okay, i confess, i haven't done all my homework; in fact, very little. but in the spirit of getting the party started, i've decided to throw out a few half-baked ideas, in the hopes others on this board can either finish baking them, or toss them in the garbage.
first, a caveat.
i am a businessman. i am not constrained by the rules of a university, its president or board of regents. it could well be that much of what i propose will be immediately seen to be not workable within the university system. so be it. the ways to get to a goal are limited only by imagination. i will break this analysis down into four categories: goals; tools; assumptions; strategy. here goes.
1. goal: $500,000 annually. to be used exclusively to augment coaching salaries.
2. tools
a. the best is right at our fingertips--e-griz. communication is crucial to getting this done. we need an exchange of ideas, a common strategy, a place to send money. all can be worked out right here in a digital blink. so already we smaller schools have one important tool we didn't have a decade ago. let's exploit it.
b. some form of organization, based in missoula. i hate to say a committee, but--a structure. a formal group that can act as our representative, interact with the athletic director and/or the president of the university, open bank accounts, collect and disburse monies according to the common will, take legal advice, et. al. if this can be done within the g.s.a., great; more likely, since our singular goal of raising coaching salaries would put us at odds with the g.s.a., we would have to operate as a vigilante organization. i like that.
3. assumptions
a. we must get the board of regents to extend contracts for more than one year--preferably three, best, four. not only will this give coaches more security, it will be a potential fund-raiser for us, as i will explain later.
b. most crucial: not all coaches at montana can be treated equal. i know this may fly in the face of university policy, democracy, et. al., but no business could operate on the assumption that all employees are equal. when somebody of exceptional talent comes along, you need to reward them, commensurate to what they bring to the job. bobby hauck, like joe glenn before him, was tossed the keys to a caddie; krysko was handed a 12-year old jalopy that was broke and rusting in a junkyard next to washington griz. now that he's got it up and running and is giving the entire school a joyride, he should be paid accordingly. good mechanics are hard to find.
4. strategy
a. when krysko took over, attendance was 3472 per game. given the growth of the five valleys, and the the success krysko is having, it's not inconceivable that we could soon be selling out dahlberg. at that, we'd be bringing in far fewer fans than to wash griz (14 games @7300 equals 102,200, where six games at wash-griz at 23,500 per brings in 141,000 fans) if krysko can accomplish steady sellouts, the added reveune would be 7300-3472 times 14 games times whatever the average ticket price is. assuming $10, this means additional revenue to the university of $535,920 per year. when one man is demonstrably as responsible for that invrease as krysko is, does it not seem right that his salary reflect a part of that increase?
b. i do not know what the ticket structure is, but if the team is winning, i think a modest ticket increase would be feasible. tack an extra buck onto the cost of a ticket, and that's an extra $100,000 per year; $2, $200,000.
c. booster money. again, if you could get 250 to kick in an average of $1000 a year, you'd have half the total kitty. is that an unreasonable goal? i just don't know. when you consider a few might pony up more, and many many more might be willing to kick in less, i don't think it's an unreasonable goal.
d. buyout clauses. this is where i think a three or four year term to a contract would really work to our advantage because we could then add a hefty buyout clause. if krysko or any other coach decided it was time to trade success for big bucks, he'd still be able to do it, while we got something in return--a nice little donation from one of the bigger schools, or the n.b.a., say $500,000. any school or pro team willing to pay $1 million a year is not going to blink at $500,000. if we kept getting rising young coaches, this alone could be a steady source of revenue.
e. remember, not everything in life comes down to a buck; the best things in life are free! if mom's get mother's day, dads get father's day, kids get birthday parties and lovers get valentines, why not reward a popular coach with his own day? a parade? a new car? it's all a part of the process of feeling loved and wanted, and coaches are not immune--especially when they face seeing a "for sale" sign planted in their yard when they wake up one morning.
(but that's another committee.)
okay, that's a start. have at it.
first, a caveat.
i am a businessman. i am not constrained by the rules of a university, its president or board of regents. it could well be that much of what i propose will be immediately seen to be not workable within the university system. so be it. the ways to get to a goal are limited only by imagination. i will break this analysis down into four categories: goals; tools; assumptions; strategy. here goes.
1. goal: $500,000 annually. to be used exclusively to augment coaching salaries.
2. tools
a. the best is right at our fingertips--e-griz. communication is crucial to getting this done. we need an exchange of ideas, a common strategy, a place to send money. all can be worked out right here in a digital blink. so already we smaller schools have one important tool we didn't have a decade ago. let's exploit it.
b. some form of organization, based in missoula. i hate to say a committee, but--a structure. a formal group that can act as our representative, interact with the athletic director and/or the president of the university, open bank accounts, collect and disburse monies according to the common will, take legal advice, et. al. if this can be done within the g.s.a., great; more likely, since our singular goal of raising coaching salaries would put us at odds with the g.s.a., we would have to operate as a vigilante organization. i like that.
3. assumptions
a. we must get the board of regents to extend contracts for more than one year--preferably three, best, four. not only will this give coaches more security, it will be a potential fund-raiser for us, as i will explain later.
b. most crucial: not all coaches at montana can be treated equal. i know this may fly in the face of university policy, democracy, et. al., but no business could operate on the assumption that all employees are equal. when somebody of exceptional talent comes along, you need to reward them, commensurate to what they bring to the job. bobby hauck, like joe glenn before him, was tossed the keys to a caddie; krysko was handed a 12-year old jalopy that was broke and rusting in a junkyard next to washington griz. now that he's got it up and running and is giving the entire school a joyride, he should be paid accordingly. good mechanics are hard to find.
4. strategy
a. when krysko took over, attendance was 3472 per game. given the growth of the five valleys, and the the success krysko is having, it's not inconceivable that we could soon be selling out dahlberg. at that, we'd be bringing in far fewer fans than to wash griz (14 games @7300 equals 102,200, where six games at wash-griz at 23,500 per brings in 141,000 fans) if krysko can accomplish steady sellouts, the added reveune would be 7300-3472 times 14 games times whatever the average ticket price is. assuming $10, this means additional revenue to the university of $535,920 per year. when one man is demonstrably as responsible for that invrease as krysko is, does it not seem right that his salary reflect a part of that increase?
b. i do not know what the ticket structure is, but if the team is winning, i think a modest ticket increase would be feasible. tack an extra buck onto the cost of a ticket, and that's an extra $100,000 per year; $2, $200,000.
c. booster money. again, if you could get 250 to kick in an average of $1000 a year, you'd have half the total kitty. is that an unreasonable goal? i just don't know. when you consider a few might pony up more, and many many more might be willing to kick in less, i don't think it's an unreasonable goal.
d. buyout clauses. this is where i think a three or four year term to a contract would really work to our advantage because we could then add a hefty buyout clause. if krysko or any other coach decided it was time to trade success for big bucks, he'd still be able to do it, while we got something in return--a nice little donation from one of the bigger schools, or the n.b.a., say $500,000. any school or pro team willing to pay $1 million a year is not going to blink at $500,000. if we kept getting rising young coaches, this alone could be a steady source of revenue.
e. remember, not everything in life comes down to a buck; the best things in life are free! if mom's get mother's day, dads get father's day, kids get birthday parties and lovers get valentines, why not reward a popular coach with his own day? a parade? a new car? it's all a part of the process of feeling loved and wanted, and coaches are not immune--especially when they face seeing a "for sale" sign planted in their yard when they wake up one morning.
(but that's another committee.)
okay, that's a start. have at it.
