The USA Today maintains a database of individual assistant coach salaries for FBS coaches that are publicly available (which leaves out USC and Furd obviously). This includes both coordinators and position coaches.

How does Cal fare with others? Here are the national rankings of Pac-12 coaches, by school, for the [U]top 400[/U] assistant coach salaries nationally based on 2014 data:

Cal: #43 Art Kaufman ($570K), #44 Tony Franklin ($550K) ---- note: the next Cal coaches are #489 Fred Tate ($182K) and #494 Eric Burns ($181K)

UCLA: #17 Noel Mazzone ($760K), #20 Adrian Klemm ($723K), #52 Jeff Ulbrich ($510K), #122 Demetrice Martin ($385K), #124 Eric Yarber ($385K), #161 Kennedy Polamalu ($338K), #231 Angus McClure ($290K), #283 Mike Tuiasosopu ($260K)

Arizona State: #8 Mike Norvell ($900K), #86 Keith Patterson ($451K), #168 Paul Randolph ($330K), #205 Chris Thomsen ($300K), #266 Chris Ball ($269K), #301 Jackie Shipp ($250K),

Arizona: #65 Jeff Casteel ($500K), #101 Calvin McGee ($400K), #221 Rod Smith ($290K), #262 Jim Michalczik ($270K), #331 Tony Dews ($240K), #357 Bill Kirelawich ($230K),

Colorado: #84 Kent Baer ($458K), #85 Brian Lingren ($455K), #194 Gary Bernardi ($306K), #289 Klayton Adams ($255K), #290 Troy Walters ($255K), #291 Toby Neinas ($255K), #292 Jim Jeffcoat ($255)

Oregon: #73 Ron Aiken ($500K), #114 Don Pellum ($400K), #116 Scott Frost ($400K), #123 Steve Greatwood ($385K), #136 Tom Osborne ($367K), #174 John Neal ($325K), #175 Matt Lubick ($325k), #216 Gary Campbell ($300K), #260 Erk Chinadner ($275K),

Oregon State: #54 Mark Banker ($505K), #183 John Garrett ($320K), #188 Bruce Read ($315K), #248 Mike Cavanaugh ($275K), #351 Rodney Perry ($231K)

Utah: #62 Dave Christensen ($500K), #249 Dennis Erickson ($275K), #372 Aaron Roderick ($225K)

Washington: #72 Pete Kwiatkowski ($485K), #96 Chris Strausser ($425K), #97 Jonathan Smith ($425K), #98 Bob Gregory ($425K), #129 Jimmy Lake ($375K), #157 Brent Pease ($345K), #158 Jeff Choate ($345K), #309 Keith Bhonapha ($250K)

Washington State: #128 Michael Breske ($377K), #256 Joe Salave'a ($275K), #302 Eric Russell ($251K), #333 David Yost ($241K), #360 Dennis Simmons ($226K), #361 Jim Mastro ($22k), #362 Clay McGuire ($226K), #396 Ken Wilson ($216K)


Link to the original USA Today info: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant

so essentially outside of franklin and kaufman we are non competitive. shocker.

This is not current information. Banker and Cavanaugh are not at the Beavers anymore. They are at Nebraska.

Goobear;842609754 said:

---

This is not current information. Banker and Cavanaugh are not at the Beavers anymore. They are at Nebraska.

---

As I said in the original post, the info is based on 2014 data, the most current data in the USA Today database.

moonpod;842609750 said:

---

so essentially outside of franklin and kaufman we are non competitive. shocker.

---

Does Williams know this, the entire list, able to compare and contrast and draw conclusions.
He's a numbers guy, if he sees and studies the numbers and can make them talk.

GET YER HAID OUTTA YER BUTT, WILLIAMS.

Wonder what the rest of the staff makes, living in the EXPENSIVE Bay Area, where do they live.

ASU has much deeper pockets than I thought. Zero academic standards and a well paid staff, they should be much better than they are. UCLA salaries are also higher than expected. UW's Pete K is way underpaid.

Cal's coordinator salaries are better than expected. George Cortez was living in American Canyon while OC at Cal.

Our low end assistant's compensation needs work.

On the other hand see Oregon

oregon has had a lot of coaching turnover. I think it's actually a credit to them that they have moved a lot of pieces and kept being competitive. And c'mon. They've been the pre eminent PAC program with a reputation for being "different" on the coaching side. I'm sure it helps

I wonder who will replace norvell at ASU

FML..I should of got into college coaching. You can be at the bottom and make 180k.

moonpod;842609786 said:

---

oregon has had a lot of coaching turnover. I think it's actually a credit to them that they have moved a lot of pieces and kept being competitive. And c'mon. They've been the pre eminent PAC program with a reputation for being "different" on the coaching side. I'm sure it helps

I wonder who will replace norvell at ASU

---

Sorry, but we can't have it both ways. If poor salary is the explanation for poor coaching then Oregon shouldn't exist. Unless you are arguing that they once paid premium rates then reduced salaries once they became preeminent. They hired the right people, paid them a salary they agreed to then expected those people to perform.

MinotStateBeav;842609789 said:

---

FML..I should of got into college coaching. You can be at the bottom and make 180k.

---

No FBS is at the top, if you are at the bottom there is a ways to go

Dbearson;842609792 said:

---

No FBS is at the top, if you are at the bottom there is a ways to go

---

Nope..your wrong...Minot State is the top. FBS is just below them. Here's our assistant coaches right now working recruiting at MSU..

I didn't realize we were that far off in terms of salaries! We need to step it up, especially with the high cost of living in the Bay Area. If you weighted these salaries with the cost of living, we are WAY behind the other schools in the conference.

Assistants that are not coordinators need to be paid at the level UCLA does
But we must have assistants that recruit at least at their level and hopefully better
On top of assistant salaries recruiting budget must be beefed up to compete with other programs and probably more than our competition because of our academic ambitions. Stanfords recruiting Budget is beyond massive

Thank you for taking the time to pull the numbers. Agree with assistants who are not coordinators should get paid more to be competitive. Gap is wider than I had imagined. Start there and I think the rest would follow if the program has real success and is able to generate notable revenue, therefore contributing to the academic cause in a more tangible manner, which may change some of the politics around athletics.

Will be interesting to see if UCLA can continue on the uptrend. With their recruiting and competitive pay, their fans would expect more.

DavisBear;842609809 said:

---

I didn't realize we were that far off in terms of salaries! We need to step it up, especially with the high cost of living in the Bay Area. If you weighted these salaries with the cost of living, we are WAY behind the other schools in the conference.

---

+1

Adjusting for housing, this is pretty bad.

tequila4kapp;842609790 said:

---

Sorry, but we can't have it both ways. If poor salary is the explanation for poor coaching then Oregon shouldn't exist. Unless you are arguing that they once paid premium rates then reduced salaries once they became preeminent. They hired the right people, paid them a salary they agreed to then expected those people to perform.

---

Cost of Living (real disposable income) difference between Eugene (or pick any other venue) and Bay Area?
Gross salary is a false comparison, and we are way down on that.
Cost of Living IS a big deal to coaches trying to feed, clothe and shelter their families.
Kansas is a helluva lot cheaper than the Bay Area.

SonOfCalVa;842609889 said:

---

Cost of Living (real disposable income) difference between Eugene (or pick any other venue) and Bay Area?
Gross salary is a false comparison, and we are way down on that.
Cost of Living IS a big deal to coaches trying to feed, clothe and shelter their families.
Kansas is a helluva lot cheaper than the Bay Area.

---

Let's be real: none of these guys are "squeaking by" trying to shelter, feed, or clothe their families... but I do completely agree that it is not fair if they are not getting market salary and understand how that would breed discontent.

The fact they agreed to do the job for a given salary means they are defacto getting market salary. I don't think Cal should strive to pay the least because that necessarily makes the job a stepping stone job, which is unhealthy for the program. But I reject this notion they are squeaking by, stressed about money, not succeeding because they are worrying about money, etc. 180K is not insignificant, even in the bay area. I find it a little insulting to people who really are struggling to make ends meet to suggest otherwise.

SonOfCalVa;842609758 said:

---

Does Williams know this, the entire list, able to compare and contrast and draw conclusions.
He's a numbers guy, if he sees and studies the numbers and can make them talk.

GET YER HAID OUTTA YER BUTT, WILLIAMS.

Wonder what the rest of the staff makes, living in the EXPENSIVE Bay Area, where do they live.

---

Lots of people thrive in the Bay Area for less than $181k plus generous benefits a year.

If our current coaches do a better job, they will make more money.

technobear;842609902 said:

---

Let's be real: none of these guys are "squeaking by" trying to shelter, feed, or clothe their families... but I do completely agree that it is not fair if they are not getting market salary and understand how that would breed discontent.

---

They are getting their market salary. They aren't very good coaches. If they were better coaches, they would have better offers.

It would cost us about $750k annually to get all of the assistant coaches up to $250k annually or about 15,000 additional tickets sold at $50 or 2,000 new season ticket sales. That doesn't seem too hard to me.

The fact that WSU pays assistants more should be an eye-opener to everyone.

I'd bet that Cal is not adverse to paying assistants more, or even a HC, but this current group?

One comes into a situation and can demand a certain compensation based upon the resume. Looking-over some of those names I see former NFLers, players, coaches, guys who played and coached in the Pac, high performance teams, etc... Ulbrich is still somewhat a god down here in Morgan Hill, South Bay... I believe he's with the Falcons now.

I'm not going to go through each of our assistants and those of other teams, but if I had to guess, we don't exactly match-up credential-wise.

That's fine though, prove yourself here in the mighty Pac-12, and we'll take care of you...

SD and staff have not made us into a winning Pac-12 team. Our three years under SD are worse than our first three years under Holmoe... Some factual data on the SD era and this current year...

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?97875-Survey-Dykes-Supporters-vs-Dykes-Haters&p=842609994&viewfull=1#post842609994

More money for a HC or assistants is there, I'd venture to guess, but for this bunch, based upon past experience and performance, at Cal and prior, if they can do appreciably better elsewhere, particularly in this high COLA area, they wouldn't be here... Looks like Sonny himself is finding that out too.

hoop97;842610212 said:

---

The fact that WSU pays assistants more should be an eye-opener to everyone.

---

Have you ever been to Pullman? In all seriousness, I bet market factors require them to pay more in order to get people to take the job.

tequila4kapp;842610241 said:

---

Have you ever been to Pullman? In all seriousness, I bet market factors require them to pay more in order to get people to take the job.

---

Chez Panisse >>> Chez Palouse

hoop97;842610212 said:

---

The fact that WSU pays assistants more should be an eye-opener to everyone.

---

Well they are doing better.
Maybe we would too if we got some better assistants.

Oski Bear;842610171 said:

---

They are getting their market salary. They aren't very good coaches. If they were better coaches, they would have better offers.

---

Agreed on this point and with others who brought up the same point.

Perhaps I should rephrase: if Sonny thinks that our salary levels are preventing him from building the kind of staff he wants to have, then we should adjust levels. At the same time, just as one approach to head coach searches is to look for "up and comers" who are looking for that next opportunity, I would imagine the same applies for assistant coaches at all levels.

technobear;842610252 said:

---

Agreed on this point and with others who brought up the same point.

Perhaps I should rephrase: if Sonny thinks that our salary levels are preventing him from building the kind of staff he wants to have, then we should adjust levels. At the same time, just as one approach to head coach searches is to look for "up and comers" who are looking for that next opportunity, I would imagine the same applies for assistant coaches at all levels.

---

Yes, but this all becomes very circular very quickly. If you don't think Dykes is a good coach, then you probably don't have much confidence in his ability to pick his staff, especially after the Buh disaster. Therefore, raising position coach salaries in your mind probably means overpaying for lousy performance.

The bottom line is the overall approach. Historically, Cal has hired alleged up-and-comers from the assistant ranks. That was largely unsuccessful until Tedford, Except that Tedford then crashed and burned. This time, we hired a coach with Division I experience. Results are still not fully known, although I tend to think he's not going to get us to the top of the conference. My guess is we'll probably go back to the previous approach. I agree that we should probably expand the assistant salaries some, because $180,000 is not a lot of money in the Bay Area, and a salary at that level would probably lead a guy who wanted to have a wife, several children and a house to look elsewhere as soon as his resume permitted. I don't know what the effect is on a program of salary compression, a situation where the gap between head coach and lower-coach salaries is not as big as it is at most top schools.

Jeff82;842610266 said:

---

Yes, but this all becomes very circular very quickly. If you don't think Dykes is a good coach, then you probably don't have much confidence in his ability to pick his staff, especially after the Buh disaster. Therefore, raising position coach salaries in your mind probably means overpaying for lousy performance.

The bottom line is the overall approach. Historically, Cal has hired alleged up-and-comers from the assistant ranks. That was largely unsuccessful until Tedford, Except that Tedford then crashed and burned. This time, we hired a coach with Division I experience. Results are still not fully known, although I tend to think he's not going to get us to the top of the conference. My guess is we'll probably go back to the previous approach. I agree that we should probably expand the assistant salaries some, because $180,000 is not a lot of money in the Bay Area, and a salary at that level would probably lead a guy who wanted to have a wife, several children and a house to look elsewhere as soon as his resume permitted. I don't know what the effect is on a program of salary compression, a situation where the gap between head coach and lower-coach salaries is not as big as it is at most top schools.

---

Makes sense. My thought is around accountability and just eliminating another potential excuse for failure. At what point will we agree that a coach has to be held responsible for his job? Obviously, we don't know what is said behind closed doors or even if Dykes thinks this is an issue (though his supporters on this board seem to think it is), but the figures pulled do show a distinct gap with our rivals, so it is just another convenient thing that can pointed out.

Don't know what the norm is regarding salary compression in college football, but I would imagine AD Williams would have to sit down with Dykes or any future candidates and strategize on how this could only be improved with continued success... in layman's language: "Look, I'm pulling teeth to get these assistant salary levels up. This helps your success. If you have success, it will make it easier to get your salary raise and extension approved next year, etc."

I think the fact that after the stadium renovation, the coaching choices we were left with were Mike McIntyre and Sonny Dykes, both of whom were underwhelming to most of the board, indicates that fixing the facilities was a necessary but not sufficient condition to moving the football program forward. Given the fact that the athletic department by itself doesn't have much control over the emphasis on academics, relations with the faculty, etc., etc., about the only thing left that could make Cal a more attractive coaching job is increasing the position coach pay scale. Therefore, it's probably worth doing for future planning purposes, even if the money might not be well spent by the Dykes regime. I also don't think the bridges are burned. If Sonny makes a step forward next year, he'll get a better extension and more money. Winning is the best balm for hurt feelings. Beating U$C, or UCLA, or Oregon, or Furd, would probably radically change the way Sonny is perceived. If he doesn't do that, he's probably gone, and we figure out where to go next.

tequila4kapp;842610156 said:

---

The fact they agreed to do the job for a given salary means they are defacto getting market salary. I don't think Cal should strive to pay the least because that necessarily makes the job a stepping stone job, which is unhealthy for the program. But I reject this notion they are squeaking by, stressed about money, not succeeding because they are worrying about money, etc. 180K is not insignificant, even in the bay area. I find it a little insulting to people who really are struggling to make ends meet to suggest otherwise.

---

Two things about 180K in the Bay Area these days...
1) Most of these guys are new here and need to buy a house (or rent) at crazy 2015 prices.
2) Many of them have families and the Assistant Coach's job requires A LOT of time away from home, year round. If their wives work, too, they're paying for a lot of child care. Ideally, with this job, the spouse could stay home with the kids, but then they're on that one income.

Sure we can't compare their salaries to that of the average person, but these are college grads, high achievers in their profession, who usually have five years experience, minimum (usually much more).

They are underpaid, especially if we want to attract top (or even above average) talent.

We should have more assistant coach money available next year due to no longer paying Buh's buyout (or did a donor come forward to pay that one?).

I understand that we don't have an infinite budget for assistants but I don't know that it's hindering us that much. There are probably a handful of big name position coaches who we can't target but otherwise who have we lost out on due simply to money? When Tosh wanted his salary doubled or tripled or whatever it was, we actually agreed to it. When Dykes made his $1.5M mistake (Buh) we stepped up and paid him out and then paid another DC a competitive salary. Has Dykes gone to the AD and said "I want to hire coach X as a position coach and need another $50k a year, he'd be substantially better than the other options" and the AD turned him down? It's not like we lose a bunch of assistants that we want to keep to lateral moves for money reasons.

Big C_Cal;842610302 said:

---

Two things about 180K in the Bay Area these days...
1) Most of these guys are new here and need to buy a house (or rent) at crazy 2015 prices.
2) Many of them have families and the Assistant Coach's job requires A LOT of time away from home, year round. If their wives work, too, they're paying for a lot of child care. Ideally, with this job, the spouse could stay home with the kids, but then they're on that one income.

Sure we can't compare their salaries to that of the average person, but these are college grads, high achievers in their profession, who usually have five years experience, minimum (usually much more).

They are underpaid, especially if we want to attract top (or even above average) talent.

---

Cal's professors are far more talented than Cal football's position coaches. And most of them live on FAR less that 180k a year.

If our assistants want more money, they should try to do their jobs better.

boredom;842610309 said:

---

We should have more assistant coach money available next year due to no longer paying Buh's buyout (or did a donor come forward to pay that one?).

I understand that we don't have an infinite budget for assistants but I don't know that it's hindering us that much. There are probably a handful of big name position coaches who we can't target but otherwise who have we lost out on due simply to money? When Tosh wanted his salary doubled or tripled or whatever it was, we actually agreed to it. When Dykes made his $1.5M mistake (Buh) we stepped up and paid him out and then paid another DC a competitive salary. Has Dykes gone to the AD and said "I want to hire coach X as a position coach and need another $50k a year, he'd be substantially better than the other options" and the AD turned him down? It's not like we lose a bunch of assistants that we want to keep to lateral moves for money reasons.

---

What about just paying people fairly? For one thing, it's the right thing to do. More practically, it engenders loyalty - when other programs come calling to one of our guys, they will be less likely to jump if they feel they've been paid fairly. When you pay people as little as possible and then offer to match an offer they've gotten from elsewhere, many people will harbor resentment that they hadn't been paid fairly all along. We have he highest COL in the conference. And we are paying our non-coordinator assistants very little, relative to their peers. It is a little embarrassing, if you ask me.