Staff Reductions Coming To ADs

[AppSt94]

Equipment budget is not the first thing I think of when cutting spending in a university athletic department. I would think it would be the last place to see cuts.

UVA (who you would think has enough money) makes their field hockey goalies supply their own goalie gear for use in games. Most schools (including App and ODU) will supply that gear through the AD equipment budget.

Look for cuts like that. For the record, I think that is a bad idea, and maybe a liability issue.

As it relates to App, Michael Hughes had to supply his own kicking shoes.

You would think they would supply that but kickers can be quirky and I could see many of them wanting to pick their own despite the college providing a set. I remember in high school our kicker picked out his own cleats instead of wearing the ones that our coaches gave him.

They wouldn’t pay for soccer cleats with money from the football budget.

[AppSt94]

Equipment budget is not the first thing I think of when cutting spending in a university athletic department. I would think it would be the last place to see cuts.

Yeah that seems like a pretty misguided place to cut, but I guess there are no great options. I was also under the assumption that Nike paid us to wear their apparel and would supply nearly everything their schools asked for. Guess it depends on the contract.

Nike actually supplies the use of the logo. BSN is the supplier.

[hapapp]

I know what coaches do in general and I know that support staffs and coaching staffs aren't the same everywhere. Many schools have just 4 women's basketball coaches, instead of 6. If each of the 6 are so crucial then why do many schools have less? Just because App does it one way does not make it the only way to do it or the best way to do it. Go check out school staff sizes for D1, D2, and D3 schools in North Carolina and you would see they vary.

Thanks for confirming that you have absolutely no idea what the assistant basketball coaches at App. St. do on a daily basis...but somehow qualified out of ignorance to terminate a few.

I love how you pick apart one sentence I said and ignore all the other stuff. I know what basketball coaches do and my whole point is that other schools have smaller staffs so we don't have to have 6 coaches. If other D1 schools can have 4 then we can. I am just saying if they can do it fine then we can as well. You are defending having 6 like it is imperative and the program would fail with less. We would obviously have to cut more than just a few coaches though.

I am not defending anything. I was not the person of ignorance suggesting to eliminate positions or adding positions when I do not live in the athletic department. I actually have some sense of intelligence. I would never suggest adding or eliminating positions when I have not walked the hallways of the basketball program.

ADs make decisions all the time on budgets when they have not actually walked in the hallways of that sport as a coach. I was simply stating that if other D1 schools have less coaches that we could get by with less. You don't have to walk in the hallways to observe the numbers that other schools have and realize you could work with the same amount of coaches.

I looked around at staff pages of other schools and ours. For example, Kerns had 4 people listed as a coach and Martin as director or recruiting and Fey director of basketball operations before adding assistant coach to their duties. I think that is a good use to have those guys doing multiple roles, which some of you think is crazy to ask when it is already being done. That is nothing new because that has been going on for a long time in athletics. Did you know there are schools who have one person coach more than one sport? That stuff sounds crazy to you but it is not.

Our women's basketball team has 5 coaches with two of them doing a coaching role and something off the court. I just don't see why we need someone doing community relations for that sport when we should have a couple people doing that for all of athletics instead of someone for just one.

On the other hand, we have sports like women's golf with just one coach and it should be that way for any non-revenue sport. It is not as crucial to be a national powerhouse in those sports as it is for football, men's basketball, and some extent baseball.

It's pretty clear you have disdain for the so-called Olympic sports. To suggest a team that consists of 20-30 players should have one coach suggests you have no idea of the job of a coach. If there is any bloat with athletic teams it's football and basketball.

[Saint3333]

Coaching athletics isn’t a lucrative business except at the top 40 programs.

[AppStFan1]

Thanks for confirming that you have absolutely no idea what the assistant basketball coaches at App. St. do on a daily basis...but somehow qualified out of ignorance to terminate a few.

I love how you pick apart one sentence I said and ignore all the other stuff. I know what basketball coaches do and my whole point is that other schools have smaller staffs so we don't have to have 6 coaches. If other D1 schools can have 4 then we can. I am just saying if they can do it fine then we can as well. You are defending having 6 like it is imperative and the program would fail with less. We would obviously have to cut more than just a few coaches though.

I am not defending anything. I was not the person of ignorance suggesting to eliminate positions or adding positions when I do not live in the athletic department. I actually have some sense of intelligence. I would never suggest adding or eliminating positions when I have not walked the hallways of the basketball program.

ADs make decisions all the time on budgets when they have not actually walked in the hallways of that sport as a coach. I was simply stating that if other D1 schools have less coaches that we could get by with less. You don't have to walk in the hallways to observe the numbers that other schools have and realize you could work with the same amount of coaches.

I looked around at staff pages of other schools and ours. For example, Kerns had 4 people listed as a coach and Martin as director or recruiting and Fey director of basketball operations before adding assistant coach to their duties. I think that is a good use to have those guys doing multiple roles, which some of you think is crazy to ask when it is already being done. That is nothing new because that has been going on for a long time in athletics. Did you know there are schools who have one person coach more than one sport? That stuff sounds crazy to you but it is not.

Our women's basketball team has 5 coaches with two of them doing a coaching role and something off the court. I just don't see why we need someone doing community relations for that sport when we should have a couple people doing that for all of athletics instead of someone for just one.

On the other hand, we have sports like women's golf with just one coach and it should be that way for any non-revenue sport. It is not as crucial to be a national powerhouse in those sports as it is for football, men's basketball, and some extent baseball.

It's pretty clear you have disdain for the so-called Olympic sports. To suggest a team that consists of 20-30 players should have one coach suggests you have no idea of the job of a coach. If there is any bloat with athletic teams it's football and basketball.

I don't disdain the Olympic sports at all. I think it is great to have them for more opportunities but I am saying that a way ADs can, and will, save money is to lower the budget a little more in those sports because they don't draw money.

Football and basketball have more bloat because they get the most interest. Just go look at Twitter/X. Football has over 109,000 followers. basketball has 19,400 followers, baseball has 29,000+ followers, wrestling has 11,700 followers, volleyball has 6,942 followers, Women's tennis has 842, and Men's tennis has 401 followers. Gillin is going to ask football and basketball to make cuts last. We actually increased budget and NIL for Loggains this year over previous years because getting football to championship level is his top goal.

Now go look at the message board and on 247 and see the difference in traffic and amount of posts on the football, basketball, women's sports, other men's sports pages. It is pretty clear the masses are mostly concerned about football and then basketball with baseball behind basketball and then the rest are a big drop off from there. It is pretty clear that the majority of focus on this board, 247, etc is football.

[311neers]

Thanks for confirming that you have absolutely no idea what the assistant basketball coaches at App. St. do on a daily basis...but somehow qualified out of ignorance to terminate a few.

I love how you pick apart one sentence I said and ignore all the other stuff. I know what basketball coaches do and my whole point is that other schools have smaller staffs so we don't have to have 6 coaches. If other D1 schools can have 4 then we can. I am just saying if they can do it fine then we can as well. You are defending having 6 like it is imperative and the program would fail with less. We would obviously have to cut more than just a few coaches though.

I am not defending anything. I was not the person of ignorance suggesting to eliminate positions or adding positions when I do not live in the athletic department. I actually have some sense of intelligence. I would never suggest adding or eliminating positions when I have not walked the hallways of the basketball program.

ADs make decisions all the time on budgets when they have not actually walked in the hallways of that sport as a coach. I was simply stating that if other D1 schools have less coaches that we could get by with less. You don't have to walk in the hallways to observe the numbers that other schools have and realize you could work with the same amount of coaches.

I looked around at staff pages of other schools and ours. For example, Kerns had 4 people listed as a coach and Martin as director or recruiting and Fey director of basketball operations before adding assistant coach to their duties. I think that is a good use to have those guys doing multiple roles, which some of you think is crazy to ask when it is already being done. That is nothing new because that has been going on for a long time in athletics. Did you know there are schools who have one person coach more than one sport? That stuff sounds crazy to you but it is not.

Our women's basketball team has 5 coaches with two of them doing a coaching role and something off the court. I just don't see why we need someone doing community relations for that sport when we should have a couple people doing that for all of athletics instead of someone for just one.

On the other hand, we have sports like women's golf with just one coach and it should be that way for any non-revenue sport. It is not as crucial to be a national powerhouse in those sports as it is for football, men's basketball, and some extent baseball.

It's pretty clear you have disdain for the so-called Olympic sports. To suggest a team that consists of 20-30 players should have one coach suggests you have no idea of the job of a coach. If there is any bloat with athletic teams it's football and basketball.

Basketball has the most “bloat” it seems. How many staff for 15 guys on the roster? 6-7?
Transfer portal has killed college basketball. A good season or a bad season and 70% of the roster is new the next year. Hard to keep maintain and improve interest, but Kerns has done a great job of it.

[AppStFan1]

I love how you pick apart one sentence I said and ignore all the other stuff. I know what basketball coaches do and my whole point is that other schools have smaller staffs so we don't have to have 6 coaches. If other D1 schools can have 4 then we can. I am just saying if they can do it fine then we can as well. You are defending having 6 like it is imperative and the program would fail with less. We would obviously have to cut more than just a few coaches though.

I am not defending anything. I was not the person of ignorance suggesting to eliminate positions or adding positions when I do not live in the athletic department. I actually have some sense of intelligence. I would never suggest adding or eliminating positions when I have not walked the hallways of the basketball program.

ADs make decisions all the time on budgets when they have not actually walked in the hallways of that sport as a coach. I was simply stating that if other D1 schools have less coaches that we could get by with less. You don't have to walk in the hallways to observe the numbers that other schools have and realize you could work with the same amount of coaches.

I looked around at staff pages of other schools and ours. For example, Kerns had 4 people listed as a coach and Martin as director or recruiting and Fey director of basketball operations before adding assistant coach to their duties. I think that is a good use to have those guys doing multiple roles, which some of you think is crazy to ask when it is already being done. That is nothing new because that has been going on for a long time in athletics. Did you know there are schools who have one person coach more than one sport? That stuff sounds crazy to you but it is not.

Our women's basketball team has 5 coaches with two of them doing a coaching role and something off the court. I just don't see why we need someone doing community relations for that sport when we should have a couple people doing that for all of athletics instead of someone for just one.

On the other hand, we have sports like women's golf with just one coach and it should be that way for any non-revenue sport. It is not as crucial to be a national powerhouse in those sports as it is for football, men's basketball, and some extent baseball.

It's pretty clear you have disdain for the so-called Olympic sports. To suggest a team that consists of 20-30 players should have one coach suggests you have no idea of the job of a coach. If there is any bloat with athletic teams it's football and basketball.

Basketball has the most “bloat” it seems. How many staff for 15 guys on the roster? 6-7?
Transfer portal has killed college basketball. A good season or a bad season and 70% of the roster is new the next year. Hard to keep maintain and improve interest, but Kerns has done a great job of it.

100% with you on this!

[AppWyo]

I love how you pick apart one sentence I said and ignore all the other stuff. I know what basketball coaches do and my whole point is that other schools have smaller staffs so we don't have to have 6 coaches. If other D1 schools can have 4 then we can. I am just saying if they can do it fine then we can as well. You are defending having 6 like it is imperative and the program would fail with less. We would obviously have to cut more than just a few coaches though.

I am not defending anything. I was not the person of ignorance suggesting to eliminate positions or adding positions when I do not live in the athletic department. I actually have some sense of intelligence. I would never suggest adding or eliminating positions when I have not walked the hallways of the basketball program.

ADs make decisions all the time on budgets when they have not actually walked in the hallways of that sport as a coach. I was simply stating that if other D1 schools have less coaches that we could get by with less. You don't have to walk in the hallways to observe the numbers that other schools have and realize you could work with the same amount of coaches.

I looked around at staff pages of other schools and ours. For example, Kerns had 4 people listed as a coach and Martin as director or recruiting and Fey director of basketball operations before adding assistant coach to their duties. I think that is a good use to have those guys doing multiple roles, which some of you think is crazy to ask when it is already being done. That is nothing new because that has been going on for a long time in athletics. Did you know there are schools who have one person coach more than one sport? That stuff sounds crazy to you but it is not.

Our women's basketball team has 5 coaches with two of them doing a coaching role and something off the court. I just don't see why we need someone doing community relations for that sport when we should have a couple people doing that for all of athletics instead of someone for just one.

On the other hand, we have sports like women's golf with just one coach and it should be that way for any non-revenue sport. It is not as crucial to be a national powerhouse in those sports as it is for football, men's basketball, and some extent baseball.

It's pretty clear you have disdain for the so-called Olympic sports. To suggest a team that consists of 20-30 players should have one coach suggests you have no idea of the job of a coach. If there is any bloat with athletic teams it's football and basketball.

Basketball has the most “bloat” it seems. How many staff for 15 guys on the roster? 6-7?
Transfer portal has killed college basketball. A good season or a bad season and 70% of the roster is new the next year. Hard to keep maintain and improve interest, but Kerns has done a great job of it.

Before the transfer portal killed college basketball, the one and done killed college basketball, before that it was letting freshman play, before that it was letting blacks play, and before that...

[t4pizza]

It wasn't broke so they fixed it.

The Supreme Court actually said it was broke, in a unanimous decision. Like it or not, in our country that means that it was broke.

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

[bcoach]

It wasn't broke so they fixed it.

The Supreme Court actually said it was broke, in a unanimous decision. Like it or not, in our country that means that it was broke.

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

Well this sure as heck isn't fixed is it. Courts get things wrong every single day. I say it wasn't broken and we just disagree. No big deal, it is what it is.

[Yosef10]

It wasn't broke so they fixed it.

The Supreme Court actually said it was broke, in a unanimous decision. Like it or not, in our country that means that it was broke.

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

Well this sure as heck isn't fixed is it. Courts get things wrong every single day. I say it wasn't broken and we just disagree. No big deal, it is what it is.

It was broken, Walter Byers himself admitted as much, and the NCAA screwed up the implementation of fair compensation. Two things can be true at once.

[t4pizza]

It wasn't broke so they fixed it.

The Supreme Court actually said it was broke, in a unanimous decision. Like it or not, in our country that means that it was broke.

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

Well this sure as heck isn't fixed is it. Courts get things wrong every single day. I say it wasn't broken and we just disagree. No big deal, it is what it is.

I do agree that courts get thing wrong all the time, even the Supremes. But even when the Supremes are wrong, they are right simply because they have the final word. And I also agree that it isn't fixed and it won't be for some time. It is a worse mess than it was and I can't help but think that is somewhat by design from the powers that be. If they fixed it, Congress wouldn't need to get involved to fix it and their only chance at regaining any real power is for Congress to step in and give an antitrust exemption.

[AppfaninCAALand]

The Supreme Court actually said it was broke, in a unanimous decision. Like it or not, in our country that means that it was broke.

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

Well this sure as heck isn't fixed is it. Courts get things wrong every single day. I say it wasn't broken and we just disagree. No big deal, it is what it is.

I do agree that courts get thing wrong all the time, even the Supremes. But even when the Supremes are wrong, they are right simply because they have the final word. And I also agree that it isn't fixed and it won't be for some time. It is a worse mess than it was and I can't help but think that is somewhat by design from the powers that be. If they fixed it, Congress wouldn't need to get involved to fix it and their only chance at regaining any real power is for Congress to step in and give an antitrust exemption.

Unless I am mistaken, O'Bannon v NCAA was a 9th Circuit decision and didn't go to the Supreme Court, neither did House v NCAA, hence the settlement. The powers controlling college athletics decided to settle rather than continue to fight it. I don't if they stopped fighting because the Supreme Court decided not to consider the case, effectively saying the Supremes agree, or if the NCAA just chose not to fight it for fear of some worse outcome.

[AppSt94]

We will just have to disagree on that one.

Honestly, what is there to disagree with? My post was not an opinion; it is a fact. The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law for our country, when they say something is unlawful (broken) then it is. You can disagree with the ruling, but it is still the final say on the law. In this case that final say was that the NCAA system of college athletics that we all knew was broken. Not sure what there is to disagree with, those are factual statements not opinions.

Well this sure as heck isn't fixed is it. Courts get things wrong every single day. I say it wasn't broken and we just disagree. No big deal, it is what it is.

I do agree that courts get thing wrong all the time, even the Supremes. But even when the Supremes are wrong, they are right simply because they have the final word. And I also agree that it isn't fixed and it won't be for some time. It is a worse mess than it was and I can't help but think that is somewhat by design from the powers that be. If they fixed it, Congress wouldn't need to get involved to fix it and their only chance at regaining any real power is for Congress to step in and give an antitrust exemption.

Unless I am mistaken, O'Bannon v NCAA was a 9th Circuit decision and didn't go to the Supreme Court, neither did House v NCAA, hence the settlement. The powers controlling college athletics decided to settle rather than continue to fight it. I don't if they stopped fighting because the Supreme Court decided not to consider the case, effectively saying the Supremes agree, or if the NCAA just chose not to fight it for fear of some worse outcome.

The latter seems the most likely.