Interesting concept - could USF pull it off?

[Rocky Style]

38 minutes ago, Brad said:

but I honestly am so sick of where collegiate sports is going, apathy is the best defense.

I agree but I would substitute THE WORLD/EVERYTHING for collegiate sports.

[Roaming Bull]

TL;DR I kind of thought this was going to be about going the UAB route. Purge everyone from the program, sit out a season or two, and then start anew. 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Roaming Bull

[Brad]

22 minutes ago, Roaming Bull said:

TL;DR I kind of thought this was going to be about going the UAB route. Purge everyone from the program, sit out a season or two, and then start anew. 

 

I was thinking of that possibility as well.  

[Rocky Style]

9 minutes ago, Brad said:

I was thinking of that possibility as well.  

This would be sad, but it's been in the back of my mind for quite a few years now...

[Bull94]

4 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

Collectively, no one.  But why does that matter?  Any school can only sign 25 players and have 85 on scholarship and 105 on the team... this isn't about USF getting class after class of 5 stars.

This is about USF getting a few 4-stars that could make or break the team.  (It might be easier to do in basketball, for that matter where one or two players can really change the trajectory -- especially now that one-and-done is kaput with the new NBA agreement that is coming out.)

Imagine if USF was able to get one or two 4-stars per class.  By the time the first are seniors, USF would have six to eight... think QB, RB, WR, LT, DB, DL, and LB ... elite talent players also become leaders nearly by default.  They are likely leaders and the brightest stars of their HS teams, so leadership wouldn't be new to most of them.

There are enough 4-star-caliber athletes, especially in Florida, to go around.  Recruiting services may max out how many actually get 4-stars, but those upper 3s can be just as, if not more, talented and better fits.

Now... as I said ... it's purely academic.  Maybe USF's donor base isn't capable of making a meaningful effort, so it's better to put that donor money into a "home run" coach instead of "home run" players.   This is just "outside the box" thinking that SOMEONE is going try.

Our 2 lowest paid coaches have been our best (Leavitt and Taggart). When we broke the bank for coaches they have been colossal busts. Pay a coach $1m per year and put the other $1.5m per year towards getting some athletes. You can still get a quality head coach without breaking the bank.

We could pay 30 guys $50k per year in every recruiting class. or split $ up based on quality of players. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Bull94

[BDYZR]

Since this is a spitballing discussion, and I have said this before, give a coach an incentive laden contract. It can be structured to be very lucrative IF said coach meets certain goals. Tie the majority of the contract to those incentives. I know most people don't think any coach would tie himself to a contact like that, but I think a young up and coming coach would accept the challenge. Remember, this discussion started with trying to get a lower salaried coach so a school could donate to the NIL, what's the difference?

[Rocky Style]

1 minute ago, BDYZR said:

Since this is a spitballing discussion, and I have said this before, give a coach an incentive laden contract. It can be structured to be very lucrative IF said coach meets certain goals. Tie the majority of the contract to those incentives. I know most people don't think any coach would tie himself to a contact like that, but I think a young up and coming coach would accept the challenge. Remember, this discussion started with trying to get a lower salaried coach so a school could donate to the NIL, what's the difference?

I wish it worked that way, but it seems we have to keep lining pockets.  

[smazza]

usf cant afford to play in nil game

who are we kidding

get a coach kids want to play for

11 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

Since this is a spitballing discussion, and I have said this before, give a coach an incentive laden contract. It can be structured to be very lucrative IF said coach meets certain goals. Tie the majority of the contract to those incentives. I know most people don't think any coach would tie himself to a contact like that, but I think a young up and coming coach would accept the challenge. Remember, this discussion started with trying to get a lower salaried coach so a school could donate to the NIL, what's the difference?

the market place dictates this wouldnt work

[BDYZR]

2 hours ago, smazza said:

usf cant afford to play in nil game

who are we kidding

get a coach kids want to play for

the market place dictates this wouldnt work

Paying a coach less to buy players isn't changing the market? Under that scenario the coach is locked into a salary and essentially giving his salary to unproven players. Performance based would give him an opportunity to make/earn a hell of a lot more money.

[Outlaw]

2 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

Paying a coach less to buy players isn't changing the market? Under that scenario the coach is locked into a salary and essentially giving his salary to unproven players. Performance based would give him an opportunity to make/earn a hell of a lot more money.

If only contracts were only performance based we probably have a new coach.