Which is why we should be praying for an AD who knows how to build programs. Not somebody who thinks you can start charging $25 a seat out of the blue.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

And that's going to happen why? Kelly is the same guy who chose Grace.
Three of the search committee have no athletic experience what so ever.
One that does, played D2 basketball and was an asst coach for three years.
None of them has ever been responsible for creating a revenue stream of any significance
Loyola doesn't pay a rate to attract a talent who can
You can have all these fantasy goals that are set forth by the committee but if you have never done these things how do you evaluate candidates
To put it in stark terms what would a business pay someone who could generate 16-17 million a year in real dollars

I'll give you every point you made, LU86: Lower/non-competitive salary, inexperienced search team, etc. However, take a look at it from the other side...

The trajectory of our ADs-- despite serious mistakes made by Calhoun-- is positive. Calhoun was much better than Planek, who was much better than Schwarz.

We're a much more attractive job today than we were five years ago. MVC, facilities, fiscal health of the university, recent national championship in men's volleyball, etc. We have terriffic intangibles, being in Chicago, the prestige of the university, and great upside. The problems we have-- at least to me-- seem a lot more easily fixed than the ones we had five years ago. I am pretty sure we'll have some much higher quality applicants than we did five years ago.

The selection committee only chooses from a narrowed field of applicants. I don't think having the ability to do the job themselves is essential.

There was probably some important learning that was done from the process that yielded Grace. I know that when I was part of a hiring team that was looking for a second transit general manager in a few years, that was certainly the case for us.

If you look back in history, there have been some hirings that have worked out very well-- it hasn't been just a series of failures. Hiring Garanzini was a brilliant hire that probably saved the university from a really dismal future. Just within the athletic department, Shane Davis, Sheryl Swoopes (so far), Andy Masur, and (to a lesser extent) Jim Whitesell were all hires that worked out very well or served as good building blocks for where we were-- even when the salaries and challenges were more daunting.

If I were a successful assistant athletic director looking to prove myself at a higher level with more responsibilities, I would jump at the Loyola job today, even if I would have had some doubts five years ago.

That's my take. I think I've been around the block with this program long enough to avoid donning rose-colored glasses, but there are a lot of unmistakable positives for this job at this point. I also get encouraged by smart young people with great attitudes like ahunte1 and GoRamblers. No matter how cynical or circumspect you might be, seeing the hosting of the NCAA Men's Volleyball Championship and coming through to win all on our home court was proof that we CAN do things right.

I look at the 99% of D1 athletics that run in the red and see a model that's broken. The new rule changes that are coming are going to strip away the facade of amateur from NCAA and force institutions to deal with some very hard economic realities. Loyola has been fortunate in its history to been at the forefront of fundamental change in the structure of how all athletics are played. This wasn't always planned but I believe the Jesuit ideals played a major role in cultivating an environment that allowed these seeds to grow and blossom. Make no mistake this is a major crossroads for the NCAA.
Loyola's response has been to follow the broken model.
I believe there are very few people inside traditional athletic structures that grasp the future and even fewer administrators inside universities who are able to comprehend what's going to happen to college athletics. Knowing the reporting structure that's in place now I see very little chance of fully realizing the positives that Loyola athletics possesses.

I am extremely encouraged by Shane Davis and what he has accomplished. It only takes about ten seconds of talking with him to realize his Loyola education has played a major role shaping his coaching style. I believe that's one of the biggest reasons for his success.
The semi-final game was the best Loyola sports environment I've been since the 80's.

86 - Your comment about revenue and AD salary intrigued me.

Football skews everything, but according to USA Today, here's a list of schools with athletics revenue from $15-17 million. These are public schools that have to report financials.

Northern Iowa ($16.9M); Albany ($16.3M); Arkansas State ($16.2M); Charleston ($15.8M); Cal-Riverside ($15.8M); UMBC ($15.5M); Long Beach St ($15.5M); Missouri State ($15.4M); Lamar ($15.4M); Murray State ($15.3M); Cal-Irvine ($15.2M); SD State ($15.1M)

On average 70% of these schools' revenue comes from "student fees, direct and indirect institutional support, and state money" aka "not generated by the department's athletics functions".

Average revenue is $15.7 million, and the average subsidy is $10.99 million.

Also they essentially make no profit.

As for AD salaries, here are salaries I could find from these schools:

Arkansas State: $190,000
San Diego State: $295,000

Forbes says the average Non-BCS AD salary is $272,989 and the median is $241,060.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

Irrefragably.

I don't know how this would work in the real world, but I think the athletic department should be funded, at least in part, from the school's marketing budget, because athletics is one of the primary ways a school brands and sells itself, keeps itself in the public eye, and connects itself to its alumni.

The success of the athletic department could then be judged not only by how much revenue it generates from ticket sales, broadcast rights, etc., but by how well it serves its broader marketing function. I'm not sure how this could be measured, but studies might track correlations between the school's success on the playing field with student applications and alumni donations.

I'm sure ahunte1 and GoRamblers could work out the details!

We are well below the avg salary.
What kind of person does that attract?
You also discovered the main reason why the current athletic model is broken. Lots of money going out and very little coming in. NCAA requires 14 programs to be D1, so you have to fund non-revenue sports. Could that be the first thing the Big 5 changes or will smaller schools pressure the NCAA to amend that number so they can try to compete in revenue sports. I do know the days of bloated staff and reckless spending are coming to an end for athletic entities.

I've never know Loyola athletics to actually have a marketing budget.