Coach Leach's Dismissal: It Wasn't About the Money
by LondonRaider on Jan 5, 2010 4:31 PM CST
Email
PrintCoach Leach’s firing was not due to financial constraints facing the Texas Tech football program.
I realize that is a controversial statement for many people following this issue. In spite of comments to the contrary, Texas Tech’s athletic department was more than capable of absorbing Mike Leach’s renegotiated contract.
In my previous post, I tried to point out major holes in the player mistreatment argument which have been claimed by the University.
Having dismissed the concussion distraction, I wanted to explore the next possible motive for Leach’s dismissal. Like all of us, I have read many assertions that this was a case about money (and of course of it is, but only somewhat). Gerald Myers, Jim Sowell and others have argued that Coach Leach’s demands were too high and that his demands would place too much undue hardship on the athletic department. However, in researching this angle further, I determined - the arguments for which I lay out below – that
-
It is highly improbable that Texas Tech was unable to absorb Coach Leach's new contract due to its financial limitations.
-
Coach Leach’s demands were justified by existing coaching salary benchmarks
-
Sadly, once you eliminate the financial angle and the concussion farce, this matter in all liklihood comes down to nothing more than the members of the Administration placing their personal egos above the interests of the school.
In 2008 (the most recent available data), Texas Tech’s football program generated $23.6 million in revenue against $14.0 million in expenses. This performance enabled the football program to earn a profit of $9.6 million, or a healthy operating margin of 69%. (Source: US Department of Education)
Assuming the football program replicated its financial performance in 2009, Leach’s raise would have increased operating expenses to $14.8 million, which would have decreased the operating margin to 59% - still, a very healthy margin.
The chart below compares the financial performance of Texas Tech’s football program to other schools in the Big 12.
2008 Big 12 Football Revenue and Expenses by School (Source: US Department of Education)
|
School |
Football Revenue |
Total Football Expenses |
Operating Margin |
|
BU |
11,900,000 |
10,900,000 |
9% |
|
KU |
17,700,000 |
13,300,000 |
33% |
|
ISU |
21,300,000 |
14,400,000 |
48% |
|
KSU |
21,400,000 |
14,000,000 |
53% |
|
MU |
24,100,000 |
15,700,000 |
54% |
|
TTU |
23,600,000 |
14,800,000 |
59% |
|
OU |
42,600,000 |
20,800,000 |
105% |
|
OSU |
26,500,000 |
12,500,000 |
112% |
|
CU |
27,800,000 |
13,000,000 |
114% |
|
TAMU |
38,400,000 |
16,000,000 |
140% |
|
NU |
55,200,000 |
17,900,000 |
208% |
|
UT |
87,600,000 |
24,800,000 |
253% |
Some comments are in order (I’ll pause while you reposition your jaw after seeing the UT figures):
-
Texas Tech’s operating performance puts us right in the middle of the Big 12. We are number six.
-
When you look at our total operating expenses – again - we are ranked at number six in the Big 12.
-
When you look at our total revenue figures, we rank number 7 in the Big 12, generating $1 million less than Missouri.
-
Note, in Texas Tech's and Texas' respective expense budgets, I included adjusted figures for Mike Leach and Mack Brown despite the fact that these costs were not absorbed in 2008.
In other words, in terms of financial performance, the Texas Tech football program’s position is, well, average. In terms of the size of the football budget, for Texas Tech to increase one spot from 6th highest to 5th highest in the Big 12 as result of Leach's contract increase, Leach would have had to receive an additional $900,000 per annum – a figure which would have equalled that of Urban Meyer's $3.4 million salary at Florida. Agreeing to Mike Leach’s new contract at $2.54 million per year, contrary to Gerald Meyers’ disingenuous pleas, did not significantly alter the football budget. Texas Tech’s football budget was ranked 6th in the Big 12 before the raise and remained in 6th place after the raise. A point of order Before proceeding further, let me bore you with a little bit of administrative vernacular, which is relevant to our understanding of how athletic departments function and how coaches are paid.
The Athletic Department falls under the University’s auxiliary budget whereby "funds used to provide services for students, faculty, and staff which generally charge a fee directly related to the cost of the service provided (e.g. athletics, residence halls, hospitality services, traffic & parking, etc.). No state funds can be used to support auxiliary operations." Source: Texas Tech Summary Operating Budget 2009.
In other words, the athletic department is supposed to be self funding and carry its own weight.
So the head coach’s salary and all other football related expenses get funded out of the football program’s operating budget.
I am not clear as to whether or not financial supporters provide additional subsidies to pay the head coach’s salary at Texas Tech. Perhaps, one of the forum members can enlighten us, but it does not appear that additional funds beyond the athletic department are utilized. These comparisons assume (although such might not be the case in other Big 12 universities) that all salaries are self funding by football operations.
Falsehood 2: Mike Leach’s contract demands were too high Here, I examine Coach Leach’s contract in terms of cost and value. Mike Leach’s contract was not expensive. We all know, that as the Big 12 head coach with the third highest winning percentage (against the fourth most difficult strength of schedule) over a ten year period, Coach Leach’s demands to receive what amounted to the third highest salary amongst Big 12 coaches made imminent, logical sense. This is America. In America we are rewarded for performance. Let’s see if we can dig a little deeper to see if there is more to this story and try to determine why the Board of Regents seemed so reticent to comply with Leach’s demands. To better assess the cost of Coach Leach’s salary, let’s examine the chart below. 2008 Big 12 Football Coaches Salary Relative to Football Revenues and Expenses
(Source: US Department of Education; Coaches’ salaries derived from Coacheshotseat.com and updated press reports).
School Head Football Coach Salary Coaching Salary as a Percentage of Revenue Coaching Salary as a Percentage of Expenses ISU 1,150,000 5.4% 8.0% CU 1,100,000 4.0% 8.5% NU 1,851,000 3.4% 10.3% TAMU 1,800,000 4.7% 11.3% KSU 1,850,000 8.6% 13.2% MU 2,500,000 10.4% 15.9% BU 1,800,000 15.1% 16.5% TTU 2,540,000 10.8% 17.2% KU 2,300,000 13.0% 17.3% OSU 2,200,000 8.3% 17.6% OU 3,800,000 8.9% 18.3% UT 5,000,000 5.7% 20.2%
A few things to point out.
In finance (I’m a finance guy), we love to use ratios to make better sense of numbers. One tactic we use to compare information is to standardize values. For example, $100 to you and me probably means something very different than it does to, say, Bill Gates. Similarly, Mack Brown’s $5 million contract, the highest in college football, seems large, but relative to UT’s football revenues, it comes to a rather small fraction of that amount.
The same cannot be said quite as easily about Coach Leach’s contract. Coach Leach’s $2.54 million contract may be half the cost of Mack Brown’s contract, but relative to Texas Tech’s smaller revenue figure, Leach’s salary is somewhat high - although not that high. In fact, when you compare Big 12 schools, you see that Coach Leach’s salary is about 11% of revenues – making it the third highest. Similarly, when you examine Coach Leach’s salary relative to operating expenses, his salary also equates to about 17% of total expenses which is roughly fourth to fifth highest in the Big 12.
Perhaps then you still believe that Mr. Sowell had a valid argument about Leach’s demands being too excessive for Texas Tech? To quote, one ESPN personality, "not so fast my friend."
Texas Tech’s basketball coach, Pat Knight, makes $1.2 million a year (yes, I am as shocked as you are). In 2008 the men’s basketball program generated about $6.5 million per year against $3.8 million in expenses (Source: US Department of Education). So, as we did above, when we standardize Pat Knight’s salary, his earnings come to 18% of revenue, higher than any of the football coaches in the Big 12 (by 20%), and – get this – a whopping 32% of the total men’s basketball budget.
If we apply Mike Leach’s salary ratios -considered too excessive for the Board of Regents and Mr. Sowell – to Coach Knight’s salary, then by extension Knight should not be paid any more than $700,000 per year (and that’s for a first year guy with no proven track record).
Are we to understand that Pat Knight deserves a salary that is roughly double the value of Mike Leach in terms of relative importance to the university and the athletics department?
Can someone explain to me what is fiscally, morally, common sensibly responsible about Pat Knight’s compensation package?
On this point alone, Gerald Meyers’ and the Board of Regents’ competence deserves scrutiny. I think they owe us all an explanation. Knight’s current contract stipulates that he receives the average salary of other Big 12 coaches. On what grounds is this even plausible? Is Knight the sixth best coach in the Big 12? What is his track record? I could go on. I won’t. You probably get the point. Knight’s contract makes no sense.
The short answer here is obvious. Coach Leach’s contract was not too expensive for Texas Tech. Gerald Meyers and the Board of Regents cannot plead poverty when it comes to compensating its best performer on the one hand, while filling the pockets of the Athletic Director’s best pal’s inexperienced son for running a downtrodden basketball program. It – as they say - does not add up.
Coach Leach’s contract was a bargain (i.e. he generated tremendous value)
In terms of value, Coach Leach’s salary is a bargain. In the following chart, we look at how much it costs to pay a Big 12 coach for a single victory based on 2009 results.
Big 12 Cost per Victory (based on 2009 results)
| Head Football Coach Salary | 2009 Wins | Cost per Win | |
|
OU |
3,800,000 |
8 |
475,000 |
|
KU |
2,300,000 |
5 |
460,000 |
|
BU |
1,800,000 |
4 |
450,000 |
|
UT |
5,000,000 |
13 |
384,615 |
|
CU |
935,000 |
3 |
311,667 |
|
KSU |
1,800,000 |
6 |
300,000 |
|
TAMU |
1,800,000 |
6 |
300,000 |
|
MU |
2,300,000 |
8 |
287,500 |
|
TTU |
2,540,000 |
9 |
282,222 |
|
OSU |
2,200,000 |
9 |
244,444 |
|
NU |
1,851,000 |
10 |
185,100 |
|
ISU |
1,150,000 |
7 |
164,286 |
Coach Leach earned about $280,000 per victory making him the fourth least expensive coach in the Big 12. In contrast, a victory by Bob Stoops set OU back $475,000.
On a side note, to further call Meyers’ and the Board of Regents’ competence into questions, a victory by Pat Knight cost about $85,000 – the same amount that UT pays its head basketball coach, Rick Barnes, per win.
I’ll pause while you light something on fire.
Stadium Expansion
Based on my conversations with friends and other alumni, I explored the notion that perhaps the school’s stadium expansion plans might have something to do with Leach’s firing. For stadium and other football infrastructure projects, the school has recently relied on issuing bonds and alumni donations to meet its funding obligations. I am not convinced, however, that the stadium expansion plans would be a reason to get rid of Leach.
I’m still piecing the actual facts about this together, and will try to devote another post to it. I am unable to assemble the information together just yet.
From what I understand, the school spent $84 million from 1999 to 2008 for ongoing renovation and expansion to the stadium and the football program. (Source: http://www.texastech.com/facilities/text-facilities.html)
In doing so, seating capacity increased by about 10,000 seats to its current capacity of 61,000 seats.
My understanding is that over the next 10 years, the school wishes to further increase capacity to 85,000 seats – the equivalent to Texas A&M’s current capacity. (Source: http://www.redraiders.com/2009/05/10/jones-takes-next-steps-in-expansion)
(My initial reaction is skeptical. Due its geographic remoteness, I just don’t see how Texas Tech and Lubbock can support 25,000 more fans. Increased enrollment will fill some of those seats, but what about the rest? I would want to see the data before commenting further.)
In terms of cost, a 25,000 seat expansion will be a colossal expense. Based on the 1999 -2009 expenditures alone, each seat cost about $8,400 each (based on an extremely rough back of the napkin calculation - hat tip Let's Go Tech) . If we apply the same cost per seat figure to the additional 25,000 seats, we are looking at an expansion budget of over $200 million (not including inflation).
Perhaps the Administration felt that Leach was not the right coach to deliver $200 million in donations from alumni and bond issuances from investors. But then again, even if you think that the expansion plan is plausible, which coach in the country has that capability? Ruffin McNeil?
As the saying goes, I think the Administration’s eyes may be bigger than the University’s stomach.
Of course, then again, who am I to question the ingeniousness of this Administration?
For the record, I am not a conspiracy theorist, and given the likely implausibility of this project, I doubt that this story has legs. I would be interested if there were other opinions.
What does this all mean?
To paraphrase a certain Captain, "I can’t even stand for this administration to stumble around, exhibiting a poor effort- as if it has accomplished something."
It is no wonder that Coach Leach felt bitter about the contract discussions. His side presented a reasonable demand to the Administration which was met with an irrational response. For those of you who believe Leach burned his bridges during the contract negotations, I ask you to re-examine your assessment. The arguments for increasing Leach's contract fall firmly on Leach's side. What facts were the admininstration basing their reluctance on? I don't know about you, but the more I learn, the more I realize that the facts exonerate Leach's actions in this whole affair.
The football program has the money. It was more than able to meet its contractual obligations to Coach Leach. The administration’s and the Board of Regent’s disingenuous public comments and negotiation position are laughable a) considering Coach Leach’s success, b) his relative low cost to the program; c)incalculable intangibles which he has brought to the program in terms of awareness, notoriety and national interest; and of course d) given the Administration’s willingness to open the vaults to a certain ex-Coach’s son.
Having dismissed the concussion angle, and refuted the cost perspective, I’ve only got one place left to go in terms of trying to establish the underlying motive for Leach’s dismissal.
As I have stated previously, this discussion further establishes in my mind that the dispute with Leach really did come down to personalities and nothing more than that. The implications of this conclusion, of course, are enormous.
Are we to accept that the Administration and Board of Regents – who are supposedly the wise stewards of our University - placed their personal differences with Coach Leach over their responsibilities to the school, and as a result:
-
exposed the program to undue legal risk
-
fabricated a laughable story about a single player’s treatment
-
created a huge public embarrassment to the institution
-
likely destroyed our football program for the foreseeable future (look no further than Texas A&M, Nebraska, Kansas State, Texas post Darrell Royal for case studies of Big 12 programs which fail to recover after the dismissal of a successful coach)
-
will most certainly lead to lost revenues and alumni support
If this is indeed the case, then the Administration’s and the Board of Regent’s reckless actions require them to step down. Our university deserves a competent administration which will place the needs of the university ahead of the petty disputes of its members (and the interests of sons of high profile people - an emerging sub-theme).
Leach may have been a contentious employee, but let’s face it. He wasn’t that contentious. What he wouldn’t do is kiss ass, play golf, press the flesh or go to the boosters’ parties. He certainly wasn't willing to play Craig James' son. What he did do was win games, put Texas Tech football on the map, generate revenue, and bring that special something to the program which we will not replace.
While Leach raised the profile of the program to a Major League level, the Mayberry Machiavellis in the Administration and the Board of Regents were still playing Single A ball.
Oh yeah, and about that $800,000 bonus. What can I say. It seems like nothing more than an F-U gesture by the Administration. Well handled gentlemen.
When Tom Osborne gave Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini a raise last year, he wisely noted "if you start having empty seats, you've got huge problems compared to someone getting a $700,000 raise."
If only Texas Tech’s administration possessed such wisdom.
Updated January 6, 2010
70 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nicely done
plus Im suicidal
The Lyle Leong Bandwagon will Continue to Roll!!!
Respect Everyone....Fear No One!
Wreck 'em, Tech!
by Tortilla Pirate on Jan 5, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions
Very nicely done
Being a numbers guy I felt just like you in that this wasn’t all about Money.
What a tremendous piece of work - thanks! But ...
isn’t there always a ‘but’? I think there are a few holes in the information – I realize that this may draw more fire than I want, but I think that, while you have certainly produced an impressive output, it is more a “means to an end” rather than an explanation of anything.
For example, your statement:
“In terms of cost, a 25,000 seat expansion will be a colossal expense. Based on the 1999 -2009 expenditures alone $84 million), each seat cost about $8,400 each. If we apply the same cost per seat figure to the additional 25,000 seats, we are looking at an expansion budget of over $200 million (not including inflation).”
The basis for your statement is an assumption that the inital $84 million, spend over almost 10 years, was ONLY for a 10000 seat expansion. It wasn’t – that $84 million covered the entire cost of the west-side expansion, including the press box facilities and more new suites and club seating in addition to the 10000 new seats. Based on the information from the Tech webpage you referenced, Tech spent $53 million out of the $84 million for the Spanish-themed west side building, press box and suites and the additional 10000 seats ran something more like $32 million (probably less).
I realize this is all inexact, and likely impossible to get accurate without some real strong inside info, yet I can’t really base a final opinion on the quality of decision-making in the Tech administration from this info when there are such large discrepancies.
Again, I am just one guy here who loves Texas Tech and wants to see us do well in all aspects (not just athletics), so I really do appreciate the energy and passion you’re putting into this, London.
"Fearless champions ever be; Stand on heights of victory"
More stadium and facility expansion data for you, London
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/061800/spo_061800126.shtml
"Fearless champions ever be; Stand on heights of victory"
by Let's Go Tech! on Jan 5, 2010 5:20 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with you
Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to put a placeholder number out there based on something. 25,000 seats will cost a lot whatever the actual estimate is.
I do believe the expansion figure did finally come to $32 million (versus an initial estimate of $25 million just 12 months earlier – a 30% overrun or underestimate depending how you see it. Another feather in the Administration’s cap.
and, just for further clarity ...
The whole stadium expansion initiative was a condition required by Leach at his insistence when he was initially hired.
"Fearless champions ever be; Stand on heights of victory"
by Let's Go Tech! on Jan 5, 2010 8:56 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
And Leach
Met his obligation by placing a product on the field that generated the revenue to warrant that condition. He must have felt that if he accomplished what they were hiring him for, taking Tech to the next level, the need for more seating was a given. Thus, the conditional request for more seating/stadium and facilities improvement.
TTpilk
I am certain that we have an engineer or architect who could speak to this, but I don’t believe we can infer too much about per-seat costs for a 25,000 seat expansion based upon 10,000 suite and club seats. The final 25,000 phase would like be general seating that would not require the costs associated with suites and related infrastructure. However, it would seam that the engineering requirements would be substantially greater as additional decks were added, existing structures reinforced, etc. Not to mention, parts of The Jones’ structure are becoming rather aged; some extensive repair/refurbishment costs are going to be required at some point. The bottom line: transforming The Jones into a Kyle Field is going to be VERY expensive and this Administration has proven they are incapable of building that financial model.
by CRV on Jan 5, 2010 6:17 PM CST up reply actions
You are my leader.....
Seriously, all things I thought I knew but in a concise form. We all know that the superficial story makes no sense, and this confirms those intuitive thoughts.
I can’t tell you how well this was written…..have a pint on me.
by oldschoolraider on Jan 5, 2010 5:14 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Good post, but....
Nice legwork, I applaud the effort, however we knew this wasn’t about money last monday. This has been entirely about the administration and the board of regents losing their power and control over Leach and the situation. It has been and always will be over the fact that the corrupt people in charge of the university system have huge egos and did not like Leach being the big fish in the pond.
by conservative hitman on Jan 5, 2010 5:17 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I agree about the stadium expansion!!
College Station is within 200 miles of the Dallas (6.3 miliion), Houston (5.7 million), Austin (1.6 million), and San Antonio (2.0 million) metropolitan areas (total population of those metropolitan areas is 15.6 million), and the population density in the rural areas within the Dal/Hou/SanA triangle is much greater than West Texas. Lubbock is within 200 miles of. . . Amarillo.
Bottom line: Tech cannot fill an 85,000-seat stadium.
by Shallowater on Jan 5, 2010 5:24 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Did we have even one sellout this year?
Not unless it was North Dakota. I was at the rest of them.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
Well, I'll tell you one stadium we did fill up, or at least came close:
Cowboys Stadium. It makes a real difference when the stadium is located in a metropolitan area with a population of 6.3 million.
Alamo Bowl
We also sold out the Alamo Dome. And I heard on the way home today that we had a 5.6 rating on ESPN, the largest ever for a bowl game on that network.
yes..
I heard it was one of the largest bowl games in viewership also. That may help kids thinking about coming to Tech to play.
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
Exactly.
Every 5 minutes it was:
1) lecture about Texas Tech
2) pan down to Adam James
Strive for Honor Evermore! Unless you’re a Regent or Administrator…
and
3) Bob Davie would have to make a stupid comment about how coaches should treat players
4) Bob Davie makes another stupid comment
5) Bob Davie says something else that doesn’t make sense
Commentators should comment on the game…at least a little bit
Points taken regarding sellouts
But my point was not about out-of-town stadiums, it was about the financial wisdom of continuing to expand the Jones when we aren’t filling it up now.
Unlike schools with a rich winning tradition like Nebraska, our ticket sales are heavily dependent on how the team is doing each year. At this year’s OU game for instance, I’d venture a guess that there were 8-10,000 empty seats (coming on the heels of a marginal victory over Kansas and that blowout at the hands of A&M). If last year’s game had been in Lubbock, they would have been standing on top of each other to get in.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
But isn't that what you do
when you see your attendence numbers increasing? Expand the stadium in anticipation of the next levels of increase so that you can take advantage of the expected next level of revenue?
Else one has fans trying to get in and all the negative feed back that accompanies that problem?
You did it again London...
This is required reading. Well researched and written as always. That Pat Knight thing did drop my jaw….
Very Nice Work By An Obviously Very Intelligent Person!
Pat yourself on the back for this post. Looks like the whole mess comes down to ego vs. ego!
American farmers feed & clothe the world!
Another problem with stadium expansion
is the relative enrollments of the Texas State University systems. Enrollment figures tell of a vast disadvantage in which Tech finds itself.
University of Texas System enrollment: 193,000
(Includes Austin, Tyler, Arlington, Dallas, Brownsville, El Paso, Pan American, Permian Basin, and San Antonio, plus the medical system.)
Texas A & M University System enrollment: 115,000
(Includes TAMU, Prairie View, Tarleton, Commerce, Corpus Christi, West Texas, Kingsville, TAM International, Texarkana, Central Texas, and San Antonio)
Texas Tech University System enrollment: 39,000
(includes TTU, TTHCS, & Angelo State)
WOW !
Where does one start.
One thing that would be interesting is to see how the revenues and expenses have changed over the last 10 years for our football program. Did Leach pay for himself. My guess is he did – tenfold.
I went to the site, but did not see a way to get historical data.
I don't have the numbers on me, but
from 2003 to 2008, Tech football revenues increased from $14 million to $23 million per year. A 70% increase or about 11% per year. I ran those numbers against the other Big 12 schools and Tech performed similarly, based on comparable starting points, to Ok State, Missouri and Iowa State. UT’s figures were in another league. I didn’t put the numbers here because obviously lots of other factors go into a team’s revenue performance other than Wins and Losses such as stadium expansions, enrollment, size of alumni, population density, ticket prices and those sorts of things.
Maybe this is it ...
I pulled these from the same Dept of Ed web site. Maybe not an apples to apples representation, but there is a definite trend in revenues:
Year Revenues Expenses
2003 14,100,000 15,300,000
2004 19,300,000 17,800,000
2005 18,700,000 18,500,000
2006 20,800,000 18,500,000
2007 20,200,000 12,700,000
2008 23,600,000 14,000,000
So I am " The Tech Guy" at my workplace in Austin and today was my first day back after the holiday. Guess what I had to talk about all day… You guessed it. I was amazed at how many people only knew the ESPN side of the story, and how quick and judgemental they were. After I enlightened them about everything they were pretty shocked about how one sided the story has been portrayed. I wish I had a pocket reference guide to the shafting of Mike Leach. This is why I can not let this go, and why I will not show any form of support until there is a new Chancelor, President, and AD. That could be a long time. Hope all my clothes still fit.
Similar Reactions
I’ve noticed that people can’t believe you would support Leach until they read the legal docs and hear some alternative opinion. Then they can’t believe he was fired.
Brilliant London!
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-coaches-contracts-database.htm
I would just add that the University wasn’t paying out of pocket the full amount of his salary either. He had a Base of $300k plus a Bonus to reach the Guaranteed level. The Bonus excludes Outside Income from TV, merch, camps, etc., but includes all income arranged through Tx Tech. This is a common approach to structuring coach employment contracts. I think it is a way to show a low salary # in the school budget, and open up an easy avenue for VIP booster contributions to be paid directly to coaches to supplement the guaranteed income in the contract. Anyway, Tech wasn’t paying Leach the full amount of the guaranteed income in the contract directly, that’s for sure.
I read London’s insightful analysis, then think back to T. Boone Sowell’s emails to Hance instructing him how to negotiate. Sowell has no sports mgmt experience, has no MBA or JD, and is a lucky housing developer. And, he’s trying to out-negotiate the IMG agents with his own facts and analysis on college coaching compensation?!? WHAT.A.TOOL! Guys, the foxes were guarding the henhouse.
One interesting thing. I’ve yet to hear if those emails to Hance were acted on. It seems like Tech did exactly what he begged them not to do. Does Sowell REALLY have the pull he’s given credit for? I ask because I sincerely don’t know.
by Tech92 on Jan 5, 2010 6:16 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Context of Sowell's E-Mails
I believe the incriminating e-mails from Sowell to Hance date back to his term as Chair of the BOR. At that time and in that role, he obviously had incredible stroke. As for his power today, we can only assume. Many people are treating the e-mails as if they were sent on Christmas, 2009. In fact, the published e-mails were sent before the Winter, 2009 contract extension was even signed. When he spoke about paying Leach another year and firing him, the extension was still unsigned. I am certainly not defending Sowell; his feelings are clearly a part of the public record. What everyone is overlooking in the haste to pin this on Sowell is what e-mail (or communication) was exchanged between Hance and Anders, Turner, and Scovell. Those are the e-mails that I wish to see. To make a short story, long . . . Sowell has power but he didn’t make this call alone.
by CRV on Jan 5, 2010 6:29 PM CST up reply actions
From an outsider
I didn’t know who Sowell was when i first started following this fiasco, and I still don’t know who he really is. My sense from reading the e-mails was that he and only he was calling the shots. If he had said last February that Texas Tech had to do whatever it had to do to keep Coach Leach, it seems to me that he wouldn’t have been fired. Is that so? Is he a big shot, or is he just another fan who has the e-mail addresses for the big cheeses in the administration?
Last week I wouldn't have known him from Adam either, but
Last year, during contract negotiations, Sowell was chairman of the BoR.
Since then, his term on the board expired, and another person was appointed by the governor to take his place. He’s not even on the BoR anymore. (Of course, he might still carry some weight with the powers that be.)
We’re still assuming that his voice was the voice that mattered. In the end, Leach got exactly what he asked for last year. And exactly what Sowell said not to give him. Based on that, I question his actual pull. Especially now that he’s no longer even on the BoR. If he couldn’t exert his will as the chairman, how is it logical to think he could as a dude on the street?
T Boone Sowell Still has Plenty of Pull
I’ve heard quite a bit about him in Dallas, although he keeps a low profile. Started out as a Tx housing developer. Suburbs in the 70s, good business. Grew that and diversified into corporate LBOs and high finance. Has served on 4 NYSE boards, and runs Sowell & Co, Dallas investment company with a hedge fund. Appears to have invested in at least 20 corporations. Sizable oil & gas interests. Real estate still largest business. Runs in the same company as Dallas billionaires, like Harold Simmons. Lives in 11,000 sq ft mansion on one of the top 3 most exclusive streets in Highland Park. Was appointed to the Tech BoR by W Bush. Is a huge benefactor to Tech. Found numerous donations to medical school, history department, alumni center. Think he is in the Alumni hall of fame.
The guy might be a billionaire, and is at least worth $100 millions. I actually got the sense from the emails to Hance that Sowell was so emotionally engaged because he was one of the primary sources of funds to Tech to pay Leach’s multi-million salary. He certainly gives a ton of $ to Tech. Here is an interesting quote that I found from Sowell as Head of the BoR justifying Knight’s hiring:
James Sowell of Dallas , chairman of Texas Tech’s Board of Regents , said Sunday it wouldn’t be necessary to add a behavior clause to the contract if Knight got the job. Sowell believes some of the problems {with Knight} might have been overblown, and he pointed out some of Knight’s strong suits: no NCAA violations , a high graduation rate. I think if a guy was an embarrassment to the university , that would have come up in 29 years {Knight at Indiana}, he said.I personally wouldn’t want anything to happen to the university that would be an embarrassment.
T Boone Sowell sounds like a great Red Raider. But, it also sounds like he bought too much influence at Tech and was not shy about throwing his weight around.
You may be right on the mark
with characterizing Sowell as a driving force in all things TTU, espcially Kent Hance’s decisions about TTU football, but I doubt it…based on the data that I have.
I have seen the documents from last year’s negotiations. Sowell was a member of the BoR then, he is not currently. As a member of the BoR, I do not know if he had a particular role or not to consult to Kent Hance on football matters. Or was he mr bigbucks?
I do note that much of what Sowell advocated in those emails was not executed by Hance last year, and I take that as his comments are taken by the Chancellor as input for his consideration and that he does not weigh all that much after all. I do fear that he might have too much influence as a backer and prefer otherwise, I like his contributions, even contributions directed at a specific purpose, but I do not want him or anyone having more influence than he should have.
Do you have any information regarding Sowell’s current influence in the Athletic Department or other areas at TTU?
Replacement Cost
All of the figures you quoted were based only on the HC position. Remember that Leach was also acting as OC and QB Coach. You will need to add the average cost for an offensive coordinator (or 2 if you are Oklahoma) and a QB Coach to get to the accurate cost to replace the Great Captain.
Well done London.
+1 London.....
Also don’t forget he had the best graduation rate of any public university in D1..that’s right #1….and even my ole miss wife got in “discussion” with someone who only apparently got the esprumor side…Wreck’Em tech
It is posts like this
that dash my dreams of ever writing a book about the shafting of Leach
GREAT READ!!!
Great Work!! Obviously about egos.....
Loved the story. I don’t have the inside information you have but it‘s evident to me just from reading the emails @ dallasnews.com that this was about EGOS. Gerald Myers, Jimbo Sewell, Craig James and Mike Leach all have inflated egos and are really competitive to a cut throat extent. I would imagine that’s what elevated them to their roles in society and at TECH. You don’t get very far by being soft, (unless you have a daddy with big bucks and power, humm, know anyone that fits that description) The emails revealed some very tough negotiation and the competitive spirit that everyone involved has. A) If you are a successful person and you don’t like someone then you can at least get some satisfaction from ordering that person around or in this case beating him at contract negotiations (Jim Sowell negotiation tactics with LEACH). B) If you don’t like someone and you can’t order them around or control them, then you get rid of him. i.e. Leach successfully negotiation of his contract last year. LEACH went over heads to get a competitive contract and it pissed off Jimbo Sowell and Myers. This happens on a daily basis with much more petty event in the business world. All I can say is that it’s a sad world we live in and a sad day for TECH football.
This is all about egos and the university loses because of it!!!
Outstanding
Simply awesome. I wish I would have had this data before my post. What a mess.
by TTUMAR on Jan 5, 2010 7:30 PM CST via mobile reply actions
We Can Do It!
Nebraska does fill their 80k+ stadium in Lincoln being about 30 mi from Omaha; combined those two cities are about 650k in population. I know they’ve got storied tradition, natl championships, etc. but we could make this a good turning point for our program to go up & not back to being a middle conference whipping boy.
If you pull Amarillo (200k by ‘10), Midland/Odessa (234k by ’10), San Angelo (92k by ’10), and Lubbock (212k as of ’09), you’ve got the numbers to fill it (738k total).
I’m feeling more and more that Tubberville would be a good face for our program, help sell the cost of the expansion, keep this recruitment class somewhat in tact, & leave the Air Raid offense in place.
If we don’t grab him, ATM will & he’ll be locked up until retirement; if he doesn’t work, we can always go back to Briles in 2-3 years so let’s get ’em!
Just one tiny thing ...
In the same state as the University of Nebraska you have … Nebraska. There is only one Div 1 (FBS) school in the entire state. Thus, if you’re Nebraskan … you live and die Cornhusker Red.
In the same state as Texas Tech you have … 10 FBS schools (plus 3 in Oklahoma and 2 more in NM). In short, while it may look as if the Lubbock/Amarillo/Midland area out-sizes the potential draw of Lincoln/Omaha, the diversity of allegiances waters down the true number of fans willing to buy tickets.
I’d be really surprised to see “The Shed” (formerly known as “Jones AT&T Stadium”) fill up to its current capacity.
Not to mention the drive
Basically 2 hours from everywhere but San Angelo, 3 1/2 from there.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
Unfortunately, I don't share your optimism
Firstly, the economic environment for large construction (vanity) projects is dismal and won’t be turning around any time soon.
‘Build it and They will Come’ won’t fly in a ‘Build it Only if People are Already There’ kind of world. That’s the economic reality today.
One of the factors that investors and financial supporters will focus on is attendance. We just threw out a known entity with a 10 year track record.
I doubt that regardless of what kind of suit you dress Tuberville or any other person in, until the investors and supporters can see a sustained track record for attendance, they will not be opening their wallets.
I would expect that a smart investor or donor would want to wait at least three years to see if the new guy is able to keep people in the seats.
Recent experiences among larger programs with far larger budgets are not encouraging. In the Big 12 alone, as I mentioned in the post, programs like Colorado, Kansas State, Texas A&M and Nebraska etc are still lost in the football wilderness after letting go of their high profile coach.
Continuity is so important in college football.
Coach Leach has averaged over 9 wins in the past four years. We were on our way to becoming a consistent 10 win a year program (in fact we were incredibly close).
I hate to say it, but we are about to enter the Charlie Weiss years.
Tuberville might be great in the board room, but in two year’s time when the program goes 4-7 and the Jones goes back to 40,000 seats per game, who is going to want to play golf with that guy (or any of them).
In college football it is extremely hard to build a quality football program. You can’t just plug a guy with a nice haircut, white smile and starched shirt and hope that everything is going to be alright (see examples above).
by LondonRaider on Jan 6, 2010 4:45 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
"that is a lucid,intelligent,well thought out..." (My Cousin Vinny)
I agree with the judge, you did your homework. This is an eye-opener and good bull. There is an odor about what has transpired. Gig em
Rod Leonard
Athletic Budget
One thing to keep in mind is that the revenue generating sports (football and men’s basketball) support the non-revenue generating sports (track, softball, baseball, tennis, volleyball, women’s basketball). The other sports operate in the red most of the time. I believe that the concern of the administration, be it founded or not, was the impact on the entire athletic budget, not just that of football. Having said that, Tech did have an overall surplus of $4.3 M for the 2008-2009 academic year, or about 10%.
I believe that is very good compared to most programs, and I am pretty sure that is better than Tech has done in most other years because we had so much TV exposure and increase ticket sales last football season. I couldn’t find previous years, and obviously this year is still in progress, but I would not be surprised if they did not look as good. As any west Texas farmer will tell you, just because it rains this year, doesn’t mean it will next year. One banner year does not justify going crazy spending money, but I also don’t understand biting the hand that feeds you.
Good point about the impact of TV exposure last year.
I don’t know whose idea it was, but I’m convinced it was a very bad idea to reschedule the Tech/UT game to so early in the season. I know that it was done to get Tech on primetime, but Tech’s loss (coupled with the loss to Houston) made Tech’s entire season irrelevant.
Tech UT game
I figured they did it because UT was afraid we might beat them late in the season and screw up their standing in the polls…(ie last year, which was great)
Exactly
If the Administration was really strapped for an extra $800,000, another place they could have looked is Pat Knight’s wallet.
All football programs support the non-revenue generating sports. Tech was able to meet those obligations while keeping a healthy profit margin even with the contract increase.
I am not sure how much television revenue factors into the overall revenue, because I am not sure how the Big 12 revenue sharing agreements operate. Still, its safe to assume that being on television is better than not being on television.
Thanks for putting numbers to the madness
This is going to be a great book. A lot of us Red Raider fans feel passionate enough to put together one helluva novel.
The more I think about it, Double T Nation is the novel. Just put me as a citation in your bibliography if you ever want to use anything to publish, Seth, and it’s yours.
Just as fodder, London, can you pull up any of Gerald’s $/win vs other SWC coaches? haha, j/k, but I’ll take any data I can get to get him expunged.
I came up with the theory (commented in TTUMAR’s rec’d storyline) about how we will just always goof it up. We can’t help it.
Thanks London! You on GMT? You’ve got some late nights…
I have never beileved the money was the main culprit of this
same with the concept that concussion-gate is the primary igniter of this entire situation.
This was simply about power. The power of those in charge beginning to erode in the face of a very successful, very popular coach. It is an embarrassing admission to have to make, but it seems more and more like the root cause of this entire disaster.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
Mandatory Reading for All Tech Fans
Outstanding job of weeding through the the trees to find the forest (or vice versa if you so desire). London Raider, you did an excellent job of discounting all the junk being fed us. This has never been about money. It has been about power, control and egos all along. The Tech Administration was simply mad that Leach was getting the credit (and rightly so) for making Tech relevant on the Nation stage.
by IndianaRedRaider on Jan 5, 2010 10:11 PM CST reply actions
Great Post LondonRaider
The numbers do not lie. No matter the exactness, they show that Leach’s salary was not the main reason for his termination. What really started all of this was his initial hire. Many of the “good ole boys” cared little for the style of play he was bringing to Texas Tech. Despite his success, the felt he was not the type of person they wanted representing the University. They should have been happy he did not want to do many of the Mac Brown type things to generate interest and money for the Texas Tech program. They also could not understand the amazing interest and money he actually brought to Texas Tech simply by being himself and by winning. Over the course of his ten years at Tech, I am sure the “good ole boys” let him know often enough that they did not like him or his style. That kind of resentment can start to drag a person down without him even being aware of it, causing him to act in ways he would not normally act. The situation probably peaked last off-season during negotiations.That is probably why Leach was willing to check out the Washington opening. As the year unfolded, Mike, I am sure, grew more weary of the turmoil between him and the administration, resulting in some actions I am sure he would not have pursued otherwise, and strengthening his persona in a way that influenced his actions and reactions to everything. So, when Adam James’ escapades finally got to him, he reacted in not exactly the best way, bringing us to this point in time. Rest assured, Mike Leach will return to coach somewhere, probably in the west somewhere. With a “good ole boy” network that actually supports him, he will undoubtedly be very productive. It all stems from a group of people who were unwilling to accept Leach for who he is, desiring someone more in the mold of Spike Dykes. While I like Spike, he and Leach are two exact opposite type personalities. I am ready to move on with whomever is hired, but I sure do wish the present administration would have no say in the hire. But, we are where we are, so we must accept and support the new Texas Tech football coach, at least for a couple or three years to see if he can keep us at or near the top of the Big-12.
TTpilk
Loved your analysis... FYI "Leach for AD" looks like would give us an even more huge bang for OUR buck!
London just great work! Thx you. What is fascinating to me is how “little” “BIG” people can be. At the core is their huge fears and insecurities. Trully great leaders overcome them, place them in check and rise to SERVE those they lead with wisdom and stewardship. We all can now see who the only real Captain was!
by Raiderit on Jan 6, 2010 12:03 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Excellent Post
All the more reason for the “bats in the belltower” to come clean on exactly what went down. I think I can handle the “truth” regardless of what it turns out to be.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
