Coaching question

[NOLATiger 0]

I don't wanna be too much of a second-guesser, though, frankly, for what the Auburn staff is paid -- and the fact that it comes from ticket money and student fees -- I don't feel too badly about it. So here goes ...

We're watching several young players, Frazier in particular, go through some severe growing pains. Perhaps they have problems that simply aren't going to be fixed, but at this point we just don't know. As bad as Kiehl looked, his primary problems are still those of a young quarterback: his gaze is either on the pass rush or his primary receiver. Then he gets to dancing. Then, if he hasn't gotten rid of the ball, he either eats it or tosses it up. That's young quarterback disease, pure and simple. A particularly bad manifestation of it, if you ask me, but not surprising in and of itself.

In the mean time, we're watching some offensive linemen play poorly. Mind you, I'm not talkin' about the younguns this time. It's the veterans. The same well-meaning but, frankly, not-ready-for-prime timers. We all know who they are.

So, to my coaching questions: Why are we watching both of these things two years in a row. If a young quarterback was going to suffer in a year where we KNEW, just KNEW we couldn't really compete with the class of the league -- LSU, Alabama, Georgia and, pre-reacharound Arkanasas -- then why in the same hell didn't we watch this pain last year? Why didn't Greg Robinson get thrown out there last year, too. Continuing the same thing this year, where is Kozan? Haven't even gotten to the defense yet.

I can't fault the coaches for Kiehl playing like a new quarterback. I can fault them for Kiehl EVEN BEING A NEW QUARTERBACK in 2012. I can't fault Kiehl for playing behind a new line. I can fault them for playing a quarterback behind a new line for the second year in a row. Seriously, can somebody defend the Auburn staff on these points? For the life of me, I can't.

[rockfordpi 91]

I can assure you Coach Grimes has not forgotten how to coach Offensive Linemen. He could get a job at any school in the nation, we were DANG lucky to keep texas from getting him a couple of years ago.

Which "experienced" linemen are you speaking of. We have a RS Freshman backed up by a RS Freshman at one tackle and a true Freshman backed up by a true Freshman at another tackle.

Our problems are not coaches, schemes, or strategy, the problem is that the people we are playing have better, as in bigger, faster, stronger, and more experienced, players overall than we do.

IMO we have a QB on offense who is not playing well and that is killing us on offense. On D, we can't seem to get any push from our interior DL (though our ends are playing well) and that is putting a lot of extra pressure on our DB's and LB's.

Regardless, our problems are not coaching, if people want to blame the coaches for something, blame them for not having the players in place that can compete at the upper echelon of the SEC.

There are two approaches AU and fans can take. We can support these coaches, or at least leave them alone, and let them build the program back to where we all want it to be or AU can throw it all away and start over from scratch. IMO, the former is the much better and quicker path to success.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

I don't wanna be too much of a second-guesser, though, frankly, for what the Auburn staff is paid -- and the fact that it comes from ticket money and student fees -- I don't feel too badly about it. So here goes ...

I tried to read your post, but I just can't get past this statement. Discredited...

[tiger88 934]

Yes. The Auburn Staff. Not how I'd refer to my teams coaches.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

I'll address the question. Throwing a guy out there before he physically and mentally ready is bordering on child abuse. Greg Robinson, in particular, has said that his redshirt year was not something he wanted but something he feels like he needed. Why? He wasn't conditioned enough to play last year. He needed to get in better shape. He needed to get stronger. It wouldn't have done him or us any good (and frankly it could've affected him over the long term) to just throw him out there for the sake of getting experience. Same thing with Kiehl. I still question whether he should be playing this year, and if Clint were fully healthy, I don't think he would be. Even so, you don't just play a guy to play him. You have 85 scholarship players (or there about). All of them deserve a chance to win games. You don't just toss in the towel before the season to "get some experience for next year" when 10-20 of the guys on this year's team won't be here next year. That's unfair. Build depth and get reps for the future. Sure. But you play the guy that gives you the best chance at winning.

[rockfordpi 91]

I don't wanna be too much of a second-guesser, though, frankly, for what the Auburn staff is paid -- and the fact that it comes from ticket money and student fees -- I don't feel too badly about it. So here goes ...

I tried to read your post, but I just can't get past this statement. Discredited...

I agree, anyone who says that FB coaches salaries come from student fees has discredited himeself right off the bat. Not only does the football program pay for ALL of its coaches, it also pays for a LOT of the coaches for other sports.

[Rednilla 5,449]

I can assure you Coach Grimes has not forgotten how to coach Offensive Linemen. He could get a job at any school in the nation, we were DANG lucky to keep texas from getting him a couple of years ago.

Which "experienced" linemen are you speaking of. We have a RS Freshman backed up by a RS Freshman at one tackle and a true Freshman backed up by a true Freshman at another tackle.

Our problems are not coaches, schemes, or strategy, the problem is that the people we are playing have better, as in bigger, faster, stronger, and more experienced, players overall than we do.

IMO we have a QB on offense who is not playing well and that is killing us on offense. On D, we can't seem to get any push from our interior DL (though our ends are playing well) and that is putting a lot of extra pressure on our DB's and LB's.

Regardless, our problems are not coaching, if people want to blame the coaches for something, blame them for not having the players in place that can compete at the upper echelon of the SEC.

There are two approaches AU and fans can take. We can support these coaches, or at least leave them alone, and let them build the program back to where we all want it to be or AU can throw it all away and start over from scratch. IMO, the former is the much better and quicker path to success.

I always liked you, Rocky...

[easnoddy 0]

The veteran OL the OP is speaking of is Sullen and Slade. Each had their sieve moments on Saturday. Sullen was replaced in the 4th quarter by Westy. Slade allowed the pressure on the first 2 INTs. I thought sullen played better of the 2.

If you watch the tape, there were a few plays where Slade was in the defensive backfield turned toward the LOS looking for someone to block, while the guy he made initial contact with is tackling the running back. He needs a lot more coaching.

Frankly ALL of our OL need to finish their blocks and hold them longer.

[NOLATiger 0]

Valley and Rock, the athletics department budget is balanced ONLY because of student fees, in addition to ticket sales from students. Yes, football revenue covers its expenses, but you simply cannot look at football as an island.

As for disrespecting the coaching STAFF by calling them staff, you are too sensitive. These guys aren't soldiers or firemen or teachers or nuns. They are highly paid to do a job. I love Auburn. I love Auburn football, but if you are offended that I referred to a "staff" then that says as much about your priorities for a UNIVERSITY as it does about my views.

Also, I don't get the distinction between my OP and saying we should question them about not having prime time players ready. I was doing just that.

I don't know x's and o's beyond an average educated fan. But I measure results. Auburn is not just losing. This team is getting pounded repeatedly by conference foes, including generally orbit least historically inferior programs.

You will have to forgive me if I won't coddle a group of professionals who make as much money as they do as they preside over it. Not calling for heads. But I just eant an explanation. And I want out alumni base have some high standards.

[NOLATiger 0]

Alumni base to have high standards. Darn Tiny phone keys.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Valley and Rock, the athletics department budget is balanced ONLY because of student fees, in addition to ticket sales from students. Yes, football revenue covers its expenses, but you simply cannot look at football as an island.

You're right you cannot look at football only. Instead let's delve into the actual budget...

Revenues and Expenses Summary
		Men's Teams	Women's Teams	Total
1	Total of Head Coaches' Salaries	$7,828,121	$2,023,420	$9,851,541
2	Total of Assistant Coaches' Salaries	$8,137,818	$1,806,600	$9,944,418
3	Total Salaries (Lines 1+2)	$15,965,939	$3,830,020	$19,795,959
4	Athletically Related Student Aid	$5,692,699	$3,927,013	$9,619,712
5	Recruiting Expenses	$1,530,917	$586,728	$2,117,645
6	Operating (Game-Day) Expenses	$8,118,146	$2,688,379	$10,806,525
7	Summary of Subset Expenses (Lines 3+4+5+6)	$31,307,701	$11,032,140	$42,339,841
8	Total Expenses for Teams	$54,569,052	$15,298,012	$69,867,064
9	Total Expenses for Teams Minus Subset Expenses (Line 8 – Line 7)	$23,261,351	$4,265,872	$27,527,223
10	Not Allocated Expenses			$30,630,720
11	Grand Total Expenses (Lines 8+10)			$100,497,784
12	Total Revenues for Teams	$86,353,783	$791,171	$87,144,954
13	Not Allocated Revenues			$16,837,487
14	Grand Total Revenues (Lines 12+13)			$103,982,441
15	Total Revenues for Teams minus Total Expenses for Teams (Line 12-Line 8)	$31,784,731	-$14,506,841	$17,277,890
16	Grand Total Revenues Minus Grand Total Expenses (Line 14- Line 11)			$3,484,657

That's a profit of $3,484,657, no mention of student fees. Furthermore, here's the total revenues by team and/or gender:

 

Total Revenues by Team
Varsity Teams	Men's Teams	Women's Teams	Total
Basketball	$9,507,157	$600,768	$10,107,925
Football	$76,227,804		$76,227,804
Total Revenues of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined	$618,822	$190,403	$809,225
Total Revenues Men's and Women's Teams	$86,353,783	$791,171	$87,144,954
Not Allocated by Gender/Sport			$16,837,487
Grand Total for all Teams (includes by team and not allocated by gender/sport)			$103,982,441

If I missing something here, please point it out.

Note: These tables are from the most recent report from 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011. Data courtesy of Equity in Athletics Data Tool.

Sidenote to around4ever: This is how you properly post tables.  

[rockfordpi 91]

Valley and Rock, the athletics department budget is balanced ONLY because of student fees, in addition to ticket sales from students. Yes, football revenue covers its expenses, but you simply cannot look at football as an island.

You're right you cannot look at football only. Instead let's delve into the actual budget...

Revenues and Expenses Summary Men's Teams Women's Teams Total 1 Total of Head Coaches' Salaries $7,828,121 $2,023,420 $9,851,541 2 Total of Assistant Coaches' Salaries $8,137,818 $1,806,600 $9,944,418 3 Total Salaries (Lines 1+2) $15,965,939 $3,830,020 $19,795,959 4 Athletically Related Student Aid $5,692,699 $3,927,013 $9,619,712 5 Recruiting Expenses $1,530,917 $586,728 $2,117,645 6 Operating (Game-Day) Expenses $8,118,146 $2,688,379 $10,806,525 7 Summary of Subset Expenses (Lines 3+4+5+6) $31,307,701 $11,032,140 $42,339,841 8 Total Expenses for Teams $54,569,052 $15,298,012 $69,867,064 9 Total Expenses for Teams Minus Subset Expenses (Line 8 – Line 7) $23,261,351 $4,265,872 $27,527,223 10 Not Allocated Expenses $30,630,720 11 Grand Total Expenses (Lines 8+10) $100,497,784 12 Total Revenues for Teams $86,353,783 $791,171 $87,144,954 13 Not Allocated Revenues $16,837,487 14 Grand Total Revenues (Lines 12+13) $103,982,441 15 Total Revenues for Teams minus Total Expenses for Teams (Line 12-Line 8) $31,784,731 -$14,506,841 $17,277,890 16 Grand Total Revenues Minus Grand Total Expenses (Line 14- Line 11) $3,484,657

That's a profit of $3,484,657, no mention of student fees. Furthermore, here's the total revenues by team and/or gender:

Total Revenues by Team Varsity Teams Men's Teams Women's Teams Total Basketball $9,507,157 $600,768 $10,107,925 Football $76,227,804 $76,227,804 Total Revenues of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $618,822 $190,403 $809,225 Total Revenues Men's and Women's Teams $86,353,783 $791,171 $87,144,954 Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $16,837,487 Grand Total for all Teams (includes by team and not allocated by gender/sport) $103,982,441

If I missing something here, please point it out.

Note: These tables are from the most recent report from 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011. Data courtesy of Equity in Athletics Data Tool.

Sidenote to around4ever: This is how you properly post tables.

Nice post. I think that about covers it.

[texastiger09 0]

Regarding Frazier.....once the game slows down for him he could be a great QB. However, the question is "when" will the game start to slow down for him? I am firm believer that once the light bulb comes on for frazier that all cylinders will start turning for this team.

[NOLATiger 0]

That doesn't cover it. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/ncaa_financial_survey_alabama.html

I don't have the quick current numbers at the ready, but you'll see Solomon in a story a few years ago -- he does these every year based on docs from the U.S. Department of Education, the accrediting agencies and the NCAA -- $5.2 million in student fees. At the time, and I've seen nothing of the Board of Trustees repealing this, Auburn and 10 other public schools in the SEC charged student fees that went straight to athletics department coffers. LSU was the lone exception. Vanderbilt is private and not subject to all the same disclosures.

Fellas, I'm not attacking Auburn or our coaches. And I wish we could focus more on my central football question. But our athletics department is subsidized by students fees. For the record, when I was a student, it was also subsidized by the Facilities Division, which at the time was spending about $500K per year cleaning up the campus on Sundays after ball games. There's also the contract with Alabama Power. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the university just has an omnibus contract with the power company. I'm remembering Samford Hall brass saying at one point that athletics doesn't pony up for that, but again, could have that wrong.

Bottom line: There is more than meets the eye in a quick balance sheet glance when we want to say that athletics is completely self-sufficient. I don't have a problem with university spending on the programs, as it's a part of what makes the Auburn student experience for all students, not just the athletes (to say nothing of the good will for alumni and friends). But I am pushing back at your suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm being unfair to the coaching staff in making these observations. I do and I'm not.

[rockfordpi 91]

That doesn't cover it. http://www.al.com/sp...ey_alabama.html

I don't have the quick current numbers at the ready, but you'll see Solomon in a story a few years ago -- he does these every year based on docs from the U.S. Department of Education, the accrediting agencies and the NCAA -- $5.2 million in student fees. At the time, and I've seen nothing of the Board of Trustees repealing this, Auburn and 10 other public schools in the SEC charged student fees that went straight to athletics department coffers. LSU was the lone exception. Vanderbilt is private and not subject to all the same disclosures.

Fellas, I'm not attacking Auburn or our coaches. And I wish we could focus more on my central football question. But our athletics department is subsidized by students fees. For the record, when I was a student, it was also subsidized by the Facilities Division, which at the time was spending about $500K per year cleaning up the campus on Sundays after ball games. There's also the contract with Alabama Power. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the university just has an omnibus contract with the power company. I'm remembering Samford Hall brass saying at one point that athletics doesn't pony up for that, but again, could have that wrong.

Bottom line: There is more than meets the eye in a quick balance sheet glance when we want to say that athletics is completely self-sufficient. I don't have a problem with university spending on the programs, as it's a part of what makes the Auburn student experience for all students, not just the athletes (to say nothing of the good will for alumni and friends). But I am pushing back at your suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm being unfair to the coaching staff in making these observations. I do and I'm not.

Nobody is suggesting that there are no student fees. Nobody has suggested that Student fees have never been used to support some part of the the athletic program (though I think is one were to look at the overall numbers over any 3 year period, they would find our athletic program in the black across ALL sports).

What is being questioned is the mathmatics that suggests student fees are subsidizing football coaches salaries when it is clear that Men's sports are generating $86 million in revenue and the total expenses associated with Men's sports is $54 million. Not only is the football program paying ALL of it's Salaries, it is also subsidizing the Salaries of a lot of staff for other sports.

Saying that sudent fees are used/needed to pay Football coaches Salaries is just not accurate and many people are going to question the credibility of any post that starts with that assertion, no matter how well intentinoed the post was or how much the poster loves Auburn.

[augolf1716 21,979]

I can assure you Coach Grimes has not forgotten how to coach Offensive Linemen. He could get a job at any school in the nation, we were DANG lucky to keep texas from getting him a couple of years ago.

Which "experienced" linemen are you speaking of. We have a RS Freshman backed up by a RS Freshman at one tackle and a true Freshman backed up by a true Freshman at another tackle.

Our problems are not coaches, schemes, or strategy, the problem is that the people we are playing have better, as in bigger, faster, stronger, and more experienced, players overall than we do.

IMO we have a QB on offense who is not playing well and that is killing us on offense. On D, we can't seem to get any push from our interior DL (though our ends are playing well) and that is putting a lot of extra pressure on our DB's and LB's.

Regardless, our problems are not coaching, if people want to blame the coaches for something, blame them for not having the players in place that can compete at the upper echelon of the SEC.

There are two approaches AU and fans can take. We can support these coaches, or at least leave them alone, and let them build the program back to where we all want it to be or AU can throw it all away and start over from scratch. IMO, the former is the much better and quicker path to success.

I always liked you, Rocky...

Get a room

[AUn Collierville 1]

Regarding Frazier.....once the game slows down for him he could be a great QB. However, the question is "when" will the game start to slow down for him? I am firm believer that once the light bulb comes on for frazier that all cylinders will start turning for this team.

My thoughts exactly. I hope the switch gets flipped this Saturday.

[NOLATiger 0]

We could argue syntax all day on the subsidy. My point is that take away $5M revenue and a department with a $3M surplus is in the red. This staff makes something in the neighborhood of $6M. So I have no problem saying student fees are part of the equation. You can't really point to other sports that they'd cut to make up the difference, because you'd very quickly run into Title IX. Yeah, every dime of that revenue is important to every part of the athletics department budget.

[AuburnSpider 2]

Could not agree more OP. No excuse that Ive seen explains with common sense the way they restricted KF and why they didnt play some of our young talented freshmen last year. To my satisfation anyway.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

That doesn't cover it. http://www.al.com/sp...ey_alabama.html

I don't have the quick current numbers at the ready, but you'll see Solomon in a story a few years ago -- he does these every year based on docs from the U.S. Department of Education, the accrediting agencies and the NCAA -- $5.2 million in student fees. At the time, and I've seen nothing of the Board of Trustees repealing this, Auburn and 10 other public schools in the SEC charged student fees that went straight to athletics department coffers. LSU was the lone exception. Vanderbilt is private and not subject to all the same disclosures.

Fellas, I'm not attacking Auburn or our coaches. And I wish we could focus more on my central football question. But our athletics department is subsidized by students fees. For the record, when I was a student, it was also subsidized by the Facilities Division, which at the time was spending about $500K per year cleaning up the campus on Sundays after ball games. There's also the contract with Alabama Power. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the university just has an omnibus contract with the power company. I'm remembering Samford Hall brass saying at one point that athletics doesn't pony up for that, but again, could have that wrong.

Bottom line: There is more than meets the eye in a quick balance sheet glance when we want to say that athletics is completely self-sufficient. I don't have a problem with university spending on the programs, as it's a part of what makes the Auburn student experience for all students, not just the athletes (to say nothing of the good will for alumni and friends). But I am pushing back at your suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm being unfair to the coaching staff in making these observations. I do and I'm not.

Thank you for finding that information.

From your reference:

Meanwhile, booster contributions -- the department's largest revenue source -- declined from $34.9 million to $32.1 million due to $2.8 million less in football donations. Fulks said the NCAA study tracks only cash received from contributions, not pledges paid over several years.

Jacobs said Colonial Bank's financial struggles have not reduced the level of giving by prominent Auburn booster Bobby Lowder, who retired in 2009 as the bank's CEO.

"I can't say there's any one particular donor that has been particularly impacted more or less than anyone else," Jacobs said. "I think everybody has been hit to some degree. Our most loyal folks continue to support us at the highest level they can."

Jacobs said the NCAA might consider Auburn as having a deficit in part because schools sometimes count student fees differently. Instead of charging students to attend sporting events, Auburn makes most games free and receives student fees, Jacobs said.

"We think it's a subsidy," Fulks said of student fees. "It's a tuition increase and designated for athletics. Not all students go to every game yet they're paying a fee."

So in summary, not all athletic booster contributions are accounted for in the NCAA reports; therefore, the department is likely never in the red. Also, students are charged for athletic events that they may or may not attend, not much different than any other operational fees that universities charge. Coaches salaries aren't paid by student fees.