My heart won't feel anything if Oregon loses every game next season.ducktilldeath said:Have a ****ing heart for a second?bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Deshaun Foster Faceplant
6,346 Views |
44 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by calumnus
bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
Ironically because they will probably lose to UO, UW and USC, they will fare better (above .500) against legacy B10.
oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
That sounds about right.
40th in pay puts him below the median. There were 69 "power" CFB teams last season. (68 this year, with SMU in and OSU/WSU out.)calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
BearSD said:40th in pay puts him below the median. There were 69 "power" CFB teams last season. (68 this year, with SMU in and OSU/WSU out.)calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
His income is far above the median for a football coach.
Power conference teams generally have more income and can generally pay more, but they are stupid to pay more than they have to. And now our income is last or second to last among power conference teams?
Wilcox was in the top half of the PAC-12 and is in the Top half of the ACC in pay despite probably having the worst record of any coach that had been there more than 4 years.
The defenses of Knowlton's $1.3 million salary are similar. There was no need to pay him so much, he made a fraction of that in his 3 years at Air Force. The chancelor herself made less than half that amount.
"far above the median for a football coach" -- Sure, if you include coaches of small college teams that barely have two nickels to rub together and take eight hour bus rides to and from games. But "power" teams is the appropriate category. No one here thinks that Cal should try to get away with paying its head coach the same amount as the head coaches at UC Davis and Cal Poly make.calumnus said:BearSD said:40th in pay puts him below the median. There were 69 "power" CFB teams last season. (68 this year, with SMU in and OSU/WSU out.)calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
His income is far above the median for a football coach.
Power conference teams generally have more income and can generally pay more, but they are stupid to pay more than they have to. And now our income is last or second to last among power conference teams?
Wilcox was in the top half of the PAC-12 and is in the Top half of the ACC in pay despite probably having the worst record of any coach that had been there more than 4 years.
Also, Wilcox wasn't even #40 in "power" head coach compensation last year. The list you used doesn't include private colleges that choose not to disclose the information. Notre Dame, Miami, and TCU are not on the list and they all pay within the top 20. At best, Wilcox was #43 of 69, maybe lower, and the median power head coaching salary in 2023 was $5.5 million, more than $1 million more than Wilcox made. (It's the #32 coach on that list, who is #35 overall given that ND, Miami, and TCU pay more.)
Even some first-time "power" head coaches were paid $4 million last year. Last season, there were at least 11 (out of 14) ACC head coaches making $4 million/year or more. There were several head coaches paid as much as or more than Wilcox whose teams had worse seasons in 2023.
You think "power" CFB head coaches are overpaid, and you want Wilcox gone. You are entitled to those opinions, but it would be incorrect to mix the two and claim that Wilcox is overpaid compared to his peers.
BearSD said:"far above the median for a football coach" -- Sure, if you include coaches of small college teams that barely have two nickels to rub together and take eight hour bus rides to and from games. But "power" teams is the appropriate category. No one here thinks that Cal should try to get away with paying its head coach the same amount as the head coaches at UC Davis and Cal Poly make.calumnus said:BearSD said:40th in pay puts him below the median. There were 69 "power" CFB teams last season. (68 this year, with SMU in and OSU/WSU out.)calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:bear2034 said:ducktilldeath said:
I scrub through Michael Scott scenes in the Office **** is so awkward I am 100% not watching that. Poor guy.
Poor guy? The State of California doesn't pay many employees salaries higher than his.
Foster only makes a little more than Mark Madsen (or Mark Fox made).
Wilcox makes $2 million per year more than Foster.
UCLA went cheap and is predicted to finish 14th in the Big TEN.
UCLA pays market for coaches that have not yet proven they can win more games than they lose. Cal gives raises and extensions to coaches with losing records. Wilcox was #40 in the nation in pay last year.
His income is far above the median for a football coach.
Power conference teams generally have more income and can generally pay more, but they are stupid to pay more than they have to. And now our income is last or second to last among power conference teams?
Wilcox was in the top half of the PAC-12 and is in the Top half of the ACC in pay despite probably having the worst record of any coach that had been there more than 4 years.
Also, Wilcox wasn't even #40 in "power" head coach compensation last year. The list you used doesn't include private colleges that choose not to disclose the information. Notre Dame, Miami, and TCU are not on the list and they all pay within the top 20. At best, Wilcox was #43 of 69, maybe lower, and the median power head coaching salary in 2023 was $5.5 million, more than $1 million more than Wilcox made. (It's the #32 coach on that list, who is #35 overall given that ND, Miami, and TCU pay more.)
Even some first-time "power" head coaches were paid $4 million last year. Last season, there were at least 11 (out of 14) ACC head coaches making $4 million/year or more. There were several head coaches paid as much as or more than Wilcox whose teams had worse seasons in 2023.
You think "power" CFB head coaches are overpaid, and you want Wilcox gone. You are entitled to those opinions, but it would be incorrect to mix the two and claim that Wilcox is overpaid compared to his peers.
I just want our athletic department to make smart decisions.
You can't say "we can't afford proven Power 4 coaches" so we promote coordinators or coaches from lower levels and then argue we have to pay them the same as proven Power 4 coaches anyway. That is nuts. Why go cheap but pay richly?
You don't go to the car lot and pay three times sticker price for a Ford (with your credit card because you don't have the money) trying to keep up with your wealthy neighbors who own a Bentley just so you can say "I pay as much for my car as my neighbors" and drive around imagining your Ford is a Bentley.
Whether I have wanted Wilcox gone or not is irrelevant because paying Wilcox $5 million a year with a guaranteed 6 year contract after posting a losing record in his first 5 years means we cannot afford to replace him and we have no choice but to hope he becomes the coach we are paying him as if he is.
Featured Stories
See All
The Football Roster Post Spring - The Quarterbacks (FREE)
by Bear Insider
Cal Wins First Ever MPSF Championship
by Cal Athletics
Bears Topple Records As Cal’s Men Finish Third At ACC Championships
by Cal Athletics