Top 10: Checking in on coaches' hot-seat rankings

Quote:

---

10. Jeff Tedford, Cal: No one on this list has done more with his program for as long as Tedford has. He took over a one-win team and produced some double-digit win seasons. But the reality is, Cal came into 2012 three games under .500 in league play during the previous three seasons and they're 1-2 in Pac-12 play now. Losing to Nevada to open the year only made things worse. Last week's dominating performance over UCLA might be the start of bigger things for the Bears. Complicating things is the fact that it would cost the school a reported $10 million to bring in a new staff if it opts to go in a different direction.

---

Big time donors?

I'm sure a team of highly skilled finance and legal guys extensively researched that paragraph before it was published.

Gonna need a really big hat. Also, who's gonna sit on Telegraph collecting?

It'll happen, 100%.

Guarantee if we had a Kickstarter-style crowdfunding campaign, we could get it done pretty quickly.

It's a bogus number.

People who have looked into the particulars suggest that the cost is < $6.3M for Tedford.

And the assistants? Clancy (the highest paid) and Genyk are due nothing, Michalczik and Arroyo have another year(?), but Chandler and Howard are new guys and might have longer deals. Not sure about Gould.

Well, Tedford is due 6.9M and the assistants combined are probably due about $2M. That's almost 9M, $8 at the min. Throw in hiring costs and $9-10M is not unrealistic. The vast majority is of course JT, but that could go down based in a buyout.

It will happen. And it won't cost that much. But even if it did, 10mm isn't much at all. Whenever I start to freak out about this number, I just think of Barry Zito's contract through 2011, and how much work JT has done, compared to pitching (horribly) every 5 days.

Yeah it's not THAT much if it's not YOUR money. Funny how that works.

Okay uber donors, do your thing.

Guys, guys, guys...it's so simple:

You issue a securitization backed by 30 years of future revenue streams. The securitization will consist of one bond covering 95% of estimated revenues, and series of smaller bonds from 0.50% to 2.5% of the overall size.

The top 95% piece will get rated AAA, while the others will be lower in rating and absorb any revenue shortfalls. But here's the best part: if there are no takers for the riskier lower rated bonds, we simply repackage them with the lower rated pieces of the Gene Chizik, Charlie Wies, and Derek Dooley buyout bonds, and voila! A new AAA rated bond, since the rating agencies have extensive research showing college football revenue streams are uncorrelated.

Said bonds could be sold to the UC Regents pension fund. I know I'd buy some for my pension; looks bullet proof to me. Who else is in?

The amount due to Tedford does not change - whether he is here or not he is owed that money and it has been budgeted for. And, if he is fired he would likely reach a settlement for a smaller amount (although the savings may not be very large). The real issue is the amount that is needed to pay for a new coach & staff. That number will not be insignificant but will be spread over the length of the contract. Boils down to a cost/benefit analysis for Sandy - potential loss in revenue for duration of Tedford's contract vs. potential increase in revenue with new leadership/ winning. Lot of empty seats on Friday and I would expect more this Saturday night.

hehatenate;841998498 said:

---

Guys, guys, guys...it's so simple:

You issue a securitization backed by 30 years of future revenue streams. The securitization will consist of one bond covering 95% of estimated revenues, and series of smaller bonds from 0.50% to 2.5% of the overall size.

The top 95% piece will get rated AAA, while the others will be lower in rating and absorb any revenue shortfalls. But here's the best part: if there are no takers for the riskier lower rated bonds, we simply repackage them with the lower rated pieces of the Gene Chizik, Charlie Wies, and Derek Dooley buyout bonds, and voila! A new AAA rated bond, since the rating agencies have extensive research showing college football revenue streams are uncorrelated.

Said bonds could be sold to the UC Regents pension fund. I know I'd buy some for my pension; looks bullet proof to me. Who else is in?

---

rsvlfan2;841998531 said:

---

The amount due to Tedford does not change - whether he is here or not he is owed that money and it has been budgeted for. And, if he is fired he would likely reach a settlement for a smaller amount (although the savings may not be very large). The real issue is the amount that is needed to pay for a new coach & staff. That number will not be insignificant but will be spread over the length of the contract. Boils down to a cost/benefit analysis for Sandy - potential loss in revenue for duration of Tedford's contract vs. potential increase in revenue with new leadership/ winning. Lot of empty seats on Friday and I would expect more this Saturday night.

---

yes it is budgeted but it has to be paid in a lump sum if he is terminated (I think)

Issuing a bond to fire Tedford? Wow okay.

beelzebear;841998550 said:

---

Issuing a bond to fire Tedford? Wow okay.

---

Junk bond for Tedford. :p

All of the assistants have new contracts tied to JT that roll out to 2015. So they all get three year deals. Check out the Regents meetings for their contract approvals. Thanks to Tosh, by the way...