terms like "cost effectiveness" are excellent in describing Penn State's commitment to Men's BB.
Penn State knows the model. In college athletics you get results with who you have as coach. In football they paid up and got a hot NFL assistant in Bill O'Brien and then a hot college candidate in Franklin and the program came out of the Sandusky mess with amazing speed and success. In Hockey they got a known name and within a few years went from Club Sport to a top 20 D1 program. In Wrestling they made Cal a $1 mil per year wrestling coach and have won 8 of 9 National Championships .... Lacrosse. ....
What's frustrating is that it is obvious Penn State knows the model to success in college sports. Brand name coach with a proven track record = good results.
But for Men's BB they have decided against this model. I am giving them benefit of doubt that they have done their "Cost Effectiveness" models and have made the conscious decision that it is not "cost effective" to pay $3.5 mill per year for a Men's BB Coach (Hoiberg is at $25 mill for 7 years).
You're much too generous. I would not give them the benefit of the doubt.
But not tops in court effectiveness.
Don’t quit your day job.
Damn! I clicked!!!
Put Art in charge. He’s a financial genius, just ask him.
wbcinost: 4089832 said:Jones says it all starts with the coach, but seems to ignore that the perfect arena, which led to filled sits, which led to 3X the profit of PSU hoops is actually what came first. Once they got revenue that high, THEN they could go get the coach. So his order is not correct, at least in Nebraska’s case, and that was supposed to be the comparison.
Also, how is Nebraska’s women’s volleyball? How about their wrestling program? Lacrosse? Why not write an article about Penn State is committed to those things but Nebraska isn’t? There isn’t unlimited money, Penn State has chosen to excel and spend on other sports that Nebraska has not.