Satterfield contract adjusted & Billy Jones gets extension

[NewApp]

BOT do not dictate such moves. As the article states, they approved it. It had to come from campus first. I suspect it was because we are painted in a corner. We can't afford to hire a new coach at the market rates, so we have to give the current plan the best chances for success. As posted before, it is doubling down on the bet to send a signal of confidence to the staff, players and recruits. If anything, the new Chancellor made this move because she is willing to let it succeed or fail with the current plan, but she is not willing to throw any more money at athletics when the rest of campus is starving for funds for academic and faculty needs. Given that the costs/losses of the move have been far larger than expected and that Raleigh continues to not provide enough to maintain the status quo on the academic side of campus, it is hard to disagree with this approach (which may or may not be the case).

Given that the costs/losses of the move have been far larger than expected


Not being a smart aleck, but exactly who didn't expect this? The ones with their heads in the sand? All I basically kept hearing in the published study was mostly about how much more money we were going to bring in. Costs were downplayed to say the least.

[NewApp]

OK - I can see that - however she could have been the top choice for all parties --- I still think it has much more to do with the other 2 reasons ---

From the buzz from the Chapel Hill PTB, part of the reason she was hired was to put us "back in our place." That of being primarily a teacher's college first. That would lesson the threat of competing with the rest of the University System's funding and for the lack of a better word, "prestige." i.e. too big for our britches. After all, we're supposed to a little hick hillbilly teachers' college stuck back in the poverty stricken mountains.

[AppState89]

You can't judge this coach until he has all his players on the field . Our roster was depleted , thats why we have so few juniors and seniors in key positions now .our number 1 ranked sunbelt class from last year is almost all redshirting. We will judge him in about 2 to 3 years! Same with coach Jones!

BINGO

Let's see what 2015 and 2016 brings... 2016 should tell us if Satt stays or goes...

[MountainMan]

Major eyebrow raiser. I believe BOT has zero confidence in SNE to hire an AD. Unsubstantiated, just personal opinion.

The operative word there is "unsubstantiated".

I'd guess SNE knows more about athletics at this point in her tenure than KP did. Mostly unsubstantiated, of course, primarily just personal opinion.

[YesAppCan]

The operative word may be "mostly".

...

[Gonzo]

but she is not willing to throw any more money at athletics when the rest of campus is starving for funds for academic and faculty needs.

If this is accurate, my worst fears about the new chancellor hire have been realized.

[MountainMan]

From the buzz from the Chapel Hill PTB, part of the reason she was hired was to put us "back in our place." That of being primarily a teacher's college first. That would lesson the threat of competing with the rest of the University System's funding and for the lack of a better word, "prestige." i.e. too big for our britches. After all, we're supposed to a little hick hillbilly teachers' college stuck back in the poverty stricken mountains.

Not sure how anyone could actually "put us back in our place" -- I don't think we've ever left "our place" (at least in the eyes of the Board of Governors). App has a great reputation given the resources made available, but in terms of funding or support that we deserve, none of our former chancellors have had any significant success with getting us up to a higher level -- whether it's funding formulas, Ph.D. programs, or whatever. Not knocking any former leadership, but the new Chancellor probably stands as much chance as the others to make progress in this area.

[MountainMan]

but she is not willing to throw any more money at athletics when the rest of campus is starving for funds for academic and faculty needs.

If this is accurate, my worst fears about the new chancellor hire have been realized.

Why? If the Charlie Cobb plan was valid, the Chancellor won't need to throw more university money at athletics because the move to FBS will result in more incremental revenue than incremental cost. Athletics will have more money and it won't have to come from students or institutional funds.

[Gonzo]

but she is not willing to throw any more money at athletics when the rest of campus is starving for funds for academic and faculty needs.

If this is accurate, my worst fears about the new chancellor hire have been realized.

Why? If the Charlie Cobb plan was valid, the Chancellor won't need to throw more university money at athletics because the move to FBS will result in more incremental revenue than incremental cost. Athletics will have more money and it won't have to come from students or institutional funds.

Athletic funds haven't and won't come from students or educational funds. I just don't like the idea of her going cheap on us. Like it or not those stadium enhancements are more important than just about anything else that money could could be spent on.

It was my understanding that the athletic budget and educational budget were completely distinct. And student fees are about the only thing I can think of that could overlap "student or institutional funds" with athletics.

[AppGrad78]

It sure feels like we're pinching pennies these days:

-- We didn't allow several of our teams on campus the weekend before school started because we declined to pay their housing costs, something we routinely did in the past.

-- We redirected funds raised by the baseball team and earmarked for the baseball team and channeled those funds to the overall athletic budget.

-- Except for a day trip to Charlotte, the band hasn't played on the road this season.

-- Employees who expected to be compensated with FBS-level salaries are seeking employment elsewhere, presumably because those FBS-level salaries aren't materializing. See Jay Sutton, Jake Stroot. Others are actively looking.

-- Our Board of Trustees extended the contracts of two young coaches whose service here so far has been unremarkable as a hedge against paying them higher salaries later. It has the potential to control expenses in the short term but comes at considerable risk if those coaches fail to produce.

The point is, I'm enjoying the improved football schedule and increased presence on regional and national television as much as the next person, but it appears we're having trouble making Charlie Cobb's fanciful FBS financial projections come true.

[Saint3333]

It's been 18 months. It takes time. Much like building this football program back up getting the athletic department up the FBS levels is going to take time.

I'm surprised at some of these posts from some of our more seasoned fans.

[MountainMan]

but she is not willing to throw any more money at athletics when the rest of campus is starving for funds for academic and faculty needs.

If this is accurate, my worst fears about the new chancellor hire have been realized.

Why? If the Charlie Cobb plan was valid, the Chancellor won't need to throw more university money at athletics because the move to FBS will result in more incremental revenue than incremental cost. Athletics will have more money and it won't have to come from students or institutional funds.

Athletic funds haven't and won't come from students or educational funds. I just don't like the idea of her going cheap on us. Like it or not those stadium enhancements are more important than just about anything else that money could could be spent on.

It was my understanding that the athletic budget and educational budget were completely distinct. And student fees are about the only thing I can think of that
could overlap "student or institutional funds" with athletics.

Every independent analysis I've ever seen suggests that athletics do indeed benefit from institutional funds -- there are maybe 20 (or less) athletic programs that make more than they spend. It is true that in most places schools can't take state allocations and spend directly on athletics, but it is common in most mid-level and lower schools that those in-between funds (like perhaps bookstore surpluses, or dining hall surpluses, or general student fees (not those designated as athletic) that could go for labs or library books but get diverted), or physical plant employees that are on state salaries that do work at athletic facilities, or utilities and office supplies used in athletic offices, and on and on) as well as some tuition money (which is not a state allocation).

For an article about how even large school programs are subsidized, see:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... s/2142443/

In the most recent data as reported to the NCAA, App reported a "subsidy" of $10.35 Million which includes student fees but also "direct and indirect institutional support and state money". For App, I don't think it includes any state money, but does include the vague "direct and indirect institutional support".

I'm not suggesting shutting down athletics or starving football, but I would suggest that any desire to make further increases from direct or indirect institutional support to athletics in the current environment would be greatly misguided in my opinion.

[T-Dog]

-- Except for a day trip to Charlotte, the band hasn't played on the road this season.

105 members of the band were in Statesboro Thursday.

[APPARJ]

One of the most misleading elements of the "Football Loses Money" argument is the notion that what we spend on football and what football generates in ticket, concession and apparel sales is all there is to consider.

Like it or not, football for App State is our greatest marketing asset (keeping alumni connected/invested in the school, attracting higher caliber students etc.) Even the most skeptical person on this board cannot deny that the football team's success from '05 - '07 has done more for the school than any academic achievement could ever dream of accomplishing.

It would be almost impossible to truly measure the monetary benefit that having a strong football presence and tradition has on the school as a whole. I mean, think about it... App State has created a tradition of FOOTBALL EXCELLENCE over the last decade. That is something that has kept everyone on this board engaged and passionate about the school. My guess is that there are plenty of posters here (myself included) that give back to the school because of the passion that we derive from the football team. I'll be very honest and say that if App State dropped their football program, I wouldn't give as much to the school. Not out of maliciousness or bitterness - I'm just exceptionally passionate about how our football team represents our school.

Obviously, App State is a university and there would not be a football team without the school. However, there are far fewer qualified FBS quality head coaches available for hire than say English professors.

So... according to a balance sheet does App State lose money on football? Perhaps. But does it really hurt the school?

If we abolished the football team and directed all of the funds used for football and applied it to academics, would we get the same return on investment from alumni, prospective students and overall national recognition and interest? If we're all honest... not even close.

If App State is smart, they'll continue to ensure our football team maintains an excellent and appealing product to represent our school in the best light possible. That helps everyone.

Congrats, Coach Satt - I'm pulling for you.

[T-Dog]

In 2009 App State made a slightly more than they spent in athletics, but since UNC system athletics can't make a profit, it wasn't classified as such. The irony is that losing to Montana kept the program from losing money. Going to the National Championship is a money-loser. The NCAA gets all the ticket money and says the teams have to be there several days beforehand to do media events, plus the band travel is costly.

Making money at the FCS level is next to impossible. Montana might on a good year and they're the only one. Last year no FCS programs made more than they spent.

The chance of losing money at FBS is there, but the ceiling is a lot higher to make money, especially now with the CFB Playoff payouts.

[AppDawg]

It sure feels like we're pinching pennies these days

-- Employees who expected to be compensated with FBS-level salaries are seeking employment elsewhere, presumably because those FBS-level salaries aren't materializing. See Jay Sutton, Jake Stroot. Others are actively looking.

The point is, I'm enjoying the improved football schedule and increased presence on regional and national television as much as the next person, but it appears we're having trouble making Charlie Cobb's fanciful FBS financial projections come true.

I am still holding out hope on the "financial projections". It has been widely known (or rather I have thought it to be common sense) this first year would be a struggle until the increased revenue starts rolling in, which will not be until the end of this academic year. Conference revenue doesnt come in before the games are played.

If we are still having this discussion in a year or two, I will start to be concerned. That said, I think we have to be competitive and do everything we can to retain our best talent in the athletics department, not just coaches. Stories I have heard lead me to believe there is a "don't let the door hit you on your way out" mentality. Put another way, are we on fast track to the early 2000's / 1990's mantra WDDITWAA? These are serious concerns of mine.

[T-Dog]

Put away your pitchforks everyone.

http://www.appstatesports.com//ViewArti ... =209682188

BOT Approves Contract Adjustment, Extension
Courtesy: Appalachian State Sports Information
Release: Saturday 09/27/2014 (ET)

BOONE, N.C. — Appalachian State University’s Board of Trustees approved an adjustment of the terms of football coach Scott Satterfield’s contract and a three-year contract extension for baseball coach Billy Jones on Friday.

Satterfield, who is in his second year as Appalachian State’s head coach and signed a four-year contract prior to Appalachian State’s move to NCAA Division I FBS, had the terms of his contract adjusted to fall in line with other football head coaches in the Sun Belt Conference. His contract runs through 2016.

“I thank our administration and the Board of Trustees for their continued commitment to myself, our staff and our student-athletes as we make the transition to FBS and the Sun Belt Conference,” Satterfield said.

Jones, who is in the third and final year of his original contract, was extended through the 2018 season.

“Appalachian State has been nothing but supportive of me and my staff since we arrived two years ago. I thank the Board of Trustees and our athletics administration, past and present, for that support,” Jones said.

[asu66]

Major eyebrow raiser. I believe BOT has zero confidence in SNE to hire an AD. Unsubstantiated, just personal opinion.

I join you in that opinion. How on real earth did SNE fail to name Oval Jaynes (a member of Collegiate Athletic Director's Hall of Fame, a resident of Blowing Rock and an Appalachian grad) to the AD search committee? He should have been the first selectee. Duh!

How on earth is SNE sitting still on Sept. 27 when women's basketball practice is/was set to begin at 12:01 AM on Monday, Oct 6? That a mere 9 days away--with no head coach and no staff. Another duh!

Cobb resigned on Thurs., Aug 14. Vincent "resigned" on Friday, Sept. 5. Is SNE aware that her University HR staff has yet to advertise a vacancy for Athletic Director, a vacancy for a Women's Head Basketball Coach and two (2) Women's Basketball Assistant Coach positions? Just what is going on up there? Apparently, not much!

http://hrs.appstate.edu/employment/epa- ... nistrative

[WVAPPeer]

Major eyebrow raiser. I believe BOT has zero confidence in SNE to hire an AD. Unsubstantiated, just personal opinion.

I join you in that opinion. How on real earth did SNE fail to name Oval Jaynes (a member of Collegiate Athletic Director's Hall of Fame, a resident of Blowing Rock and an Appalachian grad) to the AD search committee? He should have been the first selectee. Duh!

How on earth is SNE sitting still on Sept. 27 when women's basketball practice is/was set to begin at 12:01 AM on Monday, Oct 6? That a mere 9 days away--with no head coach and no staff. Another duh!

I know none of these people - my guess is neither did the chancellor - someone gave her the names - possibly you should seek out the reps who left names off which you feel should have been included --- possibly he was asked and declined? - I have no idea --- I would imagine she has a great deal more than athletics to deal with ---

[asu66]

Major eyebrow raiser. I believe BOT has zero confidence in SNE to hire an AD. Unsubstantiated, just personal opinion.

I join you in that opinion. How on real earth did SNE fail to name Oval Jaynes (a member of Collegiate Athletic Director's Hall of Fame, a resident of Blowing Rock and an Appalachian grad) to the AD search committee? He should have been the first selectee. Duh!

How on earth is SNE sitting still on Sept. 27 when women's basketball practice is/was set to begin at 12:01 AM on Monday, Oct 6? That a mere 9 days away--with no head coach and no staff. Another duh!

I have no idea --- I would imagine she has a great deal more than athletics to deal with ---

That was a little snarky. I'll reply in kind. The Chancellor has an Assistant to the Chancellor for Athletics whose job is to keep her well-informed about issues on the leading edge. I can't think of many more important front burner athletics issues at the moment than hiring a WBB coaching staff and an AD.