All Things 2013-2014 Gopher Womens Season Thread
- Thread starter station19
- Start date
Mulligan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,995
- Reaction score
- 1,939
- Points
- 113
God, after seeing them play Iowa earlier I thought no way they get to this point. Parts of that game were beyond brutal. Still reluctant to give Borton much credit but maybe a bit, although it's also an indication of how down the women's league is. Beginning to think (fear) that Pam might live to coach another year. Going to be interesting to see if Norwood applies the Tubby standard to her. A difference is that this team's prospects look a lot better for the next year than Tubby's did. She arguably will have the best guard and the best big player returning along with Wagner coming in. Did see the paid attendance was 3,000 only. Sunday league games used to routinely draw 7,000 to 9,000 actual paid. I'm not the only one who gave up season tickets because of Borton. Still hoping that will be the critical nail in Borton's coaching coffin.
While I don't hope Borton is back next year, this team hasn't made the tournament in 5 frickin years. I'll be pumped for them (especially Banham) if they make the tournament!! It's looking like a win against Wisconsin in the BTT will seal the deal, and hopefully that shouldn't be a problem. We've beaten them easily both times this year. I believe the game is approx 8 CT on Thursday night.
I'm gonna be going to Indianapolis with the pep band for the Big Ten Tournament this week (and again for the men's tournament next week, woohoo!), and I have only seen a couple of the women's games this year and don't follow them closely, but after seeing we got a 6 seed, a first round game against Wisconsin who we beat by double digits in both games in this year, an 8 p.m. start time, and apparently a shot to make the NCAA tournament, gotta say I'm really excited!
I think she stays
I don't think Tubby and Borton are parallel. I thought Tubby would get fired. He was never above 500 in the conference.
The team was trending down. Borton went to a final four. (i know, but she did and with the Gophers) Now she has two "stars" returning from a NCAA team going into next season. All time super star in Carlie Wagner who has committed to Pam coming in. 3 or 4 other recruits coming in. The trend is up.
I'd be surprised if she is gone and depending it could result in going backwards... say, Carlie doesn't come, big girl leaves etc. Plus it will cost more to fire her than the possible gain if any. She has supporters. The time to fire her certainly doesn't seem this year to me. If you stayed with her this year, you can't fire her when she improves and recruits the superstar. Prospective new coach looks at that and says huh?
No clue, but is Whalen loyal enough to Borton to not take the job if offered based on the improvement and hope going forward for the future, feeling Pam got a raw deal, if she did get fired? Whalen seems pretty principled but I have no idea what her thoughts would be.
I think Pam should get next season to once again improve and if not then she had her chance and it's clear to everyone.
I don't think Tubby and Borton are parallel. I thought Tubby would get fired. He was never above 500 in the conference.
The team was trending down. Borton went to a final four. (i know, but she did and with the Gophers) Now she has two "stars" returning from a NCAA team going into next season. All time super star in Carlie Wagner who has committed to Pam coming in. 3 or 4 other recruits coming in. The trend is up.
I'd be surprised if she is gone and depending it could result in going backwards... say, Carlie doesn't come, big girl leaves etc. Plus it will cost more to fire her than the possible gain if any. She has supporters. The time to fire her certainly doesn't seem this year to me. If you stayed with her this year, you can't fire her when she improves and recruits the superstar. Prospective new coach looks at that and says huh?
No clue, but is Whalen loyal enough to Borton to not take the job if offered based on the improvement and hope going forward for the future, feeling Pam got a raw deal, if she did get fired? Whalen seems pretty principled but I have no idea what her thoughts would be.
I think Pam should get next season to once again improve and if not then she had her chance and it's clear to everyone.
The biggest question regarding the WBB coaching situation is this.....and put yourself in Norwood's shoes.
He is trying to raise $190 million for a major facilities upgrade. He just gave Jerry Kill and his assistants a big pay boost. The department, while healthy, isn't exactly flush with extra cash.
So, how much do you pour into women's basketball in the grand of scheme of things? Remember, the program loses almost $2 million per year, so it is already a strain on the department in a major, major way. Borton will likely be taking this team to the NCAA tourney this year, with two all-Big Ten caliber players and a top flight recruit set for next year. If Norwood fires her, he now pays her off at more than $500K on a contract buyout. Can he really fire her after making the NCAA, pay her half a million to walk, go find a new coach for $400-500K/yr, all the while watching the program continue to lose $2 mil per year for the foreseeable future? How much is too much to invest into a financial loser when there ain't much extra cash and you are walking around with your hand out asking for $200 million for facilities?
Personally, I say no way he can pour that kind of money (in today's climate at the U) into finding a new coach for women's hoops. That's why I posted earlier that it just isn't worth the cost in so many ways. At least in the short term. He may have to swallow hard, take some heat for not firing her, and hope she has a really big turn around, or wait until the contract expires to really dig into building (or re-building) the WBB program. Frankly, while WBB is important, it can't be that important to him and the overall goal of the entire U of M athletic department to drop that kind of money into it at this particular time.
He is trying to raise $190 million for a major facilities upgrade. He just gave Jerry Kill and his assistants a big pay boost. The department, while healthy, isn't exactly flush with extra cash.
So, how much do you pour into women's basketball in the grand of scheme of things? Remember, the program loses almost $2 million per year, so it is already a strain on the department in a major, major way. Borton will likely be taking this team to the NCAA tourney this year, with two all-Big Ten caliber players and a top flight recruit set for next year. If Norwood fires her, he now pays her off at more than $500K on a contract buyout. Can he really fire her after making the NCAA, pay her half a million to walk, go find a new coach for $400-500K/yr, all the while watching the program continue to lose $2 mil per year for the foreseeable future? How much is too much to invest into a financial loser when there ain't much extra cash and you are walking around with your hand out asking for $200 million for facilities?
Personally, I say no way he can pour that kind of money (in today's climate at the U) into finding a new coach for women's hoops. That's why I posted earlier that it just isn't worth the cost in so many ways. At least in the short term. He may have to swallow hard, take some heat for not firing her, and hope she has a really big turn around, or wait until the contract expires to really dig into building (or re-building) the WBB program. Frankly, while WBB is important, it can't be that important to him and the overall goal of the entire U of M athletic department to drop that kind of money into it at this particular time.
Mulligan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,995
- Reaction score
- 1,939
- Points
- 113
IMO, fundraising is a main reason he might fire her. We're peons speculating on what "royalty" might do, but don't you think there are people still passionate about women's basketball who want her gone and who might be significant donors? Some might even be women controlling the purse strings. A hard concept to grasp in the macho world that's GH.
She really has very little support. I know several couples with season tickets yet, and two of them were also ready to give up their tickets (at least earlier). On Sue Short's site there is nobody left defending her. Not a lot of proof but you might look at attendance figures and the way they've trended. Then in recent years, subtract at least several hundred from the announced crowd.
Your logic on money is mind-boggling. Willing to keep losing two million a year because you're not going to spend what is really a small amount to get rid of her. It would now cost about $325,000. A new coach could be found for less than $400-500 K. There are all sorts of eager young coaches who would jump at this chance. Norwood's reputation is partly built on finding coaches like this.
Attendance keeps getting worse. I saw the charge Brenda Oldfield put into this program in a short time. The Barn was rocking and there were all sorts of kids excited to be there. Now you can sit where ever you want. People get disgusted with the inconsistent play that result in long stretches of really bad basketball. And very few kids in Gopher gear around. Just a depressing contrast. Probably will never be a real money maker but you don't sit there and say, "Oh, damn, there goes another $2 million. Can't do anything about it." A Pitino-type hire with that talent next year would boost the attendance way beyond what keeping Pam with that type of talent would do. All odds are that things will be better next year but there's a history of uninspired play, poor recruiting, and little player improvement.
Your closing comments are exactly why I get so pissed at some of the people in the women's thread. They indicate you really don't give a damn because it's just a women's program but are willing to opine on it. Even to the point of let's keep Borton so we can fire her to hire Whalen when all the contracts line up. Simply brilliant planning especially considering the person you're waiting for hasn't coached a day in her life.
You spent $800,000 to get out of a football game with an average opponent! You boosted Jerry Kill's salary (which I agree with).
Tubby had a lot more cred as a coach than Borton and you got rid of him after he went to and won in the NCAA tourney. I'm contending it's going to be really hard for Norwood to keep Borton because he doesn't want to be seen as favoring the men. Whether he should or does is besides the point. Perception is what's important.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Buyout would be around 330,000 K.
Teague fired Tubby after going to NCAA and winning a game.
Why do some people consider the salary to a new coach as an added expense?
Pitino is being paid about 1 M per yr less than Tubby....that's a savings of 1+M per yr.....not an added expense.
Borton is getting just under 500K this year. Who is to say the new coach will be paid that much.
Borton had a program averaging around 9,000(estimate on my part) per game. Now I believe it is less than 3,000. That is one big decrease in revenue.
The question should be can the U afford to keep her?
You are not looking at the grand scheme of things.
I do think donors will be an issue, but not in the way you see it. I think Norwood won't fire her because he can't alienate the big donors he's trying to line up for the facilities, who might be women's hoops donors, but are more likely football and men's basketball donors. He cannot risk any of them saying, "why would I donate to this outfit, when they are going to piss away $500K to fire a basketball coach who just made the NCAA for a program that is losing $2 mil per year?" He just can't risk it, and again, I'm not sure it makes sense in the short term to continue to pour all kinds of money into a losing financial situation. Eventually, I'd say yes, go for it. Right now, with the team likely getting into the NCAA tourney, I'd say no. Not with this major fundraising situation he has going on with the facilities, the overall importance of which far outweighs anything relating to WBB.
My logic is mind-boggling? You want to pour another $325K (I think its more than that, but lets go with it) into a program that is losing big money at a time you have your hand out for $200 million? A new coach could be found for less than $400K, but there's no guarantee that coach will fill the house, and even if he/she does fill the house, the program itself will still lose money.
Brilliant planning? The brilliant planning happened when she got the extension. Now, Norwood is stuck with it and has to examine the best way to go about solving any unrest within the program. Bottom line, I'm not anti-WBB. Not in any way and far from it. I regularly attend games and have a firm grasp about what's happening. I hope at some point the program is put back on the map in a major way. I just think that day will be later, not sooner, for a host of reasons. I do think Norwood will be forced into treading very lightly as it relates to the coaching situation. I don't necessarily like it, but I think that's the reality of the situation.
Doesn't matter. Football and MBB generate millions in ticket sales and TV/radio revenue. They can absorb the cost of things like buyouts and frivolous expenses, etc, because they make money and because they literally fund the other sports, including WBB. The margin for error in financially-losing sports is much less. Ask John Anderson who has been battling that for years. It is just the way it is. If you are a sport that doesn't make money, you just can't piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars when it is easily avoidable. There does come a point of no return, where a change has to happen, but I just don't think the environment has reached that point yet.
I'm not counting the new coach's salary as an added expense. Just factually saying that is what the cost will be for a new coach. Of course, when tacked on to the buyout, the net is negative. And, that's not good when you are already losing big money. That's all.
We'll see how it plays out, but I'll predict she doesn't get fired and whatever it is they say publicly, the real reason will be as I stated. They don't want to pour more $$$ (at this moment) into the program.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Both Mulligan and I have explained to you the realities of the financial situation yet you choose to ignore facts and logic. Yes youR logic is mind boggling...........actually absent may be a better description.
Why 'tack on' the new coach salary to the buyout? It has nothing to do with the buyout. It makes as much sense as tacking on rutabaga. Do you understand that when you fire a coach you don't pay both the buyout and the remaining salary(s)?
Now as to what will happen. As of a month or so ago I think most thought she would be gone. Has the recent winning streak saved her job? I guess only Teague knows that. I'm sure a lot of it comes down to moving parts behind the scenes. What kind of support does she have from the movers and shakers. Teague just plain did not like the way Tubby ran the men's program. Could his thoughts of Borton be the same? A lot of things go on that we don't know about.
Chance of Borton returning? 50% IMO.
You tack it on because it is an added expense.
Simple, basic terms:
IF THEY DON'T FIRE PAM BORTON -- EXPENSE FOR COACH IN 2014-15 season:
Pam Borton's salary: $485,000
TOTAL COST TO U: $485,000
IF THEY DO FIRE PAM BORTON -- EXPENSE FOR COACH IN 2014-15 season:
Pam Borton's buyout: $330,00 (your figure)
New Coach's salary: $400,000 (approx)
TOTAL COST TO U: $730,000 (approx)
Or, if you prefer not to "tack" it on, then let's look at it this way:
ADDED EXPENSE IF THEY DO FIRE PAM BORTON: $330K
ADDED EXPENSE IF THEY DO NOT FIRE PAM BORTON: $0
That's what I'm saying. When you already lose $2 mil, will an AD want to tack on another $330K?? Maybe he will. I personally doubt it.
I think the issue for Teague is whether investing in a coaching change now will improve attendance sufficiently to cover the cost of that investment. You merely have to reduce the negative cash flow by a sufficient amount to achieve that result. I doubt that many potential donors to the proposed new facilities would have any problem with that regardless of how they feel about the women's program.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
The U will have to pay a coach a salary next year no matter what they do with the current coach. The salary for the new coach may very well be below Borton's salary.
You keep mentioning you can't see adding buyout expense to a program that is currently losing 2M per year. If the program was breaking even or even making money would you still feel the same way?
Yes, agreed. If there is some sort of evidence that a coaching change would increase attendance by 2000 per game, then the cost would be negated and then some. Could they see that? I'm not sure. That type of increase would put them into third-place in attendance in the Big Ten. Of course, if you factored it in over a course of years, then attendance wouldn't have to increase that much. But, that also means the ticket boost revenue goes toward a buyout and not something more meaningful. Tough situation, for sure.
I UNDERSTAND THEY WILL BE PAYING A COACH'S SALARY NEXT YEAR. YOU UNDERSTAND THE BUYOUT DOES HAVE TO BE PAID IN REAL MONEY, RIGHT? THAT'S $330K THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND IF THEY DIDN'T FIRE THE COACH. IT IS AN ADD-ON EXPENSE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
Could be less, but not very well less. Take a look at the recent hires in the Big Ten. Michigan new coach ($600K). Illinois new coach ($400K). Indiana new coach ($300K).
And, yes, if a program is making money, then it would be easier for Teague to add a buyout expense, in my opinion.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Does a new and better coach that brings in better recruits and more on court success count as something more meaningful?
What if that new coach was paid 320,000 K(per yr) the first two years? That would be a break-even in two years with zero attendance increase.
Yes, if you promised me that there would marked improvement in play and attendance, I'd be for the buyout. Problem is, there's no guarantee there will be anything better than what we see now.
Correct. That will all factor into the AD's decision.
I'm not even suggesting that the U shouldn't fire the coach. I'm suggesting Norwood will have to factor in a lot of things, and after doing all of that, might very well end up saying it isn't worth it short term. That's what I predict he'll do. Doesn't mean that that's what I'd do or you'd do or anyone else would do.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
"Could be less,but not very well less."
I'm not sure what this means.
As far as the bold; what you are saying(from a financial standpoint) is it's okay to make improvements if you are making money but not if you are losing money.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
There are no guarantees no matter who you hire.......as you well know. If there were guarantees you could pay an AD 50,000 K a yr because anyone could do it. You need to pay someone to make sound decisions.
I'm saying it won't be a lot less than what Borton was making. Could be less, but I doubt it is much less.
And, yes, if you are making money, you have the budget to spend more money. If you aren't making money, you better be more careful with how you spend your money. Doesn't mean you can't spend for improvements, just that when you do, you better be sure the expense is really, really justified. That's what Teague will have to figure out. It might be that he says it is worth it to fire the coach. I think he'll say it isn't, especially if they make the NCAAs.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
If you are losing money it only stands to reason that there is better chance you need to make an investment. Remember Teagues's budget is not (-2M). His budget is about 85M. Maybe you feel the way to balance the books is to just keep 'cutting'.
Expenses should be justified whether you are making money or not.
freshtrout
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,085
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 48
This thread was way more interesting when Station 19 said he was not infatuated with Lindsay .... 
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,467
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 63
I guess I'm just more interested in the Gophers' game against Wisconsin than in the coaching situation.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Gophers women's basketball: Rachel Banham, Amanda Zahui B. are first-team Big Ten
"Junior Rachel Banham and freshman Amanda Zahui B. have been the best tandem for the Gophers women's basketball program in a decade.
Now they have something to show for it.
On Monday, Banham and Zahui B. became the first Gophers teammates to earn first-team All-Big Ten honors in the same season since former All-Americans Lindsay Whalen and Janel McCarville during their NCAA tournament Final Four season in 200"
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_25266588/gophers-womens-basketball-rachel-banham-amanda-zahui-b
"Junior Rachel Banham and freshman Amanda Zahui B. have been the best tandem for the Gophers women's basketball program in a decade.
Now they have something to show for it.
On Monday, Banham and Zahui B. became the first Gophers teammates to earn first-team All-Big Ten honors in the same season since former All-Americans Lindsay Whalen and Janel McCarville during their NCAA tournament Final Four season in 200"
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_25266588/gophers-womens-basketball-rachel-banham-amanda-zahui-b
SelectionSunday
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,596
- Reaction score
- 4,669
- Points
- 113
2 1st-team All-Big Ten players (a PG and a post) and 8-8/6th place in the Big Ten? That says it all.
My thoughts exactly, SS.
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Not to mention they started the year with only 10 scholarship players. I don't know the particulars but how can you be three short of a full roster? Maybe someone can fill us in.
There is more to the story. The Coaches All-Big Ten team has Zahui as a 2nd team member.
And, SS, you'll get a kick out of this.
For whatever reason, Big Ten women's basketball all-Big Ten Media team has named ELEVEN (11) first-team all-Big Ten players and another NINE (9) second-team all-Big Ten players and another THIRTEEN (13) on the all-Big Ten Honorable Mention team. So, they have 33 players on the all-Big Ten teams.
#1 seed Penn State has four of the 33 players (2 on 1st team, 1 on 2nd, 1 on HM, including Def POY)
#2 seed Michigan State has five of the 33 players (1 on 1st team, 1 on 2nd, 3 on HM)
#3 seed Nebraska has four of the 33 players (2 on 1st team, 2 on 2nd team, including POY)
#4 seed Purdue has four of the 33 players (1 on 1st team, 1 on 2nd team, 2 on HM)
#5 seed Iowa has three of the 33 players (1 on each team)
#6 seed Minnesota has two of the 33 players (1 on 1st team and 1 on 2nd team, including FR of YR)
#7 seed Michigan has three of the 33 players (1 on 2nd, 2 on HM)
#8 seed Ohio State has one of the 33 (1st teamer)
#9 seed Northwestern has three of the 33 (1 1st team, 2 on HM)
#10 seed Indiana has one of the 33 (2nd teamer)
#11 seed Wisconsin has two of the 33 (1st teamer and HM)
#12 seed Illinois has one of the 33 (HM)
So, I don't think Minnesota is totally out of whack. This shows a bit of the depth issue that Borton has, a clearly top-heavy roster with not much behind it. No doubt, her own fault. But, I don't think it is as easy as to simply say she has two first-teamers, they should be better just based on that. There are 11 players on the media first team and Borton has one of them. Now, again, that's her own fault and she should be critiqued for that, but simply based on her talent at hand, she probably finished about where she should have. Of course, the actual player selections are subjective, so there's that, too.
SelectionSunday
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,596
- Reaction score
- 4,669
- Points
- 113
Thanks TJ, I didn't know that's how the women selected their All-Big Ten teams. 11 players named to the 1st team? That's silly. Let's just name everyone All-Big Ten, make everyone happy, and call it a day!