redpony wrote:with making public the $4 mil per year number I also have to wonder what other top level coaches may now be interested. If only the 'top 10' are getting that kind of money then our pool of interested coaches might expand considerably.
Yeah it will certainly get some attention. That is a tremendous amount of money for SMU. We may be small in number but our hardcore boosters are some of the most committed and generous boosters of any school in the country. Huge thank you to the CoC for literally keeping this program above water.
redpony wrote:with making public the $4 mil per year number I also have to wonder what other top level coaches may now be interested. If only the 'top 10' are getting that kind of money then our pool of interested coaches might expand considerably.
The top level coaches would leverage the SMU opening to get more money from their current schools. None would actually be interested in taking the job.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
I e-mailed my father the article and this was his response, FWIW:
Please remember that MB was a teammate of mine at Vanderbilt back in the early 70s. While we have certainly not kept in touch over the years, the last time we spoke was in 1986, I can tell you this from my own experiences….MB, while at VU, was an honor student majoring in Civil Engineering. He has a very, very firm grasp on numbers. My opinion on this hire…..to Mack this is a business deal. If ALL (including SMU’s financial commitment to the football program) the numbers make sense to him, he takes the job!
redpony wrote:with making public the $4 mil per year number I also have to wonder what other top level coaches may now be interested. If only the 'top 10' are getting that kind of money then our pool of interested coaches might expand considerably.
The top level coaches would leverage the SMU opening to get more money from their current schools. None would actually be interested in taking the job.
You could be just a liittle bit more negative with your post.
SmooBoy wrote:LB's "perfect storm" worked out nicely. MB would need some of that same weather pattern.
Hindsight said it was a "perfect storm". In reality everything that happened after we hired Larry Brown was a direct result of hiring Larry Brown. I'm not sure how much luck was involved when he assembled a killer staff and instantly started to get the attention of top recruits while beating some of the best basketball programs in the country. I'd say the perfect storm was just Larry Brown.
I agree that this deal only makes sense with some ways out or if Mack has the energy to pull a LB, and Mack has the budget to bring in good coaches. Do you think we would have a chance at David Beaty coming over as the OC? That's some powerhouse recruiting!
“Football combines two of the worst things in American life. It is violence punctuated by committee meetings.” ― George F. Will
mrydel wrote:The only way $4,000,000 for 8 years makes sense is if it carries a P5 membership with it.
There are no guarantees and as it sits right now P5 is a pipe dream. There are so many things that have to happen that are out of our control to start thinking P5. This coaching hire is all about positioning. How can we position SMU athletics to be in the best place it possibly can should realignment give a few G5 schools a chance to move up? Paying a coach $4M/year at leads sends the signal that we aren't screwing around and we are willing to separate ourselves from our peers financially. That's the only thing we can control right now.
Come on PonyFans, do you really think the CofC is going to go on the cheap for the support staff when they are unloading the truck for MB? That will not be the concern.
DO IT!
and yes, David Beaty would be a great addition to the staff, IMO.
UT padded MB's pocket well into the future so I don't think a huge contract above all else is his biggest agenda too coach again. Also, there is no guarantee Mack will get a slew of studs to come here- we hope he does but one never knows.
I think Mac Daddy would do well here but saying that just because we hired Larry Brown and he did really good well means that if hire Mack Brown he will do very good is almost like saying since we had success in football in playing one 5'9 receiver let's go recruit a entire receiving group of 5'9 receivers. Wait, didn't we try that?
