Rueck to renegotiate contract again?

This is interesting. Stanford reports MBB revenues of $6,971,688, WBB revenues of $21,440,365. This has to be BS. Stanford WBB attendance doesn't average 4000 per game, and I really doubt that their ticket prices are 5+ times what ours are. Something is really weird here.

Rueck netted $76,750 for the Beavers' postseason run. A victory in the Elite Eight would have garnered another $70,000, most of which would have come from another Final Four berth ($60,000).

Rueck's base compensation for the season was $611,000. It will increase to $631,000 next season and reach its high point of $879,452 in the contract's final year.

just saw that Xavier's men's coach took the Louisville job. He was a player at Xavier and coached them to a number one seed.

He's got a contract.  If he doesn't want to honor it, tell him to "hit the bricks".

If I'm reading the downloads from that ope.ed.gov site it appears they were able to bring in enough revenues to cover expenses (or vice versa) in women's basketball, at least cook teh books enough to appear they matched.

I'm thinking Scott gets another year with a nice raise on it. I assume his current planned raises remain the same unless he starts to shop around, then all bets are off.

"Do what's necessary"?? Not!

See recent history of schools overpaying for the past. To do anything that makes a coach bigger than the program or school is ludicrous. OSU is not rich. OSU is more than WBB. And, SR himself proves there are a plethora of quality coaches out there... at all levels.

SR will make close to $7mil (over his last 10 yrs) on his recent extension. Plenty.

And, if the program stops going to Sweet 16s, post seasons?

Rueck is a good coach. He's a great coach. He's been here eight seasons now with 5 straight NCAA appearances. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else) wants him fired.

I just find it crazy that we would allow him to renegotiate his contract every time he made the sweet 16, whether he wants to do it or not. To me it's no different than tacking on a year every time Riley made a bowl game. The Sweet Sixteen is not some sort of epic milestone - I can't even name all the teams in the sweet 16 in this year's men's tournament off the top of my head, and they all played less than a week ago. I'd say the football equivalent of the sweet 16 would be the third tier Pac-12 game - the Holiday Bowl. It's a good bowl (and I realize that Riley never played in it), but the rollover was added to his contract in 2009, when we were coming off four straight seasons of finishing no worse than 3rd in the Pac-12. In each of those years, I think it's reasonable to assume that Oregon State would've had a very good shot of making the final 16 if college football had a similar postseason format to college basketball. AT THE TIME in 2009, I don't think Riley's contract looked all that bad. We were on our best sustained stretch of football in at least 40 years, we were able to keep a coach who had been courted by USC, UCLA, Alabama, etc. at the lowest salary in the Pac-12, and then he had a few down years and people were like "THIS CONTRACT IS HAMSTRINGING US SO BADLY." Ironically, I think we would've owed Gary Andersen just as much if not more money than we would've owed Riley had we let him go instead of him leaving.

Let me be clear. I want Scott Rueck to be the head coach at Oregon State for as long as he wants to be the head coach at Oregon State. He is winning games now with players who were not even in the program when he made his first NCAA tournament in 2014. That means to me that, regardless of a few down years or underachieving tournament runs that we will inevitably endure in the future, he should still be our coach. I feel the same about Pat Casey, Tanya Chaplin, Jim Zalesky, and Mike Riley. All of those coaches have proven themselves to be excellent coaches regardless of who the athletes were on the field. They all gave us an excellent chance to be successful.

When we start paying coaches "whatever it takes" though, there becomes not only an expectation of reaching the highest levels of the sport, but also an almost necessity of it. We become intolerant of missed recruiting classes, unfortunate injuries, untimely transfers and we are left with a highly paid coach that is not returning results commensurate with that salary, and we're left handwringing about buyouts and the like - we extended LaVonda Wagner based on her increasing success as well. Obviously she had to go, but my guess is that she would've been here at least three more seasons with similar 4-14 conference records had she not become a rage monster that drove her entire team to transfer, based solely on the fact that it would've saved us around $1.2M to keep her on.

Then again, were it not for LaVonda's buyout, we might not have hired Rueck. The buyout probably eliminated established D-1 coaches or even assistants at big universities from consideration, leaving us with a pool of only lower division or unheralded coaches to choose from.