IMPORTANT QUESTION

[TULSARISING]

It has been a tough 2 years for Tulsa athletics, with that in mind, I got one question, is it the coaches or are they not being provided the funding to succeed. I just think it's a little weird how we go from one of the best offenses in the country and then all of a sudden, it's a big deal just to get a first down. Something isn't adding up, if Montgomery and Haith are in impossible situations, none of this is their fault. Or is it just bad coaching?

 

[I.I.]

There is money for recruiting, especially players within 10 miles of your campus. Just have to have the coaches that can close.

 

[roodroy]

This is fan quackery and too much of it takes place on this board. "Either/or" results in bad thoughts and conclusions.

 

[astonmartin708]

I don't think Monty had the same quality of players as Haith did. The gap between what other teams had and what Monty was working with seemed larger to me than what Haith was working with.

 

[Gold*]

This is fan quackery and too much of it takes place on this board. "Either/or" results in bad thoughts and conclusions.

I think it’s a very poorly programmed bot.

 

[astonmartin708]

I think it’s a very poorly programmed bot.

Or maybe a Russian operative trying to sow the seeds of discord?

 

[TULSARISING]

My only point is that if I was at a job that didn't provide me with what I needed to succeed, you shouldn't be fired

 

[URedskin54]

Unless you require more to succeed than others

 

[TULSARISING]

Unless you require more to succeed than others

True, but Montgomery has proven he can win

 

[Gmoney4WW]

True, but Montgomery has proven he can win

With Blankenship's players. Hasn't proven anything with his yet.

 

[TULSARISING]

With Blankenship's players. Hasn't proven anything with his yet.

I agree , I'm just wanting to make sure it's bad coaching rather than the right sources being given to succeed before we just fire people. It probably both, but you never know.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

At the end of the day, we (TU) make these coaches millionaires. They know the expectations when they sign their contracts. So there isn’t an excuse on their part, BUT there are some things that happen behind the scenes that definitely hinder some progress. For the money we’re paying out, we should be getting better results. Unfortunately that’s not happening right now. I hope that changes soon.

 

[TULSARISING]

At the end of the day, we (TU) make these coaches millionaires. They know the expectations when they sign their contracts. So there isn’t an excuse on their part, BUT there are some things that happen behind the scenes that definitely hinder some progress. For the money we’re paying out, we should be getting better results. Unfortunately that’s not happening right now. I hope that changes soon.

Agree with this, imho , most college coaches make too much anyway. It seems kind of silly that someone makes millions to coach a game, I know there is a lot of work that goes into it, don't get me wrong , but $1.3 million to coach basketball?

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

With Blankenship's players. Hasn't proven anything with his yet.

Wait, I thought Blankenship’s recruiting was subpar.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Wait, I thought Blankenship’s recruiting was subpar.

Dane sure wasn't.

 

[TULSARISING]

Dane sure wasn't.

He was under Blankenship, he only became good when Montgomery took over, which is why I'm wondering if there is something going on behind the scenes. Montgomery turned us around which is why it doesn't make sense we have fallen so far.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

No it couldn't be that he matured and would have been almost as good if he continued playing for Blankenship or played for anybody else. This is funny.

 

[TULSARISING]

No it couldn't be that he matured and would have been almost as good if he continued playing for Blankenship or played for anybody else. This is funny.

That played a role in it, don't get me wrong, but coaching was a big part of it

 

[JesseTU]

The best public resource I know for comparing program expenses is the listing for "Equity in Athletics" compiled by the Department of Education. I know there are different ways to account for expenses, but its the best thing I know of for what you are discussing. I welcome better data or someone else breaking it down from the data (coaches, assistants, recruiting). Just trying to provide a resource.

Currently, TU shows men's basketball annual expense of $5,959,541 (FWIW football is $13,882,659). Here is what the historic data says:

Expenses Men's Team (basketball)
1,643,500 - 2003
1,600,542 - 2004
2,101,418 - 2005
2,397,268 - 2006
1,816,090 - 2007
3,315,233 - 2008
2,969,935 - 2009
4,088,024 - 2010
4,735,836 - 2011
3,920,631 - 2012
4,673,616 - 2013
6,138,395 - 2014
6,174,244 - 2015
6,130,964 - 2016
$5,959,541 - 2017

Here is how that currently compares in our conference, again per the Equity in Athletics data:

ECU $3,172,882
UCF $3,892,343
Tulane $4,366,624
USF $5,079,617
Houston $5,314,928
Tulsa $5,959,541
Temple $6,533,015
Cincinnati $7,465,979
SMU $7,497,541
Wichita State $7,513,193
Memphis $11,859,500

You can download a custom data set here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/customdata/dataselected

Access to various data sets, including "compare" features are here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Corrections or explanations on why this data may be worthless are welcome.

 

[chito_and_leon]

He was under Blankenship, he only became good when Montgomery took over, which is why I'm wondering if there is something going on behind the scenes. Montgomery turned us around which is why it doesn't make sense we have fallen so far.

You see this pattern over and over in sports - coaches come in and do well with the prior guy’s players but fade when it’s their own. Then the next guy comes in and does better with the prior guy’s players and fades. I don’t know why but it happens. It’s like we beat Cincinnati and Cincinnati beats Duke so we must be better than a Duke. The transitive law just doesn’t work in sports.

 

[TULSARISING]

You see this pattern over and over in sports - coaches come in and do well with the prior guy’s players but fade when it’s their own. Then the next guy comes in and does better with the prior guy’s players and fades. I don’t know why but it happens. It’s like we beat Cincinnati and Cincinnati beats Duke so we must be better than a Duke. The transitive law just doesn’t work in sports.

Agree with you , I'm not saying he has done a good job, just don't want someone as a sacrificial lamb because we are too cheap to provide funding

 

[HuffyCane]

The best public resource I know for comparing program expenses is the listing for "Equity in Athletics" compiled by the Department of Education. I know there are different ways to account for expenses, but its the best thing I know of for what you are discussing. I welcome better data or someone else breaking it down from the data (coaches, assistants, recruiting). Just trying to provide a resource.

Currently, TU shows men's basketball annual expense of $5,959,541 (FWIW football is $13,882,659). Here is what the historic data says:

Expenses Men's Team (basketball)
1,643,500 - 2003
1,600,542 - 2004
2,101,418 - 2005
2,397,268 - 2006
1,816,090 - 2007
3,315,233 - 2008
2,969,935 - 2009
4,088,024 - 2010
4,735,836 - 2011
3,920,631 - 2012
4,673,616 - 2013
6,138,395 - 2014
6,174,244 - 2015
6,130,964 - 2016
$5,959,541 - 2017

Here is how that currently compares in our conference, again per the Equity in Athletics data:

ECU $3,172,882
UCF $3,892,343
Tulane $4,366,624
USF $5,079,617
Houston $5,314,928
Tulsa $5,959,541
Temple $6,533,015
Cincinnati $7,465,979
SMU $7,497,541
Wichita State $7,513,193
Memphis $11,859,500

You can download a custom data set here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/customdata/dataselected

Access to various data sets, including "compare" features are here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Corrections or explanations on why this data may be worthless are welcome.

I would think we would need to see those numbers minus coaching salaries/bonuses to get a picture on what is really being spent on the programs.

 

[JesseTU]

I would think we would need to see those numbers minus coaching salaries/bonuses to get a picture on what is really being spent on the programs.

If you think the data is more useful backing out coaching salaries. Have at it. . .

. . . I welcome better data or someone else breaking it down from the data (coaches, assistants, recruiting). Just trying to provide a resource.
. . .
You can download a custom data set here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/customdata/dataselected

Access to various data sets, including "compare" features are here:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Corrections or explanations on why this data may be worthless are welcome.