|
Post by Life's too short. on Apr 10, 2009 13:05:36 GMT -5
South Carolina basketball coach Darrin Horn says he hasn't spoken to any other schools about their coaching jobs. Horn issued a statement Thursday night saying he is not looking to leave the Gamecocks. Horn says he is proud of what they accomplished in his first year and is excited about the future. Horn led South Carolina to a 21-10 record last season, tying Tennessee at the top of the Southeastern Conference East Division and just missing a trip to the NCAA tournament. Several published reports said Horn discussed the job opening at Xavier with school officials. Horn has four years left on a contract that pays him about $800,000 a season. He came to South Carolina from Western Kentucky.
Miami Herald
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 10, 2009 13:21:58 GMT -5
He made the right decision. Although he would have been inheriting a helluva a lineup.
|
|
|
Post by buzznut on Apr 10, 2009 20:17:26 GMT -5
Could this be more SEC, I'm not going anywhere, coach talk?
|
|
|
Post by USCGamecocks on Apr 11, 2009 12:22:31 GMT -5
Don't think so. Horn is happy in Columbia. USC has much deeper pockets then Xavier if it comes to that.
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 11, 2009 12:40:15 GMT -5
Don't think so. Horn is happy in Columbia. USC has much deeper pockets then Xavier if it comes to that. Ironically, Xavier's pockets are just as deep, however they don't over spend because they don't have the pressure of keeping up with the Jones' in a major conference. There are plenty of small private schools that have much deeper pockets than any of the big boy BCS schools. It's just how you choose to spend the cash.
|
|
|
Post by USCGamecocks on Apr 11, 2009 21:11:14 GMT -5
South Carolina is reporting a budget of 70 million for 2008/2009. That's just athletic department revenues and doesn't include fund raising from booster clubs. I have to doubt seriously that Xavier generates that kind of revenue.
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 11, 2009 22:44:37 GMT -5
South Carolina is reporting a budget of 70 million for 2008/2009. That's just athletic department revenues and doesn't include fund raising from booster clubs. I have to doubt seriously that Xavier generates that kind of revenue. It has less to do with the overall athletic budget and more to do with the individual team budget and the amount of private giving that you could garner for that sport. That being said, I don't think Xavier would be much further behind. The difference is whether they would choose to spend it or not b/c of not needing to keep up with the Jones'. For instance, I know that USCe's athletic budget is much much much larger than my alma mater's (Richmond), but Richmond has much deeper pockets when it comes to overall alumni giving. It's just a matter of how you choose to allocate the funds.
|
|
|
Post by USCGamecocks on Apr 12, 2009 1:38:41 GMT -5
We may have to agree to disagree but USC in 2008 generated about 30 million dollars just in gamecock club revenue. That doesn't count land donations and money from the gamecock foundation. Add that to the 70 mill in athletic department revenue and you are looking at a number in excess of 100 million. I find it hard to believe that Richmond, Xavier or similar schools generate that much money. I get what you are saying about individual team budget, but if it came down to a bidding war and Xavier really wanted Horn (don't know if they do) and USC absolutely wanted to keep him at all costs (again hypothetical) it would be easier to "take up a collection" for his raise from a large SEC school with an enrollment over 25k and athletic department revenue over 100 million then a 4,000 student liberal arts university. It's like comparing Vandy to the rest of the SEC.
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 12, 2009 7:51:44 GMT -5
USCG,
I get what your saying and I guess I was purely arguing semantics becasue if Richmond (not sure about Xavier) chose to allocate and spend money like your scenario with the Gamecocks, they could. Richmond's endowment is just under $2B. I looked up USCe's and it was about a quarter of that give or take a few bucks.
I know athletic budgets aren't touching endowments. My point is there are plenty of small schools that if they really wanted to spend on a certain program like hoops which isn't very capital intensive in order to pay big bucks for a coach they could actually pay the coach more than many large BCS institutions.
My overall point is that saying that because BCS schools put a greater amount of emphasis on the athletic budget than say a smaller private instituition does not necessarily mean that the BCS school has deeper pockets. It just means that they may be more committed to the athletic program at hand.
To your point, if Vandy really wanted to outspend the rest of the SEC, they absolutely could. Mere student enrollment does not equate to overall alumni giving. Again, it gets back to how they want to prioritize their athletic department.
|
|
|
Post by tigerdug on Apr 12, 2009 8:12:53 GMT -5
USCG, I get what your saying and I guess I was purely arguing semantics becasue if Richmond (not sure about Xavier) chose to allocate and spend money like your scenario with the Gamecocks, they could. Richmond's endowment is just under $2B. I looked up USCe's and it was about a quarter of that give or take a few bucks. I know athletic budgets aren't touching endowments. My point is there are plenty of small schools that if they really wanted to spend on a certain program like hoops which isn't very capital intensive in order to pay big bucks for a coach they could actually pay the coach more than many large BCS institutions. My overall point is that saying that because BCS schools put a greater amount of emphasis on the athletic budget than say a smaller private instituition does not necessarily mean that the BCS school has deeper pockets. It just means that they may be more committed to the athletic program at hand. To your point, if Vandy really wanted to outspend the rest of the SEC, they absolutely could. Mere student enrollment does not equate to overall alumni giving. Again, it gets back to how they want to prioritize their athletic department. It really doesn't matter who has "deeper pockets" . Why would Horn leave an SEC institution a couple years after leaving one mid-major to go back to another ? If he stays , with his work ethic and recruiting ability I see the Gamecocks rising to the top of the entire SEC in the next few years. I saw this year that he is the guy they haven't had since Frank Maguire and you have to bet that the boosters are wearing CARGO pants in Columbia ,so they may not have deeper pockets but they have a whole bunch of em'.....
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 12, 2009 8:15:13 GMT -5
Tigerdug,
I agree that he made the right decision and stated that in my original post. LMAO about the cargo pants reference. Funny stuff.
|
|
|
Post by USCGamecocks on Apr 12, 2009 8:59:12 GMT -5
Endowments are a completely different story. Many private institutions have to use endowments as part of the academic operating costs. That is the only way they stay afloat without government money. I don't know if that's the case with Richmond. My father attended MIT which has one of the largest endowments of all universities, but that endowment is used to fund academic programs, athletics, and research costs. They are constantly calling my father and I'm sure other alumni to maintain the fund. I just think it's apples and oranges to be talking about strictly athletic funds and then endowments that cover a whole university which is why I left them out of my calculations. But like I said, agree to disagree. Unless you want to concede defeat
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Apr 12, 2009 9:19:11 GMT -5
Richmond touches a very very small portion of the endowment to cover operating costs and typically that goes for new capital building projects. Essentially, my point has been that if many of the smaller private institutions chose to put a large emphasis on sports and set up capital donation funds to make sure that they were uber elite in sports, they could more than likely come up with the money to cover those costs at a higher rate than most large BCS institutions. Instead they choose to focus their fund raising towards academics. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.
|
|