|
Post by MarshallU on Apr 19, 2013 14:50:39 GMT -8
imagine if the attendance at the women's games was closer to the Views of this thread, instead of the Replies.
|
|
|
Post by AztecPhil on Apr 19, 2013 14:51:36 GMT -8
Not a health problem. Not a recruiting violation. No players were mistreated. The actual reason is a private matter and not a secret. I ask you to stop inquiring into a private matter. It is not for public disclosure. End of discussion. I put a lot of faith in what Lee says. If it is a personal matter, it will become known if and when Beth wants it to be known. Let's get behind Jualeah and the team and wish Ms. Burns the best in her retirement.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Apr 19, 2013 15:19:19 GMT -8
I cannot believe that some on this board think that they would take money from the coaches of the women's team to give it to a coach on the men's team. Not only would it violate title 9 and cal-now but Fisher would never agree to it. I also doubt that Hutson would either. This is true, of course. If anything connected to the men's team led to Coach Burns getting upset enough to quit, then Fisher would never allow it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Apr 19, 2013 20:05:48 GMT -8
I will throw my wild ass guess into the pile. I don't think the timing of Burns retirement shortly after the Hutson announcement is purely coincidence. After the raise Hut received (compared to what his predecessor was making), I think Burns asked for a raise, it was denied, she was upset, and up and left. That is strange. But, if that actually happened San Diego State (Sterk) should have thought it out more completely. Because, now with Burns gone in order to hire a good coach will he not have to raise the base salary in order land a new coach? Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Apr 19, 2013 20:56:29 GMT -8
Truth will out. Patience. Whatever it is, it's a bummer. No doubt, it will all come out soon. Folks just need to be patient. We'll know soon enough. I have the feeling that if Brent Schrotenboer (sp) had written a story on why Beth retired, plenty here would be attacking him. We will probably find out why, then again, maybe not. Either way, it isn't going to change the fact that a great coach no longer works on the Mesa.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Apr 19, 2013 21:08:30 GMT -8
It is not an alleged NCAA violation. If it were, SDSU would have fired Burns. It is not money. It is not the return of Hudson. Geez! I understand that when you don't know what something is, you try to fill in the blanks with the worst possible scenario.
Indeed, it is private. Let's respect that. One doesn't have to announce private matters.
The team will be competitive next season. They can't replace Chelsea, Courtney, Malia, or Gabbi, but there are two fine redshirts and four incoming freshmen who will contribute right away.
I understand all the curiosity, but we don't deserve answers in this case. That's why it is called private.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 19, 2013 22:01:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Doug Drake on Apr 19, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -8
From the UT article, it sounds like she made over $250K this year. It could be about $ but it seems like she is already over paid for a sport no one cares about. Compare that to what a lot of assistant FB and BB coaches are making. Blame it on gender equity if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 19, 2013 22:54:43 GMT -8
The problem is seagull is that there is no explanation. An explanation does not have to lengthy. If its indeed private than I would like burns or sdsu to acknowledge it as such. Declined to comment given to us is not enough.
If burns would have said I retire for personal reasons than that would be enough.
No offense seagull but it needs to come Fromm her or sdsu not you.
Burns and sdsu created this by not given any explanation which allows for freelancing on possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by onelittleindian on Apr 19, 2013 23:03:12 GMT -8
WBB season ticket holders (yes, all 200 hundred us) deserve to hear from someone on the mesa if they should expect:
- business as usual in 2013-14 - some violation or investigation that may result in sanctions - that whatever the big secret is will lead to a player exodus
before they renew.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 19, 2013 23:22:35 GMT -8
If Beth Burns gets a job as a HC at a fairly prestigious school in a year or two, that will tell us something. Not sure just what it will be, but one thing is certain; if she continues coaching, the "retirement" explanation will have been shown to be spurious.
In any event, this is a very bad turn of events for Aztec women's basketball.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 20, 2013 6:02:24 GMT -8
I will throw my wild ass guess into the pile. I don't think the timing of Burns retirement shortly after the Hutson announcement is purely coincidence. After the raise Hut received (compared to what his predecessor was making), I think Burns asked for a raise, it was denied, she was upset, and up and left. That is strange. But, if that actually happened San Diego State (Sterk) should have thought it out more completely. Because, now with Burns gone in order to hire a good coach will he not have to raise the base salary in order land a new coach? Think about it. Perhaps you're giving unwarranted confidence in Sterk's competence and judgement.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 20, 2013 6:46:52 GMT -8
It is not an alleged NCAA violation. If it were, SDSU would have fired Burns. It is not money. It is not the return of Hudson. Geez! I understand that when you don't know what something is, you try to fill in the blanks with the worst possible scenario. Indeed, it is private. Let's respect that. One doesn't have to announce private matters. The team will be competitive next season. They can't replace Chelsea, Courtney, Malia, or Gabbi, but there are two fine redshirts and four incoming freshmen who will contribute right away. I understand all the curiosity, but we don't deserve answers in this case. That's why it is called private. I fully understand 'Gull, still, they should say that. The lack of anything only fuels speculation, now Rivals is starting to imply something more, whether it is true or not. The Ziegler article also fuels speculation. A simple statement that gives a little more would be sufficient, or stating that it is a very personal matter to the coach would be appropriate. Until then it calls into question the ADs leadership and the transparency of a program some of us donate a good deal to. I am personally getting concerned that there is something afoul in the department, not with Coach Burns and frankly, that concern needs to be assuaged.
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Apr 20, 2013 7:33:46 GMT -8
I take it that you have been informed on what the actual reason was? If it is a personal matter, and she decided to leave, then I agree with you, things should be left private. However, without information pointing to that, there are lots of possible explanations that *should* be made public (or at least to the donors). For example, if Sterk cut her pay (or her staff's pay) to hire back Hutson, and that drove her to leave, then I think that the people who donate to SDSU are entitled to know about that. If we want successful programs, we'd (donors) need to pony up, or help recruit more donors... (Note: The above is pure speculation, and I have no idea why she left) Just as an FYI, since Burns just signed a 5-year contract, it seems SDSU would not be able to reduce her pay even if they wanted to. Yeah they would. Similar to a company going out of business. Doesn't matter if you had a 30 year contract if the company shuts its doors your out of luck. I'm sure there were clauses in the contract about funding and state cuts that could change the contract at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Apr 20, 2013 7:39:41 GMT -8
I cannot believe that some on this board think that they would take money from the coaches of the women's team to give it to a coach on the men's team. Not only would it violate title 9 and cal-now but Fisher would never agree to it. I also doubt that Hutson would either. It doesn't matter what coach Hutson agrees to. Fisher doesn't decide where the money comes from to pay other coaches. It's competitive in this world and sometimes bosses have to make big boss decisions. I think most would agree with whatever it takes for the men's program to be successful. Now if the woman's program was actually contributing a profit to the program then something could be said for salary raises, etc...
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Apr 20, 2013 8:23:02 GMT -8
That is strange. But, if that actually happened San Diego State (Sterk) should have thought it out more completely. Because, now with Burns gone in order to hire a good coach will he not have to raise the base salary in order land a new coach? Think about it. Perhaps you're giving unwarranted confidence in Sterk's competence and judgement. Yes, because our teams are doing sooooo terrible. As AztecBill pointed out in a different thread, ONLY 12 out of 12 sports so far have winning records. Incompetent.......poor judgement. (on your part)
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 20, 2013 10:03:02 GMT -8
A thought re: Burns' "retirement." Was she making a quarter of a million? Who walks away, with no exit strategy leading to a better deal, from $250,000 a year?
I can't help but think that there is something here we are not being told.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Apr 20, 2013 10:10:18 GMT -8
I am surprised there is so much interest in this.
No offense to the ladies, but I find women's basketball to be unwatchable, it is a bad product. I much prefer women's volleyball, soccer or tennis to women's basketball.
|
|
|
Post by C'mon Man on Apr 20, 2013 10:25:18 GMT -8
Whenever someone says "no offense...but" someone is about to say something offensive. Fact of life.
|
|
|
Post by onelittleindian on Apr 20, 2013 10:36:07 GMT -8
I am surprised there is so much interest in this... Addressing the first half of your statement... This deals with the part of this whole cover-up/situation that bothers me most. Of all the comments on here, I suspect no more than a half-dozen of the commentators have attended more than two SDSU WBB games. They "care" for the sake of gossip (note: I retract this if it comes out that this is a department-wide issues that effects all donors -- again, not necessarily everyone who has commented). That said, if this is a WBB only issue, I believe those who invest in their product deserve at least a vague idea of what the deal is since, as I alluded to previously, they deserve to know what product they'll be buying tickets for in a couple weeks when those renewals get here (historically those arrive before the men's renewals, which only adds more "speculation" as in they may know something is afoul).
|
|