Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
It'll be interesting to see how money plays out if UK wants Billy G. UK is obviously the more prestigious job, but A&M is tough to beat on the money front.
|
I agree that many schools have just as deep as - or even deeper pockets than - Kentucky.
However, the difference between Kentucky and those that might - Texas A&M, Florida, Texas, and say Ohio State (just picking some schools whose coaches have been named and could afford to keep up with UK) - is that these schools consider themselves to be football schools. And as such, they pay their football coaches more than their basketball coaches.
At UK, on the other hand, we consider ourselves a basketball school (that loves football) and already pays our basketball coach more than our football coach. We - UK - don't have to worry about upping the coach's salary since it is already one of the highest (first or second) in the nation. Actually, we could most likely get some coach that most schools dream of getting for much less than we paid Mr. Smith when he was at UK.
Frankly, football schools are unlikely to pay a higher salary for their basketball coach than their football coach. But lets say they do. Or that they are willing to do so *now* to keep their current coach. Then I would bet dollars to donuts these schools will have to "adjust" the salary of their football coaches as well.
Thus, any football school willing to compete with UK "salary wise" may not only have to match or beat Kentucky's offer, but also budget money for their football coaches' salary as well. Otherwise they may risk loosing their football coach.
And that - not having to factor in other salaries to the athletic budget - is where UK has an edge in the bidding war. And why I don't feel money will be an issue for UK.