To my knowledge, deferred compensation is listed in the 990 form. The total compensation adds salary, benefits, perks for cars, housing, and country clubs, and deferred compensation. It is not unusual to have deferred compensation, because after one retires, they may be in a lower tax bracket. We will know more about Geno's compensation when the 990 form for 2013 is filed. Beside Guidestar.com, any person has a right to go to Bradley and ask for a copy of the most recent 990 form. All non profits are required by law to provide that information upon request. You would be enlightened by how well some non profit organizations pay certain employees.
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Embarrassing Bradley stat
- Thread starter LittleBrave
- Start date
To my knowledge, deferred compensation is listed in the 990 form. The total compensation adds salary, benefits, perks for cars, housing, and country clubs, and deferred compensation. It is not unusual to have deferred compensation, because after one retires, they may be in a lower tax bracket. We will know more about Geno's compensation when the 990 form for 2013 is filed. Beside Guidestar.com, any person has a right to go to Bradley and ask for a copy of the most recent 990 form. All non profits are required by law to provide that information upon request. You would be enlightened by how well some non profit organizations pay certain employees.
tornado
New member
cpac - he is right -- the RPI of course fluctuates and may have momentarily dropped lower at some point but no year in the JL era did we finish with an RPI any lower than 227.
In fact if the RPI stays at 240 it will mean 2 of the worst 4 RPI's BU has ever had have come in the past 3 seasons, and 3 of the worst nine have all happened in the past 3 seasons
Here is what I said yesterday that you took issue with:
Our current RPI (RPI 240) is worse than it was at any time during the Jim Les era.
That was researched, and is 100% factually correct.
If you are going to say I am not correct, then show the proof.
Here are all of Bradley's RPI's over the last 35 years. On this site, the RPI is in the 3rd column from the right-
http://www.bbstate.com/teams/BRAD/history
Geno Ford era-
Year........RPI
2013-14 242
2012-13 191
2011-12 266
Jim Les era-
Year........RPI
2010-11 227
2009-10 101
2008-09 103
2007-08 107
2006-07 38
2005-06 39
2004-05 142
2003-04 166
2002-03 199
As can clearly be seen, Bradley's current RPI, which has now dropped to 242, is significantly worse than any of the RPI's during Jim Les' time at Bradley 2002-03 through 2010-11).
So I have provided absolute proof that my statement was correct. Where is your proof? Unless you can show where I was wrong, I think you owe me an apology.
In the 2010-2011 season, Bradley's RPI was greater than 240 several times
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2011/schedule/Bradley
Week 5 of the season it was 284
Week 9 of the season it was 241
Week 10 of the season it was 248
Week 11 of the season it was 253
Week 12 of the season it was 257
Week 13 of the season it was 274
Week 14 of the season it was 249
Week 17 of the season it was 243
Our current RPI (RPI 240) is worse than it was at any time during the Jim Les era.
The above is my proof.
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2011/schedule/Bradley
Week 5 of the season it was 284
Week 9 of the season it was 241
Week 10 of the season it was 248
Week 11 of the season it was 253
Week 12 of the season it was 257
Week 13 of the season it was 274
Week 14 of the season it was 249
Week 17 of the season it was 243
Our current RPI (RPI 240) is worse than it was at any time during the Jim Les era.
The above is my proof.
Oh, I see what you are doing. You are cherry picking and parsing selected points during that 2010-11 season, when we all knew the team was handicapped by the loss of 2 All-MVC starters. I am sure if you are going to do that, we could probably cherry pick other points early in some seasons where the RPI was high, but I apologize if the way it was worded caused confusion for you, even though I am certain you knew exactly what was meant.
I guess I should never be surprised when somebody goes to extraordinary extremes to try to prove that something I said was not quite accurate. But, as you surely know, and as everyone else knows, I was referring to the information posted above, which is still factually correct and I stand by it- that the current RPI (242), as well as the RPI in Geno's first full season (266) are both significantly worse than the RPI in any season under Jim Les.
And that is despite the fact it cannot be blamed on injuries, as the 2010-11 season clearly was.
I guess I should never be surprised when somebody goes to extraordinary extremes to try to prove that something I said was not quite accurate. But, as you surely know, and as everyone else knows, I was referring to the information posted above, which is still factually correct and I stand by it- that the current RPI (242), as well as the RPI in Geno's first full season (266) are both significantly worse than the RPI in any season under Jim Les.
And that is despite the fact it cannot be blamed on injuries, as the 2010-11 season clearly was.
1 - Cpacmel is right. There were times under the previous coach's tenure, where our RPI was lower.
Per DC's own words: "Our current RPI (RPI 240) is worse than it was at any time during the Jim Les era."
If he had said, "...is worse than it was at the end of the season during the Jim Les era," then sure. He'd be right. But he compares mid-season RPI to end-season RPI. DC you may end up being right; but we won't know until the season is over, will we?
As for cherry picking, I see your claim of cherry picking and raise you a healthy dose of excuse-making.
No apologies necessary for clearing up this confusion. Just happy to help.
2 - It saddens me greatly that an ISU fan is on a board dedicated to bradley fans, and is the one defending our current coach and team. How far has this board fallen?
Per DC's own words: "Our current RPI (RPI 240) is worse than it was at any time during the Jim Les era."
If he had said, "...is worse than it was at the end of the season during the Jim Les era," then sure. He'd be right. But he compares mid-season RPI to end-season RPI. DC you may end up being right; but we won't know until the season is over, will we?
As for cherry picking, I see your claim of cherry picking and raise you a healthy dose of excuse-making.
No apologies necessary for clearing up this confusion. Just happy to help.
2 - It saddens me greatly that an ISU fan is on a board dedicated to bradley fans, and is the one defending our current coach and team. How far has this board fallen?
You can take whatever side you want, and believe whatever you want. And maybe you are happy with where Bradley is as we near the end of year 3.
As I said, everyone, including cpacmel knew what was meant and the facts are there for all to see. Maybe you guys might want to check my punctuation too and see if that somehow disqualifies the facts I posted.
Here are the facts you want to ignore:
Bradley has an RPI of 242. For this point, near the end of season 3, that is terrible and unacceptable to most Bradley fans. That is worse than any full-season RPI since the 2001-2002 season.
We are battling to stay out of a 3rd straight Thursday night play-in game since the coaching change- no coach in Bradley history has ever played 3 straight years in a play-in game.
By the end of this season, Bradley will have averaged 20+ losses over the last 3 years. No coach in the 111 year history of Bradley has ever averaged 20 or more losses over any 3 year period.
I could list many more "firsts", but then you'd probably then have to spend too much time parsing out the statements to try to find some flaw in them that is irrelevant to the point.
And I have no doubt that an ISU fan is quite happy to see the Bradley program where it is, and would like to see it stay that way.
As I said, everyone, including cpacmel knew what was meant and the facts are there for all to see. Maybe you guys might want to check my punctuation too and see if that somehow disqualifies the facts I posted.
Here are the facts you want to ignore:
Bradley has an RPI of 242. For this point, near the end of season 3, that is terrible and unacceptable to most Bradley fans. That is worse than any full-season RPI since the 2001-2002 season.
We are battling to stay out of a 3rd straight Thursday night play-in game since the coaching change- no coach in Bradley history has ever played 3 straight years in a play-in game.
By the end of this season, Bradley will have averaged 20+ losses over the last 3 years. No coach in the 111 year history of Bradley has ever averaged 20 or more losses over any 3 year period.
I could list many more "firsts", but then you'd probably then have to spend too much time parsing out the statements to try to find some flaw in them that is irrelevant to the point.
And I have no doubt that an ISU fan is quite happy to see the Bradley program where it is, and would like to see it stay that way.
Way to go Da Coach! Way to stir the pot. I can't believe some are trying to pick things apart with irrelevant stuff. Nothing they say can negate the point that Bradley is way worse now than promised.
As you've shown, it is sad to see how far this program has fallen.
Loyola's RPI is like 280, but we are listed as underdogs there tomorrow. I can't believe there are any fans who are happy with that.
Thanks to Da Coach for all the great information he provides us. I wouldn't skip a day without checking in here. This is a great place!
As you've shown, it is sad to see how far this program has fallen.
Loyola's RPI is like 280, but we are listed as underdogs there tomorrow. I can't believe there are any fans who are happy with that.
Thanks to Da Coach for all the great information he provides us. I wouldn't skip a day without checking in here. This is a great place!
Finding mid season rpi to make a point about rpi is embarrassing. Clearly when evaluating rpi the end of season number is the one that matters.
Years ago maybe even in the Waltman era Indiana state had the #1 rpi in the country in week 1.
Point being rpi totals should only be recognized at the end of the year.
This team is bad. Last years team was bad. Year 1 was bad. Les's 1st 3 years and his last year were pretty bad with a few solid years in the middle.
These last 4 years however have been unbearable to watch
Years ago maybe even in the Waltman era Indiana state had the #1 rpi in the country in week 1.
Point being rpi totals should only be recognized at the end of the year.
This team is bad. Last years team was bad. Year 1 was bad. Les's 1st 3 years and his last year were pretty bad with a few solid years in the middle.
These last 4 years however have been unbearable to watch
There will not be a coaching change until Geno's contract is over. Bradley cannot afford to buy Geno out of his contract. I still have hope things will improve next season, but realistically I expect more of the same. The most important ingredient in the success of a basketball program is how well you recruit.
I did not cherry pick anything.
You said at any time during Jim Les era. For 6 weeks in a row in the 2010-2011 season, the RPI is worse. THAT IS A FACT.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not sticking up for Ford over Les. Just sticking up for the FACTS. Something that IMO, is a short in this debate
.It is alittle strange that the comparison your making is Geno Ford's 14th week in this season vs Jim Les' FINAL RPI's for all his seasons though.
But whatever. Carry on....
Weren't you just a little bit embarrassed to make such a miniscule, picky point?
Again, I apologize if the way the statement was worded confused you, but you did know what was meant, didn't you? It seems everyone else did.
I have not fudged any facts like Bravetime33 did by claiming Jim Les had only 8 road wins his first 3 years. I carefully research every fact I post.
And no I did not check the week-by-week RPI, because quite simply, nobody would ever think that was what was meant, and as BU212121 said, it is completely irrelevant.
The reason I am using the current RPI for Bradley is pretty simple. That is all we have right now. We do not have the end-of-year RPI yet. Again, I suspect everyone here, including you, actually knew that, but then there wouldn't be any picky little gotcha-minutia to harp about.
Most message boards would classify your whole issue as flaming or trolling, so be warned, it is against our rules here.
Again, I apologize if the way the statement was worded confused you, but you did know what was meant, didn't you? It seems everyone else did.
I have not fudged any facts like Bravetime33 did by claiming Jim Les had only 8 road wins his first 3 years. I carefully research every fact I post.
And no I did not check the week-by-week RPI, because quite simply, nobody would ever think that was what was meant, and as BU212121 said, it is completely irrelevant.
The reason I am using the current RPI for Bradley is pretty simple. That is all we have right now. We do not have the end-of-year RPI yet. Again, I suspect everyone here, including you, actually knew that, but then there wouldn't be any picky little gotcha-minutia to harp about.
Most message boards would classify your whole issue as flaming or trolling, so be warned, it is against our rules here.
tornado
New member
when a fan's greater concern is "how far has a board fallen" and not --
how far has the program fallen then I think we have a fan who cares little about the program and only about nitpicking...
My concern is the program. We have divergent views about what its future is. I am completely comfortable with that, my views shouldn't really be relevant on what yours are. I know yours don't really matter to me.
I also know that you were distorting facts. Call it nitpicking if you'd like, if that makes you feel better about misrepresenting truth to try to make a point, that's cool. You are eloquent enough in other posts that I don't buy it was a simple typo. I don't find Cpacmel's research to be silly at all. I really don't need to get in a fight about it, and I sleep well at night.
As for this - or any - board, I can and will comment on them when i'm on them. I rarely come here anymore due to the overwhelming negativity surrounding the coach, the administration, the attendance, etc. etc. It used to be a positive place I enjoyed reading, but the shift in tone coincidentally coincided with a coaching change. And that shift has driven me, and many others, away. But I'm a solid Libertarian, and I strongly support the owners rights to say whatever they want on this board.
Now, as for the root of your posts - you're not happy with where the program is. Neither am I. But just as I advocated for the last coach to get plenty of time to make his mark, I am doing the same for coach Ford. If he proves he can't get it done, then I won't be shedding a tear when he's gone. I think he deserves at least one more year, and probably two. That's my opinion.
I also don't think that the timing or even overall decision to fire Les has the same causal relationship to our current woes as you do. You seem to think that firing Les was a mistake and we're paying the price now for that mistake. I think that firing Les was a mistake too, but I think it was a mistake because it should have been done a year or two earlier. I am 100% aware of any statistic you may throw out to support your supposition, and I could throw out plenty of my own. But I really don't feel like rehashing the tired Les divide... do you? We can agree to disagree.
I also know that you were distorting facts. Call it nitpicking if you'd like, if that makes you feel better about misrepresenting truth to try to make a point, that's cool. You are eloquent enough in other posts that I don't buy it was a simple typo. I don't find Cpacmel's research to be silly at all. I really don't need to get in a fight about it, and I sleep well at night.
As for this - or any - board, I can and will comment on them when i'm on them. I rarely come here anymore due to the overwhelming negativity surrounding the coach, the administration, the attendance, etc. etc. It used to be a positive place I enjoyed reading, but the shift in tone coincidentally coincided with a coaching change. And that shift has driven me, and many others, away. But I'm a solid Libertarian, and I strongly support the owners rights to say whatever they want on this board.
Now, as for the root of your posts - you're not happy with where the program is. Neither am I. But just as I advocated for the last coach to get plenty of time to make his mark, I am doing the same for coach Ford. If he proves he can't get it done, then I won't be shedding a tear when he's gone. I think he deserves at least one more year, and probably two. That's my opinion.
I also don't think that the timing or even overall decision to fire Les has the same causal relationship to our current woes as you do. You seem to think that firing Les was a mistake and we're paying the price now for that mistake. I think that firing Les was a mistake too, but I think it was a mistake because it should have been done a year or two earlier. I am 100% aware of any statistic you may throw out to support your supposition, and I could throw out plenty of my own. But I really don't feel like rehashing the tired Les divide... do you? We can agree to disagree.