So Pitt Alums? What do want to pay for a football assistant?
- Thread starter SVPanther
- Start date
Is football (entertainment) that much more important to you than the value of your degree?
For many...including myself........
My degree from Pitt was one of the conduits connecting my hopes and dreams to a successful and prosperous adult life.
Today, I have accomplished most everything I ever set out to do..... in large part because I graduated from Pitt.
For me, and many others on this board, it's getting time to kick back, relax and enjoy the ride.
That includes all of the things i always hoped to experience.....including pitt football.
And I take much enjoyment from seeing Pitt football succeed.
I'm sure millions of 'Bama alumni are doing just fine.
Pitt will have to be competitive in coaching salaries to maintain a productive staff. I believe the new admin knows that. Pitt must keep Narduzzi, Canada, and any others happy that are contributing to a stable and successful program. I think this staff, although attrition and tweaking may take place, has brought some national attention to Pitt, which, in turn, should improve recruiting and results down the line.
well since it's not my money ill say "as much as it takes." realistically speaking, I think we should hope for getting one more year from Canada at most.. Hey, that's the downside of getting a kick-ass coordinator.. Beats the alternative of having someone that no one else wants..
Why is it football vs. the University? Pitt has more than enough in ACC revenue to pay Canada enough to keep him. It would be a small investment compared to the potential earnings as a result of finally having good teams.
It can be simplified by saying this: with Canada, we ended the season ranked. Without Canada, we wouldn't even be bowl eligible.
With Canada, Pitt kept the Peds outta the playoffs...that alone makes Canada worth every penny that he can get from Pitt.
My answer is what ever it takes to keep a good football HC and the staff he wants for continuity.
So much cheaper to pay staff and achieve great success.
With all the money (millions) we won't have to spend on a new stadium we can easily afford to do this.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
So much cheaper to pay staff and achieve great success.
With all the money (millions) we won't have to spend on a new stadium we can easily afford to do this.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Holy Cow. Is there a more overrated coordinator in the country than John Chavis?
Exactly!!! There are financially successful and financially unsuccessful people from every college in this country. There are millionaire WVU and Cal of PA alums, there are dirt broke Ivy Leaguers. The chances of you becoming a millionaire go up being from the Ivy League due to networking not the education, but it is no guarantee that you will either. Basically all a college provides is a network to work with. At the end of the day, it is the individual persons efforts that determine the financial success, not the college nor the degree.
I do not have a number as I am not going to look at out peers to come up with it. What i do think is that Pitt should be competitive in coaches pay for both HC and assistant coaches with the top 25% of the ACC. Those are our peers, those are who we compete against on the field and that is where we should be paying.
Agree.. we shouldnt go above and beyond for a sports team. market value is fine. There should be a cap instituted in NCAA for hiring guidelines, much like MLB, that would be the only way to ensure fairness... keep coaches from flipping every year, and not have kids commit to schools that you know will have a different coach when you are a senior.
LSU pays 3.5 million to its head coach. That is dirt cheap. So they now can hire 2 elite assistants with top pay. This is exactly what I wanted to do with basketball. A cheap but good head coach with elite assistants. Its what Pitt is doing right now to a degree in football. Only question is how much do they pay Canada. 1 million is fair for a guy that has zero head coaching experience that can't recruit all that well. If Canada could recruit it would be different. That benefits us.
Exactly right. The results on and off the field from a coordinator who took a group of players (outside of James Conner) who were relatively unknown and turned them into an absolute scoring machine this year, needs to be paid well in order for PITT to retain him.
I'm sure there is some level of loyalty to Narduzzi for picking Canada up after he was pushed out of NC State (or at least that is the story we hear), but loyalty alone will not keep a coach from looking around if he is not receiving the support from the administration that he deserves.
There hasn't been a football vs university issue since the mid-90s. There's only been a distribution of limited resources issue with some people taking an unrealistic view of what resources actually exist.
Pitt's athletic department still operates in the red despite all the new ACC money, and it still has a lot of infrastructure projects that need to be accomplish to catch up to peers... and a lot if staff that they need to catch up on. But what drives the athletic department is 1) Football and 2) Men's basketball, and it always has been that way. There is nothing more critical to success in those two sports, at any institution, than coaching talent and that is absolutely where you have to prioritize resources: coaching salaries. So, IMO, you put money first into coaching staff salaries to obtain and retain talent in those two sports. All other priorities, including facilities, are the next priority down.
Pay 'em what he needs in order to keep him, and put off other athletic projects if need be.
Pitt's athletic department still operates in the red despite all the new ACC money, and it still has a lot of infrastructure projects that need to be accomplish to catch up to peers... and a lot if staff that they need to catch up on. But what drives the athletic department is 1) Football and 2) Men's basketball, and it always has been that way. There is nothing more critical to success in those two sports, at any institution, than coaching talent and that is absolutely where you have to prioritize resources: coaching salaries. So, IMO, you put money first into coaching staff salaries to obtain and retain talent in those two sports. All other priorities, including facilities, are the next priority down.
Pay 'em what he needs in order to keep him, and put off other athletic projects if need be.
That is the problem, there is no reason why Pitt should be in its current state financially. It was negligence (if not outright contempt and sabotage) by many prior administrations that Pitt is so financially strapped on the athletic budget.
Easy question.
Pay more than whoever's offering and promise to help him land a head coaching gig (which all coaches do anyway).
He adapts to the personnel he has better than any coach I've ever seen.
Losing is expensive.
Winning is an expensive investment.
Pay the man.
Pay more than whoever's offering and promise to help him land a head coaching gig (which all coaches do anyway).
He adapts to the personnel he has better than any coach I've ever seen.
Losing is expensive.
Winning is an expensive investment.
Pay the man.
That is not true - unless you want to tag 90% of all DI AD's "negligent." As the WAPO investigation shows, all ACC reporting schools in 2014 are in the red. No reason to suspect Pitt would be any different. The cause? Spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/
There are many reasons for that, because at the majority of schools 2 sports fund the other 15+ sports, that is why it is important for those 2 sports to earn as much as it can. At Pitt, previous administrations were negligent and and hurt the Athletic budget. Would Pitt be in the red if the past Admins were so bad, probably but not to the current level. Also I did not read that article, does it take into account of donations, or just profit from the products?
Yes, every school relies of football and/or basketball to fund all of their varsity sports. However, as it was pointed out, the vast majority of athletic departments don't fund their athletic operations (i.e. football and basketball don't make enough profit to fund themselves and all of the other necessary varsity sports), and the number of sports you must field in order to belong to Division 1 is mandated by the NCAA. Title IX then dictates how many of those need to be for women (aka guaranteed money losers). Pitt fields 19 sports (and 6 of those are men's and women's XC, indoor and outdoor track), so it is at the small end of the Power 5 in terms of sports supported. That a good thing, considering the financial issues.
And the issue is that Pitt's athletic department revenue has been a problem for over 80 years, going back to when the university had to bail out the athletic department when if failed to cover the bonds on Pitt Stadium because they overestimated the fan and booster base, and then ran headlong into the depression. They built it, and they did not come, despite the fact that Pitt was churning out national champions like few programs in history have. The major problem is with the number of fans in Pitt's core support base, the amount they're willing to spend on tickets, and the number and average donations of boosters have all been consistent financial limiting factors for Pitt's entire athletics history. Flat out the major issue is gate receipts. The next is a lack of a culture of giving to athletics. This was true in 1936, 1956, 1980, and it is true today. And today gate receipts still separate the top from the bottom of the power conference structure in terms of resources for athletics. Look, it is certainly acceptable to blame every past administration in Pitt's history for not solving those problems, because none of them did, and the current AD was brought in to try to fix that, so we'll see. But that is a very tough job, and the reality is Pitt has had to be creative in the past, and it will likely to have to keep being creative going forward.
But there has been a change. The primary financial difference today for Pitt is that we are part of a cartel that pays us handsomely just for being a member and that covers over 40% of our current athletic budget. We are fortunate to not feel compelled to field more sports than we do, that we do not have major infrastructure overhead, and not be burdened by substantial existing debt. Thus the infusion of new ACC money really can go to immediate enhancements and new projects...and it has. Long overdue scholarships are now funded, facility renovations are underway, and staff and program budgets have been increased. But think about that...40+% of our annual athletic budget covered just for being in an athletic conference conference... that is the baseline everyone in the Power 5 is now receiving from their conferences. We are still woefully behind in everything else.
Last edited:
I don't know if the MLB is the ideal league to compare to for the sake of "fairness"
Why? I think the NCAA now is like MLB, they both suck. Both need a salary cap, as I said. If you think the way MLB is run promotes fairness, I think you are sadly mistaken. The NFL and NBA are hard capped, and that is why golden state and cleveland have a shot at winning and why the Steelers and green bay are so good always.
You think any hiring manager and above cares what school you went to after your first job?
Wat? You want an organization to mandate limited pay? No one does that in any league.
of course they do. Teachers have salary ranges, so do NBA players (capped at 25-35% of salary cap depending on years in league). Most college coaches are state employees, they could certainly have pay limits. Not saying it will ever happen, it wont. I am just saying, if they want a chance of coaches staying at jobs, that is what they should do. Would be better for fans, players, and the coaches families.
OK, so proved you wrong rather easy. If you dont agree, you can just write that instead of making things up.
Yeah, see, you obviously don't understand what collective bargaining is. The NBAPA agrees to salary limits in return for other guarantees, including minimum salaries.
And how do you arrive at the conclusion that I dont know what collective bargaining is???
I never mentioned not having minimums did I?? I clearly said ranges.
Again... wrong. I dont see why you feel the need to debate every point. You just pull something out of your head that isnt there, and use it to debate. If you leave out your first sentence, you would be better at arguing, because then I just say 'Yep, I agree'
I for one find it incredibly odd that someone would come on to a college SPORTS message board and bemoan the emphasis and costs associated with college sports.
What are you doing here exactly? Anonymous virtue signaling that you're above it all? Preaching about how fans' priorities aren't straight?
I'm sure there are message boards and websites associated with academic pursuits?
I don't get it.
What are you doing here exactly? Anonymous virtue signaling that you're above it all? Preaching about how fans' priorities aren't straight?
I'm sure there are message boards and websites associated with academic pursuits?
I don't get it.
Because you used NBA maximum salaries as an example for the NCAA mandating a limit on coaching salaries. No one mandates salaries in the NBA. Those salary ranges are collectively bargained. If you are using an example of collective bargaining to back up your opinion that the NCAA should mandate coaching salaries, it seems pretty clear you don't understand what collective bargaining is.
holy hell dude... I am done arguing this, if you cant understand the point I was trying to make it is clear it is your fault, not mine.
Your point was idiotic. There shouldn't and never will be a mandated maximum on coaching salaries by the NCAA. Your examples were crap. Sorry you get so bent out of shape when it is clear you didn't have a thoughtful or realistic opinion.
No, you ARE idiotic. You said no one does this, and I proved you wrong, then got butt hurt, and had to go on some stupid tangent.
I disagree, I think it could be discussed. They are state employees, and in most cases the teams they coach are running in a deficit. You are not debating at all, you just get rude, classless, and narrow minded. That is why I am done, you are a complete TWOT
Well... obviously I saying it isnt a level playing field. You want to disagree?? And, of course you can say, 'it is level, Pitt is free to spend more money'. Well, that gets to the point then you run a deficit in your university and students pay that deficit. It is a dumb system, and needs to be fixed. Coaches can go to the pro ranks if they want the multi-millions.
And I am here because I love the Pitt football team and interested to see recruiting updates. I didnt realize this was a discussion forum on how many trillions of dollars we should spend on coaches. We have good coaches... teams will pouch them or try to pouch them... some will leave, some will go. I am a Pitt fan no matter what the outcome is and I will support whoever the coach is. I just would really like to keep these coaches
Similar threads
