Missouri State to hire Paul Lusk

[bleach]

I wonder why you are surprised of what Missouri State pays, they historically pay low.

For mens basketball, yes. Coaches in general, no. Total coaching salaries probably compare very favorably with the top Valley schools.

[MoValley John]

[quote="bleach"][quote="MoValley John"] I wonder why you are surprised of what Missouri State pays, they historically pay low.[/quote]

For mens basketball, yes. Coaches in general, no. Total coaching salaries probably compare very favorably with the top Valley schools.[/quote]

But for the sake of discussion here, men's basketball is all that matters. Missouri State has a history with women's basketball so I would expect that coach to be well compensated and the program funded well. That said, my guess is that the secondary sports in general have less of a variance in pay from one school to the next. The diving coach at Missouri State probably makes in the neighborhood as the diving coach at Evansville, if either school has diving. Missouri State has a focus on women's basketball and probably pays more for that coach than the rest of the Valley schools pay for theor coach, just as Creighton probably pays at top of the league for their men's soccer coach. My guess is that Gene Stephenson makes more than any other Valley baseball coach. But when you take the 12-15 secondary sports each school pays, there isn't going to be a huge disparity in what those coaches earn. Some make a little more, some make a little less. Missouri State probably averages right in with them all. So does E-Ville, Creighton and Drake.

What is problematic, and this isn't singling out Missouri State, is that C0|db|00ded just started a thread bragging about Marshall's compensation, stating Marshall made $1,150,000. That is not double, but nearly ten fold what Indiana State pays Lansing. And if you look at the overall basketball budgets from all Valley schools, you see similar disparities from the top of the league down. Men's basketball is what matters. Men's basketball is what pays the bills. Men's basketball should be the number one prority. Regardless of other sports emphasized at each school, if that emphasis comes at the expense of men's basketball, either the school needs to drop to a lower conference or re-evaluate their priorities. Afterall, a one or two game run in the NCAA is more exposure, reccognition and publicity than you can garner in any other sport outside of BCS football. At last check, none of the schools in the Valley play BCS footballl or even FBS football for that matter. In the Valley, men's basketball is the benchmark.

[bleach]

Since your statement was that "Missouri St pays low" not Missouri St pays their mens basketball coaches low, I thought I would clarify that MSU isn't a bunch of tightwads in general but prefers to not put all their eggs in one basket (wise or not). I would expect the swimming and diving coach to be at or near the top in the Valley. Same for Terry Allen and Keith Guttin. Nyla might make more than most Valley womens basketball coaches combined. Tightwads don't do those things because they don't have to.

[C0|db|00ded]

Lusk looks like a good hire. I am a bit suprised that the salary package is 7th in the Valley.

We should have hired Lusk as our assistant because we just lost one not too long ago.


T


...

[C0|db|00ded]

Nyla might make more than most Valley womens basketball coaches combined.

Incorrect!


T


...

[BEELINE]

Money doesn't necessarily equate to success; WSU has paid the top salary in the MVC to Marshal the past couple seasons. SIU went out and paid top dollar to retain Lowry 3 years ago. Does either have an NCAA tourney game or league championship to their credit during that time. People overlook that while Lusk will be paid at a rate that ranks seventh, he is 10th in head coaching experience and will be tied for last in tenure at his present job. Why would you pay him at a level disproportionate to his experience and proven performance. That is stupidity.

I'm not trying to bag on WSU as much as counter the belief that for MVC teams to acheive success, they need to participate in the lunacy rampant in BCS circles of making FB/BB coaches multi millionaires in order to keep up with the Joneses. But WSU has the self professed best fan base, excellent facilities, great tradition, and pays top $$ to their coaches and has for a while, so why do they have the least # of combined regular season/MVC tourney championships and NCAA appearences for men's bb in the past 20 years of all Valley schools. Right now, they've been paying Marshal for the success he had at Wintrop. I don't want to pay someone for how successful he was some where else. UNI not WSU is a model of how you have success in mens basketball at this level in todays climate; show me a program in my constituency that has a pattern of sustained success and that's a model I'm interested in. SLU is an example of the insanity of trying to opererate as if you are something you're not; lets pay a coach twice as much as we need to for success he obtained for someone else a decade ago, because that makes us look like a player in the overall scheme of things. How's that working.

I really believe the way you establish a consistent winning program that can be a regular participant or challenger for the NCAA tourney is by staying out of the bidding wars for the second tier coaching talent; consistently hire young up and comers and insist they have hire similar assistants, pay fair salaries based on experience and performance till you reach a point where it starts to strain your budget or booster support, and then gratefully thank that coach for 3-5 good years and hire the next similar guy perferably from your assistants but if not from someone elses staff. If you get a guy who is great and will stay for considerable less money than the insane market wants to pay elsewhere, count your blessings and ride it out. But I have no great desire to pay someone a million+ one year to only watch him play the market year after year and especially when there is a history among my peers of paying considerably less and getting better results.

[MoValley John]

As it is very difficult to convey a complete thought on a message board without rambling on and on, which I end up doing simply trying to focus on the money aspect, you are absolutely right, spending money on a program does not guarantee results. And money alone will not bring results, there is so much more. But at the same time, if you discount or ignore the money side of the equation, you are mising the boat. That said, if you read the following rambling, disconnected post, you might get a better glimpse of what I'm trying to convey.

You are absolutely correct that money doesn't necessarilly equate success. I have harped about the money because money is what is driving college sports today. It is a fact and if you are serious about being competitive, you cannot be serious if you aren't at least competitive with funding or attempting to be competitive with your funding. There are many, many factors that determine a programs success and money is just one of the variables. Fan support, having a campus that attracts recruits with degree programs that athletes desire, a quality tutoring program that keeps players eligible and pointed toward a graduation, entertainment options for the student athlete, and yes, even a quality talent pool of hot girls for the players play a role. Other factors would include an athletic department that provides quality training facilities, set and defined expectations, continuity in the program regardless of who is the head coach, strong leadership from the president to the AD all the way to the GA's and towel boys. These are all factors. The list goes on and on and on. Money is just one factor and the salary wars being fought by BCS programs doesn't guarantee a school will win. I have said it before, salaries are completely out of whack but it is what it is.

But all of these factors and the hundreds of other factors begin with the program being properly funded. Not overfunded and not underfunded. Texas and Ohio State overfund their programs because they can and it is a source of pride for them to throw cash at anything and everything. Anyone that has taken a college level econ class understands diminishing marginal returns. Texas and Ohio State define diminishing marginal returns. Many big schools are bloated with zero return on additional money spent. At the same time, you cannot expect to be competitive, year in and year out, if you are underfund a program. An underfunded program can put everything together once and awhile and have great success. But that success will be fleeting and the one or two good years can give the false illusion that the underfunded program doesn't need more money to compete. And rationalizing being underfunded as not important is simply ignoring a problem and sticking your head in the sand.

As it is, the bigboys are playing the money game. The last time I checked, the bogboys make the rules, get the big tv contracts and set the benchmark for success. Valley teams desire to be mentioned in the same breath with BCS teams. And if you want to play and compete in their world, you have to play their game. That doesn't mean you need to run out and spend $2,000,000 on a coach, that is silly. You don't need a half a million dollar recruiting budget, either. But you do need to compete with them as best you can monetarily. And yes, realistic expectations are defined, like it or not, by how much you invest in a program. In fact, if you want to know what is really important to you, personally, look no further than where you spend your time and money. If you say you love your family more than anything, but you buy $1,000 worth of new golf clubs every year and are on the links three days a week, in reality you probably care more about golf than you do your family. You might like your family but love golf. The same can be said for how an institution allocates funds and how much time the institution, not just the coaches, spend on the program.

Money does not guarantee results, but if you are not at least competitive with your peers regarding the money your spend on your program and coaches, you are trying. If your athletic budget rivals your peers in the conference but you aren't in the top third of the Valley in men's basketball spending, the program really isn't as important to the school as the fans might be led to think. This is exactly why Barry Hinson was paid so little and why the administration allowed him to stay so long without ever bringing home the brass ring; men's basketball wasn't a top priority and the expectations of the administration din't meet the expectations of the fans.

At the same time, if your school doesn't have the ability to keep up with the conference as a whole financially, it doesn't mean that they don't care or don't have expectations, it means they simply don't have as much money. Regardless of whether or not a university has a large athletic budget or not, you can look at the distribution of the funds that you do have and see where the school is placing their money and follow how much time the administration dedicates to each program. That alone will set the realistic expectation levels of each program and define exactly what is important. Looking at Missouri State, right or wrong, they dedicate more time and money to the women's basketball program than any other Valley school. Women's basketball, this is what is important to Missouri State. On the flipside, while they invest more into the women's basketball program than any other Valley school, they fall short in funding the men's program. Simply looking at how the administration at Missouri State allocates their time and money, regardless of what the fans might think, women's basketball is more important to them then men's basketball. Period.

As it is very difficult to convey a complete thought on a message board without rambling on and on, which I end up doing simply trying to focus on the money aspect, you are absolutely right, spending money on a program does not guarantee results. And money alone will not bring results, there is so much more. But at the same time, if you discount or ignore the money side of the equation, you are mising the boat.

[BEELINE]

Actually it's a misconception Mo Valley, that our WBB program is so well funded. It actually ranks in the middle third of the Valley at this point. And your right there is at least some correlation between adequately funding a sport, which doesn't have to mean overpaying for coaches, and the ability to compete for championships. Our swimming program is the best in the Valley and ranks at or near the top in funding although, it does not have a top notch facility.

I was at a booster meeting recently and we were made aware of where we rank in funding all our sports and what level of success we are having in each, and quite frankly our coaches have done an outstanding job overall given their comparative funding levels in most sports, because we rank in the middle or lower 3rd in many. That has to change for us to get to the level we want and sustain it. So we don't disagree there; I was more responding to the points some have tried to make about coaching salaries being a badge of honor for a program. I just don't agree with the way that is going for many schools and see more sane approaches out there who are having sustained success .

[Snapshot9]

Let's keep things in perspective when talking about other sports, coaches in lesser sports might be making 70 or 80 grand, less than an assistant Basketball coach will make. Fan participation is far far less in those other sports as well. When is the last time you watched a women's basketball game, and how many did you watch?
I agree with a previous poster, men's basketball is the driving force, and far exceeds the other sports. In fact, I personally enjoy men's college basketball far more than other sports, including football.

Money is a main factor in sports, but there is coming a time when money won't be available because of the national economy, and current living conditions. Our country is broke, things have to change, and those changes will eventually affect college and professional sports.

[shockball]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6470853