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.

---

I have an idea. Hire coaches as "at-will" employees, but pay over, say 30-40% the market rate, limit buy-out to remainder of season. Offer bonuses for wins.

bearsandgiants said:

---

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?

---

Because we are the ones who have to prove that he did something that amounted to cause

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

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?

---

Because we are the ones who have to prove that he did something that amounted to cause

---

Like dismissing complaints of racism and abuse in the women's swim program without investigation in violation of university, state and Federal rules/law and even subsequently rewarding the abuser with a $5 million guaranteed contract? That now that she has been fired after spending another $2 million to verify the complaints we probably have to eat?

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

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?

---

Because we are the ones who have to prove that he did something that amounted to cause

---

Like dismissing complaints of racism and abuse in the women's swim program without investigation in violation of university, state and Federal rules/law and even subsequently rewarding the abuser with a $5 million guaranteed contract? That now that she has been fired after spending another $2 million to verify the complaints we probably have to eat?

---

Easy to say. Do you see how complicated that ends up being? You first have to prove, in court, the merit of the underlying charges against McKeever. Which I think they can do, but will be complicated and require a lot of testimony. Then you need to prove that the full scope of that information came to him. You also have to prove that he was directly responsible for "dismissing the complaints". Its not just should he or shouldn't he have done something, it is whether the actions he took or failed to take rose to the level of misconduct. It's a high bar. And if he reported it to anyone above him or the HR, you are screwed. But assume the actual evidence is on your side, do you see that this is going to take a lot of witnesses, a lot of discovery and a lot of lawyers? And then risk that the jury doesn't understand? Not to mention the fact that I guarantee you the defense is going to point the finger at those above Knowlton and say he is being scapegoated and drag those people through the mud who also don't want the risk of mud slung on them in a public trial.

Extremely unlikely that this would result in firing Knowlton with zero severance.

I wish I could remember the details of the professor because I remember it was really bad and you'd think would be open and shut and they still paid him off.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

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.

---

I have an idea. Hire coaches as "at-will" employees, but pay over, say 30-40% the market rate, limit buy-out to remainder of season. Offer bonuses for wins.

---

If we could somehow switch to all programs doing this, it might work, but as it is, why would a highly regarded coach go to a program that was in the doldrums without having a specified amount of time to turn things around.

Related: Our recruiting rivals would tell recruits, "Oh, you seem to like the program at Cal, eh? They'll be gone before you're a sophomore! Wilcox might even be our next defensive coordinator, so just come here!"

What we should've done is just extended Wilcox through 2025 instead of 2027, or else structured a more favorable buyout. Of course, when he had just "turned down Oregon... twice", his market value was at an all-time high.

^^^ It was a perplexing decision, but I think it came at a time when we felt everything was closing in on us: University, City-of-Berkeley, COVID, Oregon-the-Coach-Snatchers, etc. So when Wilcox "turned down Oregon... twice" and seemed like the ultimate OKG, "we" felt like we needed some stability above all else and that Wilcox would change out a few Assistants eventually (and we'd pay the new ones better)...

...and that that was the best shot we had. Highly questionable, even at the time, but I suspect that was the mindset.

Big C said:

---

^^^ It was a perplexing decision, but I think it came at a time when we felt everything was closing in on us: University, City-of-Berkeley, COVID, Oregon-the-Coach-Snatchers, etc. So when Wilcox "turned down Oregon... twice" and seemed like the ultimate OKG, "we" felt like we needed some stability above all else and that Wilcox would change out a few Assistants eventually (and we'd pay the new ones better)...

...and that that was the best shot we had. Highly questionable, even at the time, but I suspect that was the mindset.

---

This, but, a shorter extension would have sufficed.

I think I see a way out. We don't have to pay him the gigantic "talent fees" because he is not showing any coaching talent.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ It was a perplexing decision, but I think it came at a time when we felt everything was closing in on us: University, City-of-Berkeley, COVID, Oregon-the-Coach-Snatchers, etc. So when Wilcox "turned down Oregon... twice" and seemed like the ultimate OKG, "we" felt like we needed some stability above all else and that Wilcox would change out a few Assistants eventually (and we'd pay the new ones better)...

...and that that was the best shot we had. Highly questionable, even at the time, but I suspect that was the mindset.

---

You do not pay anything for "Stability" when you consistently finish last or second to last. Look at WSU, they keep making good hires. Shoot, we could have hired DeBoer, right?

---

Agree. Just trying to explain the mindset that may have prompted this poor decision (which I absolutely would not have made).

Man, imagine if we would have lost yesterday's game, like a few bumpkins predicted. Let's hope we develop a passing game and win a few more to potentially go bowling. It will be tough, but not impossible.

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

Rushinbear has a good idea.

Just had a flashback to disdainful grad students scolding undergraduates.

Alkiadt said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

---

So you want to continue to pay the coach and AD, and in addition pay two others to do their jobs? At significant cost.
Are you writing those checks?
Sure….

---

We''re payin' anyway. Why not try something that might at least make things better. Anybody got a better idea, other than sittin' around bemoaning our horrible situation?

I meant this to generate some new ideas. Naysayers we got plenty of. Creativity? Apparently not so much. Anybody ever seen a contract you couldn't get out of? Never said it would be bean bag, but what would it take, other than a simple moolah dump?

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

---

So you want to continue to pay the coach and AD, and in addition pay two others to do their jobs? At significant cost.
Are you writing those checks?
Sure….

---

We''re payin' anyway. Why not try something that might at least make things better. Anybody got a better idea, other than sittin' around bemoaning our horrible situation?

I meant this to generate some new ideas. Naysayers we got plenty of. Creativity? Apparently not so much. Anybody ever seen a contract you couldn't get out of? Never said it would be bean bag, but what would it take, other than a simple moolah dump?

---

Simple moola dump? Who is that "payin' anyway?"
Donors pay the buyout, and most of the new contracts.
Are you writing a check?
Money is the issue until donors get involved. I don't see them lining up with the current financial liabilities (contracts) that exist.

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

---

So you want to continue to pay the coach and AD, and in addition pay two others to do their jobs? At significant cost.
Are you writing those checks?
Sure….

---

We''re payin' anyway. Why not try something that might at least make things better. Anybody got a better idea, other than sittin' around bemoaning our horrible situation?

I meant this to generate some new ideas. Naysayers we got plenty of. Creativity? Apparently not so much. Anybody ever seen a contract you couldn't get out of? Never said it would be bean bag, but what would it take, other than a simple moolah dump?

---

If we terminate Wilcox w/o cause -- and so must continue to pay him -- he is required to get the best HC or (more likely) DC job he can find and the amount of that salary comes off of what we owe him. Mitigation. The problem with that is, say he gets a P4 DC job, it still only pays about 25% of what we're paying him.

I think our best bet would be to appeal to the frustration he must feel regarding his lack of success and to his high ethical standards and convince him to leave for, say, 50% of what he has left on his contract (about $10 million), cash up front. Thank you for your service. MoragaBear seems to think there is a chance he might go for something like that.

The two potential problems with your idea are... a) we would have Spav as HC (just as bad?) and... b) it would risk the coaching staff becoming like a giant cancerous tumor (which might be a main reason why no one ever tries this).

Big C said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

---

So you want to continue to pay the coach and AD, and in addition pay two others to do their jobs? At significant cost.
Are you writing those checks?
Sure….

---

We''re payin' anyway. Why not try something that might at least make things better. Anybody got a better idea, other than sittin' around bemoaning our horrible situation?

I meant this to generate some new ideas. Naysayers we got plenty of. Creativity? Apparently not so much. Anybody ever seen a contract you couldn't get out of? Never said it would be bean bag, but what would it take, other than a simple moolah dump?

---

If we terminate Wilcox w/o cause -- and so must continue to pay him -- he is required to get the best HC or (more likely) DC job he can find and the amount of that salary comes off of what we owe him. Mitigation. The problem with that is, say he gets a P4 DC job, it still only pays about 25% of what we're paying him.

I think our best bet would be to appeal to the frustration he must feel regarding his lack of success and to his high ethical standards and convince him to leave for, say, 50% of what he has left on his contract (about $10 million), cash up front. Than you for your service. MoragaBear seems to think there is a chance he might go for something like that.

The two potential problems with your idea are... a) we would have Spav as HC (just as bad?) and... b) it would risk the coaching staff becoming like a giant cancerous tumor (which might be a main reason why no one ever tries this).

---

the assistants will leave anyway, maybe even before. i agree that it could cause organizational nightmares. i'm just trying to open up the thinking, instead of sitting around wringing my hands. We assume that someone, anyone, has scrutinized every clause of the contract, but we all know about assumptions.

I'm not a very patient woe is me guy.

I don't think we need creative solutions, we just need to hire a real AD who actually has expectations and asks of their coaches rather than giving them arbitrary extensions while they sh*t the bed. You know, like an actual boss.

If my extremely highly paid employee was performing this poorly, I would ask for daily updates on what they've accomplished and planned, I would override many of their poor staffing decisions, force them to make difficult decisions rather than be complacent, etc. Basically hold them accountable and make their work life difficult to the point where they either improve or decide they've had enough and quit.

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Alkiadt said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

I ask again, DOES THE CONTRACT ALLOW JW TO BE DEMOTED?

if we're stuck with him, can we at least reassign him? pay him his money, but minimze the damage. he goes to dc and name spav the hc and oc with a sweetener (until we find someone better, if he doesn't pan out. i'm not sure it's fair to filet spav when it's obvious that jw can't keep his ignorant nose out of the offense's business.).

Once that would be done, 6 months and he'd be outta here.

It's past time for someone to start thinking creatively.

---

I confess my ignorance, but this, next to a negotiated exit, makes a bunch of sense.

---

This is ridiculous.

Wilcox has a contract to be head coach. Any "reassignment" would cost Cal the full buyout.
Please let me know where you've even ever heard of this type of demotion ever happening in revenue College athletics.

---

don't get yourself in a twist. just asking. we could continue to pay his contractual amount, just not have him be dc and not hc. Has anyone read his contract to see if it would be forbidden, explicitly? Is there anywhere that says that there shall be one and only one head coach during the term of this agreement and that JW is the sole occupant of it?

Same question could be asked for Knowlton's contract. Demote him, continue to pay him and get someone else to run the show. all this would take a lot of reorging, but i'm asking about anything that might get us out of "firing him would cost billions" dilemma.

---

So you want to continue to pay the coach and AD, and in addition pay two others to do their jobs? At significant cost.
Are you writing those checks?
Sure….

---

We''re payin' anyway. Why not try something that might at least make things better. Anybody got a better idea, other than sittin' around bemoaning our horrible situation?

I meant this to generate some new ideas. Naysayers we got plenty of. Creativity? Apparently not so much. Anybody ever seen a contract you couldn't get out of? Never said it would be bean bag, but what would it take, other than a simple moolah dump?

---

Because mammoth corporations can't do stuff out of the box. IBM gave my job to two guys in Brazil who had no experience and were horrible (by their own coworkers accounts) when I had offered to sign a contract for half my salary (it wasn't much) and no benefits (I already had benefits as an AT&T retired...the company that outsourced me to IBM). I was told we can't do that. Of course they couldn't. The above isn't happening at Cal with the current administration. Too much creative, out of the box thinking needed.

wifeisafurd said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I don't think we need creative solutions, we just need to hire a real AD who actually has expectations and asks of their coaches rather than giving them arbitrary extensions while they sh*t the bed. You know, like an actual boss.

If my extremely highly paid employee was performing this poorly, I would ask for daily updates on what they've accomplished and planned, I would override many of their poor staffing decisions, force them to make difficult decisions rather than be complacent, etc. Basically hold them accountable and make their work life difficult to the point where they either improve or decide they've had enough and quit.

---

Cal had an out of the box AD in Mike Williams and two out of the boxes Commissioners for the soon to be defunct Pac 12. JK at least had some AD experience, and actually seems to get along with administrators and faculty, but has no experience in dealing with P5 athletics. At some point, Cal needs to stop being associated with this out of the box crap and hire someone who actually has done the job.

---

The problem is like when Knowlton went out to find a basketball coach "with P5 experience" we had to get a guy who was fired from his P5 job for sulking because we couldn't afford to steal a successful P5 coach (we got lucky on timing with Monty and Martin). So we need more than "was once hired to do the job" we need "was actually good at the job."

One guy that fits that is WSU's Pat Chun. Otherwise, I would rather hire someone smart an savvy with experience in leading a for-profit athletics organization.

Does anyone have the full Wilcox extension document still? Scanned the screenshot in thread and didn't see "Termination" defined, is that right? Only did ECVC law so maybe an employment lawyer (if any) can chime in, but typically C-Suit (or other high-level management position) employment contracts spit up the definition of "Termination" between 1) a traditional without cause termination by employer OR 2) the employee leaving for Good Reason. Good Reason has a number of criteria that satisfy the trigger (demotion, salary decreases (unless its across the board cuts), location change by some distance, etc). The point being, if Wilcox's contract doesn't tightly define a without cause termination, technically the AD could "promote him" (for better optics) to President of Football Operations but strip his head coaching duties. What would the point be? We wouldn't have to pay him a lump sum amount (which seemingly Cal can't come up with) and could pay him out over the remaining seasons until 2027. Plus, he'd probably be good at the role if any interest. Moreover, if he left because of this "promotion," good argument that we didn't terminate him (and he doesn't seem like the type to sue). coming up with $3-5M / yr to pay new coach is seemingly easier than coming up with a $10M+ lump sum and then another $5M for a new coach.

The above assumes we're out on Wilcox. Of course, I will be rooting for 8+ wins (not impossible) because my far more favored outcome is Wilcox just winning haha.

mily0511 said:

---

Does anyone have the full Wilcox extension document still? Scanned the screenshot in thread and didn't see "Termination" defined, is that right? Only did ECVC law so maybe an employment lawyer (if any) can chime in, but typically C-Suit (or other high-level management position) employment contracts spit up the definition of "Termination" between 1) a traditional without cause termination by employer OR 2) the employee leaving for Good Reason. Good Reason has a number of criteria that satisfy the trigger (demotion, salary decreases (unless its across the board cuts), location change by some distance, etc). The point being, if Wilcox's contract doesn't tightly define a without cause termination, technically the AD could "promote him" (for better optics) to President of Football Operations but strip his head coaching duties. What would the point be? We wouldn't have to pay him a lump sum amount (which seemingly Cal can't come up with) and could pay him out over the remaining seasons until 2027. Plus, he'd probably be good at the role if any interest. Moreover, if he left because of this "promotion," good argument that we didn't terminate him (and he doesn't seem like the type to sue). coming up with $3-5M / yr to pay new coach is seemingly easier than coming up with a $10M+ lump sum and then another $5M for a new coach.

The above assumes we're out on Wilcox. Of course, I will be rooting for 8+ wins (not impossible) because my far more favored outcome is Wilcox just winning haha.

---

The documents are still available in the original link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/180yVcXg1jUXtY12krBBz9SxiWiA9Hzrq?usp=sharing

This undeserved result was caused by Cal thinking Wilcox was hot s___ just because his alma mater, Oregon, thought Wilcox might be a decent alumni hire, that they could limit the areas in their football program he could control and so likely made him a lowball offer to join the Ducks.

Cal has hugely overpaid Wilcox just because Oregon made a totally reasonable offer to Wilcox, which likely was much, much lower than what Wilcox got from Cal.

PPSM 70 is memorialized in both his and Knowlton's contracts. Though it seems to try to proactively protect against such by stating that only 3.A.3 of PPSM 70 applies.
But here is how that paragraph reads
" Complaints alleging the following will be considered as reports of suspected Improper Governmental Activity that may warrant further inquiry under the Whistleblower Policy rather than this policy: (1) Interference with the Complainant's right to make a Protected Disclosure or (2) an Adverse Personnel Action was threatened or attempted against the Complainant in retaliation for having made a Protected Disclosure. However, if such complaints also allege that an Adverse Personnel Action was taken against the Complainant in retaliation for having made a Protected Disclosure, the entire complaint may be processed under this policy."
Paige Cornelius was literally denied a promotion to medical intern because they claimed she was too hot for the players to be around ( and this was apparently after she had voiced her concerns )
Case closed. End of story: You have an adverse personnel action following a protected complaint.
Wilmoe is in charge of all hiring and firing below him per the contract.
So essentially he did not hire someone because they were sexually attractive?
Come on man. This is Berkeley. I can pick this contract apart in 20 minutes and find a number of personnel policies that he and Knowlton have violated.
So fire them for cause and hurry up.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/94973/replies/1739411

oski003 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/94973/replies/1739411

---

Do you have a link to the "report" by the OPSH?
If memory serves correctly, an investigation was announced in April of 2019 and then we never heard anything after that and then Covid happened.