Re: So did we rework Lunsford and the assistants contracts?

Originally Posted by
GATAlac El Dorado
This is kind of why I thought we should have started CL a little lower on his initial contract, because we would have had room to give him a decent raise for a couple of successive years if he had good success. For example, if we'd started him out at Summers' salary of $450,000 (which I can't imagine would've been a deal breaker as far as him taking the job), we could be throwing him a 20%+ raise right now, which would seem like a substantial good faith gesture after year 1. And we could do it again next year if warranted. After which he'd be at the same salary he's at today, but with the benefit to us of having "stepped up" fairly aggressively each year (plus we'd have saved around $250,000 to help fund successive raises for him or assistants). Instead, we kind of shot our wad up front to an extent and when it does come time to make a statement with a well-deserved pat on the back (and in the wallet) it will have to be more substantial.
None of that would matter relative to some giant offer from another school, but as it is, we're pretty much only able to say "thanks a lot for a good year, here's a certificate for a Christmas ham" for the moment unless we're planning on digging pretty deep or really getting aggressive.
$450K is low by conference standards. I don't see any reason we should have started that low. Right now, he's in the upper half but I think ULL and Ark St are the highest paying if I remember correctly. I'm fine with where he is now. I just don't see paying a huge raise after the first year.
Everyone that is saying pay him more appears to be doing so in order to keep him when the poachers come calling. Even if we double his current salary, anyone coming for him is going to be offering significantly more than that. So we would be wasting our time and money if that is the reason.
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive
Bookmarks