MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[sac]

The problem is NOT that Hope can't attract top-level interest for this position. It is that Hope notoriously doesn't pay too well (faculty or staff). I remember hearing about more than a few "national" candidates who dropped out 4 years ago when they found out how low the pay was AND they'd have to teach. I'd imagine it to be very similar this time.

If the rumors are true (of the 2 names most commonly floated around) - yes, neither one of them has "head coaching at the college level" experience, but either one of them would be a good choice/fit to lead the program in a new direction. Hope will be just fine if either is selected.

If the difference I heard between one candidates current pay and Hope was correct, Hope should be deeply embarrassed.

[HopeConvert]

The problem is NOT that Hope can't attract top-level interest for this position. It is that Hope notoriously doesn't pay too well (faculty or staff). I remember hearing about more than a few "national" candidates who dropped out 4 years ago when they found out how low the pay was AND they'd have to teach. I'd imagine it to be very similar this time.

If the rumors are true (of the 2 names most commonly floated around) - yes, neither one of them has "head coaching at the college level" experience, but either one of them would be a good choice/fit to lead the program in a new direction. Hope will be just fine if either is selected.

If the difference I heard between one candidates current pay and Hope was correct, Hope should be deeply embarrassed.

I have a friend who teaches at a CCIW school who claims that his salary is half the head coach's. I haven't been able to verify this, but if it's true then that school ought to be deeply embarrassed that its basketball coach is making more than, never mind twice, a full professor. My guess is that if Hope hired a new coach who came in making more than a full professor who has been there 20 years, there'd be some backlash. Again, this ain't Kentucky.

On the other hand, if this is an argument for raising salaries across the board, my guess is there'd be enthusiastic support for that position.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

The problem is NOT that Hope can't attract top-level interest for this position.  It is that Hope notoriously doesn't pay too well (faculty or staff). I remember hearing about more than a few "national" candidates who dropped out 4 years ago when they found out how low the pay was AND they'd have to teach. I'd imagine it to be very similar this time.

If the rumors are true (of the 2 names most commonly floated around) - yes, neither one of them has "head coaching at the college level" experience, but either one of them would be a good choice/fit to lead the program in a new direction. Hope will be just fine if either is selected.

If the difference I heard between one candidates current pay and Hope was correct, Hope should be deeply embarrassed.

I have a friend who teaches at a CCIW school who claims that his salary is half the head coach's. I haven't been able to verify this, but if it's true then that school ought to be deeply embarrassed that its basketball coach is making more than, never mind twice, a full professor. My guess is that if Hope hired a new coach who came in making more than a full professor who has been there 20 years, there'd be some backlash. Again, this ain't Kentucky.

On the other hand, if this is an argument for raising salaries across the board, my guess is there'd be enthusiastic support for that position.

Wow - really going out on a limb there aren't ya 

[sac]

Maybe we need to have a dutch bake sale for the coaches and profs.

[oldknight]

Maybe we need to have a dutch bake sale for the coaches and profs.

Where's the banket?

[Gregory Sager]

The problem is NOT that Hope can't attract top-level interest for this position. It is that Hope notoriously doesn't pay too well (faculty or staff). I remember hearing about more than a few "national" candidates who dropped out 4 years ago when they found out how low the pay was AND they'd have to teach. I'd imagine it to be very similar this time.

If the rumors are true (of the 2 names most commonly floated around) - yes, neither one of them has "head coaching at the college level" experience, but either one of them would be a good choice/fit to lead the program in a new direction. Hope will be just fine if either is selected.

If the difference I heard between one candidates current pay and Hope was correct, Hope should be deeply embarrassed.

I have a friend who teaches at a CCIW school who claims that his salary is half the head coach's. I haven't been able to verify this, but if it's true then that school ought to be deeply embarrassed that its basketball coach is making more than, never mind twice, a full professor.

I find this deeply alarming if it's true, because I can tell you that the salary difference between the head basketball coach and a full professor at my alma mater is dramatically opposed to what your friend claims about his CCIW school.

[wiz]

Kevin VandeStreak is the only coach in the MIAA who came into his current position with previous college head coaching experience.  If I'm not mistaken, you have to go back to the Ed Douma hire at Calvin in the 80's to find the other MIAA hire with college head coaching experience.

Maybe that explains why they are the only two coaches to win a national championship.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Other MIAA fan bases are gonna have to step it up - Hope can't do it all.

Hope easily won the attendance title for the 22nd consecutive season, by 658 pg over Wooster, but the MIAA's 12-year reign for conferences came crashing down, as the CCIW beat them by a healthy margin, 744 to 702, despite IWU being the conference leader at a 'mere' 1333 (4th in D3, to Hope's 2,459).  Subtract Hope from the MIAA total and IWU from the CCIW total, and the CCIW would be 660 for the other seven, the MIAA would be 395 for the others.  And attendance at the Hope @ Calvin game was 4800 - even that 395 drops precipitously if you remove that one game. 

Adrian, Albion, Alma, Kalamazoo, Olivet, Trine and even Calvin (when playing anyone other than Hope) have got to step up their promotion!

[Pat Coleman]

No idea what happened to this page. It should not have been locked however -- no issues with the content or discussion here.

[sac]

Other MIAA fan bases are gonna have to step it up - Hope can't do it all.

Hope easily won the attendance title for the 22nd consecutive season, by 658 pg over Wooster, but the MIAA's 12-year reign for conferences came crashing down, as the CCIW beat them by a healthy margin, 744 to 702, despite IWU being the conference leader at a 'mere' 1333 (4th in D3, to Hope's 2,459).  Subtract Hope from the MIAA total and IWU from the CCIW total, and the CCIW would be 660 for the other seven, the MIAA would be 395 for the others.  And attendance at the Hope @ Calvin game was 4800 - even that 395 drops precipitously if you remove that one game. 

Adrian, Albion, Alma, Kalamazoo, Olivet, Trine and even Calvin (when playing anyone other than Hope) have got to step up their promotion!

Change in avg attendance from 2013

Adrian  -178
Albion  +129
Alma    +17
Calvin  -891
Hope   -289
Kzoo   -17
Olivet  -53
Trine   -315


The poor attendance at the MIAA semi-final at both Hope and Calvin was a large factor.

3 game MIAA Tournament attendance totals:
2013:   7,453
2014:   4,841


Hope's decrease is largely from a poorly attended MIAA Semi-final game and a Monday make-up game in league play.

I can't account for Calvin's large drop other than pointing out 3 of their non-conference home games were Kuyper, College of Faith and Finlandia.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I also believe that the Hope student attendance was impacted pretty severely by the schedule.  First home game of the year for Hope was Dec 20th, but the 1st semester was already over and the students had gone home.  So January 9th was the first home game played with students on campus, and it never really felt like the typical student-team connections got built as in past years.

No doubt there were other factors that affected Hope as well.  For example, losing 4 of your first 5 games (regardless of the opposing team) will do that for a number of fans.

[gohope]

I also believe that the Hope student attendance was impacted pretty severely by the schedule.  First home game of the year for Hope was Dec 20th, but the 1st semester was already over and the students had gone home.  So January 9th was the first home game played with students on campus, and it never really felt like the typical student-team connections got built as in past years.

No doubt there were other factors that affected Hope as well.  For example, losing 4 of your first 5 games (regardless of the opposing team) will do that for a number of fans.

And don't forget about the lovely weather we had this past winter. There were a number of times where people who may have normally attended a BB Game, elected to stay home and be safe from the elements!     (Cheering heartily from their warm and cozy confines via radio, video and texts from those in attendance!!)

[sac]

Change in avg attendance from 2013

Adrian  -178
Trine   -315

For both Adrian and Trine, this decrease was cutting in half the attendance from the previous year. 

Adrian obviously wasn't as good, can't explain Trine's drop.

[realist]

The problem is NOT that Hope can't attract top-level interest for this position. It is that Hope notoriously doesn't pay too well (faculty or staff). I remember hearing about more than a few "national" candidates who dropped out 4 years ago when they found out how low the pay was AND they'd have to teach. I'd imagine it to be very similar this time.

If the rumors are true (of the 2 names most commonly floated around) - yes, neither one of them has "head coaching at the college level" experience, but either one of them would be a good choice/fit to lead the program in a new direction. Hope will be just fine if either is selected.

If the difference I heard between one candidates current pay and Hope was correct, Hope should be deeply embarrassed.

I have a friend who teaches at a CCIW school who claims that his salary is half the head coach's. I haven't been able to verify this, but if it's true then that school ought to be deeply embarrassed that its basketball coach is making more than, never mind twice, a full professor.

I find this deeply alarming if it's true, because I can tell you that the salary difference between the head basketball coach and a full professor at my alma mater is dramatically opposed to what your friend claims about his CCIW school.

Why would you be alarmed when it may simply be a matter of supply and demand working as it should.   This would tell me the supply of (quality) coaches is less than for PHD. tenure track candidates in most fields.  Would you have a problem if an engineering prof. makes more than a eng. lit. prof where the same market factors playout?  One has to ask if the performance of your schools teams in the recent past is directly tied to compensation?  I wouldn't have a problem if one CCIW school or even all of them wanted to give 7 figure contracts to the head coach.    I suspect the pressure for any coach making the big bucks  to put a winning, quality team on the floor is considerably greater than at those schools who found a warm body to take their poor paying position. 
Each school has to decide where to spend the $$ they have available.  Some may choose differently than others, but in each case the school has to live with the results that decision yields. 
As a Calvin fan I am not sad that the candidate I thought would be perfect for Hope (an experienced winning h.c) reportedly has walked away from the position over compensation and other issues.  The only cause for alarm for me is the disturbing thought that my school might also suffer from the "tight fisted" dutch gene.

[Roundball999]

I realize this is a board for hoops fans so our perspective may be a bit skewed, but even so I'd have a problem with a D3 hoops coach being paid a salary that was completely out of line with other coaches or even professors at a given school.  In my opinion, it sends the wrong message and is not consistent with D3 values.  Leave the big-bucks coaches for D1, where so many decisions of players, coaches and administration are based on money ahead of education.