So we signed Wilcox to 6 more years at $5 million per year and UW signed DeBoer for 5 years at $3.1 million per year. Hope we win tonight.

I've always been curious how sucking at your job as head coach wasn't "cause" for firing.

ducktilldeath said:

---

I've always been curious how sucking at your job as head coach wasn't "cause" for firing.

---

That's what a teachers union does (I'm a teacher)

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

How does Cal have such freakishly low standards for the football program? It's one thing to extend a successful coach, but why extend a loser coach multiple times at such a high salary?

---

Knowlton is an unqualified idiot, in way over his head, and was a horrible hire. He doesn't even have the sense that an average football or basketball fan would. If we fired him after a couple years of being horrible (bad press releases, hiring Mark Fox, big contract for McKeever amid an abuse scandal, mismanaging COVID, COVID extensions for everybody….) we might have recovered, but the 8 year contract extension Christ gave him….it could be our death knell. Locking in Wilcox through 2027 is just one more nail in the coffin, it won't be Knowlton's last. He is that bad.

---

That is the scary thing. The chancellor is clueless about athletics which is not surprising but there is no one competent advising her. How any search committee came to hire Knowlton is beyond belief. Randomly picking one of the active posters on BI would be lead to a far better candidate. And for all of Carol's woke virtue signaling in many campus communications, it seems that doesn't trying to achieve a diverse team doesn't apply to athletics.

---

Which is crazy.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

At Cal, the AD should no longer report to a Chancellor, who has no background to supervise such a function. An Athletic Control Board should established of competent outside individuals who cannot be easily fooled by smooth talking.

---

Loooooong overdue!

---

Totally something like that. Hey, maybe it could be a democracy of BI posters? (oh God, just kidding)

Was that Mike Riley who stepped down from a few years ago and left some $$$ on the table

Wilcox …?

going4roses said:

---

Was that Mike Riley who stepped down from a few years ago and left some $$$ on the table

Wilcox …?

---

Gary Anderson

annarborbear said:

---

At Cal, the AD should no longer report to a Chancellor, who has no background to supervise such a function. An Athletic Control Board should established of competent outside individuals who cannot be easily fooled by smooth talking.

---

I suspect this is a very Cal approach to the matter…form yet another committee. To my way of thinking the Chancellor should have a strategic vision for how the mission of the university is enhanced by athletics. Maybe influential donors inform that. But more likely a person who applies to the position of Chancellor at Cal has enough experience their competency in this area is demonstrated. Anyway, given that background the C should hire an AD to execute a plan to realize the mission.

6956bear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Was that Mike Riley who stepped down from a few years ago and left some $$$ on the table

Wilcox …?

---

Gary Anderson

---

And now they have Jonathan Smith and he is seeing the fruits of building a WINNING program.

tequila4kapp said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

At Cal, the AD should no longer report to a Chancellor, who has no background to supervise such a function. An Athletic Control Board should established of competent outside individuals who cannot be easily fooled by smooth talking.

---

I suspect this is a very Cal approach to the matter…form yet another committee. To my way of thinking the Chancellor should have a strategic vision for how the mission of the university is enhanced by athletics. Maybe influential donors inform that. But more likely a person who applies to the position of Chancellor at Cal has enough experience their competency in this area is demonstrated. Anyway, given that background the C should hire an AD to execute a plan to realize the mission.

---

Should? Maybe? Likely? Should?
Unwarranted expectations for an academic & bureaucrat whose expertise is Victorian Lit.

The chancellor would sit at the head of the Board, and have the informed advice of other board members and their hired researchers with Cal football background & loyalties and further high-level experience in college football as a sport and business.

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

FWIW - I took a quick look at the contract and it appears that if Cal fires Wilcox without cause, it is obligated to pay Wilcox the full remaining amount of his contract, per Section 12 of his original 2020 contract. As of today, that is over $24M.

Here is the breakdown in salary:

---

I would at the very least think that a "retention bonus" wouldn't have to be paid in the event of a buyout. Granted, that would only save 1.5 million off that amount.

---

Right, his contract is for 5 more years, through 2027 at roughly $5 million per year or $25 million. His contractural buyout for those five years (if fired after this season) is $19.5 million.

Wilcox may have a contractural obligation to mitigate that by seeking other employment, but unlikely anyone is going to hire him at the same level. Most likely as a DC or HC at a lower level, but that would be only about $1 million a year. Plus we have Knowlton negotiating for us. Maybe he gives Wilcox extra money because he has had to deal with shrinking crowds and all the losing?

---

Duty to mitigate is always a tricky one since how hard is it to say "it's not a good fit for me" to pretty much anything? Courts are not going to force anyone to work anywhere. You just have to look like you are doing it in good faith.

That said, if we are willing to eliminate the duty to mitigate, we could probably obtain a discount for that and also for a payment of a lump sum up front. My understanding is that this is what happened with Tedford.

---

Yeah, I think it could all be settled with some negotiation.

How is it that "without cause" doesn't include on the field performance. Isn't that the his only cause for being here?

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So we signed Wilcox to 6 more years at $5 million per year and UW signed DeBoer for 5 years at $3.1 million per year. Hope we win tonight.

---

So a year later, DeBoer at 60% of Wilcox's compensation is looking to be quite the bargain.

---

OSU and WSU coaches also make $3m. It's gross how overpaid Wilcox is compared with the results.

If I had any clout, my focus would be on figuring out how to keep our incompetent administration from squandering money before trying to raise more.

---

Incorrect on Jonathan Smith. He will make $4.85 million this year. He signed a $30 Million 6 year extension last year. Not sure about his buyout but Michigan State is interested.

Dickers at WSU makes $2.7million…
I doubt he's at wsu after this year based on what he's got going up there. $2.7 won't keep him there. That's the downside of going low. You lose good coaches if they perform.

Alkiadt said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So we signed Wilcox to 6 more years at $5 million per year and UW signed DeBoer for 5 years at $3.1 million per year. Hope we win tonight.

---

So a year later, DeBoer at 60% of Wilcox's compensation is looking to be quite the bargain.

---

OSU and WSU coaches also make $3m. It's gross how overpaid Wilcox is compared with the results.

If I had any clout, my focus would be on figuring out how to keep our incompetent administration from squandering money before trying to raise more.

---

Incorrect on Jonathan Smith. He will make $4.85 million this year. He signed a $30 Million 6 year extension last year. Not sure about his buyout but Michigan State is interested.

Dickers at WSU makes $2.7million…
I doubt he's at wsu after this year based on what he's got going up there. $2.7 won't keep him there. That's the downside of going low. You lose good coaches if they perform.

---

When Dickert was hired he was never expected to last that long -- no HC experience and kept the team playing somewhat respectably after Rolo was fired. WSU really struck gold when Rolo decided to go conspiracy theorist.

Alkiadt said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So we signed Wilcox to 6 more years at $5 million per year and UW signed DeBoer for 5 years at $3.1 million per year. Hope we win tonight.

---

So a year later, DeBoer at 60% of Wilcox's compensation is looking to be quite the bargain.

---

OSU and WSU coaches also make $3m. It's gross how overpaid Wilcox is compared with the results.

If I had any clout, my focus would be on figuring out how to keep our incompetent administration from squandering money before trying to raise more.

---

Incorrect on Jonathan Smith. He will make $4.85 million this year. He signed a $30 Million 6 year extension last year. Not sure about his buyout but Michigan State is interested.

Dickers at WSU makes $2.7million…
I doubt he's at wsu after this year based on what he's got going up there. $2.7 won't keep him there. That's the downside of going low. You lose good coaches if they perform.

---

Well he won 10 games last season, so that raise and extension actually make sense then.

Golden One said:

---

Wilcox never was and never will be in "high demand" as a head coach.

---

He showed early promise, but, then, again, he was very short term at several programs before becoming our HC.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

How is it that "without cause" doesn't include on the field performance. Isn't that the his only cause for being here?

---

Cal can fire Wilcox "without cause" for any reason but is obligated to payout the rest of his contract (and with the extension through 2027). That's paragraph 12.

Cal has a right to fire Wilcox "for cause" pursuant to paragraph 9, which allows Cal to basically get out of future payments. But "for cause" is misconduct of the kind listed in paragraph 9 and not generally about poor performance. We're talking scandalous type stuff. Not happening with a straight shooter like Wilcox.

---

So he came just sit on his butt, not coach, and still get paid for years on end? Who wouldn't want a coaching job at cal

Wilcox=Holmoe

Econ141 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

How is it that "without cause" doesn't include on the field performance. Isn't that the his only cause for being here?

---

Cal can fire Wilcox "without cause" for any reason but is obligated to payout the rest of his contract (and with the extension through 2027). That's paragraph 12.

Cal has a right to fire Wilcox "for cause" pursuant to paragraph 9, which allows Cal to basically get out of future payments. But "for cause" is misconduct of the kind listed in paragraph 9 and not generally about poor performance. We're talking scandalous type stuff. Not happening with a straight shooter like Wilcox.

---

So he came just sit on his butt, not coach, and still get paid for years on end? Who wouldn't want a coaching job at cal

---

Let's get this clear. Every coach in America has a contract with the ability to be terminated for cause. And in zero of those contracts does "loses a lot" equal cause. No coach would take that deal. Otherwise there is no point in having a buyout because no one would ever pay the buyout. Surprisingly, coaches who get fired normally get fired because the school doesn't think their performance is good enough.

We go through this for every coach and athletic director we don't like. Especially because Cal keeps signing up to stupid buyouts. For cause is for things like ethical breaches. You can't fire coaches for losing without paying the buyout.

Even if you have a potential "for cause" claim, like potentially if Knowlton was found to have blown the McKeever thing, you are still likely to have a big lawsuit over that which means they normally will threaten to fire for cause and use it as leverage to somewhat lessen the buyout. I know some highly paid medical professors at one of the UC's (not SF) was found by the university to have committed a for cause offense and they paid a big severence for him to walk away.

The solution is to stop with the idiotic buyouts.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

How is it that "without cause" doesn't include on the field performance. Isn't that the his only cause for being here?

---

Cal can fire Wilcox "without cause" for any reason but is obligated to payout the rest of his contract (and with the extension through 2027). That's paragraph 12.

Cal has a right to fire Wilcox "for cause" pursuant to paragraph 9, which allows Cal to basically get out of future payments. But "for cause" is misconduct of the kind listed in paragraph 9 and not generally about poor performance. We're talking scandalous type stuff. Not happening with a straight shooter like Wilcox.

---

So he came just sit on his butt, not coach, and still get paid for years on end? Who wouldn't want a coaching job at cal

---

Let's get this clear. Every coach in America has a contract with the ability to be terminated for cause. And in zero of those contracts does "loses a lot" equal cause. No coach would take that deal. Otherwise there is no point in having a buyout because no one would ever pay the buyout. Surprisingly, coaches who get fired normally get fired because the school doesn't think their performance is good enough.

We go through this for every coach and athletic director we don't like. Especially because Cal keeps signing up to stupid buyouts. For cause is for things like ethical breaches. You can't fire coaches for losing without paying the buyout.

Even if you have a potential "for cause" claim, like potentially if Knowlton was found to have blown the McKeever thing, you are still likely to have a big lawsuit over that which means they normally will threaten to fire for cause and use it as leverage to somewhat lessen the buyout. I know some highly paid medical professors at one of the UC's (not SF) was found by the university to have committed a for cause offense and they paid a big severence for him to walk away.

The solution is to stop with the idiotic buyouts.

---

Why are we worried about knowlton suing us? Why aren't we suing HIM in addition to terminating him?