2008's recruits, according to the RGJ:
2008 Nevada football recruits
Name, Pos., Ht., Wt., Cl.-Exp., Hometown (High school)
High School signees
*Brandon Wimberly, WR, 6-3, 195, Fr.-HS, Los Angeles (Gardena HS)
Michael Ball, RB, 5-10, 225, Fr.-HS, Las Vegas (Desert Pines HS)
*Zack Sudfeld, TE, 6-7, 230, Fr.-Nevada, Modesto Calif. (Modesto Christian HS)
Christian Barker, OL, 6-4, 315, Fr.-HS, Fontana, Calif. (Etiwanda HS)
Aaron Huck, OL, 6-3, 295, Fr.-HS, San Jose (Oak Grove HS)
Jeff Nady, OL, 6-7, 255, Fr.-HS Minden (Douglas HS)
Steve Werner, OL, 6-5, 310, Fr.-HS, Tulare, Calif. (Tulare West HS)
Mark Forrest, DE, 6-7, 210, Fr.-HS, San Jose (Oak Grove HS)
Jon Rabe, DT, 6-5, 285, Fr.-HS, Upland, Calif. (Damian HS)
*Mark Avery, DT, 6-4, 270, Fr.-HS, Stockton, Calif. (Amos Alonzo Stagg HS)
Jack Reynoso, DT, 6-3, 260, Fr.-HS, Loomis, Calif. (Del Oro HS)
*Albert Rosette, LB, 6-2, 225, Fr.-HS, Concord, Calif. (De La Salle HS)
*Brett Roy, LB, 6-4, 240, Fr.-Nevada, Yucaipa, Calif. (Yucaipa HS)
Thaddeus Brown, DB, 5-11, 177, Fr.-HS, Pasadena, Calif. (Notre Dame HS)
Isaiah Frey, DB, 6-0, 190, Fr.-HS, Olivehurst, Calif. (Jesuit HS)
Khalid Wooten, DB, 6-0, 195, Fr.-HS, Rialto, Calif. (Carter HS)
Marlon Johnson, S, 5-11, 185, Fr.-HS, Ingelwood, Calif. (Ingelwood HS)
Ahmad Wood, Ath, 5-11, 185, Fr.-HS, San Pedro, Calif. (San Pedro HS)
Junior College signees
Michael Andrews, DT, 6-3, 275, So.-JC, Kailua, Hawaii (Arizona Western College)
Antoine Thompson, DB, 6-1, 195, Jr.-JC, Norfolk, Va. (Reedley College)
Maurice Harvey, S, 6-4, 215, Jr.-JC, Titusville, Fla. (Reedley College)
Dayton Guillory, Ath, 6-0, 180, Jr.-JC, Bossier City, La. (Yuba CC)
* - already enrolled at Nevada
As usual, it would seem special teams is going to be left out - I don't see a single kicker on the list here, at least. I'm sure some of these guys are going to get some time on special teams while they wait for their starting positions to open up, and getting more speed on that side of the ball would be excellent, but it won't matter if we can't get a kicker that can keep the ball on the field on kickoffs. Letting our opponents repeatedly start on the 35 yard line is not exactly encouraging to me.
That said, it would seem our program is going in the right direction here. We definitely needed some more depth on defense, and it looks like we're going to get it. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm much less concerned about Ault and much more concerned about our program. If Ault can reinvent himself the way Tom Coughlin and countless others have reinvented themselves, we'll be the ones that benefit from that.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
In Response to Super Post
The nice thing about being a contributor here is that I get to reply with a full-on post... so I will!
I was the cohort that was at that game, and though I was also rooting for the Patriots, I can understand why others weren't. The key, ironically enough, is in this part of the Super Post:
In short, the reason my cohort became a Patriots fan was because they were terrible. They were the ultimate underdog. I understand. That's how I became a Rams fan. I was originally raised in Torrance, a suburb of Los Angeles, and I had a choice - I could either become a Raiders fan like all of the "cool kids", or I could become a Rams fan. Since I wasn't cool, guess what I did? It's the same way I became a Clippers fan. It's also the same way I became an Angels fan.
It's also the same way a lot of people became New York Giants fans that night.
To be honest, the Patriots weren't particularly likable this year. If your team played them, they probably ran up the score against you. If your team was the Jets, they also cheated against you. Their coach, though brilliant, is socially callous and inherently unfriendly. Tom Brady is not only a brilliant and amazing quarterback - he's a brilliant and amazing quarterback that goes out with supermodels. Not "supermodel", mind you - we're talking plural supermodels. If you're a Raiders fan, you probably have some Randy Moss hate mail in your AutoText, ready to go out at a moment's notice. The list goes on like this. Meanwhile, you turn on the radio, or you turn on ESPN, and what do you see? Patriots, Patriots, Patriots... nothing but the Patriots. Show after show after talking head after vapid personality expounding on how brilliant they are, how historic they are, how they do all the right things (provided a camcorder isn't involved, of course), how they're all so humble and righteous and...
Ugh.
Americans love heroes. Americans also love underdogs. There's a reason for this - heroes and underdogs, at least in the American tradition, are humble people that get the job done. We can relate to that. We do that every day we go to work, take care of the kids, or clean our bathrooms. What Americans can't stand is ostentatious success. We simply don't handle having someone else's success thrown in our faces all that well. Do you know why the NBA's ratings continue to plummet? Because the entire league is full of "me first" guys who are the opposite of humble. The Patriots, well, sure, their players are humble... but the organization sure as hell isn't. Humble organizations don't point cameras at opposing coordinators after winning three Super Bowls. Humble organizations don't prepare elaborate post-Super Bowl parties to celebrate their undefeated season before it even happens. Humble organizations don't run up the score like some kind of college powerhouse each and every game.
I can understand why nobody likes the Patriots. It has nothing to do with the small lives of small-minded people or anything like that. It's just that the Patriots were ruthlessly efficient, brutal, and effective, and "ruthless" and "cuddly" rarely go well together.
I was still rooting for them anyways.
I was the cohort that was at that game, and though I was also rooting for the Patriots, I can understand why others weren't. The key, ironically enough, is in this part of the Super Post:
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name.
In short, the reason my cohort became a Patriots fan was because they were terrible. They were the ultimate underdog. I understand. That's how I became a Rams fan. I was originally raised in Torrance, a suburb of Los Angeles, and I had a choice - I could either become a Raiders fan like all of the "cool kids", or I could become a Rams fan. Since I wasn't cool, guess what I did? It's the same way I became a Clippers fan. It's also the same way I became an Angels fan.
It's also the same way a lot of people became New York Giants fans that night.
To be honest, the Patriots weren't particularly likable this year. If your team played them, they probably ran up the score against you. If your team was the Jets, they also cheated against you. Their coach, though brilliant, is socially callous and inherently unfriendly. Tom Brady is not only a brilliant and amazing quarterback - he's a brilliant and amazing quarterback that goes out with supermodels. Not "supermodel", mind you - we're talking plural supermodels. If you're a Raiders fan, you probably have some Randy Moss hate mail in your AutoText, ready to go out at a moment's notice. The list goes on like this. Meanwhile, you turn on the radio, or you turn on ESPN, and what do you see? Patriots, Patriots, Patriots... nothing but the Patriots. Show after show after talking head after vapid personality expounding on how brilliant they are, how historic they are, how they do all the right things (provided a camcorder isn't involved, of course), how they're all so humble and righteous and...
Ugh.
Americans love heroes. Americans also love underdogs. There's a reason for this - heroes and underdogs, at least in the American tradition, are humble people that get the job done. We can relate to that. We do that every day we go to work, take care of the kids, or clean our bathrooms. What Americans can't stand is ostentatious success. We simply don't handle having someone else's success thrown in our faces all that well. Do you know why the NBA's ratings continue to plummet? Because the entire league is full of "me first" guys who are the opposite of humble. The Patriots, well, sure, their players are humble... but the organization sure as hell isn't. Humble organizations don't point cameras at opposing coordinators after winning three Super Bowls. Humble organizations don't prepare elaborate post-Super Bowl parties to celebrate their undefeated season before it even happens. Humble organizations don't run up the score like some kind of college powerhouse each and every game.
I can understand why nobody likes the Patriots. It has nothing to do with the small lives of small-minded people or anything like that. It's just that the Patriots were ruthlessly efficient, brutal, and effective, and "ruthless" and "cuddly" rarely go well together.
I was still rooting for them anyways.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Blog
Before I begin I will admit to all readers: I am not much of an NFL fan. Sorry, but college football, I think, is far superior, even if the product varies in consistency. College athletics is WAR! Pro sports, on the otherhand, means paychecks. I, myself, am not completely consistent in this, either, as I do love professional baseball and my beloved Giants, Barry Bonds aside. But when it comes to football I'm somewhat less enthusiastic. Let alone the NBA, I could really care less about them. Just my opinion.
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name. Leanings turned into an affinity and the next thing I knew my adopted team was in the Super Bowl, just months after I had proclaimed: "I just want to live long enough to see the Patriots in the Super Bowl; not to see them win, because I know that won't ever happen, but just to see them get there." Needless to say for about three years there I thought I was living on borrowed time.
The point? Well, I'm going to say a few things here. I don't think that they are too biased, but in case some other readers think otherwise that should provide some insight.
Aside from just wanting the Pats to win on principle's sake, I really, REALLY wanted to see history made this year. Of course, as all know by now, that didn't happen. My cohort and I tried out a new tavern for our Super Bowl festa, and for the first half or so there was one Giant's fan amongst a handfull of Pats fans. By the second half my comrade and I were the ONLY people rooting for the Patriots, and there were a hearty number rooting for the underdogs.
Why? I wanted to see history so badly, why did so many others want to see them fail?
I think that there is a little piece inside many, unfulfilled souls, who hate success, at least when other people achieve that success. Perhaps they hate their own lives, or just feel animosity toward anybody who nears achieving the unachievable. A part of me began to believe that people's internal negitivity drives their lust for those who are out there in the "thin air," pushing back the outside of that envelope and then hauling it back in. In other words, they are not where they thought they would be in life, and to see someone come oh so close just ravaged their very hearts. They weren't rooting for the Giants, they were rooting for the Patriots to fail; not because they're scary good, but because winning the big one this year would represent all those motivational things we are told in school that anyone can achieve, while they still work some menial job to help some guy in the South Meadows who probably doesn't even use his turn signal. In a way, the psyche brings the 18-1 Patriots down to "our" level a bit, and people seem to rather have that than use a 19-0 Patriots team to motivate themselves to bigger and better things.
Of course, I could be (and secretly hope I am) wrong, but there are precidents.
In 2004, when we played Gonzaga in the second round of the NCAAs the arena had a good number of Stanford fans awaiting their evening game. By and large they rooted for the underdog Wolf Pack. Were they rooting for us because we weren't a threat or even in the same bracket, or because we weren't the #2 team in the country?
People love an underdog, that's true. It helps build our own egos a bit, especially when the proverbial "we" are the underdog. But in this case, is this the popular reaction to two weeks (or five months) of hype, or a more extreme case of people rooting against history because they really hate to see a pure, unadulterated winner, or "perfects," in a world of OKs, goods, betters, and bests? Is "good" or "best" where people top out and fail to strive for even better than their best? If so, then is there a resentment toward those who do set the bar even higher? Good enough to beat my competition is all I have to be, and damn you if you come along and make me, my life, my attitude, look bad?
Or am I just a bit of a romantic idealist?
With that stated, as far as NFL teams go I admit my leanings are toward the Patriots. Why, because they've been good for the past ten years? Quite the opposite, in fact. When I was a child I had the athletic ability of the average tarantula (those who have been in Gabbs, NV for the annual tarantula migration know what I'm talking about), and when we would pick team names, me being the one who could care less at the time, I would ask of the others: "Which team sucks the most?" Unanimously, they would blurt out: "Oh, the Patriots are terrible!" and so I always went with the Patriots as my one-on-one team name. Leanings turned into an affinity and the next thing I knew my adopted team was in the Super Bowl, just months after I had proclaimed: "I just want to live long enough to see the Patriots in the Super Bowl; not to see them win, because I know that won't ever happen, but just to see them get there." Needless to say for about three years there I thought I was living on borrowed time.
The point? Well, I'm going to say a few things here. I don't think that they are too biased, but in case some other readers think otherwise that should provide some insight.
Aside from just wanting the Pats to win on principle's sake, I really, REALLY wanted to see history made this year. Of course, as all know by now, that didn't happen. My cohort and I tried out a new tavern for our Super Bowl festa, and for the first half or so there was one Giant's fan amongst a handfull of Pats fans. By the second half my comrade and I were the ONLY people rooting for the Patriots, and there were a hearty number rooting for the underdogs.
Why? I wanted to see history so badly, why did so many others want to see them fail?
I think that there is a little piece inside many, unfulfilled souls, who hate success, at least when other people achieve that success. Perhaps they hate their own lives, or just feel animosity toward anybody who nears achieving the unachievable. A part of me began to believe that people's internal negitivity drives their lust for those who are out there in the "thin air," pushing back the outside of that envelope and then hauling it back in. In other words, they are not where they thought they would be in life, and to see someone come oh so close just ravaged their very hearts. They weren't rooting for the Giants, they were rooting for the Patriots to fail; not because they're scary good, but because winning the big one this year would represent all those motivational things we are told in school that anyone can achieve, while they still work some menial job to help some guy in the South Meadows who probably doesn't even use his turn signal. In a way, the psyche brings the 18-1 Patriots down to "our" level a bit, and people seem to rather have that than use a 19-0 Patriots team to motivate themselves to bigger and better things.
Of course, I could be (and secretly hope I am) wrong, but there are precidents.
In 2004, when we played Gonzaga in the second round of the NCAAs the arena had a good number of Stanford fans awaiting their evening game. By and large they rooted for the underdog Wolf Pack. Were they rooting for us because we weren't a threat or even in the same bracket, or because we weren't the #2 team in the country?
People love an underdog, that's true. It helps build our own egos a bit, especially when the proverbial "we" are the underdog. But in this case, is this the popular reaction to two weeks (or five months) of hype, or a more extreme case of people rooting against history because they really hate to see a pure, unadulterated winner, or "perfects," in a world of OKs, goods, betters, and bests? Is "good" or "best" where people top out and fail to strive for even better than their best? If so, then is there a resentment toward those who do set the bar even higher? Good enough to beat my competition is all I have to be, and damn you if you come along and make me, my life, my attitude, look bad?
Or am I just a bit of a romantic idealist?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Give Ault credit... he does learn
Fresh from the RGJ - Nevada has a couple of new defensive coaches:
The particularly interesting part was this gem:
Considering how pass defense was one of the biggest weaknesses of the Wolf Pack this year, it's encouraging that Ault is bringing in a couple of coaches to do something about it. Interestingly, it also looks like Nigel Burton is something of a hot commodity - Bruin Roar, a UCLA blog, speaks quite highly of him:
Unfortunately, Oregon State's athletic web site is down, so I'm unable to confirm or deny any of this. That said, it is encouraging that a section of Pac-10 fans find him to be an excellent coach, and that his personal connection with Ault brought him to our program. As I've said before, Ault's weakness has never been recruiting, as long as you ignore special teams - it's good to see that this also extends to assistant coaches. If Nigel is a decent game time coordinator and recruiter, we're going to be in decent shape.
EDIT: I read the comments on our last post, and, much to my surprise, these hires actually address the issues made by our visitors here. Ken Wilson is now the Assistant Head Coach, which, I suspect, is one of those idle positions created to keep Ault's friend around without actually putting him into a position where he can do any real damage. Meanwhile, Ault has pulled a proven, successful defensive coach at a Pac-10 school and brought him here, which... well, you have to admit, that's definitely a step in the right direction.
Nigel Burton and James Ward will join the Nevada football team as assistant coaches on the defensive side of the ball, head coach Chris Ault said Wednesday.
Burton is the Pack's new defensive coordinator, replacing Ken Wilson, who will remain with the program as Ault's associate head coach. Burton, who most recently was the cornerbacks coach at Oregon State, will also coaching the safeties.
Ward was the secondary coach at Colorado State and will coach cornerbacks at Nevada.
The particularly interesting part was this gem:
Burton, who was at Oregon State for five years, was ranked one of the top recruiters in the Pac-10 by rivals.com. He played collegiately for both Pacific and Washington.
"My excitement goes beyond the opportunity to be a coordinator," Burton said. "I am excited to come to a program like Nevada because I've known Chris Ault since I was 17 years old and I have tremendous respect for him and the program that he's built in Reno."
Considering how pass defense was one of the biggest weaknesses of the Wolf Pack this year, it's encouraging that Ault is bringing in a couple of coaches to do something about it. Interestingly, it also looks like Nigel Burton is something of a hot commodity - Bruin Roar, a UCLA blog, speaks quite highly of him:
Burton is currently the secondary coach up at Oregon State. Nigel has been on the staff with the Beavers for five years and their defense was one of the best in the conference this season. He is considered a fantastic recruiter and an up and coming coach. Before OSU, he coached at Portland State for a few seasons and at South Florida. He did an internship with the Denver Broncos for a season to help gain some experience at that level.
Unfortunately, Oregon State's athletic web site is down, so I'm unable to confirm or deny any of this. That said, it is encouraging that a section of Pac-10 fans find him to be an excellent coach, and that his personal connection with Ault brought him to our program. As I've said before, Ault's weakness has never been recruiting, as long as you ignore special teams - it's good to see that this also extends to assistant coaches. If Nigel is a decent game time coordinator and recruiter, we're going to be in decent shape.
EDIT: I read the comments on our last post, and, much to my surprise, these hires actually address the issues made by our visitors here. Ken Wilson is now the Assistant Head Coach, which, I suspect, is one of those idle positions created to keep Ault's friend around without actually putting him into a position where he can do any real damage. Meanwhile, Ault has pulled a proven, successful defensive coach at a Pac-10 school and brought him here, which... well, you have to admit, that's definitely a step in the right direction.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Athletic Budgeting
I had to "send Quasi deep into the vault" to get this one out, in this case to an article printed in the Nevada Sagebrush on 09/25/2007. To keep this in a bit of a perspective (albeit an inconclusive comparison), I will include the figures printed for BOTH Nevada universities. I figure this is an apt posting since it has come up in the past and will come up again, especially since my dear fellow blogger included another reference to coaches' salaries and how Ault fares into the mix.
According to the article, budgeting lies thusly:
School Up North:
Roughly $20,000,000
School Down South:
Roughly $24,800,000
Of that,
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
$6,763,868
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
$8,940,854
"From there, it is each school’s job to gain enough revenue to cover the remaining expenses for the year.
"In UNR’s case, additional revenue comes mainly from ticket sales and private donations (development), said John Nunn, associate athletic director at UNR. However, other sources include marketing/promotions, concession sales, royalties, NCAA and Western Athletic Conference."
So, according to these numbers (keeping in mind that the total budgets quoted here are approximate, then...
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
approx. 34%, or barely over 1/3.
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
approx. 36%, or barely over 1/3, but slightly higher that the School Up North.
Here's another quote for reference:
"UNLV’s coaching staff, as a whole, is also paid nearly double of what the coaching staff at Nevada receives. This is the big one. In 2005-2006, the Rebels coaching budget was $4,831,700 million, while the Wolf Pack’s was comparatively speaking, a measly $2,854,535 million."
There is a wealth of other info in this article, so I encourage all to read it; it does and will figure into our discussions here. I will point out, though, that when it comes to coaching salaries refer to the above info. regardless of your camp on the subject. But, if 2/3 of athletic funds at the beloved University of Nevada are raised from sources other than the state, we have to ask if this is the best that we can do. Well, is it? SMU folks were able to convince donors to contribute an extra $100K per year to lure June Jones (please see the link on my comrade's post below...granted, Dallas is just a sniffle bigger than Reno, but...). If not, is their enough concern amongst donors/alumni to raise the proverbial bar? What about the community at large? If not there, what can we do to raise their concerns and their willingness to contribute?
According to the article, budgeting lies thusly:
School Up North:
Roughly $20,000,000
School Down South:
Roughly $24,800,000
Of that,
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
$6,763,868
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
$8,940,854
"From there, it is each school’s job to gain enough revenue to cover the remaining expenses for the year.
"In UNR’s case, additional revenue comes mainly from ticket sales and private donations (development), said John Nunn, associate athletic director at UNR. However, other sources include marketing/promotions, concession sales, royalties, NCAA and Western Athletic Conference."
So, according to these numbers (keeping in mind that the total budgets quoted here are approximate, then...
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Up North:
approx. 34%, or barely over 1/3.
State Funding to Athletic Programs at the School Down South:
approx. 36%, or barely over 1/3, but slightly higher that the School Up North.
Here's another quote for reference:
"UNLV’s coaching staff, as a whole, is also paid nearly double of what the coaching staff at Nevada receives. This is the big one. In 2005-2006, the Rebels coaching budget was $4,831,700 million, while the Wolf Pack’s was comparatively speaking, a measly $2,854,535 million."
There is a wealth of other info in this article, so I encourage all to read it; it does and will figure into our discussions here. I will point out, though, that when it comes to coaching salaries refer to the above info. regardless of your camp on the subject. But, if 2/3 of athletic funds at the beloved University of Nevada are raised from sources other than the state, we have to ask if this is the best that we can do. Well, is it? SMU folks were able to convince donors to contribute an extra $100K per year to lure June Jones (please see the link on my comrade's post below...granted, Dallas is just a sniffle bigger than Reno, but...). If not, is their enough concern amongst donors/alumni to raise the proverbial bar? What about the community at large? If not there, what can we do to raise their concerns and their willingness to contribute?
What we can learn from SMU
This just in, courtesy of ESPN: June Jones is going to SMU. Interestingly, June Jones' Wikipedia article provides a little insight:
What SMU proved is that, if you offer a coach enough money ($2 million in Dallas goes a lot farther than $1.7 million in Hawaii, especially when it's offered first), they'll go just about anywhere. SMU is not a winning program, and hasn't been for quite some time - in fact, its record since the Death Penalty was handed down to it leads to a 27% winning percentage. But, SMU proved they were "committed" (i.e. they were willing to pay Jones more money), so off he goes.
Where does that leave Nevada? The answer is obvious: Absolutely nowhere.
June Jones made $800,000 in Hawaii before SMU swept him off his feet. That salary made him the highest paid public employee in Hawaii, and was considered a very extreme sum at the time. Ault, meanwhile, makes less than that - less than half of that, to be more specific, and many people in Reno believe he is overpaid. Part of that can be explained by the results of his tenure, which haven't been terribly exciting as of late, but let's get real here - if we're going to get and keep a decent coach, we need to be willing to accept that we're going to have to pay real money. $2 million/year is a big-time salary - that makes June Jones the 15th highest paid coach in the country right now. Chris Ault, meanwhile, makes less than the coach at Florida Atlantic. Let that sink in for a bit - our coach makes less than the coach of a Sun Belt program.
You can't spend Kia money and expect to get a Mercedes. At this point, we're not even spending enough to get a used Camry. Sooner or later, Nevada needs to get serious - if we're going to be competitive, we have to be willing to pay a competitive wage. Chris Peterson from Boise State? $880k/year, and he could make triple that at any big-time school in the country. Pat Hill? $1.23 million/year. Hawaii was paying June Jones $800k/year until he bailed. Do we really wonder why we can't stay even with these guys?
(Numbers pulled from coacheshotseat.com.)
EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that we spend $2 million/year on a head coach. We have far more pressing needs at the moment, like updating our stadium and our facilities. That said, if we ever replace Ault, all of us need to face facts and realize that, if we're going to get AND KEEP a competitive coach, we will need to pay a competitive salary. Right now, we're paying a "competitive with SJSU and La Tech" salary, and we're getting SJSU and La Tech results. If we want to be competitive with the big boys of the WAC, we're going to need to pony up some money. $500k will probably need to be the starting point for a new coach here, with the promise that, if they do well, we'll pay them nearly double that in a few years. Otherwise, we're going to stay right where we're at - varying shades of mediocre gray.
Frustrated with what he viewed as a lack of support from the University, Jones opted to leave Hawaii at the end of the 2007 season. After initial reports had him interviewing at SMU, Hawaii officials had offers to raise his salary from $800,000 a year to $1.7 million a year and offered a commitment to improve its facilities; in addition there was an outpouring of support from Hawaii fans, including Gov. Linda Lingle. However, Jones contacted Hawaii on January 7, 2008 and let them know he had decided to accept an offer from SMU. Jones went 75-41 at Hawaii, including 4-2 in bowls. His teams finished first in the WAC twice and second two other times.[17]
What SMU proved is that, if you offer a coach enough money ($2 million in Dallas goes a lot farther than $1.7 million in Hawaii, especially when it's offered first), they'll go just about anywhere. SMU is not a winning program, and hasn't been for quite some time - in fact, its record since the Death Penalty was handed down to it leads to a 27% winning percentage. But, SMU proved they were "committed" (i.e. they were willing to pay Jones more money), so off he goes.
Where does that leave Nevada? The answer is obvious: Absolutely nowhere.
June Jones made $800,000 in Hawaii before SMU swept him off his feet. That salary made him the highest paid public employee in Hawaii, and was considered a very extreme sum at the time. Ault, meanwhile, makes less than that - less than half of that, to be more specific, and many people in Reno believe he is overpaid. Part of that can be explained by the results of his tenure, which haven't been terribly exciting as of late, but let's get real here - if we're going to get and keep a decent coach, we need to be willing to accept that we're going to have to pay real money. $2 million/year is a big-time salary - that makes June Jones the 15th highest paid coach in the country right now. Chris Ault, meanwhile, makes less than the coach at Florida Atlantic. Let that sink in for a bit - our coach makes less than the coach of a Sun Belt program.
You can't spend Kia money and expect to get a Mercedes. At this point, we're not even spending enough to get a used Camry. Sooner or later, Nevada needs to get serious - if we're going to be competitive, we have to be willing to pay a competitive wage. Chris Peterson from Boise State? $880k/year, and he could make triple that at any big-time school in the country. Pat Hill? $1.23 million/year. Hawaii was paying June Jones $800k/year until he bailed. Do we really wonder why we can't stay even with these guys?
(Numbers pulled from coacheshotseat.com.)
EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that we spend $2 million/year on a head coach. We have far more pressing needs at the moment, like updating our stadium and our facilities. That said, if we ever replace Ault, all of us need to face facts and realize that, if we're going to get AND KEEP a competitive coach, we will need to pay a competitive salary. Right now, we're paying a "competitive with SJSU and La Tech" salary, and we're getting SJSU and La Tech results. If we want to be competitive with the big boys of the WAC, we're going to need to pony up some money. $500k will probably need to be the starting point for a new coach here, with the promise that, if they do well, we'll pay them nearly double that in a few years. Otherwise, we're going to stay right where we're at - varying shades of mediocre gray.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Swear? Swear.
Since we're running a little lean on Ault coverage right now, I'm going to take a quick diversion into the realm of Roger Clemens and his interview on 60 Minutes. Since I don't watch 60 Minutes (or CBS - nope, not even for the NFL), I'm so happy that Fox Sports has a wrap-up of it:
The bigger question, of course, is did Clemens pinky swear, or was it a swear with his fingers crossed behind his back? I suppose the world may never know...
NEW YORK (AP) - Roger Clemens said former trainer Brian McNamee injected him with the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12, according to the first excerpts released from the pitcher's interview with CBS's "60 Minutes."
McNamee said in the Mitchell report on doping in baseball that he personally injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001 while with the New York Yankees.
[...]
Clemens told CBS that McNamee's accusation was "ridiculous" and said he "never" used banned substances.
"Swear?" CBS's Mike Wallace asked Clemens.
"Swear," Clemens responded.
The bigger question, of course, is did Clemens pinky swear, or was it a swear with his fingers crossed behind his back? I suppose the world may never know...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)