DRC commentary: The big news is UNT's commitment to basketball

Brett Vito · March 15, 2017

DRC: UNT is spending big money to win in basketball in a football state

http://beta.dentonrc.com/sports/mean-green/2017/03/14/commentary-commitment-basketball-big-news-day

Stan R · March 15, 2017

Love the DRC's new look (DMN's look). Much easier to read.

GrandGreen · March 15, 2017

Absolutely, the big news is NT's commitment to basketball. No one at this point, knows if McCasland will be a success. NT though has raised the ante, and that can only be good for athletics.

I wonder where many of those that have continued to complain about NT's lack of concern about athletics have been. It should have been obvious that NT has taken big steps to be successful in competition with other g5 and is building a base for perhaps more. This started I believe with the hiring of McCarney, a bad decision in retrospect. but he had a very competitive compensation package. That continued with Littrell and now has been expanded to MBB.

It is hard from the outside to determine who is the leader in pushing NT athletics forward. President Smatresk obviously deserves tremendous credit as does the BOR headed by Brint Ryan. Also the band of high dollar donors largely formed in RV's reign. A group that has been missing for most of NT's existence. Also now it appears that NT has a visionary AD in Baker.

The arms race in college sports is outrageous both in terms of coaches salaries and facilities. However, if NT is going to play at the highest level; a lot of money has to be spend. NT is at long last getting a little ahead of the curve. Not just funding enough to be hang around, which is basically what NT has done most of their existence, but providing resources that are competitive with most of their peers and certainly their conference.

Now it is time for the winning.

Edited March 15, 2017 by GrandGreen

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

13 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

I wonder where many of those that have continued to complain about NT's lack of concern about athletes have been.

I'm going to assume you meant 'athletics' and spell check/autocorrect didn't help you out.

No school really serious about winning athletic programs retains a Benford level coach for all five seasons included in his contract.

I don't know that extending a football coach with 5-8 record and paying the new MBB coach more than the last one really shows UNT is getting ahead of the curve. It does show that coach pay is near the top of the conference. Benford's pay was also near the top and that obviously didn't lead to being competitive.

Travis · March 15, 2017

9 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

No school really serious about winning athletic programs retains a Benford level coach for all five seasons included in his contract.

I would agree with you... But, this is a new AD and with it, a new program. Yes, he didn't fire him mid-season like I would have wanted.... but, you can't deny that this is a different approach both in vision and in hire that we haven't done before.

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

3 minutes ago, Travis said:

I would agree with you... But, this is a new AD and with it, a new program. Yes, he didn't fire him mid-season like I would have wanted.... but, you can't deny that this is a different approach both in vision and in hire that we haven't done before.

How can you say it's different? I believe Benford's pay was at or near the top of the Belt and was near the top of CUSA. How is having a new coach's pay near the top of the conference a different approach?

About the only difference is that the new coach was a D1 head coach when he was hired here.

TreeFiddy · March 15, 2017

The school is investing in athletics at never before seen levels. Not sure why anyone would take the stance that the school is not showing a commitment. The school has shown a commitment to buy out contracts when needed. Does anyone recall when UNT bought out a football coach with multiple years left on his contract?

The athletic department was in the middle of a AD change at the time when decisions needed to be made about the basketball coach. How much more of a commitment do you want to see than, not just replacing the BBall coach, but replacing his boss (AD) as well? Not surprising Smatresk did not allow RV to make a change and it would appear that he did not want to perform a search before the new AD was in place. As Smatresk said at the time, "there is a timing to all of this".

Baker has shown that he is more than willing to go ask for/spend money. It will be interesting to see how far Smatresk and the BOR let Baker go before they start telling him no.

GrandGreen · March 15, 2017

14 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

I'm going to assume you meant 'athletics' and spell check/autocorrect didn't help you out.

No school really serious about winning athletic programs retains a Benford level coach for all five seasons included in his contract.

I don't know that extending a football coach with 5-8 record and paying the new MBB coach more than the last one really shows UNT is getting ahead of the curve. It does show that coach pay is near the top of the conference. Benford's pay was also near the top and that obviously didn't lead to being competitive.

Don't apparently need spell check with posters like you. Thanks, it is corrected

Obviously, we disagree; yes you can counter with the Benford or go back to other obvious failures like Dodge. Benford was allowed to stay by RV, he is gone. If you want to continue to saddle Baker for blame for not removing a coach during the season, have at it.

Your last sentence is way off mark. No amount of money or any coach hire is going to guarantee success. Benford was a bad hire, and even worse was letting him continue to coach through his contract. I doubt you can find anyone that disagrees with that point. By the way, NT still has a lot of non-successful coaches in other sports, so you can add that to your proof that NT just doesn't care enough about athletics.

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

12 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Don't apparently need spell check with posters like you. Thanks, it is corrected

Obviously, we disagree; yes you can counter with the Benford or go back to other obvious failures like Dodge. Benford was allowed to stay by RV, he is gone. If you want to continue to saddle Baker for blame for not removing a coach during the season, have at it.

Your last sentence is way off mark. No amount of money or any coach hire is going to guarantee success. Benford was a bad hire, and even worse was letting him continue to coach through his contract. I doubt you can find anyone that disagrees with that point. By the way, NT still has a lot of non-successful coaches in other sports, so you can add that to your proof that NT just doesn't care enough about athletics.

Spell check, that wasn't a shot, sorry if you took it that way.

I see the issue as being more deep seated than whomever is sitting in the AD chair at any given time.

This whole thing seems to be a 'glass half full/empty' kind of discussion. Some people want to believe that this time it's really going to be different. I heard similar things (and said some of them) in the past. I'm on the glass half empty side of this equation at the moment. By it's very nature GMG has a higher percentage of half full/believers.

NorthTexan95 · March 15, 2017

18 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Spell check, that wasn't a shot, sorry if you took it that way.

I see the issue as being more deep seated than whomever is sitting in the AD chair at any given time.

This whole thing seems to be a 'glass half full/empty' kind of discussion. Some people want to believe that this time it's really going to be different. I heard similar things (and said some of them) in the past. I'm on the glass half empty side of this equation at the moment. By it's very nature GMG has a higher percentage of half full/believers.

I'm at the half-full side because of who's making the decisions now ...

Smastresk appears to be much more effective than any president we've had in my history of observing things ...

Baker has a much better resume than anyone we've hired in my history of observing things ...

The folks Baker has brought in have better resume's than any we've brought in the past in my history of observing things ...

Littrell and McCasland have much better resume's than any head coach we've hired for those sports in my history of observing things ...

The BOR is taking a much more active approach to athletics than before in my history of observing things ...

There's no guarentee how things will be 5 years from now but I'm much more confident with the leadership currently in place than I ever was with RV and any other UNT President.

Travis · March 15, 2017

1 hour ago, Army of Dad said:

How can you say it's different? I believe Benford's pay was at or near the top of the Belt and was near the top of CUSA. How is having a new coach's pay near the top of the conference a different approach?

About the only difference is that the new coach was a D1 head coach when he was hired here.

I would say it is different because we hired a current head coach for the boys program. Have we done that before? And a consistently successful one at that.

Plus, have we had real talks about renovating the Super Pit or exploring a brand new facility? This is the first time I have heard of something like this in my 18 years of following UNT athletics (and I am not talking about the mini updates such as the changing of seat colors or the new scoreboard or a new floor here and there).

This all seems to indicate a new direction we are taking things.

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

5 minutes ago, NorthTexan95 said:

Littrell and McCasland have much better resume's than any head coach we've hired for those sports in my history of observing things ...

I'll agree on McCasland, but could argue that Mac had a better resume than SL. Two different types of hires (P5 assistant vs. P5 head coach & assistant), but I think you could give a nod to Mac's resume.

Wag Tag · March 15, 2017

1 hour ago, Army of Dad said:

How can you say it's different? I believe Benford's pay was at or near the top of the Belt and was near the top of CUSA. How is having a new coach's pay near the top of the conference a different approach?

About the only difference is that the new coach was a D1 head coach when he was hired here.

The outcome of those decisions seems to have been successful with the hiring of an active successful D1 coach. Boo ho ho all you want but things are changing!

TreeFiddy · March 15, 2017

I think McCarney and Benford were both examples of UNT athletics trying to reach beyond anything they had done in recent memory. Both represented dramatic steps up in compensation for both positions. Unfortunately, neither worked out.

However, instead of tucking our tail and retreating to the corner like you might expect, we bought out the largest contract in the history of UNT athletics, hired a new FB coach at an even higher salary, fired the AD, hired a new AD at a higher salary and made him a VP, added 3 new senior level staff positions to the atletic department while retaining all senior staffers, and hired a sitting D1 coach at the highest level salary in the history of men's BB.

Ya, I would say things seem a little different this time around. Now it is time to see if we get different results.

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

3 minutes ago, Travis said:

I would say it is different because we hired a current head coach for the boys program. Have we done that before? And a consistently successful one at that.

Plus, have we had real talks about renovating the Super Pit or exploring a brand new facility? This is the first time I have heard of something like this in my 18 years of following UNT athletics (and I am not talking about the mini updates such as the changing of seat colors or the new scoreboard or a new floor here and there).

This all seems to indicate a new direction we are taking things.

Hired HC for MBB? No, but we've done that a couple of times for the other BB team and could fairly describe that success rate as 0-1-1.

For every single other point we could go back and revisit a similar point (gotta add tailgating, need a new football stadium, need soccer stadium, softball stadium, increase coach pay, fire underperforming coaches, etc...) and find one or more offsetting data points in the other direction.

Like I posted to GrangGreen, it's a glass half full or empty thing.

6 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

The outcome of those decisions seems to have been successful with the hiring of an active successful D1 coach. Boo ho ho all you want but things are changing!

Huh?

NorthTexan95 · March 15, 2017

10 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

I'll agree on McCasland, but could argue that Mac had a better resume than SL. Two different types of hires (P5 assistant vs. P5 head coach & assistant), but I think you could give a nod to Mac's resume.

I think you're probably right on the resume.

hickoryhouse · March 15, 2017

11 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

I think McCarney and Benford were both examples of UNT athletics trying to reach beyond anything they had done in recent memory. Both represented dramatic steps up in compensation for both positions. Unfortunately, neither worked out.

However, instead of tucking our tail and retreating to the corner like you might expect, we bought out the largest contract in the history of UNT athletics, hired a new FB coach at an even higher salary, fired the AD, hired a new AD at a higher salary and made him a VP, added 3 new senior level staff positions to the atletic department while retaining all senior staffers, and hired a sitting D1 coach at the highest level salary in the history of men's BB.

Ya, I would say things seem a little different this time around. Now it is time to see if we get different results.

That is a great list of things that are changing, I haven't see that collection of changes put together in quite that way. Thanks

Wag Tag · March 15, 2017

17 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Hired HC for MBB? No, but we've done that a couple of times for the other BB team and could fairly describe that success rate as 0-1-1.

For every single other point we could go back and revisit a similar point (gotta add tailgating, need a new football stadium, need soccer stadium, softball stadium, increase coach pay, fire underperforming coaches, etc...) and find one or more offsetting data points in the other direction.

Like I posted to GrangGreen, it's a glass half full or empty thing.

Huh?

Referring to your statement on not releasing Benford sooner. If keeping him through the season helped get us to this point in the hiring it was well worth it. As an AD is he really concerned about the next three months on a hire he did not make or more concerned about his first hire and the next 5 yrs?

forevereagle · March 15, 2017

Out of curiosity, which is/would have been the bigger statement, firing Benford mid-season or the hiring of McCasland and the details of that (speed, money, etc.)? Just curious what people think on the matter.

It seems to me that the commitment we are making is the bigger statement about the desired future of the program than a mid-season firing would have been, but that is just my opinion.

BTG_Fan1 · March 15, 2017

Its plain and simple... if you could look over the resumes of the current staff vs old with no knowledge of who they are or what they have done, everyone here would pick:

SL over Mac

GM over TB and

WB over RV.

If you think that this is the same, don't do anything good old boy club you are very wrong. WB has been given more freedom to go out and spend than RV was, and that is apparent in the buyout, and that is just with WB being here less than 7 months... RV was here what around 15 years? People can say that WB and his staff have not been doing anything, but he has addressed problems on the football side (new contract for SL), improved football recruiting budget, looking at IPF with SL, heck even improving the process for people to renew tickets and get tickets for the HoD Bowl game... In basketball he has looked over the program, with them about to upgrade the locker-room and the SP and are in the process of looking towards a new SP (possibly), on top of buying out a sitting D1 coach with an impressive resume. On top of the new Soccer/Field Stadium, and removing of Fouts, its apparent that WB has been a busy man.... Time to get over RV, Mac, and TB they aren't here and WB, SL, and GM all have discussed and brought it up, but it's time to look forward.

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

26 minutes ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Its plain and simple... if you could look over the resumes of the current staff vs old with no knowledge of who they are or what they have done, everyone here would pick:

SL over Mac

GM over TB and

WB over RV.

Disagree. SL did not have a better resume.

eta: How does giving SL a new contract "address problems on the football side"?

Edited March 15, 2017 by Army of Dad

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

34 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Referring to your statement on not releasing Benford sooner. If keeping him through the season helped get us to this point in the hiring it was well worth it. As an AD is he really concerned about the next three months on a hire he did not make or more concerned about his first hire and the next 5 yrs?

Canning Benford before allowing him to coach out every season on his contract and making an apparently good hire are not mutually exclusive things.

I'd argue that canning Benford earlier both makes a statement to your customers and gets you in position to act quickly if the right candidate is available. WB moved quickly to hire his choice, but missed the opportunity to send a statement. I don't think his true believers would have been peeved at him if he fired Benford sooner so he could have gotten more out of the process and not lost the support he still has.

UNTFan23 · March 15, 2017

1 hour ago, Army of Dad said:

I'll agree on McCasland, but could argue that Mac had a better resume than SL. Two different types of hires (P5 assistant vs. P5 head coach & assistant), but I think you could give a nod to Mac's resume.

And if SL gets hired away by a P5 program, will that change your stance on which is better: DM <-> SL?

Army of Dad · March 15, 2017

Just now, UNTFan23 said:

And if SL gets hired away by a P5 program, will that change your stance on which is better: DM <-> SL?

No, since the discussion was based on their resumes when hired to coach football at UNT.

Cerebus · March 15, 2017

I was one that wanted TB gone ASAP because I thought him staying was bad messaging to the fan base. I still think letting him finish out the year was a mistake. However, the hiring of GM has really impressed me.

We hired away a successful coach from an FBS institution. When was the last time this happened in a revenue sport? Even Hayden Fry was fired at SMU before he came here.
We paid a large buyout to get a coach we wanted. Again, have we ever done this before?
As others have pointed out, our PREVIOUS hires in MBB and CFB where seen as bigger than ever before, swing for the fences types of hires. They both flopped. In the past, this would have met with incredible pressure from on campus to cut spending. Instead, the president is allowing the AD to go even higher.

I raised my giving when the new AD was hired. I will do so again after this. President Smatresk needs to see that his increased spending on Athletics will result in increased fundraising and engagement. I encourage you to give, at what ever level you are able to do so.