P12 head coach salaries - Page 3

95bears

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Phantomfan • 2:24p, 11/18/11

Jeff82

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Jeff82 • 2:28p, 11/18/11

By the way, I also think the size of our recruiting area is partially offset by the low profile college sports has in the Bay Area, relative to other parts of the country. As Monty's difficulties in hoop suggest, 5* players from this area often end up wanting to go someplace for college where they'll get more attention. The big winner in the conference in that regard is U$C, which has benefitted mightily from the departure of the Rams and the Raiders. The Toejams essentially are football in LA. In fact, it could be argued that Tedford has mostly been successful in getting talent from other regions to come here (like the NC Five), rather than tapping the local talent.

Calcoholic

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:50p, 11/18/11

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;627467 said:</div><hr>if kelly goes 9-3 and JT goes 4-8 me thinks it's about the same. <hr></blockquote> Who talks like that? Other than fairies (literally) in Shakespeare plays? C'mon man, this is a football message board.

BTUR

Joined: Aug 15, 2011

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Phantomfan • 3:26p, 11/18/11

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>last time i saw we were 3rd in the pac-12 in total expenditures for the football team. above oregon and stanford.<hr></blockquote> Link please? Furthermore, is total expenditures the right measure to use? I don't know, but we'd need to know more about how it's calculated. For example, any costs that come from travel might not be equal among programs but shouldn't be included in evaluation because it has no relevance to coaching - that cost will stay the same no matter who the coach is. Without further information, I'm inclined to say salary of the coaching staff is the correct measure to use. <blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>5 years is a long time to ignore. you act like we've been something like 5th for only two years. he can't break .500 in teh conference in that time. 2005 wasn't exactly a stellar year either.<hr></blockquote> Again, to make sure our conversations are accurate, the last time Cal finished top 3 or 4 in the conference was 2008. I'm not making the point that the recent performance has been a success, rather, I'm interested in factually correct conversations. @95bears Some good info there. However, again, I have to stress this point - the coaching staff's salary is the correct thing to look at, not the head coaches salary. I pulled the 2010 data, and Cal is 6th out of 8 (USC and Stanford not included because they're private - though I think we should assume USC is definitely ahead of Cal, less sure about Stanford) in the conference in assistant coaches salary, with the 7th place team (ASU) just barely coming in behind (and having higher potential bonuses). In the effort of avoiding cherry picking, Arizona is not that far ahead of Cal, with lower potential bonuses. Feel free to check out the data yourself. Of course, one major issue in figuring all this out is the salary structure - we don't know the likelihood of any of the bonus figures, nor do we seem to have info on who pays the bill (for instance, I don't know how other schools are set up but at Cal, Nike is footing most of the bill for Tedford's contract). The relevance of that being...if you fire your coach, what happens to the non-university portion of the funding? So that's a big unknown for every coach, I think. @drunkoski (and whoever else wants in on the convo) - the thing it seems to me is I've never so much as seen you acknowledge the point that I generally make - it's not that I'm saying the programs recent performance has been good enough, as much as I think it's headed back in a positive direction (and has a very solid chance of getting back to levels I see as acceptable - levels it was at earlier in Tedford's tenure). So a discussion of the ROI of Tedford's recent performance is kind of besides the point anyways. I'm certainly not here to argue the team has been good enough the last couple years. Nor am I here to change your mind on the topic. I am curious, to those who want to respond, what your response to my point is, though. I think, with new facilities, coaching changes, and the recent success in recruiting, that the team is positioning itself to start seeing more success. There's nothing you can do about past ROI, but the team is back headed in an upward direction, and future ROI is going to improve and likely be acceptable*. Now - why shouldn't I believe that? *Acceptable being something like 4th best in the conference over a period of a few years - I think the program is clearly behind USC and Oregon in the pecking order (check Oregon's assistant coaching bonuses if you need proof), and has competition from enough other Pac-12 schools that it's not clearly #3, either.

95bears

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to BTUR • 4:33p, 11/18/11

.... okay I put the figures from the USA Today stuff into a table and ranked the schools according to profitability. They don't count salaries as football expenses. They don't have data for the private schools. I put in a "net profit" column to show impact of salaries even though many are paid by Nike, Adidas, etc. To BTURs point, it's horrific how little we pay assistant coaches given our cost of living. Straight Profit | Coach Pay | Asst. Coach Pay | Net "Profit" UW____14.7________2.3________2.2________10.2 CU____13.6 ________0.7________1.5________11.4 ASU____11.7________1.5________1.4________8.8 UA____11.0________1.5________1.5________ 8.0 UO____8.5________2.8________1.8________3.9 OSU____7.1________1.3________1.7________4.1 CAL____7.0________2.3________1.4________3.3 UCLA___7.0________1.3________1.9________3.8 WSU____3.6________0.6________1.2________1.9 UT____3.2________1.7________1.3________0.2