http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120904/NEWS/209041049/1057/SPORTS0908?p=1&tc=pg

Cohen said that all of JT's salary is paid through private donations (not via the university's own fund). Is that true?

Cohn is correct. Sure one can quibble with his errors (Rodgers played one year of JC ball not two, JT is signed through 2015 not 2014 and all of his salary is not paid by donors), but the tenor of the message was right on the mark.

Actually, the University pays about $225,000/year, Nike pays about $1.6 million and the rest is paid by private donors.

I think everyone knows and agrees with this assessment even Sandy.

If there's one writer willing to stick his neck out and call a spade, a spade, it's Cohen.

His smarmy, New York, east coast attitude can get under some people but, he will call out somebody and in this case...it's refreshing. Hopefully, his fellow scribes will take notice and take off the you know where this program was shades when it comes to some healthy criticism.

I dont know the terms of Tedford's contract but if he is fired is Nike on the hook for 4.8 million?

71Bear;841939150 said:

---

Actually, the University pays about $225,000/year, Nike pays about $1.6 million and the rest is paid by private donors.

---

Yeah the university pays him roughly the equivalent of a tenured professor. Same w UCLA.

hanky1;841939162 said:

---

Yeah the university pays him roughly the equivalent of a tenured professor. Same w UCLA.

---

Very few tenured professors make 250,000K a year.

71Bear;841939148 said:

---

Cohn is correct. Sure one can quibble with his errors (Rodgers played one year of JC ball not two, JT is signed through 2015 not 2014 and all of his salary is not paid by donors), but the tenor of the message was right on the mark.

---

Yeah, I'd quibble with those points and also say that Nate Longshore (before his injury) was an example of a QB who was coached up well by JT after Rodgers. But still . . . the thrust of the argument is dead-on.

AirOski;841939183 said:

---

Very few tenured professors make 250,000K a year.

---

I believe that is "top Step" for a full (tenure kicks in at associate). You can look it up if you are really interested. Some profs are paid "off scale" - in deals they negotiate directly.

"If Cal wants a cute little football program that wins some and loses some, Tedford is their man."

Unfortunately there are quite a few cal fans who are content with a cute little program that wins some and loses some. Maybe tedford is the right guy for cal after all?

socaltownie;841939188 said:

---

I believe that is "top Step" for a full (tenure kicks in at associate). You can look it up if you are really interested. Some profs are paid "off scale" - in deals they negotiate directly.

---

Well, the guys who teach in the law school and the business school are paid as much if not more, obviously, and there I was wrong in my comment. I don't think you'd see many liberals arts guys and gals at that level. But maybe as an old guy I have lost touch.

AirOski;841939198 said:

---

Well, the guys who teach in the law school and the business school are paid as much if not more, obviously, and there I was wrong in my comment. I don't think you'd see many liberals arts guys and gals at that level. But maybe as an old guy I have lost touch.

---

If they are at the top of the step ladder and full they ALL make the same (regardless of department) unless they are "off scale". That means that unless they cut an off scale deal a full prof at Bolt is getting the same as a full prof at the same step as in English.

I wouldn't use "small-time" but what I would say is that he doesn't (did he ever?) have SWAGGER. That may be a requirement in the current era of college football. JT is a throwback to a gentler age when embarassing your opponent wasn't called for. When you didn't lobby voters to send you to the Rose Bowl. Where if you were up by 17 in the fourth you started to pound the ball and ran out the clock. When you golf clapped on the sideline, wore these STUPID reflecting shade eye glasses and act like an f'ing statue.

Bah!

_IF_ you want to be an elite college football program (or even semi-elite) you can not act like this. You must bring a certain something to the table that gets into your opponents head.

He and Mike Riley are pretty much the same and, sadly, that is about the state of our program. Maybe we can beat OSU this year - though we never play them well on the road.

HaasBear04;841939194 said:

---

"If Cal wants a cute little football program that wins some and loses some, Tedford is their man."

Unfortunately there are quite a few cal fans who are content with a cute little program that wins some and loses some. Maybe tedford is the right guy for cal after all?

---

The video screens are pretty cute.

Cohn is a sloppy writer. I don't always agree with him but on this one I do... and that was tough for me to write.

Me too. I think he was spot on, but his factual errors make him seem like a doofus (and he is a 'furd).

Remember, though, he was the guy who wrote in 1997 that Todd Bozeman was a man of great integrity and intimated that those who criticized him were a bit bigoted...

TarzanaBear;841939215 said:

---

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2010-12-28-oregon-uniforms_N.htm

This says chip Kelly gets $500k a year from Nike. Tedford gets paid 3 times what Nike's flagship university gets paid?

---

I think you're comparing different numbers...
The ones in that story have to do with how much Nike pays the program in it's apparel/equipment deal.

Was thinking the same thing about those three mistakes - doesn't detract from the over-arching point. Try the google thing Lowell.

okaydo;841939139 said:

---

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120904/NEWS/209041049/1057/SPORTS0908?p=1&tc=pg

---

One comment Lowell makes is pretty much conventional wisdom around here: "Tedford started off with a bang. That was years ago. Now his teams are mediocre. Every year they are mediocre."

A lot of the dilemma we've gotten ourselves into with Teddy stems from the fact that this simply is not true. He actually started out mediocre and with the exception of the Rogers years has remained mediocre. Its just that mediocre was a huge improvement over the Holmoe seasons and Rogers gave the illusion of the upward momentum continuing. If you consider Rogers as we know him now -- a freakish, random lottery ticket -- we can see that Teddy's never been anything but mediocre and it was a huge lack of judgement to award him the contracts he received.

NYCGOBEARS;841939409 said:

---

Cohn is a sloppy writer. I don't always agree with him but on this one I do... and that was tough for me to write.

---

How is he a "sloppy" writer? Just curious what you consider sloppy.

AirOski;841939484 said:

---

How is he a "sloppy" writer? Just curious what you consider sloppy.

---

Not getting your facts straight as a journalist is sloppy. See 71bear's comments from the previous page...

Cohn is correct. Sure one can quibble with his errors (Rodgers played one year of JC ball not two, JT is signed through 2015 not 2014 and all of his salary is not paid by donors), but the tenor of the message was right on the mark.

AirOski;841939484 said:

---

How is he a "sloppy" writer? Just curious what you consider sloppy.

---

At least four things were inaccurate. That makes it not only sloppy but if writing for a living, downright unprofessional:

1. Said AR went to JUCO for 2 years
2. Said boosters pay all of JT's salary
3. Said Cal would have to pay for all of a theoretical buyout
4. Said Cal doesn't get big time recruits anymore - we have had guys like Keenan, Gabe King, Bigelow, Moala, Kline, Treggs and Goff, all highly sought, in recent years.

KoreAmBear;841939493 said:

---

At least four things were inaccurate. That makes it not only sloppy but if writing for a living, downright unprofessional:

1. Said AR went to JUCO for 2 years
2. Said boosters pay all of JT's salary
3. Said Cal would have to pay for all of a theoretical buyout
4. Said Cal doesn't get big time recruits anymore - we have had guys like Keenan, Gabe King, Bigelow, Moala, Kline, Treggs and Goff, all highly sought, in recent years.

---

+1
Thanks KAB. I was being lazy... Then again, I'm no journalist. 😜

"The theme or jest of his article still has merit and is, IMHO, still valid!"

1. Said AR went to JUCO for 2 years (BFD, the point is AR played JUCO ball before Cal which at least raise a question did Tedford really have that much to do in molding AR into what hehas become?)
2. Said boosters pay all of JT's salary (BFD again, the point is Tedford makes Big time money....we all agree?)
3. Said Cal would have to pay for all of a theoretical buyout (Okay the tax payers get a break but still a buyout in these times with public funds is prohibitive to his firing.)
4. Said Cal doesn't get big time recruits anymore - we have had guys like Keenan, Gabe King, Bigelow, Moala, Kline, Treggs and Goff, all highly sought, in recent years. (BFD, I believe he means bringing in Big time recruits like Big Time programs....if not relevant now, it soon will be....take a look at Cal's current recruiting.....it's not that great...as I believe its padded with 4 star upgrads who were initially only 3 stars when recruited)

Anyway, a good write up!

TarzanaBear;841939215 said:

---

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2010-12-28-oregon-uniforms_N.htm

This says chip Kelly gets $500k a year from Nike. Tedford gets paid 3 times what Nike's flagship university gets paid?

---

Do you believe me now Tarzana?.....especially after your diatribe about how I must be nuts to believe that....

TarzanaBear;841939635 said:

---

http://azstarnet.com/sports/football/college/wildcats/salary-likely-will-rank-in-middle-of-pac/article_b33548a8-cecb-5589-bff6-5b80f63da69c.html

Embree gets $200k from nike. Jeff Tedford gets 8 times that? Google Chip Kelly $500,000 nike and it appears that stat is correct which seems about right considering Embree's salary.

---

I don't know the exact amount because it is no disclosed....either way, the gist of my original post was that we only pay 10-20% of his salary and I'm still correct in that assertion...the rest comes from private donors and a big chunk from Nike....only SB and JT and the Board know but we are not on the hook for most of it, but if we fire him, we are.

TarzanaBear;841939646 said:

---

Yes. It's private donors. You know fellow cal fans. I'm not jumping on you specifically. It's just this theory that we shouldn't care because Nike is picking up the tab.

---

We should care either way, the only reason it comes up is that people keep talking about U.C. Berkeley being out 2.5 million bucks which ain't true...Nike picks up a big chunk but that doesn't really matter to me anyway....I think he should earn his pay no matter where it comes from...that goes from coaches to CEO's to sports figures...Any one can have a bad year or two but once it becomes a pattern, then these guys will get every vilification from me for making big bucks and bringing home crappy results...

AirOski;841939183 said:

---

Very few tenured professors make 250,000K a year.

---

and very few tenured professors (actually none) ever get fired for performance. And very few tenured professors (actually none) generate millions of dollars for the university.

Just read the article and, even though enough had already been said criticising JT, it has rarely been said so effectively. That was like the closing arguement in a case many of us have been trying to argue all week.

Blueblood;841939512 said:

---

4. Said Cal doesn't get big time recruits anymore - we have had guys like Keenan, Gabe King, Bigelow, Moala, Kline, Treggs and Goff, all highly sought, in recent years. (BFD, I believe he means bringing in Big time recruits like Big Time programs....if not relevant now, it soon will be....take a look at Cal's current recruiting.....it's not that great...as I believe its padded with 4 star upgrads who were initially only 3 stars when recruited)

---

On this . . . while I believe it's a good possibility that recruiting will slip soon, looking at the CURRENT state is not a good indicator. You really have to wait until signing day to have an idea of how good recruiting really was.

AirOski;841939183 said:

---

Very few tenured professors make 250,000K a year.

---

It's pretty common for a professor from a major research university in certain departments (professional schools, science, engineering, etc) to make about $250K. Liberal arts prof won't pull down that kinda money unless they're level-10.

bearblast;841939654 said:

---

and very few tenured professors (actually none) ever get fired for performance. And very few tenured professors (actually none) generate millions of dollars for the university.

---

Tenured faculty have been fired but its tough - has to be some sort of gross negligence.

There are tenured faculty who bring in millions of dollars through research grants and by wooing major donors, who in turn contribute big dollars to put up new buildings.

socaltownie;841939206 said:

---

If they are at the top of the step ladder and full they ALL make the same (regardless of department) unless they are "off scale". That means that unless they cut an off scale deal a full prof at Bolt is getting the same as a full prof at the same step as in English.

---

Actually, this is not true. There are a variety of different faculty salary scales for business, engineering, health sciences, etc. Beyond that, any faculty that is valued by his or her department chair and has been recruited by another top flight university will have received a healthy salary bump as part of their retention package.

http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/0910/