HKBear97! said:
calumnus said:
HKBear97! said:
TandemBear said:
Quote:
The Chancellor has already expressly made his intentions clear. 7 wins ain't gonna cut it anymore.
Or what?
A stern talking to?
Colorful, animated language?
Official reprimand?
Contract extension of only 2 years?
Double-secret probation?
I'm sure everyone involved is shaking in their boots...
Exactly. As pointed out in this thread, the buyout is too high for them to do anything anytime soon. The win total is pretty irrelevant. Of course, if he surprises on the upside Knowlton will offer up his patented guaranteed extension that ties everyone's hands another few years.
As pointed out before, Wilcox will be paid by the university no matter what. A lump sum "buyout" is always a negotiated reduction in that contract obligation. At worse, he will continue to receive his annual payments for two years. It is not "additional" money we need to find.
The additional money if we fire him is for the new coach while we continue to pay Wilcox through 2027.
We found additional money to pay Rivera, Rolovich and Gregory in 2026 in addition to what we are paying Wilcox, Harsin, etc. How much is that? Let's call it $1 million for argument sake.
If we fire Wilcox (plus Rolovich and Gregory) and sign Rivera (or a young up and comer) to a contract to work for whatever we are paying him, Rolovich and Gregory for two years, then that, plus the $5 million Wilcox is getting afterward, we are spending the same as we are now.
Hypothetical Equivalent Rivera (or up and comer) Contract:
2026 $1 million
2027 $1 million
2028 $6 million
2029 $6 million
2030 $6 million
$20 million over 5 years, back-loaded. No "additional" money needed over what we are spending now. I am confident Rivera, or one of many up and coming coaches making less than $1 million would gladly sign that contract.
However, almost certainly donors would step up to pay more for Rivera or a new coach. Plus there is the additional revenue a new coach might bring in. Ideally the contract would be incentive laden.
It is not only economically correct to look at the payments to a new coach as the "additional" money needed, it is much easier to raise those funds as well. Whereas, framing it as "we need to raise $10 million for Wilcox's buyout" is not only incorrect economically, it is less likely to happen when framed that way and only serves those who want to keep him as coach.
Exactly where is that $10.5 million buyout coming from? Already raised from who/what? And do we know if that who/what is willing to pony up more money for a new coaching staff on top of the money they already agreed to pay Wilcox and staff? Unless you know the answers to those questions, you can't assume the buyout is economically irrelevant. The source of these funds - whether they are institutions or individual donors - is not infinite nor is the dollar amount they are able to provide. How do you know if those donors that financed Rivera, Rolovich, and Gregory are not the same ones backing the Wilcox contract and perhaps think adding these new hires protects their Wilcox investment and want to give the new staff some time to work out? Or perhaps they were asked to buyout Wilcox and said the price is too high, but they could fund a new offensive staff to give Wilcox a few years to sink or swim to the point in time his buyout is no longer an issue? Again, the money has to come from somewhere - it's not just some accounting entry that is economically irrelevant to the ones that supplied it.
All the salary payments are being made by the University from media revenues, ticket sales and donations. All the coaches, including Rivera, Rolovich and Gregory are on staff. Rolovich is even a designated recruiter.
The $10.5 million is the money the University will pay to Wilcox in 2026 and 2027 and it is guaranteed. You keep asking where it will come from if he is fired ("It has to come from somewhere.") You might as well ask where it will come from if we keep him because it comes from the same place it comes from if he is not fired: the Cal AD budget. Again, Cal is paying Wilcox $10.5 million for 2026 and 2027 no matter what. The only reason we would pay a lump sum is to negotiate that amount downward, given Wilcox's obligation to mitigate under the contract.
Are you suggesting any money donated to the University for Wilcox's salary would have to be paid back to the donors so new donor money would have to be raised to pay them back? Because I assure it would not.
Are you suggesting that money we are paying Rivera as GM could not be used to pay him as Head Coach instead? Or that any money donated for that purpose would not be forthcoming if he were Head Coach? I guess that is possible, but the chances are highly unlikely.
Anyone who donated to bring Rivera here as GM would likely donate even more to make him head coach. There was a massive "Give Ron the keys" movement that raised $2 million (?) for the Cal football program.
Even if there are donors who really want to keep Wilcox and are donating money to hire Rivera, Rolovich, Gregory to only prop up Wilcox, there is no obligation on the part of Cal to follow their directives. Jim Knowlton's two men's basketball hires were not in keeping with big donor wishes. I think the whole premise is a paper tiger. I am 100% confident those donors who want to keep and extend Wilcox would be dwarfed by the donors who would want to make Rivera the head coach. As I said, the recent fundraising shows how much support Ron can garner.
The money that would need to be raised to make Rivera Head Coach is not Wilcox's salary/buyout, it is anything Rivera would need to make in 2026 and 2027 as head coach above what we would already be paying him as GM. It could easily be nothing more than we are already spending. Rivera might agree to that $20 million over 5 years that is equivalent to what we are currently spending, or he might even agree to less and put his efforts into raising $millions for NIL.
There is no need to "raise" $10.5 million for Wilcox's "buyout" that is a fiction (often perpetuated by ADs) that stands in the way of rational decision making.
