Here's what CharlotteDeac's referring to: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/99-fire-shaka-smart/&page=49
I also don’t get how some folks argue that recruiting the next coach will be difficult since nobody wants to work for an AD who might be gone in 2-3 years. We have a very clear metric to measure success. Win and you’re fine.
As a private institution, Wake's reporting on salaries lags behind that of public universities, and we have no idea what kind of increases, etc could be structured into the contract. In short, we don't know and it's already been discussed ad nauseam.BTW, I can't find it but was told there was a current ( within 1 year ) list on USAToday ranking the top 60 coaching salaries/compensation. Manning was on the list at around #53 or 54.
Mentions original salary of $1.2 million and getting a 'bump' to $1.7 million plus extention but no info on buy-out provision if any.
IF accurate, this is substantially less than that info that was posted of Manning getting $3.0 million annually with $18 million due him.
Wellman isn't getting enough pressure from the alumni/donors to can Manning now, so why would a perspective coach think a new AD would get pressure to fire them if executing way better than Manning? A new coach is going to worry about enthusiasm and turnout over anything else.Sounds reasonable in theory. The question is how much winning is required to make you feel safe. Because the coach doesn’t have a guarantee that a new A.D. will be his patient in the building process as the current A.D. would’ve been.
A .500 record in conference is better than where we are now, so it would be an improvement. But is that enough for the new A.D. in a given year? That’s the unknown that some coaches may not want to mess with.
Agree that we want coaches who plan on winning so they don’t really care about how many losses still make them safe. But that’s just the reality of the business.
BTW, I can't find it but was told there was a current ( within 1 year ) list on USAToday ranking the top 60 coaching salaries/compensation. Manning was on the list at around #53 or 54.
Mentions original salary of $1.2 million and getting a 'bump' to $1.7 million plus extention but no info on buy-out provision if any.
IF accurate, this is substantially less than that info that was posted of Manning getting $3.0 million annually with $18 million due him.
Wellman isn't getting enough pressure from the alumni/donors to can Manning now, so why would a perspective coach think a new AD would get pressure to fire them if executing way better than Manning? A new coach is going to worry about enthusiasm and turnout over anything else.
We have a very clear metric to measure success. Win and you’re fine.
Shaka
Sounds reasonable in theory. The question is how much winning is required to make you feel safe. Because the coach doesn’t have a guarantee that a new A.D. will be his patient in the building process as the current A.D. would’ve been.
A .500 record in conference is better than where we are now, so it would be an improvement. But is that enough for the new A.D. in a given year? That’s the unknown that some coaches may not want to mess with.
Agree that we want coaches who plan on winning so they don’t really care about how many losses still make them safe. But that’s just the reality of the business.
As a private institution, Wake's reporting on salaries lags behind that of public universities, and we have no idea what kind of increases, etc could be structured into the contract. In short, we don't know and it's already been discussed ad nauseam.
A private institution's 1099 is available/public for the previous year and shows a school's highest paid employees. I haven't seen Wake's but have seen other's. I'm assuming this is how - apparently - USAToday found the info for Manning BUT they had no info on any buy-out clause AND/OR how much $$ is guaranteed. The reported compensation - and raise - they reported, seems much more realistic than the $3.0 million per and $18 million guaranteed we discussed here ad nauseam.