That’s what I said above. That doesn’t really have anything to do with Painter’s $450k raise. That money would be there regardless of JPC contribution or not.
CMP Salary Increases? Should Be a Final 4 Bonus...
- Thread starter BoilerInChiTown
- Start date
Sure it would. If JPC needs $450K less to fund scholarships because the AD is funding an extra $450K worth of scholarships, then that’s $450K of JPC donations that can be redirected to the Alliance.
Mathematically, yes. Practically speaking, far less realistic. For starters, you'd have to somehow convey message to fans/donors that Painter's salary has been evaluated, deemed to be raise-worthy relative to his peers, but that Purdue is opting to not spend this money (thereby publicly stating you're not paying him fair market value), so that the money can be reinvested in the athletic department (and specifically, student athlete scholarships). You'd need to then parlay that with this being found-money of sorts and encourage fans to instead donate to 3rd party charity that focuses on NIL (which by the way, the coach hasn't necessarily been wildly supportive of in public statements). Further complicating things is the fact that this isn't indefinite, it's situational; you ultimately want the funds to start rolling back into the AD's office again, so you need to specify timing of all of this and when to revert. This is all aside from the question of whether average donor would even want to comply with this request. Overall, this is a hot mess... I do not envy the communications staffer in charge of crafting this.
Yes we all know that.
I’ll try to simplify this for you:
If the AD uses that same $450K to fund scholarships instead of giving it to Painter,
Then that’s $450K less that JPC has to spend on scholarships.
So, the JPC can then tell 9 donors who were going to give $50K each to JPC to send it to the Alliance instead.
So now the Alliance has $450K more to spend on NIL.
Understand now?
My point was Painter is going to get that bonus regardless of JPC contribution. If $450k less dollars go to the AD, he’s still going to get the bonus, because his bonus is not tied to JPC contribution.
As I’ve already stated, the AD should no longer crowd fund scholarships at all. They are getting $50 mil/yr extra with the new BTN deal. The AD has more than enough to self fund the scholarships and really always has. Crowd funding scholarships is a money grab by Purdue that we’ve just accepted.
Now, Purdue is never going to tell donors to stop donating. That would be dumb on their part. Donors are going to have to take the initiative themselves. Personally I’m taking what would be my normal contribution in a given year and donating half to JPC and half to the collective. If everyone followed suit, we would have one of the largest NIL funds out there and still plenty to fund the AD.
Nah, wouldn’t be that complicated.
My hypothetical question assumed that this takes place BEFORE the contract was given to Painter, so no public explanation required.
And the Alliance is already set up, and I’m sure is working closely with the JPC.
Nothing is “wrong” with it. But that contract was written before NIL blew up.
Not second guessing Mbob at all, it’s just that it might not be the best use of that $450K in the NIL world moving forward, knowing what we know now.
I don’t think you are going to see changes to coaching contracts because of NIL.
And I have been on here arguing that very thing. Donors are going to need to fill up the NIL bucket if we want to continue recruiting top 50/100 guys. Let the conference/media money take care of coaching salary and facilities. The $450k specifically, I can only assume that is a calculated retention move, a value proposition.
That Painter - $450k > next best coaching option.
If a basketball organization hypothetically has a $10 million payroll for coaches and players, how much of that should the coaches get, and how much should the players get?
Just FYI, that is not accurate on the timeline. The $450k wasn't written into his contract before NIL took off, it was just recently added in a contract amendment (unless they started this negotiation 6-9 months ago). There was a $350k base raise and a $450k bonus if he's still employed 9/1/24. See the JC article. This is why I presented the question in my earlier response whereby the school has acknowledged the need/desire to increase his pay but chooses not to, thus resulting in a communication to donors pushing funds to BAC instead.
Personally, I don't get the logic of needing to offer a retention bonus of 10-15% of his salary a mere 12 months into the future of when they're currently increasing his base salary in excess of 10% already. His total comp in 2024 will be ~25% higher than in 2021. That's hefty. Perhaps Bobinski is aware of something that fans aren't that suggests there is a flight risk here?
I personally think NIL took off on April 23, the day of the Ruiz tweet. I’d be surprised if the bonus hadn’t already been discussed by then, but either way I think it’s a valid question moving forward.
Ha. Well I think that's when NIL took off on this board certainly. But would be a dereliction of duty if university and athletic department members weren't knee deep into scenario planning by at least June 2021 when the NCAA said "have at it".
That’s not the way this works. The only set budget is the coaching/staff salaries. NIL is all about how much boosters are willing to fork over. This is not the nba where the team owners have to pay coaches and players.
Yes, it absolutely is going to be the way this works. The less you pay the coaches, the more you have left to (indirectly) pay the players.
This IS professional basketball now, like it or not, if you want to compete.
Edit: And every professional basketball organization in the world pays the players more than the coaches.
If we didn’t see the John Ruizes of the world coming a year ago, we certainly should have.
Purdue is NOT paying players. Purdue IS paying coaches. The Boiler Collective (not Purdue affiliated) IS paying players. The boiler collective is NOT paying coaches.
The money for coaches and players come from two different pools. It’s nothing like professional sports where an organization is paying BOTH players and coaches while keeping to a salary cap or to remain profitable.
It’s not 2 completely separate pools, as I’ve already demonstrated. The less Purdue pays the coaches, the more is left to pay scholarships, freeing up JPC money to go to the collective instead of paying for scholarships.
This really shouldn’t be that hard for a Purdue grad to understand…
THAT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!! Purdue doesn’t need donor money to pay coaches! They are not related.
Purdue is about to get $50 mil/yr ADDITIONAL revenue from the BTN with no additional expenses to earn that revenue.
You are correct that it shouldn’t be this hard to understand.
To the extend that the Purdue athletic department is receiving donations, it has power to influence the people writing those checks to put a different entity on the "TO" line of the check for the betterment of Purdue athletics. Obviously they cannot dip into the conference/media money or ticket revenues for NIL, which I think you both understand. What you and I both understand is that Purdue is using a portion of donation money to pay its coaches and facilities.
Last edited:
I do...
Why pay coaches millions of dollars when the money could (and would be better) spent on the slush funds for players?
Never said they need donor money to pay coaches. They can use TV/ticket revenue to pay for scholarships instead of giving it to coaches, which in turn allows the JPC to redirect funds to the collective.
Then consider it a great dereliction of duty...as there is no way that they were knee deep into it in June 2021...they weren't as of April 23, 2022 either...I am not even sure that they are knee deep into it at this point quite frankly.
That’s what I said at the beginning of all of this. Purdue should no longer be crowd funding scholarships. That much we agree on. I disagree that paying Painter a $450k bonus in 2024 has any effect on NIL. It doesn’t. He would have gotten that bonus no matter what.
Is this implying that you think a top-25 coach would work for circus peanuts by today's standards (say, $1M/year or less) if a school/collective was able to guarantee that the extra $2-$3M per year not being paid to him was instead going to fund a warchest to recruit a roster of all McDAA-level players? In other words, do you believe a coach would work for a fraction of his value in today's college hoops landscape in exchange for better players (with the assumption that better players leads to greater probability of conference and/or NCAA championships)? I don't know about that.
To act as if is an entirely separate operation is naive...it is not as if the collective is going to recruit players, just as Painter/Purdue is not directly paying them, but, they are working hand-in-hand.
Sean Miller/Will Wade made big money...but, did not need to...they were just the middle men...Wade in particular was lousy as a coach, and, Miller ultimately was as well...I guess there may be a case such as with Calipari or someone like that where the HC does matter, at least in someone's mind...but, in that players are just being bought now at the highest levels, who the HC is likely becomes far less relevant...to players, and, to Universities.
It was necessary in the past to pay a HC what was "market rate"...that will change with NIL, as, there are going to be a lot of schools where the mere thought of competing is an actual afterthought...no need in such cases to pay someone millions of dollars any longer, probably even more so the case if said school is not paying players.
That was not directly what I was saying or trying to imply, but, I do think the value of a HC is less than it was.
I am implying that I feel like players become more important with respect to where resources go...it is not collectives paying the coaches obviously. so, it won't change what a school pays ultimately, but, I do think that there will be more coaches making less than they were/are/would...much like how it works in professional sports.
Thats my whole point: that’s $450K that could have been used for scholarships, thus freeing up $450K for NIL.
You've said this "redirect" a few times to describe donors giving money directly to the collective rather than to Purdue's athletic department. Financially speaking, sure it's probably affordable for the department to pay for scholarships and coach salaries without fan donations. But you're talking about them announcing to Purdue faithful that they are so flush with cash thanks to current and future B1G media deals that it doesn't want donors to give to them any more, but rather the Purdue collective to support players. You are talking about hitching your wagon to a 3rd party that you don't actually control, even if you feel pretty good that your visions are aligned. That's not without risk. It would also discourage other NIL programs that benefit Purdue athletes from ever being launched because how could they expect to compete with a powerhouse program endorsed by the university itself? It also assumes fans/donors would support the BAC at something close to 1:1 what they're giving the athletic department today, which may be true of posters here, but might not be true more globally.
And it’s irrelevant, because Purdue can fund both scholarships and coaches salaries/raises/bonuses without donor money. They can’t donate to a collective or pay players. It will be up to donors to decide where to put their money. Purdue is not going to tell donors to stop donating.
Doesn’t change my point: there is $450K less in the collective coffers right now than there otherwise could have been.
It’s really not that complicated. A guy like Chris Clopton could grab his phone and take care of all of it in an afternoon.
I think that is the crux of the argument. How does the message that NIL needs priority funding get carried out to the folks who are currently writing checks for Purdue athletics. Outside the box thinking is needed in the post NIL world because Purdue obviously doesn't have a sugar daddy stepping forward to date. Purdue has to find a way to compete. There are a lot of smart people involved that can figure this out.
If Purdue's recruiting isn't competitive because of NIL funding failures, then they might as well hire an intern to coach the team.
Who’s to say that the Alliance won’t someday control a large chunk of the desirable tickets for FB and BB games ? “Want to be in a suite or on the 40 yard line? Call Jeff McKean…”
Lol no there isn’t. Purdue would have spent that money in a different way.
