Roster/Staff Updates

[AppStFan1]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

[bcoach]

Really praying this turns out to be a good hire. I am a little surprised that Loggains has not put more focus in recruiting/personnel. As much money as Loggains is burning through you would think he would hire some experienced people in recruiting who have a proven record of evaluating.

Do we have the money to pay those experienced people you want?
It seems most of our staff is making $50k-80k. That won't attract anyone over the age of 30...maybe even 28.

Maybe fewer people with more talent instead of more people with less talent. We don't need to try and be a training program.

Asking people to do more for a salary that is still below countless employers in the industry will not work. Just ask the athletic department. More with less is not as true these days as they once were.

Well then we shouldn't complain about the results. Maybe zero experience in a position like General Manager will work out just fine.

[AppSt94]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

You are living in a parallel universe if you think that App is a destination for young, or experienced athletic personnel. You didn’t say you wanted to hire 1 person to do the job of 5 but that’s exactly what you are saying.

We can debate and question the hires in terms of their individual qualifications and experience; and it would be fair to question those practice within the current football staff. But to suggest that we are a place that can be competitive with pay to retain talent is foolish.

[mike87]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

You are living in a parallel universe if you think that App is a destination for young, or experienced athletic personnel. You didn’t say you wanted to hire 1 person to do the job of 5 but that’s exactly what you are saying.

We can debate and question the hires in terms of their individual qualifications and experience; and it would be fair to question those practice within the current football staff. But to suggest that we are a place that can be competitive with pay to retain talent is foolish.

if you pay someone a living wage, you'll get 2 to 3x the output. Less turnover = less time spent training and experienced people out produce inexperienced by a huge margin. Low wages are usually a mistake. I'd be on the pay more, higher fewer train.

[AppSt94]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

You are living in a parallel universe if you think that App is a destination for young, or experienced athletic personnel. You didn’t say you wanted to hire 1 person to do the job of 5 but that’s exactly what you are saying.

We can debate and question the hires in terms of their individual qualifications and experience; and it would be fair to question those practice within the current football staff. But to suggest that we are a place that can be competitive with pay to retain talent is foolish.

if you pay someone a living wage, you'll get 2 to 3x the output. Less turnover = less time spent training and experienced people out produce inexperienced by a huge margin. Low wages are usually a mistake. I'd be on the pay more, higher fewer train.

I would agree with this. Being able to afford life outside of work makes work less stressful. However, it isn’t going to stop folks from leaving for similar positions for more money. Unfortunately, App is located in an area of the country where cost of living is not in line with what we can afford to pay. This problem isn’t unique to athletics alone.

[Stonewall]

Very true.

[BambooRdApp]

We all know it is cheaper to live in the cesspools of Conway, Huntington and extremely more cheaper to live in Stink+ville than Boone.

However, I wonder if it works itself out in the long-term given the cost of therapy sessions for decades after living in one of those three asylums.

[311neers]

NOT FOOTBALL RELATED but more eyes see this football forum than baseball so here it is.

Our baseball stadium is up for a top 20 venue in all of college baseball!

APP NATION, Go Vote! If you’ve got a big following on socials- go share it. You can vote once a day for the next 25

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/readers ... l-stadium/

[AppStFan1]

Really praying this turns out to be a good hire. I am a little surprised that Loggains has not put more focus in recruiting/personnel. As much money as Loggains is burning through you would think he would hire some experienced people in recruiting who have a proven record of evaluating.

Do we have the money to pay those experienced people you want?
It seems most of our staff is making $50k-80k. That won't attract anyone over the age of 30...maybe even 28.

Maybe fewer people with more talent instead of more people with less talent. We don't need to try and be a training program.

Asking people to do more for a salary that is still below countless employers in the industry will not work. Just ask the athletic department. More with less is not as true these days as they once were.

Well then we shouldn't complain about the results. Maybe zero experience in a position like General Manager will work out just fine.

There are many young people getting roles but they aren’t typically sons of NFL GMs so it looks like someone who proved what they can do and not getting the job due to pure nepotism. I do think if we get people who earn the job they should be paid more. We aren’t going to keep anyone good for more than 12-20 months or so if they are real good at the salaries we are paying.

[AppStFan1]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

You are living in a parallel universe if you think that App is a destination for young, or experienced athletic personnel. You didn’t say you wanted to hire 1 person to do the job of 5 but that’s exactly what you are saying.

We can debate and question the hires in terms of their individual qualifications and experience; and it would be fair to question those practice within the current football staff. But to suggest that we are a place that can be competitive with pay to retain talent is foolish.

I am not saying we need to pay 500k but we need to pay more than double so good people in those roles aren’t begging to get out. When someone said on 247 that Guerry was shocked he got let go that confirmed to me he is not any good and just glad to have the job. We want to pay enough to where good people aren’t banging down the door to get out is my point. In many cases we have had people who literally took those jobs just to get foot in the door and were looking elsewhere within a month or two from getting the job.

[AppStFan1]

Money doesn’t matter if you’re working 90 hours a week doing the job of 5 people. That kind of thinking creates burnout and turnover.

I'm not suggesting that we work 2 people to death. We already have high turnover because of low pay. If these hires are any good they won't stay in Boone more than 2 years. My whole argument is to pay more to get more qualified people who want to stay. I never said to have 1 person do the work of 5. That is exaggerating my point.

My entire point is to pay well over 100k to get experienced people with a track record. We don't have deep pockets so it is much cheaper to get top notch evaluators that find the diamonds in the rough in high school and the portal rather inexperienced guys. I rather pay a few staffers 150-200k and have great confidence in the them. You often get what you pay for.

You are living in a parallel universe if you think that App is a destination for young, or experienced athletic personnel. You didn’t say you wanted to hire 1 person to do the job of 5 but that’s exactly what you are saying.

We can debate and question the hires in terms of their individual qualifications and experience; and it would be fair to question those practice within the current football staff. But to suggest that we are a place that can be competitive with pay to retain talent is foolish.

if you pay someone a living wage, you'll get 2 to 3x the output. Less turnover = less time spent training and experienced people out produce inexperienced by a huge margin. Low wages are usually a mistake. I'd be on the pay more, higher fewer train.

Bingo. And what Appst94 isn’t even acknowledging is that we already have high turnover. I don’t expect us to keep someone for a decade but 3-4 years would be nice. If we paid fairly we could do that. We should want people that P4s approach because of our results. We aren’t literally getting really low level or super young people from other schools who take the job just cause of title and are looking to get out really quickly.

[AppSt94]

I’ll address the above and the one that AppStFan1 quoted me in this post. You are showing that you have no real idea how this works; which is odd considering you said that you used to work in a college athletics department. The athletic department works off of a budget. Each sports program works off of a portion of the overall athletic budget. We don’t have the luxury of paying everyone a six figure salary in a support role capacity. If we could afford it, we would. The jobs at App aren’t the problem. The pay isn’t really the problem either. The issue is that the pay makes it difficult to afford housing in the area. Thankfully we have donors like the Harrell family that rent condos at Echota to personnel but that’s not appealing to those with families.

I do understand and acknowledge that we have high turnover. What you fail to understand is that there is never just one singular reason for this. You are very idealistic in that you feel paying more solves a problem. But you can’t do that if you don’t have the money. Where your disconnect is that you are arguing from a position of being invested in App from the inside. Most of these hires see this as a job and nothing more. Sure they may stay if they were to make more money. They may not. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and there are many personal factors that one takes into account to assess this.

[Saint3333]

Pre-NIL teams and programs differentiated themselves from others by quite a few variables:

- Money spent
- facilities
- academics
- tradition
- coaches
- talent evaluation (finding overlooked players in our case)
- development of players

App in football had an advantage in the bolded items over our peers, and in most cases an advantage in the bottom four over larger budget programs.

Post-NIL - money wins 95% of the time. Our advantage has been eroded and it has happened to every G6 program. That gap isn't closing, enjoy the tailgates, the wins versus our peers, but that's our current reality without regulation.

[bcoach]

Was a bad idea, is a bad idea, always will be a bad idea.

[AppStFan1]

I’ll address the above and the one that AppStFan1 quoted me in this post. You are showing that you have no real idea how this works; which is odd considering you said that you used to work in a college athletics department. The athletic department works off of a budget. Each sports program works off of a portion of the overall athletic budget. We don’t have the luxury of paying everyone a six figure salary in a support role capacity. If we could afford it, we would. The jobs at App aren’t the problem. The pay isn’t really the problem either. The issue is that the pay makes it difficult to afford housing in the area. Thankfully we have donors like the Harrell family that rent condos at Echota to personnel but that’s not appealing to those with families.

I do understand and acknowledge that we have high turnover. What you fail to understand is that there is never just one singular reason for this. You are very idealistic in that you feel paying more solves a problem. But you can’t do that if you don’t have the money. Where your disconnect is that you are arguing from a position of being invested in App from the inside. Most of these hires see this as a job and nothing more. Sure they may stay if they were to make more money. They may not. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and there are many personal factors that one takes into account to assess this.

I know exactly how it works and it is good that you do but what you don't realize is that sometimes schools don't prioritize things correctly within the budget. Just because it is done a certain way does not mean it is the best way. Our budget grows every year and in that growth we should put more money towards personnel. They severely undervalue the recruiting and personnel in this day and age. We have gone from coaches doing it to having a department do it and they need to be well funded.

That is very nice of Harrell but like you said people who want families don't want that. Cheap ass housing does not get it done.

I am not idealistic and I know that just pay won't prevent turnover but what I am saying is that if we paid more we could bring in higher quality candidates and improve what we get out of the job. DUH everyone sees this as a job.

People go where the money is. People on here and 247 have constantly said that coach turnover effected us and you can't use that excuse but then not recognize that turnover in the support staff does as well. If we paid more then people would stay a little longer or we would at least get better quality people to apply for the job. Money by itself does not fix everything. I have said that on this board a lot. If money was all that mattered then A&M and Michigan would have never beat us.

The reality here is that Loggains and Clark have not put the proper value in recruiting and personnel. We can't just go pay 40M for a roster so we have to do a great job of evaluating and finding those under valued players. To do that we need people with experience and a really good eye. If our recent hires are any good they will be at the P4 level fairly quickly.

[AppStFan1]

Pre-NIL teams and programs differentiated themselves from others by quite a few variables:

- Money spent
- facilities
- academics
- tradition
- coaches
- talent evaluation (finding overlooked players in our case)
- development of players

App in football had an advantage in the bolded items over our peers, and in most cases an advantage in the bottom four over larger budget programs.

Post-NIL - money wins 95% of the time. Our advantage has been eroded and it has happened to every G6 program. That gap isn't closing, enjoy the tailgates, the wins versus our peers, but that's our current reality without regulation.

And because of all this we should increase salaries for those who are finding the talent more than the coaches. We can find really good coaches at small schools who would come for a little less money than we pay now. Gap is getting bigger and good scouting is going to be make or break for us. Even if we don't keep people long we could at least get better people. Anyone over 27 with any real experience in the personnel field who wants a family is going to be crazy to take our job. The only people we are going to get are people desperate for their first shot with the peanuts we pay. Boone is too expensive to think you can keep anyone good for more than 12-18 months for 60k in the football world.

[AppSt94]

I’ll address the above and the one that AppStFan1 quoted me in this post. You are showing that you have no real idea how this works; which is odd considering you said that you used to work in a college athletics department. The athletic department works off of a budget. Each sports program works off of a portion of the overall athletic budget. We don’t have the luxury of paying everyone a six figure salary in a support role capacity. If we could afford it, we would. The jobs at App aren’t the problem. The pay isn’t really the problem either. The issue is that the pay makes it difficult to afford housing in the area. Thankfully we have donors like the Harrell family that rent condos at Echota to personnel but that’s not appealing to those with families.

I do understand and acknowledge that we have high turnover. What you fail to understand is that there is never just one singular reason for this. You are very idealistic in that you feel paying more solves a problem. But you can’t do that if you don’t have the money. Where your disconnect is that you are arguing from a position of being invested in App from the inside. Most of these hires see this as a job and nothing more. Sure they may stay if they were to make more money. They may not. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and there are many personal factors that one takes into account to assess this.

I know exactly how it works and it is good that you do but what you don't realize is that sometimes schools don't prioritize things correctly within the budget. Just because it is done a certain way does not mean it is the best way. Our budget grows every year and in that growth we should put more money towards personnel. They severely undervalue the recruiting and personnel in this day and age. We have gone from coaches doing it to having a department do it and they need to be well funded.

That is very nice of Harrell but like you said people who want families don't want that. Cheap ass housing does not get it done.

I am not idealistic and I know that just pay won't prevent turnover but what I am saying is that if we paid more we could bring in higher quality candidates and improve what we get out of the job. DUH everyone sees this as a job.

People go where the money is. People on here and 247 have constantly said that coach turnover effected us and you can't use that excuse but then not recognize that turnover in the support staff does as well. If we paid more then people would stay a little longer or we would at least get better quality people to apply for the job. Money by itself does not fix everything. I have said that on this board a lot. If money was all that mattered then A&M and Michigan would have never beat us.

The reality here is that Loggains and Clark have not put the proper value in recruiting and personnel. We can't just go pay 40M for a roster so we have to do a great job of evaluating and finding those under valued players. To do that we need people with experience and a really good eye. If our recent hires are any good they will be at the P4 level fairly quickly.

Turnover affects continuity, but there is only so much money to go around to build out a staff with enough capacity to handle the tasks. Your answer to everything is to throw more money at it but have no clue as to where the money is going to come from. Why don’t you go up there and volunteer your expertise in talent evaluation since you know what needs to be done.

[AppStFan1]

I’ll address the above and the one that AppStFan1 quoted me in this post. You are showing that you have no real idea how this works; which is odd considering you said that you used to work in a college athletics department. The athletic department works off of a budget. Each sports program works off of a portion of the overall athletic budget. We don’t have the luxury of paying everyone a six figure salary in a support role capacity. If we could afford it, we would. The jobs at App aren’t the problem. The pay isn’t really the problem either. The issue is that the pay makes it difficult to afford housing in the area. Thankfully we have donors like the Harrell family that rent condos at Echota to personnel but that’s not appealing to those with families.

I do understand and acknowledge that we have high turnover. What you fail to understand is that there is never just one singular reason for this. You are very idealistic in that you feel paying more solves a problem. But you can’t do that if you don’t have the money. Where your disconnect is that you are arguing from a position of being invested in App from the inside. Most of these hires see this as a job and nothing more. Sure they may stay if they were to make more money. They may not. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and there are many personal factors that one takes into account to assess this.

I know exactly how it works and it is good that you do but what you don't realize is that sometimes schools don't prioritize things correctly within the budget. Just because it is done a certain way does not mean it is the best way. Our budget grows every year and in that growth we should put more money towards personnel. They severely undervalue the recruiting and personnel in this day and age. We have gone from coaches doing it to having a department do it and they need to be well funded.

That is very nice of Harrell but like you said people who want families don't want that. Cheap ass housing does not get it done.

I am not idealistic and I know that just pay won't prevent turnover but what I am saying is that if we paid more we could bring in higher quality candidates and improve what we get out of the job. DUH everyone sees this as a job.

People go where the money is. People on here and 247 have constantly said that coach turnover effected us and you can't use that excuse but then not recognize that turnover in the support staff does as well. If we paid more then people would stay a little longer or we would at least get better quality people to apply for the job. Money by itself does not fix everything. I have said that on this board a lot. If money was all that mattered then A&M and Michigan would have never beat us.

The reality here is that Loggains and Clark have not put the proper value in recruiting and personnel. We can't just go pay 40M for a roster so we have to do a great job of evaluating and finding those under valued players. To do that we need people with experience and a really good eye. If our recent hires are any good they will be at the P4 level fairly quickly.

Turnover affects continuity, but there is only so much money to go around to build out a staff with enough capacity to handle the tasks. Your answer to everything is to throw more money at it but have no clue as to where the money is going to come from. Why don’t you go up there and volunteer your expertise in talent evaluation since you know what needs to be done.

My answer is not throw money at everything. Money doesn’t guarantee wins. I have said that before. My entire point is that you and others encourage giving more to NIL but we will never compete in that space. It would be easier to compete in recruiting where the money needed for good evaluators isn’t 5M+. We need to get people who aren’t wet behind the ears and actually have experience and will work really hard to help us evaluate and build a better roster. We are so far behind in the key piece of the staff that builds our roster that any new money needs to go there for a while.

You think we should participate in NIL but that someone should go help build the roster for free? Not a chance. I hear how much work it takes and we should pay over 100k. I asked my connection who gets me our pro day results to post and he laughed at the pay. He told me 150k would just get good proven people to consider the job.

If we somehow win the Sun Belt this year and Grier and the other guy are proven to be great hires they will bolt immediately. Grier will start working his dad’s connections mid season if we look to be title favorites to get out of here in a year.

[Saint3333]

My answer is the only way to win in the NIL world IS to throw money at it.

Now where was that lottery ticket...

[bcoach]

I’ll address the above and the one that AppStFan1 quoted me in this post. You are showing that you have no real idea how this works; which is odd considering you said that you used to work in a college athletics department. The athletic department works off of a budget. Each sports program works off of a portion of the overall athletic budget. We don’t have the luxury of paying everyone a six figure salary in a support role capacity. If we could afford it, we would. The jobs at App aren’t the problem. The pay isn’t really the problem either. The issue is that the pay makes it difficult to afford housing in the area. Thankfully we have donors like the Harrell family that rent condos at Echota to personnel but that’s not appealing to those with families.

I do understand and acknowledge that we have high turnover. What you fail to understand is that there is never just one singular reason for this. You are very idealistic in that you feel paying more solves a problem. But you can’t do that if you don’t have the money. Where your disconnect is that you are arguing from a position of being invested in App from the inside. Most of these hires see this as a job and nothing more. Sure they may stay if they were to make more money. They may not. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and there are many personal factors that one takes into account to assess this.

I know exactly how it works and it is good that you do but what you don't realize is that sometimes schools don't prioritize things correctly within the budget. Just because it is done a certain way does not mean it is the best way. Our budget grows every year and in that growth we should put more money towards personnel. They severely undervalue the recruiting and personnel in this day and age. We have gone from coaches doing it to having a department do it and they need to be well funded.

That is very nice of Harrell but like you said people who want families don't want that. Cheap ass housing does not get it done.

I am not idealistic and I know that just pay won't prevent turnover but what I am saying is that if we paid more we could bring in higher quality candidates and improve what we get out of the job. DUH everyone sees this as a job.

People go where the money is. People on here and 247 have constantly said that coach turnover effected us and you can't use that excuse but then not recognize that turnover in the support staff does as well. If we paid more then people would stay a little longer or we would at least get better quality people to apply for the job. Money by itself does not fix everything. I have said that on this board a lot. If money was all that mattered then A&M and Michigan would have never beat us.

The reality here is that Loggains and Clark have not put the proper value in recruiting and personnel. We can't just go pay 40M for a roster so we have to do a great job of evaluating and finding those under valued players. To do that we need people with experience and a really good eye. If our recent hires are any good they will be at the P4 level fairly quickly.

Turnover affects continuity, but there is only so much money to go around to build out a staff with enough capacity to handle the tasks. Your answer to everything is to throw more money at it but have no clue as to where the money is going to come from. Why don’t you go up there and volunteer your expertise in talent evaluation since you know what needs to be done.

You have a very good point and there is only so much money. There is also a very good chance there will be less money in the future. Couple of losing seasons, donor death, doner reduced income. Maybe folks just getting feed up with the system. There are a hundred reasons. So honest question. Does our staff really need to be so much bigger than it has been in the past? What additional duties are there? From my view a couple of titles just look made up to me, but I really don't know. It just really looks to me like we just can't afford to do it all so maybe fund what we can do well. Now that this is strictly a business maybe we should run it like one. I really do mean this as a question more than a statement.