Chippy Might Leave UC Los Angeles

5,395 Views | 29 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by calumnus
Bearly Clad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reports are coming out today that Kelly is looking to jump ship for an NFL OC job. I obviously can't verify the veracity of these reports and don't know if they're coming from his camp or somewhere else but that would be big news for them to lose their HC (and probably some other staff) this late in the recruiting/offseason cycle.

Personally I'm torn because he hasn't been good for the baby bears and it possibly lets them upgrade at HC with their new B10 money but also could throw their program into even further debt and disarray. I'm just gonna sit on the sidelines and hope that whatever the worst possible outcome for them is, it comes to pass. **** UC Los Angeles, now and forever
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearly Clad said:

Reports are coming out today that Kelly is looking to jump ship for an NFL OC job. I obviously can't verify the veracity of these reports and don't know if they're coming from his camp or somewhere else but that would be big news for them to lose their HC (and probably some other staff) this late in the recruiting/offseason cycle.

Personally I'm torn because he hasn't been good for the baby bears and it possibly lets them upgrade at HC with their new B10 money but also could throw their program into even further debt and disarray. I'm just gonna sit on the sidelines and hope that whatever the worst possible outcome for them is, it comes to pass. **** UC Los Angeles, now and forever
Just keep remembering with Baby Bruin that we have been 17-17 against them since 1991. Surprised me, as it was not my perception, but I bet it will really surprise some of your Bruin fans. haha
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA extends football coach Chip Kelly through 2027The Athletichttps://theathletic.com 2023/03/03 chip-kelly-ucla-c...

Gotta love college football these days.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension


calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension





Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes. And, with Kelly falling below high expectations, UCLA can afford to move on. No matter what Strong asserts, Cal cannot afford to move on from Wilcox due to the contract we (Knowlton) saddled ourselves with. I hope Knowlton is fired for his behavior and negligence in ignoring reports of McKeever's abusive behavior (rewarded with a $5 million extension), but he should be fired just for his fiscal malfeasances.
Bear Naked Ladies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams. If UCLA had done as well as Washington or Oregon the past few years, Kelly would either be gone to a "bigger" job (and angry guys on BRO would be asking why his buyout was so low) or UCLA would have been forced to bump him up to more than $8 million a year to keep him.
Bear Naked Ladies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams
I can name you another guy that hasn't been producing Top 25 teams.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear Naked Ladies said:

BearSD said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams
I can name you another guy that hasn't been producing Top 25 teams.
True. Though one expects more from Chip than any coach on his first head coaching job, and if Chip (or Wilcox) gets fired, and the next guy is just another coordinator getting his first head coaching job, I wouldn't expect top 25 teams from that guy, either.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

BearSD said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams
I can name you another guy that hasn't been producing Top 25 teams.
True. Though one expects more from Chip than any coach on his first head coaching job, and if Chip (or Wilcox) gets fired, and the next guy is just another coordinator getting his first head coaching job, I wouldn't expect top 25 teams from that guy, either.


Top 25? How about top half of the conference ever? How about not losing twice as many conference games as you win? Wilcox is going into year 8. Comparing him to a coach that won a National Championship….

Yes, we will likely be hiring another coordinator or promoting a HC from a lower level and if you don't find the next DeBoer or Fisch, you move on and try again, you don't extend them out to year 11 with a guaranteed contract.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.
Bear Naked Ladies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

BearSD said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

BearSD said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams
I can name you another guy that hasn't been producing Top 25 teams.
True. Though one expects more from Chip than any coach on his first head coaching job, and if Chip (or Wilcox) gets fired, and the next guy is just another coordinator getting his first head coaching job, I wouldn't expect top 25 teams from that guy, either.


Top 25? How about top half of the conference ever? How about not losing twice as many conference games as you win? Wilcox is going into year 8. Comparing him to a coach that won a National Championship….

Yes, we will likely be hiring another coordinator or promoting a HC from a lower level and if you don't find the next DeBoer or Fisch, you move on and try again, you don't extend them out to year 11 with a guaranteed contract.
Here's another thing for the "we can buy players to make Wilcox look like he's good" crowd.

Say your plan to buy players that Wilcox could never get to come here on his own merits works and the team does win a few more games per year. Given Cal's history of handing out contract extensions like they're Halloween candy to coaches with the meekest of achievements, what's your plan to keep the 30th best athletic director in the country from handing out yet 100% fully guaranteed contract extension to your 80th ranked head coach?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.
AmadorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For all of you grousers on the JW contract extension, you have one person to thank. Phil Knight. Oregon felt he was worthy as a favorite son to be the Head Coach at Oregon and JW was able to leverage that which got him the extension. Good for him. If you recall, most of the contract extension points, related to his staff getting improved, competitive salaries, so they could live in the Bay Area. Other changes were primarily internal, like recruiting support staff and other issues that have plagued University support for a competitive football program.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

BearSD said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:

UCLA gave Chip no real job security. His last extension was basically window dressing.

UCLA could actually fire Chip today and they would owe him less than if he coached them in 2024.

Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension

Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's. Not that Kelly has been great at UCLA, but compare their resumes.
To be fair, Kelly's buyout is extremely low for a power conference head coach. It only looks good for UCLA because Kelly hasn't been producing top 25 teams
I can name you another guy that hasn't been producing Top 25 teams.
True. Though one expects more from Chip than any coach on his first head coaching job, and if Chip (or Wilcox) gets fired, and the next guy is just another coordinator getting his first head coaching job, I wouldn't expect top 25 teams from that guy, either.


Top 25? How about top half of the conference ever? How about not losing twice as many conference games as you win? Wilcox is going into year 8. Comparing him to a coach that won a National Championship….

Yes, we will likely be hiring another coordinator or promoting a HC from a lower level and if you don't find the next DeBoer or Fisch, you move on and try again, you don't extend them out to year 11 with a guaranteed contract.
Here's another thing for the "we can buy players to make Wilcox look like he's good" crowd . .


Why is this so hard for you to understand? No one here is interested in doing anything to "make Justin Wilcox look good." I am not Justin Wilcox's agent. My interest in Justin's success is 100% on whether he can bring success to Cal football.

And for the 1 billionth time, Cal does not have the luxury of having a coach that you say over and over again is bad to mediocre take to the field with a bunch of bad to mediocre players. We are a few years from the realignment wheel spinning again and the television networks picking winners and losers. We are 100% going to be a loser unless we field a better team with better results.

So no I don't care if Justin Wilcox looks good. What I care about is Cal winning some football games. If that makes you sad find another team to troll please.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.


If you are a baseball GM and you sign a career .100 hitter to a $100 million guaranteed contract, you are overpaying. That is not the market for .100 hitters. Most .100 hitters get cut, not signed to long term guaranteed contracts.

UCLA hired Chip Kelly, who went 46-7 at Oregon, for less than $5 million per year (5 years for $23.3 million). Kelly got an increase to $5.8 million by giving up the amount guaranteed. In 2022, Wilcox made $5 million and Kelly made $5.8 million. Kelly has not performed much better than Wilcox which is why he could get fired. But Chip Kelly is paid what he is paid because he has a great resume. Again, he was 46-7 at Oregon.

Name one college head coach who has a losing record after 7 or more years and has lost twice as many conference games as he has won after 7 or more years who is paid more than Justin Wilcox will be going into his 8th? It is pretty much unprecedented. He is being paid as if he is a proven, winning coach, but he is not. Hopefully he becomes one. Getting him top transfer classes with NIL two years in a row can only help.













6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.
As long as he (Wilcox) is employed as the HC he is overpaid.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.
As long as he (Wilcox) is employed as the HC he is overpaid.
You obviously do not ascribe to absolute transcendence of square jaw.
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe said:

6956bear said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.
As long as he (Wilcox) is employed as the HC he is overpaid.
You obviously do not ascribe to absolute transcendence of square jaw.
No I am partial to winning, staff accountability and strong recruiting.
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear said:

My interest in Justin's success is 100% on whether he can bring success to Cal football.
Sebastabear said:

We are a few years from the realignment wheel spinning again and the television networks picking winners and losers. We are 100% going to be a loser unless we field a better team with better results.

So no I don't care if Justin Wilcox looks good.


1) The Ultimate Goal: becoming a Realignment Winner (RW).

2) What Minimally would it take to become RW (following the next 6 years given the gutter-level national perception of our potential and of our commitment to belonging in an upper tier "power" conference): playing in the conference title game in 3 of those 6 years, or in 2 of the last 3 ante-realignment seasons. Note: this is not about what is a Realistic Best-Case Scenario (RBCS), but what Minimally it would take to become RW.

3) Has JW shown himself in 8 seasons that with the help of some more transfer-4* he is the type of HC who is capable of achieving not mere RBCS but what Minimally it wd take to become RW?

4) If with the help of the collective's signees and retainees JW wins 8 regular season games both in '24 and in '25, will JK, Travers fam, et al., extend the contract for all intents and purposes to the next Realignment? This scenario looks HIGHLY LIKELY to me. This scenario would end all possibility of Cal becoming RW. So this scenario must be avoided at all costs. How? We all must communicate CLEARLY, OFTEN, and LOUDLY to JK, Travers fam, other mega donors who would finance that extension that JW must be dismissed, and that the increased NIL donations are definitely not a vote of confidence greenlight for another extension.

5) The Ultimate Priority: Dismissing JW within the next 1-2 years. Never allowing another extension to be contemplated. Hiring a proven power conference HC capable of achieving the Ultimate Goal. Impossibly expensive, you say? Then, becoming a RW is itself an impossibility and we might as well just give up. We can't afford to **** around in these crucial next 6 years with coordinators unproven as HCs and non-power level HCs. If we continue to **** around as in the last 6 decades, then come 2030/2031 we'll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

TLDR ("Too Long, Didn't Read" summary): The Ultimate Goal is for Cal to become a Realignment Winner (RW) following the next 6 seasons. The Ultimate Priority (in order to achieve the Ultimate Goal) is to have in position w/in the next 2 years a HC who can realistically achieve what Minimally it would take to become RW.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension
Crazy that Justin Wilcox has a buyout multiples of Chip Kelly's
And it bears repeating that Wilcox's contract has been 100% guaranteed since his very first day as coach when he had zero negotiating leverage, no track record, and no other school considering Wilcox as a potential head coaching candidate. Cal just gave it away when they had no reason to.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that Justin Wilcox is overpaid, that we are paying too much for Justin Wilcox and the results he has produced.

Similarly, Knowlton is severely overpaid.


Yet, some people have trouble understanding that this is a discussion about the cost of buyouts, not a coach's annual salary, which is what is actually being discussed when determining whether or not a coach is overpaid. We can all agree that Wilcox's buyout is absurdly high.


Part of the valuation of a contract is if it is guaranteed. Contracts with payments at risk are going to require higher payments, all things being equal. $5 million a year for 6 years guaranteed is going to be valued much more highly than $5 million a year at will. Mitigating risk is why we have insurance. It is why variable interest rate bonds generally pay more than fixed-rate bonds.

The whole question is the value of the contract versus the value we are receiving versus less expensive alternatives.

You generally offer a 6 year guaranteed contract to a guy with a history of tremendous success, like Chip Kelly, not a guy with a losing record after 5 years who never finished in the top half of the conference. In fact at any other p5 school a guy with that record after 5 years (if not sooner) gets dismissed and paid zero additional dollars.The high buyout is why we cannot move on, it is why Justin Wilcox will continue to get paid. Getting paid $5 million is A LOT better than zero.

Every hire is a gamble. UW gambled on DeBoer and Arizona gambled Fisch at roughly half Wilcox's salary. UCLA took a gamble on Chip Kelly who has an unprecedented history of success in our conference and nationally and Cal took a gamble on Wilcox who had no history, then doubled down even after his history was negative. In the end, Cal will have gambled something like twice as much money on Justin Wilcox in total (assuming he is not extended again) as UCLA gambled on Chip Kelly. They made a smart bet and lost. We are making a dumb bet. Hopefully we get lucky.

We gave Wilcox a guaranteed contract at $5 million a year like he is a proven successful head coach. He is not. Worse there is now lots of evidence he is a poor coach. Guys who are still trying to prove themselves are paid less or are fired. We are overpaying for what we are getting. Justin Wilcox is overpaid.


No, not at all. You can certainly argue that the guaranteed money makes it a bad contract, but guaranteed money doesn't make him overpaid. If I pay a guy $15 a hour as an at will employee to deliver product and he does an okay job, he could be paid just about right if that were market rate. If he has a contract to do the same for a period of time, that doesn't suddenly make him overpaid if he is performing the exact same service with the same performance level.
As long as he (Wilcox) is employed as the HC he is overpaid.


Exactly. Anywhere else he would no longer be the head coach.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

Sebastabear said:

My interest in Justin's success is 100% on whether he can bring success to Cal football.
Sebastabear said:

We are a few years from the realignment wheel spinning again and the television networks picking winners and losers. We are 100% going to be a loser unless we field a better team with better results.

So no I don't care if Justin Wilcox looks good.


1) The Ultimate Goal: becoming a Realignment Winner (RW).

2) What Minimally would it take to become RW (following the next 6 years given the gutter-level national perception of our potential and of our commitment to belonging in an upper tier "power" conference): playing in the conference title game in 3 of those 6 years, or in 2 of the last 3 ante-realignment seasons. Note: this is not about what is a Realistic Best-Case Scenario (RBCS), but what Minimally it would take to become RW.

3) Has JW shown himself in 8 seasons that with the help of some more transfer-4* he is the type of HC who is capable of achieving not mere RBCS but what Minimally it wd take to become RW?

4) If with the help of the collective's signees and retainees JW wins 8 regular season games both in '24 and in '25, will JK, Travers fam, et al., extend the contract for all intents and purposes to the next Realignment? This scenario looks HIGHLY LIKELY to me. This scenario would end all possibility of Cal becoming RW. So this scenario must be avoided at all costs. How? We all must communicate CLEARLY, OFTEN, and LOUDLY to JK, Travers fam, other mega donors who would finance that extension that JW must be dismissed, and that the increased NIL donations are definitely not a vote of confidence greenlight for another extension.

5) The Ultimate Priority: Dismissing JW within the next 1-2 years. Never allowing another extension to be contemplated. Hiring a proven power conference HC capable of achieving the Ultimate Goal. Impossibly expensive, you say? Then, becoming a RW is itself an impossibility and we might as well just give up. We can't afford to **** around in these crucial next 6 years with coordinators unproven as HCs and non-power level HCs. If we continue to **** around as in the last 6 decades, then come 2030/2031 we'll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

TLDR ("Too Long, Didn't Read" summary): The Ultimate Goal is for Cal to become a Realignment Winner (RW) following the next 6 seasons. The Ultimate Priority (in order to achieve the Ultimate Goal) is to have in position w/in the next 2 years a HC who can realistically achieve what Minimally it would take to become RW.


Brinksmanship to "force" others to put up $15 million of their money to buy Wilcox out is very risky.

If we tank over the next two to three years as we lose our best players and attendance falls further as the budget deficit soars there is a good chance the administration says it cannot afford to fire Wilcox and hire someone new. Instead there is a very real possibility that after a few years of losing records in the ACC "fiscal responsibility dictates" they withdraw from the ACC and fold the program. Supposedly it already almost happened. The ACC is a life preserver but we still have to keep our head above water and swim.

Sure, if Wilcox wins 7 or 8 games there is a risk he gets extended, after all, Knowlton extended him after a couple of losing seasons last time (and most on this board supported it) but once his buyout is lower is the time to push against renewal and for change. And when we do, we will want prospective coaches to know we have a strong NIL program and are already competitive in the ACC.

Unless we can get Ron Rivera to come now and work for deferred compensation while we pay off Wilcox. . However, Ron would want good players too, Moreover, Ron is a big NIL contributor, so he clearly wants a strong Cal NIL program.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension











UCLA hired Chip Kelly, who went 46-7 at Oregon, for less than $5 million per year (5 years for $23.3 million). Kelly got an increase to $5.8 million by giving up the amount guaranteed.
1) Chip Kelly was 2-14 his one year with the 49ers and 6-9 his last year with the Eagles. You can't just talk about his Oregon tenure that ended 12 years ago.

2) To a large extent you are just grousing about how inflated the CFB head coaching market is overall. There are many not-very-successful coaches raking in $4 million/year or more. The Maryland coach, who is 15-32 in conference games -- you won't know his name unless you look it up -- made $5.5 million in 2023. Source: https://www.on3.com/db/coach/salaries/football/2023/
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension











UCLA hired Chip Kelly, who went 46-7 at Oregon, for less than $5 million per year (5 years for $23.3 million). Kelly got an increase to $5.8 million by giving up the amount guaranteed.
1) Chip Kelly was 2-14 his one year with the 49ers and 6-9 his last year with the Eagles. You can't just talk about his Oregon tenure that ended 12 years ago.

2) To a large extent you are just grousing about how inflated the CFB head coaching market is overall. There are many not-very-successful coaches raking in $4 million/year or more. The Maryland coach, who is 15-32 in conference games -- you won't know his name unless you look it up -- made $5.5 million in 2023. Source: https://www.on3.com/db/coach/salaries/football/2023/

No doubt the HCs of P5 programs make a very nice salary. My concern is not what Wilcox is being paid. That is what you have to pay these days. It is with the buyout. The buyout ensures there is no chance to remove him. Cal has backed themselves into a corner with Wilcox. The program needs to win and he has to date not shown an ability to play even .500 ball within the conference. But they cannot remove him right now so he needs to win despite the evidence suggesting he won't.

So we are sitting here hoping that the collective can influence enough transfers to come to Cal so that the team will win despite the clear flaws of Wilcox.

HearstMining
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

Sebastabear said:

My interest in Justin's success is 100% on whether he can bring success to Cal football.
Sebastabear said:

We are a few years from the realignment wheel spinning again and the television networks picking winners and losers. We are 100% going to be a loser unless we field a better team with better results.

So no I don't care if Justin Wilcox looks good.


1) The Ultimate Goal: becoming a Realignment Winner (RW).

2) What Minimally would it take to become RW (following the next 6 years given the gutter-level national perception of our potential and of our commitment to belonging in an upper tier "power" conference): playing in the conference title game in 3 of those 6 years, or in 2 of the last 3 ante-realignment seasons. Note: this is not about what is a Realistic Best-Case Scenario (RBCS), but what Minimally it would take to become RW.

3) Has JW shown himself in 8 seasons that with the help of some more transfer-4* he is the type of HC who is capable of achieving not mere RBCS but what Minimally it wd take to become RW?

4) If with the help of the collective's signees and retainees JW wins 8 regular season games both in '24 and in '25, will JK, Travers fam, et al., extend the contract for all intents and purposes to the next Realignment? This scenario looks HIGHLY LIKELY to me. This scenario would end all possibility of Cal becoming RW. So this scenario must be avoided at all costs. How? We all must communicate CLEARLY, OFTEN, and LOUDLY to JK, Travers fam, other mega donors who would finance that extension that JW must be dismissed, and that the increased NIL donations are definitely not a vote of confidence greenlight for another extension.

5) The Ultimate Priority: Dismissing JW within the next 1-2 years. Never allowing another extension to be contemplated. Hiring a proven power conference HC capable of achieving the Ultimate Goal. Impossibly expensive, you say? Then, becoming a RW is itself an impossibility and we might as well just give up. We can't afford to **** around in these crucial next 6 years with coordinators unproven as HCs and non-power level HCs. If we continue to **** around as in the last 6 decades, then come 2030/2031 we'll be begging the Mountain West to take us.

TLDR ("Too Long, Didn't Read" summary): The Ultimate Goal is for Cal to become a Realignment Winner (RW) following the next 6 seasons. The Ultimate Priority (in order to achieve the Ultimate Goal) is to have in position w/in the next 2 years a HC who can realistically achieve what Minimally it would take to become RW.
So you don't believe Cal will be in the ACC long enough to actually receive the 100% media share? I don't believe it either. So, what established HC would take a job at Cal when they will be under such a severe financial disadvantage? I know there's supposed to be a donor commitment to fill that gap, but given the age of many Cal athletic donors, who believes all those people will be alive in six years?
calBlitz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:


1) Chip Kelly was 2-14 his one year with the 49ers and 6-9 his last year with the Eagles. You can't just talk about his Oregon tenure that ended 12 years ago.

2) To a large extent you are just grousing about how inflated the CFB head coaching market is overall. There are many not-very-successful coaches raking in $4 million/year or more. The Maryland coach, who is 15-32 in conference games -- you won't know his name unless you look it up -- made $5.5 million in 2023. Source: https://www.on3.com/db/coach/salaries/football/2023/

Chip Kelly was hired in 2018, just 5 years removed from his last season at Oregon in 2012. UCLA weighted his Oregon success far greater than his NFL stint.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
6956bear said:

BearSD said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension











UCLA hired Chip Kelly, who went 46-7 at Oregon, for less than $5 million per year (5 years for $23.3 million). Kelly got an increase to $5.8 million by giving up the amount guaranteed.
1) Chip Kelly was 2-14 his one year with the 49ers and 6-9 his last year with the Eagles. You can't just talk about his Oregon tenure that ended 12 years ago.

2) To a large extent you are just grousing about how inflated the CFB head coaching market is overall. There are many not-very-successful coaches raking in $4 million/year or more. The Maryland coach, who is 15-32 in conference games -- you won't know his name unless you look it up -- made $5.5 million in 2023. Source: https://www.on3.com/db/coach/salaries/football/2023/

No doubt the HCs of P5 programs make a very nice salary. My concern is not what Wilcox is being paid. That is what you have to pay these days. It is with the buyout. The buyout ensures there is no chance to remove him. Cal has backed themselves into a corner with Wilcox. The program needs to win and he has to date not shown an ability to play even .500 ball within the conference. But they cannot remove him right now so he needs to win despite the evidence suggesting he won't.

So we are sitting here hoping that the collective can influence enough transfers to come to Cal so that the team will win despite the clear flaws of Wilcox.
$20 million is 2x or 3x what the buyout should be, given the market for other "power conference" head coaches, but that is more of an irritant and not the main issue.

IMO most of these head coaches making these big salaries are "clearly flawed". Very few are great or even very good at the coaching part of the job. Most of the ones we would call successful have had very successful recruiting, and coaching that is just good enough to not screw up the great talent on the roster most of the time. Talent improvement will yield more wins at Cal faster than anything else, and it ought to be the #1 priority by far, regardless of who the head coach is.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

Bear Naked Ladies said:

calumnus said:

BearSD said:


Quote:

According to the contract reviewed by The Times, Kelly will make $6.1 million during the 2023 and 2024 seasons...

Kelly's buyout calls for him to receive $8.5 million if he's dismissed before December 2023 and $4.27 million if he is terminated before December 2024. That amount drops to zero in December 2025.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-03-03/ucla-coach-chip-kelly-gets-two-year-contract-extension











UCLA hired Chip Kelly, who went 46-7 at Oregon, for less than $5 million per year (5 years for $23.3 million). Kelly got an increase to $5.8 million by giving up the amount guaranteed.
1) Chip Kelly was 2-14 his one year with the 49ers and 6-9 his last year with the Eagles. You can't just talk about his Oregon tenure that ended 12 years ago.

2) To a large extent you are just grousing about how inflated the CFB head coaching market is overall. There are many not-very-successful coaches raking in $4 million/year or more. The Maryland coach, who is 15-32 in conference games -- you won't know his name unless you look it up -- made $5.5 million in 2023. Source: https://www.on3.com/db/coach/salaries/football/2023/



Again, I am not grousing about how much coaches are paid or how much we are able to pay. $5 million is a good salary. The market is the market. Coaches who are proven successful are in demand and command greater salaries. Schools that have more money can pay more and hire proven successful coaches as we just saw with DeBoer going from Fresno to UW to Alabama.

What I have been saying is our problem is not how much we spend as much as who we spend it on. $1.3 million is a good AD salary, but we spend it on Knowlton and Christ gave him an 8 year guaranteed contract. Knowlton is an idiot. Giving Wilcox a 6 year extension at $5 million a year guaranteed coming off two losing seasons with a losing record overall was stupid, whether Wilcox "turned down Oregon twice" or not. THAT is our problem.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.