bring in a bit higher caliber player than they might ordinarily.

Would USF fans tolerate a coach with less of a pedigree if that meant a possibility of increasing the talent level? How much of USF's challenges to win games over the past 12 years  (i.e. not just Jeff Scott) are truly about coaching challenges versus simply a talent gap with the players?

This is purely an academic discussion ... but there may be a G5 school or a lower-tier P5 school that tries to go this route as long as NIL remains fairly unregulated.

 

[Brad]

This argument was put forth by puc yesterday.

Didn't read it all, but I would not go for it.

At lower levels, I have seen great talent squandered by bad coaching.  Plus, I don't think you can just pay a lot of guys to show up and win a team sport with no true leadership.  The player-coach relationship becomes like the pro sports where the player doesn't care, plays when they want to, etc.

I think contracts should be re-visited.  The problem with that are the Wisconsin's, etc. that don't blink over paying $15 million to a coach to leave.

The NCAA needs leadership, unfortunately it defaulted.

[puc86]

16 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

A lot of schools use money from donors to fund their coaching salaries (annual fund donations through their charitable foundations) ... Pete Thamel wonders if a school that does this might explore hiring lower-cost coaches, and direct that money to NIL processes to bring in a bit higher caliber player than they might ordinarily.

Would USF fans tolerate a coach with less of a pedigree if that meant a possibility of increasing the talent level? How much of USF's challenges to win games over the past 12 years  (i.e. not just Jeff Scott) are truly about coaching challenges versus simply a talent gap with the players?

This is purely an academic discussion ... but there may be a G5 school or a lower-tier P5 school that tries to go this route as long as NIL remains fairly unregulated.

 

I’ve said this no fewer than 100 times 

[Rocky Style]

I've also wondered this.  It would be funny to let the air out of the coaching balloon.

[Brad]

Begs another question, who are we going to outspend in NIL?

[Rocky Style]

3 minutes ago, Brad said:

Begs another question, who are we going to outspend in NIL?

We need to outshady the competition.  It is Tampa after all.

[Brad]

We should sell to the Glazers...they are rolling in Tampa Bay dollars...

[jchem1995]

7 minutes ago, Brad said:

Begs another question, who are we going to outspend in NIL?

No one. I am so glad I didn’t spend a nickel on this lack luster bust of a team. I’d want a pound of flesh if I did.

[jchem1995]

Furthermore,I think the coaches should pay the NIL deal to the kids. Hell we just give it away to the ones who don’t play a snap.

[puc86]

11 minutes ago, Brad said:

Begs another question, who are we going to outspend in NIL?

If we stop spending money on increasing fixed costs that have little chance of moving the winning needle to then just come to conclusion once they cement themselves in our budget that we still need the NIL money, most people. The first thing most people think about when taking a job is how much am I going to get paid and who you work for and what your office looks like only factor between likely situated salaries. 
 

No matter who we hire they will have the baked in excuse of recruiting with people then asking how are they supposed to get people to choose to play here, I want to play in a crappier stadium is no one’s answer, I really like this guy and would like to fail with him for 4 years so he can get paid more and build something probably ain’t it either. I will get paid more here is something that can actually work and mitigates risk across more contracts with no buyout issues. 
 

This plan has the least amount of risk, implements the fastest and is the one most likely to pay off. I don’t see how anyone can disagree based on the information we currently have.