Another ACC rip-off

[the artist FKA zipp]

In today’s dollars, we paid Grantham about $1.7 million almost a decade ago. Garrick McGee got around $1.1 million, inflation adjusted.

It’s not a debate whether a coach actually earned what he was paid. The issue is that we could pay it many years ago. Now, we have to settle or hope we get lucky.

(Odd how when you need luck, it seldom happens.)

 

[AnotherCFD]

In today’s dollars, we paid Grantham about $1.7 million almost a decade ago. Garrick McGee got around $1.1 million, inflation adjusted.

It’s not a debate whether a coach actually earned what he was paid. The issue is that we could pay it many years ago. Now, we have to settle or hope we get lucky.

(Odd how when you need luck, it seldom happens.)

So you want to pay English more lmao?

 

[nccardfan]

So you want to pay English more lmao?

If you're going to debate Zipp then you need to get better ammunition and comprehension.

 

[AnotherCFD]

If you're going to debate Zipp then you need to get better ammunition and comprehension.

Why? He acts like Louisville fills a 100K stadium every home game. They don’t and is precisely why they don’t have the money of the schools that do. Ask Mr Zipp where that money he sees is at to pay these assistants 2 mil a year? He’s dreaming.

 

[Thecycle27]

In today’s dollars, we paid Grantham about $1.7 million almost a decade ago. Garrick McGee got around $1.1 million, inflation adjusted.

It’s not a debate whether a coach actually earned what he was paid. The issue is that we could pay it many years ago. Now, we have to settle or hope we get lucky.

(Odd how when you need luck, it seldom happens.)

Actually performance does matter because that directly impacts what a business can pay for that position. It has even become more complicated with NIL spend.

Here is where I agree with money being invested. Louisville budget wise has to be in the ball park of Clemson/FSU in terms of NIL and Assistant coaches. Louisville made the ACC Championship on a mid tier budget which generated significant ROI. The problem is that probably isn’t sustainable. At some point your best coaches will get plucked.

Best I can tell they need an Assistant Coach budget of around 6M. They are currently at 4.4M. With at said UK-FSU-NC have a 6.5M-7M budget none paid off this year. Go look at various budgets they aren’t getting a ROI. People will be fired. Bottom line spending more doesn’t guarantee anything.

This a new world both player and coach budgets have to be wisely spent. I do trust if Brohm had a 6M assistant budget he would make good choices.

This is where the difference in TV money comes into play.

 

[Cardfan1937]

U of L in general has been known more for offense than defense, though we have had some good defensive players and some good defenses over the years, especially under Charlie. I think Coach English probably needs to go. They need someone who not only understands how to teach fundamentals and schemes but someone who can recruit that side of the ball. It’s not easy.

The Miami quarterback had an interesting comment on the Louisville defense in his post game comment. He said that the Louisville Defense "did not go crazy on third down but remained in their base defense". This may describe our defense problem as much as anything that has been said.

 

[beantowncard]

Why? He acts like Louisville fills a 100K stadium every home game. They don’t and is precisely why they don’t have the money of the schools that do. Ask Mr Zipp where that money he sees is at to pay these assistants 2 mil a year? He’s dreaming.

No it’s the same old “if only Tom were running things…”. The landscape has changed so much that there is no way to know if TJ would still be successful. We don’t have the money to pay excessively for football coaches. The point is that we paid up big for Grantham and didn’t really get such a good defense. Paying big bucks for a DC is no guarantee of success. It’s probably better to find an up-and-comer at a lower price point and have him here short term before he moves on.

 

[2330859]

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that proves that more compensation translates into better defensive coaching, or more importantly better tackling.

We witnessed initial contact at, or close to the LOS on multiple defensive series; so I am not sure how we can assign responsibility to our defensive schemes or our DC. The failure to wrap up the opponent was a combination of lapses in fundamental tackling, that is on the players.

 

[Thecycle27]

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that proves that more compensation translates into better defensive coaching, or more importantly better tackling.

We witnessed initial contact at, or close to the LOS on multiple defensive series; so I am not sure how we can assign responsibility to our defensive schemes or our DC. The failure to wrap up the opponent was a combination of lapses in fundamental tackling, that is on the players.

Increased salaries does increase the pool of candidates for the jobs. It can also slow the poaching process.

At the end of the day whatever the budget is the staff has to perform at a high level. Be in 400k or 2m they have to be able teach and execute their scheme. Then they have to recruit to their scheme. They can’t miss on their evaluation. Then they have to adjust to skill level.

It isn’t easy especially when you are so reliant on the portal. Jeff is about as good as you can get on the offensive side and they struggled at times. English not so good and they have really struggled.

I believe you have to find someone with a solid scheme that has shown the ability to execute it year in year out. It doesn’t need to be a top 10 defense, top 40 would be fine.

 

[AnotherCFD]

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence that proves that more compensation translates into better defensive coaching, or more importantly better tackling.

We witnessed initial contact at, or close to the LOS on multiple defensive series; so I am not sure how we can assign responsibility to our defensive schemes or our DC. The failure to wrap up the opponent was a combination of lapses in fundamental tackling, that is on the players.

Actually the failure is on teaching and drills. You have to run through the tackle regardless if you hit high or low. It looks to me like our defender’s want to stop and break down too much instead of running through the tackles.
Idk maybe that’s the difference in a 3 star Florida recruit than a 4 or 5? But regardless aggression can be taught and it’s not.

 

[Thecycle27]

Aggression has to be part of the evaluation process. There are guys that are on both ends of the spectrum. Overly aggressive guys and “soft” guys.

If you recruited properly your defense has 11 guys that are overly aggressive almost to the point you have to reel them back in. While that group may lack speed or even size they make up for it by beating the crap out of people which can led to turnovers. Soft people by nature even with training aren’t going to embrace physical impacts. They tend to adsorb blows instead of delivering the blows. They end up taking the brunt of the blow which isn’t fun so they eventually shy away from it. Kind of what we are seeing with this defense. This isn’t a bunch of physical guys especially on the back end. They aren’t smoking people. When is the last time they delivered a hit that made the crowd react?

It isn’t a culture of physicality on defense. They have been pretty soft under English. Poor player evaluation and inability to coach them up.

 

[AnotherCFD]

Aggression has to be part of the evaluation process. There are guys that are on both ends of the spectrum. Overly aggressive guys and “soft” guys.

If you recruited properly your defense has 11 guys that are overly aggressive almost to the point you have to reel them back in. While that group may lack speed or even size they make up for it by beating the crap out of people which can led to turnovers. Soft people by nature even with training aren’t going to embrace physical impacts. They tend to adsorb blows instead of delivering the blows. They end up taking the brunt of the blow which isn’t fun so they eventually shy away from it. Kind of what we are seeing with this defense. This isn’t a bunch of physical guys especially on the back end. They aren’t smoking people. When is the last time they delivered a hit that made the crowd react?

It isn’t a culture of physicality on defense. They have been pretty soft under English. Poor player evaluation and inability to coach them up.

I’ve coached at every level from high school assistant to jr pro and if you don’t think you can’t make kids more aggressive than I can’t help you. Of course a player that gets a D1 scholarship on the defensive side of the ball is aggressive but you go out and run straight up through somebody running straight at you when you weigh 185 (db) and the back 200 plus. It separates the men from the boys, seen it too many times.