Bringing Back Porter

Geezaldinho wrote:One has to wonder what the accountability is with administrators at all levels in accepting the contract for a coach with no college coaching experience without a buyout clause.

Geez, I've been meaning to look into this one a little bit. Here's what I found.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2019/11/4/20946421/ncaa-basketball-head-coach-contract-salary-database-mid-major-2019-20

Above, a listing of mid-major coach contracts.

It seems like many contracts are structured in a similar fashion to Coach Porter's with 100% of the remaining salary due if the coach is terminated (I looked at 6 contracts in the same salary range - only 1 of these had a buyout clause with a reduced rate, Mullins at Southern Illinois). I wasn't sure what I'd find out when I looked at all these contracts, but it seems as if Coach Porter was given a pretty standard contract in terms of compensation, term length, and clauses.

SoCal_Pilot wrote:If Malcom doesn’t intend to stay I really don’t see why TP would have any incentive to stay past his salary, and I’m one to venture that he has plenty of cash so I really don’t see why he’d want to hang around.

P.S If the Pilots really have left D1 as Jimm claims and I didn’t notice this is REALLY embarrassing

I was being facetious with my comment that UP had left D1. Of course the WCC is D1 but the UP administration has left the D1 arena (or has UP ever been in it) in its approach in developing a D1 product. The UP non conference schedule is woefully inferior but it's a Catch 22. Play a weak non con schedule and make people think UP will be competitive in conference. UP hoodwinked the fans a couple of year's back with describing UP's recruiting "bonanza".

UP has been benefiting from the money that Gonzaga has provided to the league. I don't think the administration or the Board of Trustees really care and they are satisfied with the status quo. If Gonzaga left the WCC , UP would lose the NCAA money. If Gonzaga was closer to the Big East, they would have left a few years ago.

Porter will not resign. He's forcing the hand of the Administration.

JimmAlacki wrote:Porter will not resign. He's forcing the hand of the Administration.

Agreed. Let's see how it plays out, though - in fairness, I believe this is the first year where it is 100% certain that there needs to be a coaching change. Yes, we had a good idea last year that we were very likely headed down this road but I understood that a million-dollar buyout just wasn't going to happen. Different story now with just one year remaining on the contract. The prospect of an interim head coach has been explored in here by a few (me included) but we haven't even talked about the fact that it would be tough recruiting with no permanent head coach in place.

The point about tournament unit money is an interesting one. If my math is correct, in 2020 there will be 27 units paid to the WCC at an average of $260,000 each. Does anyone know exactly how this $7,000,000 will be divided up between the schools that earned them, the conference, and all other WCC schools?

Dean Murdoch wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:One has to wonder what the accountability is with administrators at all levels in accepting the contract for a coach with no college coaching experience without a buyout clause.

Geez, I've been meaning to look into this one a little bit. Here's what I found.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2019/11/4/20946421/ncaa-basketball-head-coach-contract-salary-database-mid-major-2019-20

Above, a listing of mid-major coach contracts.

It seems like many contracts are structured in a similar fashion to Coach Porter's with 100% of the remaining salary due if the coach is terminated (I looked at 6 contracts in the same salary range - only 1 of these had a buyout clause with a reduced rate, Mullins at Southern Illinois). I wasn't sure what I'd find out when I looked at all these contracts, but it seems as if Coach Porter was given a pretty standard contract in terms of compensation, term length, and clauses.

So are we to assume no administrator has done anything negligent(or for which accountability should occur) despite the program now being in a near existential crisis created by a contract that the "administrators"negotiated and approved, but that they cannot buy out and given that the coach refuses to quit we continue along this absurd path now over a year long in which loss after mind numbing loss just happens? The fact that revenues are diminishing, the fact that the Pilots are losing fans, the fact that the repair of this program, if it ever occurs, is being set back is a consequence that a more adroit administrator might not have avoided with some foresight about the length and amount of the contract given the resources of the program?

I am not sure of your conclusions about average--admittedly my review of the document you link was brief but I am not sure this is an average contract, nor am I sure average is relevant depending which institutions are used to reach that conclusion. Is 5 rather than four years the norm? For a school our size and with our attendance it appears the administrators made too great a financial commitment. The PSU Vikings coach, for example, appears to be making half what Porter makes and that with part of his contract being paid by Nike, though I think their program might have been looked upon as somewhat weaker than the Pilots, prior to Porter.

It seems "self evident" that the truth of the matter is someone has screwed up, at least to some degree or we wouldn't be where we are.

In deference to the administrators I give them that this was hard to foresee given the excitement over Porter's hiring--I do not claim to have known this was coming and admit that I was pleased with the Porter hiring, even continued my season tickets until this year. But I do not think we can assume a wiser course might not have been pursued by an administrator more concerned about an over commitment of resources that occurred when they signed this contract with Porter.

When I moved here, I sometimes wondered why UP did certain things it did. As often as not, the answer you got back was “ because that’s the way they do it at Norte Dame” in recognition of the close ties and interchange of  presidents and other administrators. Every recent President, for instance has come from Notre Dame in the recent past almost immediately prior to their stint at UP and then go back there for other positions in the order.

Which makes the position that UP won’t fix a clear error all the more puzzling. Sports is what put ND in the national spotlight and made the university what it is today.
Notre Dame has regularly paid big bucks to get rid of coaches that were underperforming. The paid out Tyrone Willingham about $1.4 million of his remaining contract so he could go to UW and get bought out for a similar amount there. He reportedly plays a lot of golf now.

But the big example, of course, is Charley Weis, who was paid $18.97 million dollars to go away between 2009 when he was fired and 2015. At the time he was fired, ND’s athletic budget was around $80 million. Another source seems to indicate that was the football budget.

Either way, ND paid a guy a quarter of its budget to go away.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/15/notre-dame-buyout-charlie-weis/101708588/

An interesting quote from ND VP Jackswarbrick:

“ Everything we do here is threading that needle of: How can athletics do what it needs to do to compete, but also serve the broader community?” Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick said. “It’s an interesting balance, and what dictates our ability to do any of it depends on those cultural underpinnings.”

Geezaldinho wrote:But the big example, of course, is Charley Weis, who was paid $18.97 million dollars to go away between 2009 when he was fired and 2015. At the time he was fired, ND’s athletic budget was around $80 million. Another source seems to indicate that was the football budget.

Either way, ND paid a guy a quarter of its budget to go away.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/05/15/notre-dame-buyout-charlie-weis/101708588/

Actually, that $18.9M was paid over seven years. If ND's budget was $80M each year, and I am sure it was more than that, then the buyouts averaged 3.4% of the budget. Doesn't change the conclusion that ND makes changes when they need to.

Replies:

WRV: But I do not think we can assume a wiser course might not have been pursued by an administrator more concerned about an over commitment of resources that occurred when they signed this contract with Porter.
REPLY ^ This is exactly the point and why most of this ends up on the door step of administration. UP either didn't/doesn't have the money but were betting there wouldn't be a worst case scenario (or just ignored it)...

    OR they have the buyout $$ in hand and those folks filling DD's ears with "we are stuck because we have no money" are just hurting the University's "brand" for no good reason by verbalizing incorrect information that makes the administration look totally inept.

    Which all leads to my earlier point - bad luck? poor judgement/poor execution? or wrong arena?  Looks like Door #2 to me regardless how this turns out.

Jimmer: Porter will not resign. He's forcing the hand of the Administration.
REPLY: Like many on this forum, I'd hope there is an amicable way to end this but if Porter wants the contract fulfilled to the letter I can't say that I'd necessarily blame him. After all its UP that wants to change the terms.  Without going into detail, it's really hard to negotiate changes at the end of a contract than it would have been, say, last year on a more pro-active basis.  

Deano - Does anyone know exactly how this $7,000,000 will be divided up between the schools that earned them, the conference, and all other WCC schools?
REPLY: My vague recollection that the units pay out over 6-7 years and until GU demanded a different accounting the money was divided equally - as a good Judeo-Christian based organization should.  I don't believe they changed the payouts retroactively but that might be wrong. The payouts going forward are still shared among all members but more goes to the actual  NCAA representative and that percentage to that member increases the further they go through the tournament.  As a side note, one reason GU didn't leave the WCC (outside of the fact they negotiated a perfect deal for themselves) was that they would have been cut out of all the forward payments they had earned for the WCC in the past 6-7 years. Too big a money bag to get left behind.

Geezo - Either way, ND paid a guy a quarter of its budget to go away.
REPLY:  Classic case of an organization that knows they have build a brand equity and are proactive in protecting it. No question it is easier at ND in many ways (and also tougher) but regards of the organization, engagement with one's external customers takes hard work and accountability.  Work that seems like too much effort for our current administration.  Part of me has always felt that need for athletic competition among the hierarchy of the University was always sub-let out to Notre Dame. Historically it has always seemed that many of the people in charge care more about how the Irish are doing versus the Pilots. It's hard when the people with the most accountability don't really care because their allegiance is elsewhere.  If one doesn't think they can be great, they won't be.

wrv wrote:So are we to assume no administrator has done anything negligent(or for which accountability should occur) despite the program now being in a near existential crisis created by a contract that the "administrators"negotiated and approved, but that they cannot buy out and given that the coach refuses to quit we continue along this absurd path now over a year long in which loss after mind numbing loss just happens?

If that's the direction you want to take that info, go ahead.

For full disclosure, here's the contracts I looked at. I missed Gottfried's buyout the first time around, though with his extra year it would actually cost more to buy him out after Year 4 than it would to buy out Porter.

Hutson, Fresno State - $535,000 for 5 years, no buyout
McCasland, North Texas - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Nagy, Wright State - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Porter, Portland - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Gottfried, CSU Northridge - $500,000 for 6 years. Buyout is 75% of all remaining salary.
Mullins, Missouri Valley - $475,000 for 5 years. Buyout $650K after Year 2, $500K after Year 3, $250K after Year 4.
Rhoades, VCU - $459,000 for 6 years, no buyout
Sanchez, UNC Charlotte - $450,000 for 5 years, no buyout

wrv wrote:I am not sure of your conclusions about average--admittedly my review of the document you link was brief but I am not sure this is an average contract, nor am I sure average is relevant depending which institutions are used to reach that conclusion. Is 5 rather than four years the norm? For a school our size and with our attendance it appears the administrators made too great a financial commitment.

I'm some random idiot posting on a message board and was able to find all this stuff, so you can damn well be sure that Porter and his representation knew that contracts with no buyout clauses were much more common than ones with them. What possible reason would Porter have to accept a discount on term or compensation if he didn't need to? (I only looked at 8 - if someone else wants to look at more and let me know that buyouts are more common than they seem to be on first glance, then by all means have at 'er and let me know)

There was nothing wrong with hiring Coach Porter or with the contract he signed. We liked the hire for the most part, opposing WCC schools were impressed with the hire, and it seemed like a great fit all around. After four seasons it's clearly not, but let's not use hindsight to suggest the Pilots "made too great a financial commitment." I'd be shocked if Porter's salary ranked in the top half of WCC coaches, so if that's too much to pay then the Pilots need to get out of the game.

It's obvious that change is needed. Let's see what happens.

Dean Murdoch wrote:

wrv wrote:So are we to assume no administrator has done anything negligent(or for which accountability should occur) despite the program now being in a near existential crisis created by a contract that the "administrators"negotiated and approved, but that they cannot buy out and given that the coach refuses to quit we continue along this absurd path now over a year long in which loss after mind numbing loss just happens?

If that's the direction you want to take that info, go ahead.

For full disclosure, here's the contracts I looked at. I missed Gottfried's buyout the first time around, though with his extra year it would actually cost more to buy him out after Year 4 than it would to buy out Porter.

Hutson, Fresno State - $535,000 for 5 years, no buyout
McCasland, North Texas - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Nagy, Wright State - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Porter, Portland - $500,000 for 5 years, no buyout
Gottfried, CSU Northridge - $500,000 for 6 years. Buyout is 75% of all remaining salary.
Mullins, Missouri Valley - $475,000 for 5 years. Buyout $650K after Year 2, $500K after Year 3, $250K after Year 4.
Rhoades, VCU - $459,000 for 6 years, no buyout
Sanchez, UNC Charlotte - $450,000 for 5 years, no buyout

wrv wrote:I am not sure of your conclusions about average--admittedly my review of the document you link was brief but I am not sure this is an average contract, nor am I sure average is relevant depending which institutions are used to reach that conclusion. Is 5 rather than four years the norm? For a school our size and with our attendance it appears the administrators made too great a financial commitment.

I'm some random idiot posting on a message board and was able to find all this stuff, so you can damn well be sure that Porter and his representation knew that contracts with no buyout clauses were much more common than ones with them. What possible reason would Porter have to accept a discount on term or compensation if he didn't need to? (I only looked at 8 - if someone else wants to look at more and let me know that buyouts are more common than they seem to be on first glance, then by all means have at 'er and let me know)

There was nothing wrong with hiring Coach Porter or with the contract he signed. We liked the hire for the most part, opposing WCC schools were impressed with the hire, and it seemed like a great fit all around. After four seasons it's clearly not, but let's not use hindsight to suggest the Pilots "made too great a financial commitment." I'd be shocked if Porter's salary ranked in the top half of WCC coaches, so if that's too much to pay then the Pilots need to get out of the game.

It's obvious that change is needed. Let's see what happens.

We agree change is needed. I differ with the analysis of the contract based on it having no buyout clause; I do not contest that a buyout clause was rarely used by D1 mid-majors when this contract was signed. To appreciate the quality of the deal with Porter, however, one needs to include consideration of the resources of the program entering into the deal, its attendance at games, and other factors. Paying Porter, or any coach, $500,000 annually may not be remarkable for Fresno State, nor VCU nor other institutions listed by you, but it damn well was for the U of Portland Pilots, too much. And that on top of whatever they guaranteed to Coach Cantu. A buyout clause is one factor, there are more germane considerations.

If leadership leads a program into a chasm, as is the apparent case here, you have to look to leadership to hold them, the administrators, accountable in some fashion. To do otherwise risks white washing the circumstances. If we are unable to extricate the program from this decay, by definition the administrators did not build contingencies into their plan, and that is reality.

My question is how does UP measure up against the LMU Pacific Pepperdine type programs in financial resources they can devote to the program. Nobody is expecting them to compete with Gonzaga BYU St Mary's but losing 33 of 34 shouldn't happen.

I believe UP only spends about $300k less than St. Mary's on MBB. I have not looked this up just now so I don't recall if this is a recent number or even accurate. Our spending is not far off from being competitive.

I don't believe it's bad luck that's gotten is where we are, but to get to St. Mary's or Gonzaga's level is going to take some good luck. We should be competitive without luck, but getting into the top 3 at it's current level will involve some luck. I think we should be able to avoid abysmal coaches if we screen properly. Landing an excellent coach like Mark Few or Clive Charles usually involves some luck. As the program grows the compensation of those coaches grows as well. It's not like one season Gonzaga decided to start spending $10mm vs $3mm. They got somewhat lucky and few over time. With a budget like they have now they should be able to hire who they want when Few finally retires assuming who they want isn't already a career coach at another major program.

Going with a relatively young coach with a winning record is the best chance to get "lucky" and get far more than you pay for. Last time around I suggested we take a look at hiring Stoudamire off of Memphis, but Pacific got to him first. It's yet to be seen, but so far it appears to be he's a solid, but not top tier coach. Certainly better than what we got.

I've got nobody on my list yet this time.

bobtcat2 wrote:My question is how does UP measure up against the LMU Pacific Pepperdine type programs in financial resources they can devote to the program.   Nobody is expecting them to compete with Gonzaga BYU St Mary's but losing 33 of 34 shouldn't happen.

Well, I just looked  at St Mary’s, they being the closest to UP in size and total budget, and it is somewhat revealing. Their athletic budget is similar to ours. The EADA database shows they spend a about $20k less for recruiting  and about the same more for team expenses. We pay our AD about $110K more, according to each schools form 990.

SMC’s total operating expenses for Men’s basketball is a bit over $4.2 million compared to UP’s just under $3 million.

And Randy Bennet  gets About $790k compared to Porter’s $456k on the last form
Randy’s assistant Martin Clark rang the form 990 bell for a little over $262k, and we have no way of knowing what the other assistants make for either school.

We do know no UP assistant makes more than $100k, because that’s the lowest salary that must be  reported on form 990.

The difference between UP and Pepperdine is harder to gauge. Most expenses seem similar. The Eada site shows they budget about $750k more for men’s basketball,  but Lorenzo Romar’s package is hard to figure, since the $3.4 million UW buyout and the $400K Arizona buyout must figure in how much Pepperdine had to pay to get him back. He was looking for a place to land at the right time.  Maybe Spoelstra needs a change of pace.

LMU budgets about $850k more for men’s basketball.

What is frustrating knowing that the success of Gonzaga was the result of local kids. You had Santangelo, and Steppe from Oregon and Gourde, Dickau, Frahm and Derek Raivio from across the river in Clark County

Recruiting w an interim coach was mentioned above as difficult. Yes, it is hard but would be better than sticking with TP. An interim coach would be highly motivated to prove themselves as a possible TP replacement, for one. As a result, they'd work considerably harder than a lame duck Porter. And kids would see that the interim coach has a chance to be full time...TP doesnt.

Recruiting has been horrible w TP primarily because he doesn't have the experience, connections and drive required in college hoops. An interim coach who has been in the college game for decades would be far better than status quo. We all know that a new multi year coach would be optimal, but if the powers that be don't have the wherewithal to make it happen, then interim it should be.

John Canzano wrote:I’m a big believer in finishing what you start. But when it comes to the case of University of Portland and men’s basketball coach Terry Porter, I’m pulling for the experiment to somehow come to a humane end.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/02/canzano-time-for-a-humane-end-to-terry-porters-tough-tenure-at-university-of-portland.html

DoubleDipper wrote:

John Canzano wrote:I’m a big believer in finishing what you start. But when it comes to the case of University of Portland and men’s basketball coach Terry Porter, I’m pulling for the experiment to somehow come to a humane end.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/02/canzano-time-for-a-humane-end-to-terry-porters-tough-tenure-at-university-of-portland.html

2XDip: As a connected person in the know, the question I have for you is has the administration the "found" the money to make the Canzano dream happen regardless or is UP's administration banking/praying that Terry Porter is a nice guy and will just walk away and leave his owed money on the table?  I know earlier in the thread you were told by multiple insiders they didn't have the resources -- has that changed since then?  Thanks in advance!

DoubleDipper wrote:

John Canzano wrote:I’m a big believer in finishing what you start. But when it comes to the case of University of Portland and men’s basketball coach Terry Porter, I’m pulling for the experiment to somehow come to a humane end.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/02/canzano-time-for-a-humane-end-to-terry-porters-tough-tenure-at-university-of-portland.html

I’m struggling with Canzano’s idea that somehow boosters are an impediment to ending Porter’s tenure.

I don’t know anyone who thinks this is working

lomiton wrote:

2XDip: As a connected person in the know, the question I have for you is has the administration the "found" the money to make the Canzano dream happen regardless or is UP's administration banking/praying that Terry Porter is a nice guy and will just walk away and leave his owed money on the table?  I know earlier in the thread you were told by multiple insiders they didn't have the resources -- has that changed since then?  Thanks in advance!

DoubleDipper wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:I still hold out a glimmer of hope someone will do the right thing.

After speaking with even more folks in the administration I am convinced UP will NOT buy-out the remainder of TP's contract.

However, like Geezer, I too believe it is still possible that others will earmark money to UP for only one purpose, TP's "retirement" back to the Portland Trail Blazer community after four years coaching his sons.

So, the administration, no. But I am aware there are efforts ongoing.

Geezaldinho wrote:I’m struggling with Canzano’s idea that somehow boosters are an impediment to ending Porter’s tenure.

I don’t know anyone who thinks this is working

My first thought as well. That, and this line - “But the hire of Porter wasn’t really about winning a pile of games, was it?” - cripes, I would hope the intent was to win games.

On the whole, though, mostly words that needed to be said. I appreciate Canzano’s piece here.

Dean Murdoch wrote:My first thought as well. That, and this line - “But the hire of Porter wasn’t really about winning a pile of games, was it?” - cripes, I would hope the intent was to win games.

The full graph: "They were strong words. Ones underscored today because the Pilots woke up all alone in dead last. Porter’s predecessor, Eric Reveno, never finished in the basement. Reveno twice was third in the WCC and finished fifth or better in half of his 10 seasons. He eventually got fired. But the hire of Porter wasn’t really about winning a pile of games, was it? It was about selling tickets, and fostering gift-giving from the donors in purple, and about a father wanting to coach his sons."

Selling tickets, yes. That's why other UP coaches have been fired. Even if they won some games, there weren't enough fans in the seats. Fostering gift-giving? A video sent to top donors three days ago featuring TP's review and preview of games has 10 views. Not much interest there. Coaching his sons? Maybe for Porter, but not for anyone else. This wasn't hiring Wayne Tinkle to get Tres Tinkle. Maybe we should have hired Michael Porter Sr. if that was a factor in the hiring decision.

To my reading, the Canzano article was a snow piece for the sole benefit of the AD/school admin.

Mission 1: Recasting the original hiring (and subsequent results) with reasoning well beyond wins and losses. (Which is laughable at almost any level but was done to minimize blame).

Mission 2: Put public pressure on Porter to cut a deal to get out before tarnishing his reputation further. (Guilt)

Mission 3: Set up blame that if Porter stays for year 5, it won't be because UP admin didn't have the money to address situation, rather monied boosters don't care about how the Pilots fare but rather their selfish hero infatuation access to an All-Pro ex-Blazer. (Guilt AND blame if things don't go to plan)

All this works for Canzano because he gets to take a break from turning up the heat on Blazers/Beavs/Ducks (which has its costs) and allows him to turn the heat up on someone else for a change. And if everyone follows his recommendations it will give him yet another shining example of how the Canzano media empire has the influence to drive the narrative in Oregon sports.

That all said, if the Canzano plan comes to fruition, that's probably everyone's best case scenario. So we might as well wish for it too. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone will survive unscathed as my guess is if boosters have their backs shoved up against the wall for this ransom note they are going be donating with plenty of "strings attached."

Geezaldinho wrote:I’m struggling with Canzano’s idea that somehow boosters are an impediment to ending Porter’s tenure.

Like Canzano, I’ve spoken to a few deep-pocketed folks who, like most of us, consider him a “great guy.”  As a result, they have no problem donating to the university while TP continues to be the head coach.  When I mentioned to one booster, a TP golfing buddy, that UP was NOT likely to buy-out TP’s contract, he was ecstatic.

I wouldn’t worry though; I get the impression most loyal boosters will continue to support the university after TP has retired, and even more will return when that happens.

Here's my question:   What could possibly motivate Terry Porter to stay for another year?  I don't think he needs the money.  His kids will both be gone (likely anyway).  Most of his fans either don't know or have forgotten that he's our coach.  If he stays, it's another year of purgatory, if not hell itself - loss after loss, frustration, rationalization, humiliation, time and travel commitments....  What can you say at all those speaking engagements when you're lucky to have one quality win a season.   Maybe we've got it all wrong.  Maybe Terry's biggest concern is the AD will have some specious reasons why he wants Terry to stay another year, when all he wants to do is go home, crack open one of those porters with his name on the label, sit in the recliner, and forget this ever happened.  I looked up Michael Holton's bio a few years ago - not a single thing about his four years at UP.  Why wouldn't that be Terry's attitude as well?

Bull: what you write is completely logical - however I know lots of people with I'm guessing more money than Coach Porter, who if contractually owed money, wouldn't walk for anything less than the full payout. And if wouldn't matter what hell they'd have to go thru to collect it either.

For him to get most, if not all, of his money, he has to be mentally ready to do year 5. That's his leverage - and his contractual right. Guess we'll find out soon enough if he's going to use it.

The past four years have been a real challenge for Terry Porter and Pilot fans. This formula is clearly not working. But, let’s allow the season to conclude before we start speculating about next year. Porter is a class act. I’ve listened to him speak dozens of times at Pilot basketball events. I’m firmly convinced he and the AD will part on mutually agreeable terms. We’re fortunate to have an AD of the quality of Scott Leykam. He’s a pro and he’ll guide us out of this unfortunate position. Leykam has made very successful hires in men’s and women’s soccer, volleyball, baseball and women’s basketball. He’ll get it right this time. I lobbied four years ago for a young, hungry coach. I liked Matt Logie at Whitworth who had a nearly .900 winning percentage. He’s now at D2 Point Loma. Next year will be a fresh start and we can dream of better times ahead. In the meantime, GO PILOTS!!