Yes, he had a bunch of money tied into attendance. Some in general attendance and some in student attendance. It does explain the golf cart rides and all of that. He had a really nice base salary that put him at the top of the G5, but the bonuses if they kicked in would have put him at a solid P5 level. That was the hope on both sides - get the attendance right and we can afford to pay him more, and we would be more attractive to a P5 conference.
ON the conspiracy theory angle, I would suggest that we spent less on marketing the team than we did for June. And knowing how SMU loves to make decisions, that may have been an economic decision that the gain in attendance would increase the coach's salary, and have a negative impact on the athletics budget... but that is just me playing the conspiracy theorist .
JasonB wrote:Yes, he had a bunch of money tied into attendance. Some in general attendance and some in student attendance. It does explain the golf cart rides and all of that. He had a really nice base salary that put him at the top of the G5, but the bonuses if they kicked in would have put him at a solid P5 level. That was the hope on both sides - get the attendance right and we can afford to pay him more, and we would be more attractive to a P5 conference.
ON the conspiracy theory angle, I would suggest that we spent less on marketing the team than we did for June. And knowing how SMU loves to make decisions, that may have been an economic decision that the gain in attendance would increase the coach's salary, and have a negative impact on the athletics budget... but that is just me playing the conspiracy theorist .
Thanks for sharing Jason. Really hope SD does not have attendance clauses in his contract for the very reasons you just spelled out.
I guess I understand the thought process with the attendance clause: better product on the field the more people that show up the more money the coach gets. Given our horrid attendance, you would think that would kill the ability to recruit a coach. With SD’s Cal contract, it might not matter as I understand it, he gets paid whatever Cal promise minus what SMU actually pays.
I think attendance contracts should apply to AD and marketing department personally.
JasonB wrote:Yes, he had a bunch of money tied into attendance. Some in general attendance and some in student attendance. It does explain the golf cart rides and all of that. He had a really nice base salary that put him at the top of the G5, but the bonuses if they kicked in would have put him at a solid P5 level. That was the hope on both sides - get the attendance right and we can afford to pay him more, and we would be more attractive to a P5 conference.
ON the conspiracy theory angle, I would suggest that we spent less on marketing the team than we did for June. And knowing how SMU loves to make decisions, that may have been an economic decision that the gain in attendance would increase the coach's salary, and have a negative impact on the athletics budget... but that is just me playing the conspiracy theorist .
I guess he must've forgotten how many empty seats there were at Texas Stadium for a top 10 team when he rode those FCA buses.
Last edited by Julian Grendel on Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SMU_Alum11 wrote:I think attendance contracts should apply to AD and marketing department personally.
Totally agree except they should only apply to the AD as I didn't think we actually had a sports marketing dept. If we do they sure haven't done any marketing.
SMU_Alum11 wrote:I think attendance contracts should apply to AD and marketing department personally.
Totally agree except they should only apply to the AD as I didn't think we actually had a sports marketing dept. If we do they sure haven't done any marketing.
I’ve heard we’ve got like 4 ppl out of college who on occasion google search ΓÇ£how to marketΓÇ¥.
Seems like a no brainer for some cheap ideas...Cox School of Business marketing class project? When I was in school, we worked with Dallas PD on recruitment of minorities and improving community relations/image. Hopefully our business school appreciates the importance of a winning football program and the role of attendance in building a program. Is today's faculty that anti-athletics that they are not interested in helping?
I read on here somewhere that the marketing budget is next to nil. If that's the case, then it's hard to assess whether the staff can market, if they have no money at their disposal. Or was it all spent on the billboards?
JasonB wrote:Yes, he had a bunch of money tied into attendance. Some in general attendance and some in student attendance. It does explain the golf cart rides and all of that. He had a really nice base salary that put him at the top of the G5, but the bonuses if they kicked in would have put him at a solid P5 level. That was the hope on both sides - get the attendance right and we can afford to pay him more, and we would be more attractive to a P5 conference.
ON the conspiracy theory angle, I would suggest that we spent less on marketing the team than we did for June. And knowing how SMU loves to make decisions, that may have been an economic decision that the gain in attendance would increase the coach's salary, and have a negative impact on the athletics budget... but that is just me playing the conspiracy theorist .
No real proof that was in his contract since no one has seen it. Just speculation and hearsay.
.
