re: Sam Pittman requesting a 7 year, $50 mill deal from Arkansas

Pay the man

50 million for a 8-4 season. He should have been 7-5 if not for the fired LSU offense OC :lol:

He's earned it

quote:

---

He's earned it

---

by going 8-4 once? Wtf

Pittman is a good coach and will continue to put Ar-Kansas on an upward trajectory. They would be stupid to piss him off and not pay him market value.

This is Sexton but I don't disagree. It's not like AR doesn't have the money or boosters to do it easily.

I personally think they are asking top and they'll negotiate it down a bit with incentives as well like his current contract. He maxed out and got every incentive. To me that says we need to buck up. Just don't want to see a crazy buy out or the whole contract guaranteed.

Those saying this was an easy year for AR must not realize their SOS. He really did some great things in a very short time here.

quote:

---

So he goes 8-4 once and now demands 50 m

---

“Requesting” does not equal “demand.”

quote:

---

this coaching salary bubble is the most absurd thing of all time

---

Is it? Have you seen the numbers of the new tv contracts? I hate where CFB has gone and where it’s going, but there’s no un-ringing this bell, I’m afraid. Head coaches are CEOs of programs worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and there’s high competition to either acquire or keep the good ones. Arkansas would not be “rewarding” Pittman for going 8-4, they’d be rewarding him for making them relevant again, playing those 2:30 CBS games, and being the face of the University of Arkansas brand, not just the football team. (And for making the job more attractive to the next guy, whomever that may be.

It’s probably not ideal, but the head coach of a P5 college football program not named Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, or Kansas is going to be the face of not just the football team or the athletic department, but the university itself. Have you seen the numbers on how Alabama’s out of state enrollment has gone up since Saban started their dynasty? It’s crazy.

And that’s what’s always bothered me about the narrow-minded lack of forward thinking when it comes to Women’s CBB, for example. People can’t see past that the program “loses” money each year and investing in a championship coach is a waste. They can only see ROÍ in terms of cost vs. revenue in any particular year. But it’s about increasing the brand of the the athletic department and the university as a whole. Every time Kim Mulkey gives a National interview, it’s good for LSU’s brand. Every time she can get them on National tv, it increases LSU’s brand. And if she can actually win a NC or 2 before she retires?

The entire university benefits greatly from being associated with championships in all sports—the goal is to have the brand associated with excellence. But that’s something built over time and harder to quantify. It’s much more nuanced than simply looking at each sport’s yearly cost v return analysis. It’s a long play that will help LSU in the future with higher enrollment (specifically out of state), more research grants, better professors, etc… Tate gets that—it’s why he’s signed off on paying Johnson, Mulkey, and Kelly what we are. They are long-term investments in associating the LSU brand with excellence.


That said, I don’t think the bubble can sustain the Mel Tucker type contracts. He may work out specifically, but committing that much money to relatively unproven coaches is not sustainable. Boosters—at most places—aren’t gonna continue to bail out ADs who make bad hires and/or give bad contracts. Bad in the sense that you can’t get out of them without stroking a huge check. But, coaches seem to have most of the leverage right now, and the ones that do work out will prove to be more than worth it.

I don't get this argument either. These same kids were shite under Morris just a couple of years ago. This proves the coaching is there which means the kids behind them are probably going to be pretty good as well. Everyone in the nation benefitted from Super Seniors.