What will the decision be?

[JD24]

St. John's lets go Mike Anderson and South Florida lets go Brian Gregory.

Valpo twiddle twaddles.

[VULB#62]

Being let go after poor performance can actually be a positive experience. It causes deeper self-examination and a broadening of vistas. Think of all the coaches who have been fired and got second chances that panned out. Bryce for instance. He's kicking butt at GCU.

On the flip side, not being fired in the face of continual poor performance reinforces in the coach's mind that he is performing well and needn't adjust what he's doing or think outside the box. That's a formula for continual failure.

I say this with sincerity, Matt is a good guy who deserves the opportunity to learn from a termination.

[NativeCheesehead]

We've reached the point where not only have plenty of schools have both fired former coaches and hired their replacements. Yet complete silence from our AD.
If we're sticking with Lottich for whatever reason, we should have put out some kind of statement by now. If we're still 'evaluating the situation', then at least let us know that!

[crusader05]

At this point, unless we see a mass rush for the exits by players in the next few weeks I would say nothing is changing. Also, I highly doubt there will be a release saying as much but we might get a  response to a reporter question asking if ML is the coach for next year.

I'd assume that if he stays there might be a shake up in Assistant Coaching or a private conversation about what is expected for the next season.

[AlaskaCrusader19]

Question.. Is it normal to issue a 'we're not laying off' pronouncement? Wouldn't the assumption be that silence = status quo, or is it actually typical for universities to each year indicate both the green or red light?

Sometimes an athletic director will issue a statement to indicate support for the head coach moving forward, but it's not like it happens in every hot seat instance. At this point, it would feel pretty surprising to see Valpo move on. It's getting late.

[usc4valpo]

Embarrassing. If Lottich remains, it is a clear indicator Valpo is apathetic and not committed to successful D1 basketball. Tell me where I'm wrong on this statement.

[usc4valpo]

If we cannot afford $700k, which is crumbs in D1 sports, we should quit pretending and drop to D3.

[usc4valpo]

I gotcha. It is very frustrating. My feeling is that they can make the move if they really wanted to and cared about the program after all it has done for the university. It's really sad.

I also wish there would be some level of transparancy on what they are going to do.

[VULB#62]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

[NotBryceDrew]

If Small and Padilla can't find a creative way to see Lottich out I think the conversation needs to be moved to them. A lot of talk about athletics being a priority and zero action across the board. I'm not expecting a new 40m facility, just remove people who are not doing their job.

[crusader05]

One thing that has been a key piece in all this is that the base foundation of a lot of things maybe needs to be built up. I want our Basketball team to win and I want a coach that makes it happen. BUT it could be that Padilla and Small are looking at a bigger picture that makes them think a new coach right now is not the best investment in resources. if they have 1.7 million to throw at something is it their view that it's a better investment to do a buyout and hope the next coach can improve even with subpar resources or is it to build up the resources now to make the job more attractive and better resourced overall?

Valpo has been doing too much with too little for too long. We've gotten used to some pretty good top of the line results over the years and we want those back but not at the expensive of continuing to rebuild on a shakey foundation.

Cutting is always viewed as "bad" but what if you cut so you can finally give your strengths the support they need. Being able to brag about how many D-I sports we have doesn't do any good if they're all in subpar facilities vs cutting some to hopefully see the others bear better fruit and continue to be reinvested in. Cutting lower producing programs or those that are top heavy in costs so that you can start to roll back cuts and give out merit raises and hire in at higher salaries in the areas you already have interest and strength is also good.

I'm want to see new investments if we're not going to buy out. But I also want to see proof that we are investing smartly ( I tend ot think both new dorms and new athletic facilities meet that goal)

[JD24]

Question.. Is it normal to issue a 'we're not laying off' pronouncement? Wouldn't the assumption be that silence = status quo, or is it actually typical for universities to each year indicate both the green or red light?

This would be my expectation. No comment means status quo. So....highly likely status quo.

There should be an expectation that Dr. Small will have to put out some bs response to a question addressing the coaching situation from an intrepid reporter or two.

[vu84v2]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

I do not buy the argument that a buyout would be that expensive. If we assume $700K (two years salary) and benefits, I don't see how that is more than $800K. And that assumes that you can't negotiate it down. If we assume a new coach would be paid a bit more - say $400K per year, which would be in the upper half of MVC coaching salaries (I think),and the benefits are the same - the incremental two-year spend would be about $100K. I'll add in some higher salaries for the new assistants versus the current assistant, so add another $100K per year ($200K total over two years). Incentives would be based on performance (I hope!), so no added cost that would not likely be offset by greater revenues (though increased revenues from ticket sales will lag performance improvements). That totals to about $1.1M over two years(so 62's premise that the costs would be higher is likely valid). But, you also need to factor in the windfall from the New Mexico State buy game, which is probably around $300K. Thus, the net cost, in my view, is about $800K over two years. Not an insignificant amount, but not $1.6M.

Regardless, I think that no action from the AD so far indicates continuing with the status quo. Frankly, there is no way to sell this (though there might be some cursory attempt, like replacing an assistant coach or promoting someone like Tevonn Walker). Continuing with the status quo means not implementing a system in which you then recruit players who fit that system...which is a far stronger recipe for success than what has been done with the current coaching staff.

[4throwfan]

Valpo22, I get your point, but, I disagree with your analogy below a little bit.  The expenditure on a new coaching staff, while paying the existing is not like buying a toy, although I imagine that the non-sports fan portion of the VU Family would view it that way.  Rather, I view it as an investment.  Theoretically, an improved coaching staff would lead to more wins, and some prospective students would elect to come to VU, and there would be greater tickets sales and TV coverage.  Maybe your analogy should have been that the teen is throwing a fit because they weren't allowed to use their money for a new car for their Uber job.  Theoretically, the new car would lead to better revenue, but there is still an affordability problem.  I think a replacement of the coaching staff is simply a B/C ratio.  I imagine that the internal VU dispute is on the 'B'.

i just don't get how pitching a fit over Valpo not dropping $700K on a buy-out right now is helpful. it's like a teenager throwing a fit because they don't get an Xbox for Christmas when the parents were just trying to make sure there was a ham and electricity on for Christmas eve. if Valpo can't afford it, Valpo can't afford it.

[VULB#62]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

I do not buy the argument that a buyout would be that expensive. If we assume $700K (two years salary) and benefits, I don't see how that is more than $800K. And that assumes that you can't negotiate it down. If we assume a new coach would be paid a bit more - say $400K per year, which would be in the upper half of MVC coaching salaries (I think),and the benefits are the same - the incremental two-year spend would be about $100K. I'll add in some higher salaries for the new assistants versus the current assistant, so add another $100K per year ($200K total over two years). Incentives would be based on performance (I hope!), so no added cost that would not likely be offset by greater revenues (though increased revenues from ticket sales will lag performance improvements). That totals to about $1.1M over two years(so 62's premise that the costs would be higher is likely valid). But, you also need to factor in the windfall from the New Mexico State buy game, which is probably around $300K. Thus, the net cost, in my view, is about $800K over two years. Not an insignificant amount, but not $1.6M.

Regardless, I think that no action from the AD so far indicates continuing with the status quo. Frankly, there is no way to sell this (though there might be some cursory attempt, like replacing an assistant coach or promoting someone like Tevonn Walker). Continuing with the status quo means not implementing a system in which you then recruit players who fit that system...which is a far stronger recipe for success than what has been done with the current coaching staff.

You are looking at the "additional" cost of a coaching change. As you described it, I agree. Two years @$365k = $730k that will probably be negotiated down a bit.  Add the other additional stuff you cite and $800k on top of the current budget makes sense.

However, I was looking at the total cost that the university must budget for over the next 24 months in the face of declining game attendance. And, just like the heralded move to the MVC in 2017, I'll bet there are going to be unknown (or known but conveniently ignored) hidden costs. I also have no insider info on how the university will use the NMSU windfall. I don't know if that income has already disappeared into the general fund or is held onto by the athletic department, so I'd be reluctant to make that a factor.

I will say, though, that one way to recoup some of the cost should a change occur would be to schedule a bunch of buy (body bag) P5 games, like Kampe used to do, just to get an improved revenue stream going. No more non-D-Is. As a matter of fact, regardless if Matt is back or not, until the program is back on its financial feet, shouldn't that be the scheduling philosophy?

[vu84v2]

62 - I would not assume getting a lot of buy games is possible. Major conferences have increased their number of conference games and have increased "challenges" with other conferences. For a team in a Power 6 conference, they have probably gone from 10 buy games in a season to around 6. Further, there is a greater emphasis in games that could count as Quad 1 or Quad 2 games...and Valpo is far away from that.

If the NMSU windfall was applied to the university's general finances, I (and I hope many) would have a real problem with that. If the university takes most or all of the margin dollars from ventures pursued by the athletic department or individual colleges, then why should those entities pursue them? If the athletic department retains most or all of those funds and chooses to use them for a different (likely special) purpose, that would seem to be fully within their right.

[VULB#62]

Yeah, probably.  But ya gotta try 😀

[wh]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

I do not buy the argument that a buyout would be that expensive. If we assume $700K (two years salary) and benefits, I don't see how that is more than $800K. And that assumes that you can't negotiate it down. If we assume a new coach would be paid a bit more - say $400K per year, which would be in the upper half of MVC coaching salaries (I think),and the benefits are the same - the incremental two-year spend would be about $100K. I'll add in some higher salaries for the new assistants versus the current assistant, so add another $100K per year ($200K total over two years). Incentives would be based on performance (I hope!), so no added cost that would not likely be offset by greater revenues (though increased revenues from ticket sales will lag performance improvements). That totals to about $1.1M over two years(so 62's premise that the costs would be higher is likely valid). But, you also need to factor in the windfall from the New Mexico State buy game, which is probably around $300K. Thus, the net cost, in my view, is about $800K over two years. Not an insignificant amount, but not $1.6M.

Regardless, I think that no action from the AD so far indicates continuing with the status quo. Frankly, there is no way to sell this (though there might be some cursory attempt, like replacing an assistant coach or promoting someone like Tevonn Walker). Continuing with the status quo means not implementing a system in which you then recruit players who fit that system...which is a far stronger recipe for success than what has been done with the current coaching staff.

It could just be me, but I'm having a hard time following your math logic. Could you please clarify. Specifically, what is your bottom line TOTAL ADDED COST OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS to buy out ML's contract at $350k/year x 2, while also paying a new coach the same amount, or more?

[4throwfan]

Valpo22, I agree with all of that.

But, simply I think that your thinking is unfortunate (no reflection on you).  Seems that there is a lack of confidence as to the leadership being able to capably make a commitment that requires a significant allocation of revenue where there is risk (i.e., all of your 'what-ifs').

My own (very uneducated) view is that there is a cultural issue in leadership that has resulted in recent failures.  It will take a lot to change that, and it is very unfortunate that VU is where it is.  But the current issues have resulted in pessimism common in posts like yours.

It's very unfortunate.

[valpolaw]

I only check this forum daily now to see when Lottich will be let go. It is unbelievable that nothing has been done yet

[VULB#62]

When you have booster clubs with deep pockets and million dollar athletics donors it goes fast. When you have neither, it's gonna take a bit longer.

[vu84v2]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

First, my estimates are essentially done on a cocktail napkin.

My argument is that the two-year cost would be ~$1M if they paid the new coach the same as Matt Lottich. My guess is that they would need to pay $50K more per year, so my guess on two-year cost with additional pay is $1.1M.

I do not buy the argument that a buyout would be that expensive. If we assume $700K (two years salary) and benefits, I don't see how that is more than $800K. And that assumes that you can't negotiate it down. If we assume a new coach would be paid a bit more - say $400K per year, which would be in the upper half of MVC coaching salaries (I think),and the benefits are the same - the incremental two-year spend would be about $100K. I'll add in some higher salaries for the new assistants versus the current assistant, so add another $100K per year ($200K total over two years). Incentives would be based on performance (I hope!), so no added cost that would not likely be offset by greater revenues (though increased revenues from ticket sales will lag performance improvements). That totals to about $1.1M over two years(so 62's premise that the costs would be higher is likely valid). But, you also need to factor in the windfall from the New Mexico State buy game, which is probably around $300K. Thus, the net cost, in my view, is about $800K over two years. Not an insignificant amount, but not $1.6M.

Regardless, I think that no action from the AD so far indicates continuing with the status quo. Frankly, there is no way to sell this (though there might be some cursory attempt, like replacing an assistant coach or promoting someone like Tevonn Walker). Continuing with the status quo means not implementing a system in which you then recruit players who fit that system...which is a far stronger recipe for success than what has been done with the current coaching staff.

It could just be me, but I'm having a hard time following your math logic. Could you please clarify. Specifically, what is your bottom line TOTAL ADDED COST OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS to buy out ML's contract at $350k/year x 2, while also paying a new coach the same amount, or more?

My guess is that the two-year cost, assuming that a new coach is paid the same as Matt Lottich, is $1M. My guess is that they would need to pay $50K more per year, so $1.1M. Of course, this is a cocktail napkin estimate.

[wh]

[Imagine here that emoji of a guy beating a dead horse]

    It's actually like $1.5+ million over the next two years (and probably more like $1.6 or $1.7).  That is, if you factor in the cost of the replacement coach's salary and bennies, as well as any concession/incentive expenditures on the program to attract the guy to sign. That's quite a pill to swallow in only 24 months, especially when you consider how hard it's gonna be to build attendance back up to Drew era numbers.

First, my estimates are essentially done on a cocktail napkin.

My argument is that the two-year cost would be ~$1M if they paid the new coach the same as Matt Lottich. My guess is that they would need to pay $50K more per year, so my guess on two-year cost with additional pay is $1.1M.

I do not buy the argument that a buyout would be that expensive. If we assume $700K (two years salary) and benefits, I don't see how that is more than $800K. And that assumes that you can't negotiate it down. If we assume a new coach would be paid a bit more - say $400K per year, which would be in the upper half of MVC coaching salaries (I think),and the benefits are the same - the incremental two-year spend would be about $100K. I'll add in some higher salaries for the new assistants versus the current assistant, so add another $100K per year ($200K total over two years). Incentives would be based on performance (I hope!), so no added cost that would not likely be offset by greater revenues (though increased revenues from ticket sales will lag performance improvements). That totals to about $1.1M over two years(so 62's premise that the costs would be higher is likely valid). But, you also need to factor in the windfall from the New Mexico State buy game, which is probably around $300K. Thus, the net cost, in my view, is about $800K over two years. Not an insignificant amount, but not $1.6M.

Regardless, I think that no action from the AD so far indicates continuing with the status quo. Frankly, there is no way to sell this (though there might be some cursory attempt, like replacing an assistant coach or promoting someone like Tevonn Walker). Continuing with the status quo means not implementing a system in which you then recruit players who fit that system...which is a far stronger recipe for success than what has been done with the current coaching staff.

It could just be me, but I'm having a hard time following your math logic. Could you please clarify. Specifically, what is your bottom line TOTAL ADDED COST OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS to buy out ML's contract at $350k/year x 2, while also paying a new coach the same amount, or more?

My guess is that the two-year cost, assuming that a new coach is paid the same as Matt Lottich, is $1M. My guess is that they would need to pay $50K more per year, so $1.1M. Of course, this is a cocktail napkin estimate.

Got it. Thanks!

[NativeCheesehead]

Still not a peep?  Mr Oren, I'm assuming you've reached out to Dr Small for comment, but is there any indication if/when a statement is coming?  Or not coming?

[VULB#62]

Well...... no news is good no news. 

I have resigned myself to the fact that the basketball program got caught in an unexpected perfect storm of three simultaneous events coming together: 

>> The Art Sale Fiasco hitting at the same time as....
>> A very real need for a coaching change evolving over the past three years, which is impacted by.....
>> An unwisely long contract extension still requiring an excessive 2 year buy-out.

If I was in the President's shoes right now, I'd view the Art Sale as the flaming PR fire it is which needs immediate response and a fire hose.  The MBB coach situation OTOH, while a flashpoint for many, is still not on fire and threatening to spread across the campus and alumni community. That has to wait. If it's another bad year in the MVC, so be it.

Save a rich alum willing to significantly help with a buy-out, Padilla's choice is not an either/or or both. And Small has no unilateral power to make this one particular coaching change happen.