$265k per year with a $50k raise if he's on the staff in 1 year?
Grimes is going to make twice that at LSU this year. When people ask why the ACC tv deal is so bad, its trickle down lowball salaries like this that makes the biggest impact. If Searels has a great year with us, we're likely looking for another OL coach at this time next year unless we start opening up the bank a little bit.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Where do we see that Grimes will make twice that? Everyone quotes the $500,000 that Greg Studrawa was making at LSU, but that salary includes the duties of an Offensive Coordinator. He was making $300,000 before Steve Kragthorpe stepped down as OC and Studrawa took over his responsibilities.
There is no consensus that his salary was then reduced after the hiring of Cam Cameron, but I am guessing that Grimes will make $300,000 at LSU
Edit: turns out that Studrawa got to keep the $500,000 salary, but was not eligible for a raise.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Considering the idea is to have ESPN set up the network like they're doing for the SEC and ESPN is the one with whom we have a TV deal, then the fact that the TV deal runs another 10 years is irrelevant. We need our own network where we can charge by the subscriber.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
What really pisses me off about the whole thing is that Swofford didn't even TRY to create a bidding war for our 2nd and 3rd tier broadcasting rights. He gave them away for pennies on the dollar on a sweetheart deal to Raycom, where his son just happens to be on the board. Nepotism at its finest, and now its really biting us on the ass and there is NOTHING we can do.
The SEC Network on ESPN is set to make each school upwards of an additional $15m per school per year over what they have now. In comparison, the ACC makes a TOTAL of $18m per school per year. Because of the stranglehold that Raycom has on our 2nd & 3rd tier rights, which there isn't a chance in hell they're going to willingly give up to ESPN or anyone else for an ACC Network, we're looking at 2016 at the bare minimum before any kind of traction can take place in getting this thing setup. Thats a $30m head start and counting that each SEC school will have on every ACC program before we can even start to think about our own program.
Swofford did good on expansion and solidifying the conference, but the TV deals are an unmitigated failure. By giving the sweetheart deal to his son's company to keep the money in the family, he royally bent over every ACC institution long term to the point where now we're not competing at anything close to an even field with the rest of the market, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
that's definitely a conflict of interest, but do you have any proof or consensus that you can find? Pretty strong accusation even if it makes logical sense.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The back-and-forth conversations with both bidders put Haines in the middle of the negotiations. ESPN and Fox knew how close Raycom was to the ACC. For example, Swoffords son, Chad, is Raycoms director of new media and has been with the company five years.
Now, it doesn't come out and say that this is specifically WHY they did it, but Swofford's son was the Director of New Media at Raycom when the deal was signed. That means the ACC, led by John Swofford, was negotiating with Raycom, led by Chad Swofford, who was competing against Fox and ESPN, and somehow the little guy won against the 2 media giants, even with an industry described "lowball contract".
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Didn't any deal Swofford made have to have buy-in from the university presidents? I have a hard time believing he acted on his own there and threw 12 (14) institutions under the bus just to help his son with a job or to enrich his family. If that were truly the case, every ACC president and athletic director should be fired for incompetence.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
ESPN actually owns our first, second and third tier rights for all sports. It is an all inclusive deal. ESPN then made a second deal to option some of those games to other broadcast companies.
First-, second- and third-tier rights: $3.6 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2026-27
Per-year average: $240 million
Per-school, per-year average: $17.1 million
This occurred with the renegotiation after the inclusion of Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Regardless of the TV deal, all current members of the ACC, sans Maryland but including Louisville have turned over their media rights to the ACC until 2027 so even if we wanted to pay the $50 mil to go elsewhere our media rights would stay here.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Demand accountability from Greensboro and from VT management. Join Maryland in the suit against the ACC. Renegotiate the TV deal. Sue the TV deal provider depending on what comes out in the Md suit. There are other options.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Thats what you get when you have an overly passive fundraising body that doesn't do anything to boost membership other than put out the standard "keep your giving levels to get football tickets" that has been their mantra for the past 20 years.
We should have annual fundraising campaigns to bring in more money. We need the Hokie Club to be about more than football. Lou Merritt has REALLY dropped the ball on keeping the Hokie Club relevant as a fundraising body, and one thing Babcock desperately needs to do is ensure there is a newfound youth and energy in that group to make the Hokie Club an effective fundraising body to where we can boost salaries and renovate facilities to keep our Athletic Department competitive.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
And based on the stat of ~9,953 current Hokie Club member from the David Teel article that would mean doubling the size of the current Hokie Club and being able to use all of the Hokie Club funds for football salaries. Seems slightly unrealistic.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Its not unrealistic if the Hokie Club actually does what it should be doing and hopefully what Babcock can get them doing. The lower the current number of members means there are that many more potential members out there that haven't yet begun to contribute.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
How is that unrealistic? That number represents about 1k shy of 2 years of undergrads getting their diplomas at Tech. Thats a massive resource pool that we currently have out there that we're not even trying to dip into. If you just got about 20% of each graduating class to give back to the university since the 1999 season and held onto them throughout, you're looking at a Hokie Club membership right now of 15,000 new members since then. And to be honest, 20% should be on the low end of the amount that give back to the school that they cheer for.
The problem is, the Hokie Club isn't even TRYING.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
And if they try to offer a new lower than $100 minimum they might get even more people. Offer the base tier to be $5 per month, or $60 per year. Hard to explain that you can't afford $5 per month.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
...and with your $5 a month you will receive ________ in the mail. (Welcome packet, information for your local extension, and this lovely Virginia Tech chotzke worth about $5) Yes, it means they spent the first two months on you, but then they have the other ten months worth to hire coaches, etc)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Exactly. With my golden hokie status (2,000-4,999) annual, I will now get a signed poster of the football and basketball team every year! For silver level, you only get the basketball team. :D
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't dispute the need for some new energy and focus on developing the donor base. I guess it all depends on the timeframe for the increase. I interpreted the original calculation to be how to get an additional $1,000,000 per year. To do that through Hokie club membership at the $100 level the club would have to magically double in size. I believe that the new AD is going to have other challenges (see the BBall threads) that will be a higher priority. If he generates a 100% increase in Hokie Club memberships in one year then we should give him an immediate extension.
I think some of this is perspective, I'm saying doubling the size of the current organization in a year is a lofty goal. You are all saying that the population of the fan base (the market) is large enough to support that increase.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is one of those times where the Hokie Club leadership should hold a "Everybody get a Friend" drive. Contact every member and make it their goal to bring in one new member to the Hokie Club. If they manage that, than without Babcock having to do much, they can reach this increase. Have some sort of contest that keeps track of how many members were brought it by whom and then have some awards for the top getters.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Maybe they can do a deal like the satellite/cable providers do with referrals. For every friend you bring in you get X amount of dollars off of the minimum donation for each tier and each friend brought in gets Y dollars off of their minimum donation needs for each tier.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think we need to start a support group, we can call it "waiting for the next bottle of lightning." Not to be a downer, but I feel like we have totally lost our momentum from Vick and '99, and that we have not taken that next step and are being left behind by those that have. Our salaries are going to be less and less competitive every passing year and that is just going to aggravate things as we try and grow our revenue unless we get another Neo-like recruit. We can't rely on staff loyalty anymore going forward I am afraid. It was a great run but times are changing and they have finally reached Blacksburg.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
One thing everyone should notice is that we are hiring coaches that have been fired. That partially explains the low salaries. We have no need to pay them more until they prove they are worth it to us. We aren't hiring them away from another school so we don't need to pay them more than they made last time. They get a bump in salary for making a bowl game a if they prove they are worth the investment, it will be made. While I agree that some of our other assistants deserve a raise, what justification is there for paying someone more when we hire them? I realize everyone is still nursing their wounds from Grimes being hired away from us and thinks that we should pay everyone more, but let's step back and see the whole picture. We are hiring recently unemployed people who have absolutely ZERO bargaining room for asking for a larger salary. Do we need to have more Hokie Club contributors so that we could potentially have a larger pot of money to pay our assistants? Absolutely! But there's nothing to support the idea that we should pay Searels more than $300,000 other than following the idea that "well the SEC does it so we should too."
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
agreed, it's a shrewd maneuver and we weren't in the negotiations. I think this discussion stems from the overall hiring climate, and we all are thinking ahead on how VT can protect its interest. Better to stay ahead, another one and done will be hard to swallow. Or worst, Torrian leaving, etc.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We do need to up pay, but it starts with our long-time assistants, such as Torrian, and not our newly hired ones. I think everyone is looking at Searels' contract and saying "Oh, he's going to make only $265,000 for the next 2 years?" When in actuality, he'll make $265,000 this year, $280,900 in 2015 as long as we make a bowl, and then $297,754 in 2016 under the same condition of making a bowl and he'll get that $50,000 retention bonus. Now that's assuming that the system sticks to the 6% raise for making a bowl game like what Grimes was going to get. I would love for us to pay every coach of ours more than any other coach at their position in the nation just so the only chance of them leaving us would be for a bump from position coach to coordinator or coordinator to HC, but we can't do that.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
yes, I mentioned Torrian specifically. We might not be able to do that, but we need to protect our investments from poaching and it will eventually come down primarily to money. We need to start planning and changing now, accordingly, since we can't do it currently and are at risk.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The assistants' yearly raise structure is built into Beamer's contract, based on bowl appearance:
10% if play in BCS title game
8% if in BCS game
7% if in Champs or CFA bowl
6% for all other bowl games
5% if no bowl game
That'll probably have to be adjusted now that the CFA is part of the major bowl games.
On top of that, assistants are eligible for bowl bonuses that range from $15K to $75K based on title (OC and DC get more than position coaches) and which game VT gets selected for.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A lot of people seem to be thinking that Grimes is going to be making $500k+ at LSU, but if he is only the line coach with no other responsibilities, I really can't see it being much over $300. To me, $265-290 seems totally reasonable for Searels as a position coach in the ACC.
While I totally agree that the Hokie Club needs to step up its game, this doesn't seem to be a case of us not having the money to hire and retain a quality coach.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Not to change the subject from we suck at fundraising (which we do) and we don't pay our assistants enough (which we don't) but I found this interesting:
Slye said he chose walking with #Hokies over offer from #JMU because Foster made him feel "more wanted than I thought a kicker would be."
If Bud Foster is recruiting a kicker, you know he's wanted. Given his LB background, I would not be shocked at all to see him on the field on D in his Tech career. Hell he could be the next Jack Tyler.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think Bud's also happy to have a kicker that would be a reliable safety valve in the event that someone starts to break a return. But historically though, that area is Bud's recruiting ground so that's why he was the recruiter.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Anyone think it's extremely odd that Slye only made 4 field goals all year? I have no idea how many he attempted, but that seems like a minuscule number even for high school.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Seems like allot of money for coaching a game..the rest of us will never make anywhere near these totals. I guess the product makes money so it's all relative.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
What are you talking about, never make anywhere near these totals? A large number of people here will at least have a family income this high sometime in their lives.
Anybody can earn this stuff if they're in a field capable of supporting it and they rise to the top of their field.
And that's what these guys are, the top of their profession.
Top tier college and then the only way up from here is NFL, so that's a total of ~120 Division 1 and 32 NFL OL coaches.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree. If you want to get paid, be in the top 500 people in your profession at something popular. (32NFL + 38NCAA x 7coaches = approx. 490 top coaches.)
I haven't seen this answered anywhere yet, but does Searels have a goatee? This is an important point because the correlation between goatees and Oline coaching success cannot be ignored.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
$265k per year with a $50k raise if he's on the staff in 1 year?
Grimes is going to make twice that at LSU this year. When people ask why the ACC tv deal is so bad, its trickle down lowball salaries like this that makes the biggest impact. If Searels has a great year with us, we're likely looking for another OL coach at this time next year unless we start opening up the bank a little bit.
The retention bonus is not until Jan. 1, 2016. So he'll have to be on the staff for two years.
So, curtain number one is losing all TV rights, curtain number two which is no longer available is $50M.
I HAVE TO ASK, WTF WAS BEHIND CURTAIN NUMBER THREE, ALEX!!!
Talk about Hobson's choice. How did we end up here?
Where do we see that Grimes will make twice that? Everyone quotes the $500,000 that Greg Studrawa was making at LSU, but that salary includes the duties of an Offensive Coordinator. He was making $300,000 before Steve Kragthorpe stepped down as OC and Studrawa took over his responsibilities.
There is no consensus that his salary was then reduced after the hiring of Cam Cameron, but I am guessing that Grimes will make $300,000 at LSU
Edit: turns out that Studrawa got to keep the $500,000 salary, but was not eligible for a raise.
People seem to lionize the folks who signed the VT to ACC forever in blood with nothing in return deal.
They might be your friends, but they were no friend to your university.
Have heard the TV deal is for 10 more years. Please someone tell me that is not true.
Edit: Don't want to hear that it goes til 2026. Want good news on the contract length.
Considering the idea is to have ESPN set up the network like they're doing for the SEC and ESPN is the one with whom we have a TV deal, then the fact that the TV deal runs another 10 years is irrelevant. We need our own network where we can charge by the subscriber.
We have a shi**y deal. How long does the deal run for. How long til we can get decent economics out of our TV deal?
Its the only thing that is relevant.
What really pisses me off about the whole thing is that Swofford didn't even TRY to create a bidding war for our 2nd and 3rd tier broadcasting rights. He gave them away for pennies on the dollar on a sweetheart deal to Raycom, where his son just happens to be on the board. Nepotism at its finest, and now its really biting us on the ass and there is NOTHING we can do.
The SEC Network on ESPN is set to make each school upwards of an additional $15m per school per year over what they have now. In comparison, the ACC makes a TOTAL of $18m per school per year. Because of the stranglehold that Raycom has on our 2nd & 3rd tier rights, which there isn't a chance in hell they're going to willingly give up to ESPN or anyone else for an ACC Network, we're looking at 2016 at the bare minimum before any kind of traction can take place in getting this thing setup. Thats a $30m head start and counting that each SEC school will have on every ACC program before we can even start to think about our own program.
Swofford did good on expansion and solidifying the conference, but the TV deals are an unmitigated failure. By giving the sweetheart deal to his son's company to keep the money in the family, he royally bent over every ACC institution long term to the point where now we're not competing at anything close to an even field with the rest of the market, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
that's definitely a conflict of interest, but do you have any proof or consensus that you can find? Pretty strong accusation even if it makes logical sense.
Washington Business Journal: History with ACC secures future for Raycom from October, 2010
Now, it doesn't come out and say that this is specifically WHY they did it, but Swofford's son was the Director of New Media at Raycom when the deal was signed. That means the ACC, led by John Swofford, was negotiating with Raycom, led by Chad Swofford, who was competing against Fox and ESPN, and somehow the little guy won against the 2 media giants, even with an industry described "lowball contract".
WBJ is saying it in their title; thanks for the link.
Didn't any deal Swofford made have to have buy-in from the university presidents? I have a hard time believing he acted on his own there and threw 12 (14) institutions under the bus just to help his son with a job or to enrich his family. If that were truly the case, every ACC president and athletic director should be fired for incompetence.
ESPN actually owns our first, second and third tier rights for all sports. It is an all inclusive deal. ESPN then made a second deal to option some of those games to other broadcast companies.
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/college-tv-rights...
This occurred with the renegotiation after the inclusion of Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville.
Regardless of the TV deal, all current members of the ACC, sans Maryland but including Louisville have turned over their media rights to the ACC until 2027 so even if we wanted to pay the $50 mil to go elsewhere our media rights would stay here.
We're gonna need the ACC Network to go live really soon in order to compete with the SEC.
Want to help change low assistance coaching salaries?
Donate to Hokie Club.
Demand accountability from Greensboro and from VT management. Join Maryland in the suit against the ACC. Renegotiate the TV deal. Sue the TV deal provider depending on what comes out in the Md suit. There are other options.
Very true. It still blows my mind how Hokie Club has less than 10k memebers...
Thats what you get when you have an overly passive fundraising body that doesn't do anything to boost membership other than put out the standard "keep your giving levels to get football tickets" that has been their mantra for the past 20 years.
We should have annual fundraising campaigns to bring in more money. We need the Hokie Club to be about more than football. Lou Merritt has REALLY dropped the ball on keeping the Hokie Club relevant as a fundraising body, and one thing Babcock desperately needs to do is ensure there is a newfound youth and energy in that group to make the Hokie Club an effective fundraising body to where we can boost salaries and renovate facilities to keep our Athletic Department competitive.
This x1000
So we need about $1M more for Assistants.
Bud Foster: $556,500* -- Bump to $1,000,000 after annuity
Bryan Stinespring: $318,000 -- Bump to $325,000
Charley Wiles: $291,500 -- Bump to $325,000
Stacy Searels: $265,000 -- Bump to $350,000
Torrian Gray: $243,800 -- Bump to $325,000
Shane Beamer: $238,500 -- Bump to $250,000
Cornell Brown: $238,500 -- Bump to $250,000
Scot Loeffler: $159,000** -- Bump to $400,000
Aaron Moorehead: $159,000 -- Bump to $250,000
$1,000,000 divided by $100 would mean that Babcock needs to get 10,000 new Hokie Club members at the minimum level.
Yes, True.
We should already have 20k+ members.
And based on the stat of ~9,953 current Hokie Club member from the David Teel article that would mean doubling the size of the current Hokie Club and being able to use all of the Hokie Club funds for football salaries. Seems slightly unrealistic.
Its not unrealistic if the Hokie Club actually does what it should be doing and hopefully what Babcock can get them doing. The lower the current number of members means there are that many more potential members out there that haven't yet begun to contribute.
How is that unrealistic? That number represents about 1k shy of 2 years of undergrads getting their diplomas at Tech. Thats a massive resource pool that we currently have out there that we're not even trying to dip into. If you just got about 20% of each graduating class to give back to the university since the 1999 season and held onto them throughout, you're looking at a Hokie Club membership right now of 15,000 new members since then. And to be honest, 20% should be on the low end of the amount that give back to the school that they cheer for.
The problem is, the Hokie Club isn't even TRYING.
And if they try to offer a new lower than $100 minimum they might get even more people. Offer the base tier to be $5 per month, or $60 per year. Hard to explain that you can't afford $5 per month.
...and with your $5 a month you will receive ________ in the mail. (Welcome packet, information for your local extension, and this lovely Virginia Tech chotzke worth about $5) Yes, it means they spent the first two months on you, but then they have the other ten months worth to hire coaches, etc)
Exactly. With my golden hokie status (2,000-4,999) annual, I will now get a signed poster of the football and basketball team every year! For silver level, you only get the basketball team. :D
We have a basketball team??
BOOM!
Pretty sure the school isn't allowed to sell players' autographs, which would essentially be the case.
It was a joke example, but I am not sure that a free poster in response to a giving level is "selling."
I don't dispute the need for some new energy and focus on developing the donor base. I guess it all depends on the timeframe for the increase. I interpreted the original calculation to be how to get an additional $1,000,000 per year. To do that through Hokie club membership at the $100 level the club would have to magically double in size. I believe that the new AD is going to have other challenges (see the BBall threads) that will be a higher priority. If he generates a 100% increase in Hokie Club memberships in one year then we should give him an immediate extension.
I think some of this is perspective, I'm saying doubling the size of the current organization in a year is a lofty goal. You are all saying that the population of the fan base (the market) is large enough to support that increase.
This is one of those times where the Hokie Club leadership should hold a "Everybody get a Friend" drive. Contact every member and make it their goal to bring in one new member to the Hokie Club. If they manage that, than without Babcock having to do much, they can reach this increase. Have some sort of contest that keeps track of how many members were brought it by whom and then have some awards for the top getters.
Maybe they can do a deal like the satellite/cable providers do with referrals. For every friend you bring in you get X amount of dollars off of the minimum donation for each tier and each friend brought in gets Y dollars off of their minimum donation needs for each tier.
TG should be making more than Searels IMO. He has been here, proven, and a very important piece to keep around.
I think we need to start a support group, we can call it "waiting for the next bottle of lightning." Not to be a downer, but I feel like we have totally lost our momentum from Vick and '99, and that we have not taken that next step and are being left behind by those that have. Our salaries are going to be less and less competitive every passing year and that is just going to aggravate things as we try and grow our revenue unless we get another Neo-like recruit. We can't rely on staff loyalty anymore going forward I am afraid. It was a great run but times are changing and they have finally reached Blacksburg.
One thing everyone should notice is that we are hiring coaches that have been fired. That partially explains the low salaries. We have no need to pay them more until they prove they are worth it to us. We aren't hiring them away from another school so we don't need to pay them more than they made last time. They get a bump in salary for making a bowl game a if they prove they are worth the investment, it will be made. While I agree that some of our other assistants deserve a raise, what justification is there for paying someone more when we hire them? I realize everyone is still nursing their wounds from Grimes being hired away from us and thinks that we should pay everyone more, but let's step back and see the whole picture. We are hiring recently unemployed people who have absolutely ZERO bargaining room for asking for a larger salary. Do we need to have more Hokie Club contributors so that we could potentially have a larger pot of money to pay our assistants? Absolutely! But there's nothing to support the idea that we should pay Searels more than $300,000 other than following the idea that "well the SEC does it so we should too."
agreed, it's a shrewd maneuver and we weren't in the negotiations. I think this discussion stems from the overall hiring climate, and we all are thinking ahead on how VT can protect its interest. Better to stay ahead, another one and done will be hard to swallow. Or worst, Torrian leaving, etc.
We do need to up pay, but it starts with our long-time assistants, such as Torrian, and not our newly hired ones. I think everyone is looking at Searels' contract and saying "Oh, he's going to make only $265,000 for the next 2 years?" When in actuality, he'll make $265,000 this year, $280,900 in 2015 as long as we make a bowl, and then $297,754 in 2016 under the same condition of making a bowl and he'll get that $50,000 retention bonus. Now that's assuming that the system sticks to the 6% raise for making a bowl game like what Grimes was going to get. I would love for us to pay every coach of ours more than any other coach at their position in the nation just so the only chance of them leaving us would be for a bump from position coach to coordinator or coordinator to HC, but we can't do that.
I would love a 6% raise. Who wouldn't?
sorry, double post VMware crapped out.
yes, I mentioned Torrian specifically. We might not be able to do that, but we need to protect our investments from poaching and it will eventually come down primarily to money. We need to start planning and changing now, accordingly, since we can't do it currently and are at risk.
The assistants' yearly raise structure is built into Beamer's contract, based on bowl appearance:
10% if play in BCS title game
8% if in BCS game
7% if in Champs or CFA bowl
6% for all other bowl games
5% if no bowl game
That'll probably have to be adjusted now that the CFA is part of the major bowl games.
On top of that, assistants are eligible for bowl bonuses that range from $15K to $75K based on title (OC and DC get more than position coaches) and which game VT gets selected for.
A lot of people seem to be thinking that Grimes is going to be making $500k+ at LSU, but if he is only the line coach with no other responsibilities, I really can't see it being much over $300. To me, $265-290 seems totally reasonable for Searels as a position coach in the ACC.
While I totally agree that the Hokie Club needs to step up its game, this doesn't seem to be a case of us not having the money to hire and retain a quality coach.
Not to change the subject from we suck at fundraising (which we do) and we don't pay our assistants enough (which we don't) but I found this interesting:
If Bud Foster is recruiting a kicker, you know he's wanted. Given his LB background, I would not be shocked at all to see him on the field on D in his Tech career. Hell he could be the next Jack Tyler.
I think Bud's also happy to have a kicker that would be a reliable safety valve in the event that someone starts to break a return. But historically though, that area is Bud's recruiting ground so that's why he was the recruiter.
A Jack Tyler quality walk on who also kicks?...reminds me of a certain game winning catcher of the 2012 sugar bowl...
Anyone think it's extremely odd that Slye only made 4 field goals all year? I have no idea how many he attempted, but that seems like a minuscule number even for high school.
Seems like allot of money for coaching a game..the rest of us will never make anywhere near these totals. I guess the product makes money so it's all relative.
What are you talking about, never make anywhere near these totals? A large number of people here will at least have a family income this high sometime in their lives.
Anybody can earn this stuff if they're in a field capable of supporting it and they rise to the top of their field.
And that's what these guys are, the top of their profession.
Top tier college and then the only way up from here is NFL, so that's a total of ~120 Division 1 and 32 NFL OL coaches.
I agree. If you want to get paid, be in the top 500 people in your profession at something popular. (32NFL + 38NCAA x 7coaches = approx. 490 top coaches.)
If your profession is unpopular, make it popular! (The $4 million a year English teacher of South Korea) http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732463590457863978025...
Andy,
I haven't seen this answered anywhere yet, but does Searels have a goatee? This is an important point because the correlation between goatees and Oline coaching success cannot be ignored.
He was clean shaven in the picture of him and the #Fab4 from last weekend
Crap, someone needs to start a twitterbook movement #growagoateesearles stat!