Honestly, it’s not like I take any great pleasure out of mocking Greg McGarity’s penurious tendencies. (Let’s face it, some of that comes with the job.) But, damn, when he’s the only man left in America who’s still counting on the NCAA taking steps to justify a lack of action, what’s a poor blogger to do?
McGarity and others are hoping the problem is solved soon via NCAA legislation:
• First, the amount of on-field, full-time assistant coaches could be raised to 10. Richt said earlier this month he thinks that could happen for next year, at which time he could hire a special teams coordinator.
• Secondly, McGarity thinks a hard cap will be put on the number of football staff members a program can employ. McGarity said he doesn’t know what the specific cap on football staffers will be — 25 has been thrown around — but he expects it to happen.
“The limitation on football staff is going to be a very popular item for discussion, with the way it seems like the structure of the NCAA divisions are going,” McGarity said. “I do feel like that we’re heading in that direction, sooner than later.”
Hope and the NCAA – what a concept. Hell, I don’t even follow the logic of his last point there. If the NCAA divides itself in one form or fashion, it’ll be to give the haves greater control of their ever-increasing resources. You would think in that context there would be even less pressure brought to rein in the big spenders.
I’d like to give McGarity the benefit of the doubt when he says things like this…
“You don’t add a position just because so-and-so has 10 more than you do. You don’t just add it to keep up with your competition. What are these people gonna do? Discuss their role, and then you go from there. And that’s across the board for any sport here, and any position. There’s got to be a justification process, and there can’t be School A has this, and you don’t have that. …
“If you’re living in a comparative world, it’s a hard place to be. Tell us what you need, we’ll provide that, and then we’ll move forward.”
… but first, I doubt Mark Richt’s been silent about what he wants to spend money on. I also doubt he’s gotten everything he’s asked for. But the other thing is, if McGarity insists that the extra staffing doesn’t add any value to a program, why should he care about NCAA intervention limiting the size of schools’ staff?
Ironically, I hope McGarity is proven right and the NCAA bails him out. Because the alternative is waiting a few years and then playing the inevitable game of catch up. At least the reserve fund will have grown some more by then.
Get The Picture 
What exactly are the benefits for AU and bama here?
LikeLike
Primarily recruiting. One, it takes responsibilities off the staff that can go out and recruit, freeing them to spend more time on that. Two, those high school coaches are being hired for their contacts.
LikeLike
I know the head coach and the nine assistants are the only ones who are allowed to recruit, but what is the definition of “recruit”? Does that simply mean they are the only ones who can contact recruits in any way? Are they the only ones who can contact the recruits’ families, coaches, and high school teachers/administrators as well? You say the high school coaches are being hired for their contacts (and I don’t disagree), but what are they allowed to do? Are they simply handing over names and phone numbers to the ten recruiters? Or are they allowed to work those contacts personally?
LikeLike
Recruiting is big. Prepping for games (e.g., reviewing film, planning meetings and practice duties, administrative tasks, etc.) is another area where extra staff can help. And all the extra help you’re coaching staff is getting — in recruiting or in generall — translates into more time for them to focus on high priority items.
Unfortunately, as the Senator suggests, we are probably going to be playing catch up on this front. Like so many other things…
LikeLike
I would like to know the background experience of the ‘analysts’ on Saban’s staff…bet some are more experienced in coaching ball than collecting data. McGarity could even the playing field a little here, if he would.
LikeLike
Good job pointing out McGarity’s illogical position that he’s hoping the NCAA does something about something that does not matter.
Then again, with the NCAA’s ineptitude…
LikeLike
Not sure what MG is thinking here, but if you hire some people to flesh out support positions, it is not a lifetime posting. If the rules change, the staffing can be adjusted accordingly. It seems silly not to add a few more support staff just because…
Look at how many hot coaches right now were former “support staff” at AL. Our very own new defensive staff for one.
LikeLike
The issue is not so much that we have different positions to fill than Auburn or Alabama – the difference is that while we have a bunch of students, who know nothing doing it for peanuts, Alabama and Auburn are paying former players and coaches, with greater knowledge and experience, significant money to fill those positions….
LikeLike
I thought most of us were happy not being Bama. Sounds to me McGarity is saying to us, who knows what he is saying to Mark Richt?…that if Mark Richt can justify hiring an extra “specialist” McGarity will listen.
If we WERE Bama, and apparently the Auburn that we all seem to hate, Nick or Beelzebub do not have to ask anybody’s permission to hire anybody or to do anything else, especially in the case of Saban.
What I got from what McGarity is saying is that we are not Bama.
LikeLike
Really? Then why not just say that and call it a day? Why ask the NCAA to step in?
LikeLike
Well we just brought in 2 coaches from the school we’re trying not to be….
LikeLike
McFrugal comes across as spineless weasel at times. His remarks regarding the NCAA helping out only further points in that direction. Tell us you will not hire additional analysts because you are McFrugal and be done. Stop asking others to do your dirty work.
LikeLike
Any guess as to how long McGarity and the NCAA take to level the playing field with respect to football staffing numbers? I hope making the rules for marijuana abuse consistent across the SEC in on his to do list as well. Right now those two items seem to give our opponents all they could ask for. A fair advantage.
LikeLike
My gut feeling is the state of GA (or at least one southeastern state) will follow CO and WA and legalize weed to some extent before the SEC passes any sort of drug policy.
LikeLike
Folks for once we turned Saban’s army of football analysts into a benefit for Georgia – just look at who groomed 2 of our new coaches.
LikeLike
Maybe the NCAA could mandate that it never rain when practices are scheduled thus negating the need for an IPF
LikeLike
The OBC is living in a comparative world.
(Per IPF) “But it’s good to have one. It’s good to have one in the
winter time. And really you have one because everyone else has one.”
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
So how many “football staff members” do we currently have? (I’m assuming that counts coaches?). If 25 is the likely cap, are we even close to that number? I’m ok with taking a stand against excess, but if you feel like 25 is going to be the number that’s going to be settled on, why not go ahead and staff up at least to that number?
(The last question is a rhetorical one. But if anyone does know the accurate number of current staff members, I’d be curious to know that).
LikeLike
Disregard, sorry just saw the answer in the article, my apologies.
LikeLike
I think McGarrity asking “what do all those people do?’ is not him being clueless but simply a backhanded way of suggesting to the NCAA and others that they are not doing what Bama and Auburn say they are doing. There is no need for UGA to hire people for those type of positions because there is not enough legitimate work to justify it. He is simply pointing out the absurdity of the situation and hoping that the NCAA will stop averting their eyes from the obvious. I have no doubt it will not work
LikeLike
No one argues with McFrugal about not throwing money away but his illogical approach to the IPF request from Richt is an indicator that he doesn’t get the competitive disadvantage UGA operates under (even Spurrier can understand that one.) Now he uses the NCAA as an excuse to not even address the lack of manpower.
No one knows where, or when, the NCAA will set a firm limit on staffing but it is an excellent bet it will be somewhere above where we currently are and where Bama and Auburn are. Why not at least move in that direction by adding a few? Just having more qualified people analyzing film in advance of the week of the game would be a benefit, not to mention throwing a bone toward HS coaches to improve recruiting inroads. We already work at a disadvantage to other schools with the drug/alcohol policies, why not help shore up a weakness here?
LikeLike
I have a lot of thoughts on all of this. and they go in a million directions.
the short answer is McGarity and Richt are NOT leading edge thinkers. McGarity is fond of using the phrase, “what resources do our coaches need to succeed?” that said, we don’t do anything that seems to reflect thought leadership. s
I have no idea exactly what Bama’s staff is doing. that said, it does not take a rocket scientist to estimate the range of activities (assisting recruiting, breaking down film, NFL quality control-like functions, etc).
As an outsider, it seems like it is a way of creating career opportunity for qualified people. It creates staff continuity through a reserve of coaches inside the program prepared to take full time assistant coaching position. positions. On the margin, it certainly seems to “pay for itself” because its a form of getting “poor hungry and driven” guys into the program.
McGarity thinks he is correct to ask the NCAA for clarity on such in the manner in which he has. It is fairly obvious that the NCAA is not looking at time sheets NOR auditing the function too closely. While I am sure Bama has perfected the art of paying players without getting caught, I would be flat out shocked if one surfed through email records and hard drives etc if ANY of these “analysts” were in compliance with any of the non-recruiting based rules. Not a chance. that said, the NCAA can’t police recruiting violations. they are not going to police this stuff. So simply put caps on the number of people who can work for a football program, Right?
Wrong…no matter what rule the NCAA passes, guys like Saban will figure a LEGAL way around. guys will be reclassified from being employed as analysts of the football program to analysts of the athletic dept.
what do you think oversigning is? it is a legalized way around the limit of 25 signees per year and 80 total. if you want to solve the oversigning problem, simply pass harder rules that can’t be gamed. you cant sign more than 100 guys in a rolling 5 year period, and if a guy does not qualify, tough luck, he counts. If a guy gets hurt and never enrolls, tough luck, he counts. Force guys to provide MRIs, X-rays to a centralized body before being medically disqualified. there is more than
Well, how do you solve that problem? You hire them as members of the athletic dept.
the answer to the problem is simple. IF our coaches do not benefit from the additional staff, do what we think is RIGHT and move on. Don’t worry about anyone else’s staff. On the other hand, if there is a better way, we should REDEFINE how we want to business and figure out how to do it within the rules.
Our program never seems to want to be thought leaders at anything. Forget what “everyone else is doing” for a moment. Simply put, if you were running a football program and had a blank slate, what would you do to maximize its chances of success within the MAJOR parameters (scholarships, number of coaches, inability to play players, practice hours, recruiting rules, etc.)?
More specifically, I am thinking of the wave of analytics that has transformed baseball and the NBA. think of how many three point shots are taken and the demise of the “long 2” in the NBA. My point is that we don’t do any of this.
Asking the NCAA to solve for your own laziness and complacency is an insult to all of us.
LikeLike
Dear Greg,
While your frugaglity is much appreciated, this causes me to reminisce, painfully, mind you, about UGA’s special teams the past several seasons.
If we can’t cover it, why can’t we return it? If we can’t return it, why can’t we cover it?
If we can’t justify some of these positions, why can others?
If these positions don’t help, why the need for NCAA legislation (HASH TAG – Bluto’s Credit, not mine, Reference: https://blutarsky.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/any-position-that-we-have-here-needs-to-be-justified/)
If we’re smart enough to know these positions are hog wash and provide no true benefit , why aren’t we ahead of the game in other area’s as well?
LikeLike
Sounds like what happened 50 years ago to GT and Dodd.
LikeLike
“You don’t add a position…”
To Greg, it’s all
LikeLike
Gee, and I always thought you thought it was the missionary position.
LikeLike
Any time you quote McGarity I imagine Mr. Burns rubbing his hands together saying “Excellent!”
LikeLike
Since I am not aware of the entire scope of their responsibilities, I will not rush to assume the additional football support staff members are a contributing reason for bama’s success over the past 5 years. It makes for great debate, but is the only reason we would need to grow our football staff just because bama has? Other than coaches salaries and TV exposure, what has changed about the game of football over the past 10 years to justify additional coaches (recognizing you do need sport specific strengthen & conditioning). These staff members may be an addition set of eyes in evaluation, film breakdown and statistics, however their information still funnels down to the coordinators and coach to make the final decision. If they truly add a tangible value, you would think Nick would have had at least one of them screaming in the headset to cover the last second long field goal or advise him against the risk. I mean really, isn’t that the exact situation where it would pay off the most?
LikeLike
Hope is not a strategy.
LikeLike
It is if you play the lottery 😉
Otherwise, it is not a great football strategy. I will give you that.
LikeLike
The Hell you say!
#hopeandchange
LikeLike
I’m glad you guys are finally getting it. The B-M crowd and the UGA Administration/AB/BOR are not all in with the football program winning. It’s been that way for years. They do countless things that are counter to the team’s best interests which on the surface seem small but in the aggregate are huge. Until this problem gets straightened out UGA will not be a consistent contender for the MNC or consistently win the SEC Championship, no matter who the HC is. I actually think that is the real reason why we have so much trouble getting a new HC whenever there is a HC vacancy. The guys in the know understand this and don’t want the job because of it.
LikeLike
This is everything wrong with college administrators. Abject freaking clueless-ness.
You cannot restrict employment opportunities – period. Cap the football staff, and they’ll hire them as athletic department employees. Try to legislate that, and they’ll just take them off the AD books and make them university staffers. If Saban wants to hire someone, he or she is going to get hired. If McGarity doesn’t see the need for this position or that, then he doesn’t have to create the position. But running to the NCAA and whining about it, when the NCAA has real issues to deal with, just… ticks me off.
Sorry for the rant.
LikeLike
Rant justified IMHO. As an aside, how many people work at B-M already and what do they really do? The place is packed with cronies of VD and others who have some connection to UGA sports going way back and as best one can tell these people are just hangers-on who were given a cushy job. For example, what does Mike Cavan do, really? If they made these guys actually do the things that Saban has the Bama staffers doing UGA wouldn’t have to hire anybody else. But then, maybe they are too out of touch to do the job required.
LikeLike
Putting faith in the NCAA to rule on this is hopelessly naive.
Putting faith in the NCAA to enforce such rules is hopelessly delusional.
LikeLike