Oski Bear;842610315 said:

---

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.

---

My 10th grade English teacher should have been paid 500K with this logic.

Oski Bear;842610315 said:

---

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.

---

I honestly don't know if any of the things you've written are true. Let's unpack them:

1. Cal's professors are "far more talented". What are you basing this on and what do you mean by talent?

2. Most Cal professors live on "FAR less than that 180k per year." According to a study from 2011, Cal ranked 13th in average professor salaries at $149k per year. I don't know if that is a fully baked number including pension and other benefits or not but to me $150k on average makes it sound like most professors are nor making "FAR less" than $180k. I am sure it doesn't include consulting income which can amount to a pretty penny for in demand fields. I should also note that, believe it or not, not all professors work in competitive fields which I am sure is reflected in their compensation, just as football coaching demand is reflected in theirs. I should also note that many families (which could include coaches - although they face more challenges because they are frequently required to move for work) have dual incomes which make it much more possible to live in the bay area. $150k for the average professor at Cal seems like pretty good money to me. And finally, the $180k number was for our highest paid position coaches, most of our position coaches are making less.

3. If our assistants want more money they should try to do their jobs better: What makes you think they haven't already done that? The way that hard work manifests itself is in terms of offers for employment at a higher wage - eg what we saw happen with many of our position coaches over the years including guys like Likens and low performers like Yenser. There is plenty of reason to believe our position coaches are paid below market because they frequently leave for higher paying jobs in lower cost of living areas. When Berkeley has trouble finding professors, I'm sure we will pay more for them or suffer the consequences. The point of this discussion is that the consequences of underpaying position coaches aren't worth the $500k-$1M a year in the aggregate it would cost to pay them well enough for long-term retention of the ones we want to retain.

Unit2Sucks;842610359 said:

---

I honestly don't know if any of the things you've written are true. Let's unpack them:

1. Cal's professors are "far more talented". What are you basing this on and what do you mean by talent?

2. Most Cal professors live on "FAR less than that 180k per year." According to a study from 2011, Cal ranked 13th in average professor salaries at $149k per year. I don't know if that is a fully baked number including pension and other benefits or not but to me $150k on average makes it sound like most professors are nor making "FAR less" than $180k. I am sure it doesn't include consulting income which can amount to a pretty penny for in demand fields. I should also note that, believe it or not, not all professors work in competitive fields which I am sure is reflected in their compensation, just as football coaching demand is reflected in theirs. I should also note that many families (which could include coaches - although they face more challenges because they are frequently required to move for work) have dual incomes which make it much more possible to live in the bay area. $150k for the average professor at Cal seems like pretty good money to me. And finally, the $180k number was for our highest paid position coaches, most of our position coaches are making less.

3. If our assistants want more money they should try to do their jobs better: What makes you think they haven't already done that? The way that hard work manifests itself is in terms of offers for employment at a higher wage - eg what we saw happen with many of our position coaches over the years including guys like Likens and low performers like Yenser. There is plenty of reason to believe our position coaches are paid below market because they frequently leave for higher paying jobs in lower cost of living areas. When Berkeley has trouble finding professors, I'm sure we will pay more for them or suffer the consequences. The point of this discussion is that the consequences of underpaying position coaches aren't worth the $500k-$1M a year in the aggregate it would cost to pay them well enough for long-term retention of the ones we want to retain.

---

To be fair, Likens left for a promotion to OC, something he never would have gotten here with Franklin in that spot.

Unit2Sucks;842610359 said:

---

I honestly don't know if any of the things you've written are true. Let's unpack them:

1. Cal's professors are "far more talented". What are you basing this on and what do you mean by talent?

---

Simple. Cal's professors are some of the best in the world. We have more top 5 academic departments than any university on earth. Our position coaches have not earned us a top 5 ranking. Our professors are the best in their fields. Our football coaches are not. Other schools try to raid our faculty all the time. No one is lining up to steal Garrett Chachere or Jacob Peeler.

Unit2Sucks;842610359 said:

---

2. Most Cal professors live on "FAR less than that 180k per year." According to a study from 2011, Cal ranked 13th in average professor salaries at $149k per year. I don't know if that is a fully baked number including pension and other benefits or not but to me $150k on average makes it sound like most professors are nor making "FAR less" than $180k. I am sure it doesn't include consulting income which can amount to a pretty penny for in demand fields. I should also note that, believe it or not, not all professors work in competitive fields which I am sure is reflected in their compensation, just as football coaching demand is reflected in theirs. I should also note that many families (which could include coaches - although they face more challenges because they are frequently required to move for work) have dual incomes which make it much more possible to live in the bay area. $150k for the average professor at Cal seems like pretty good money to me. And finally, the $180k number was for our highest paid position coaches, most of our position coaches are making less.

---

Most of our faculty members make far less than$150k. If you want to do averages, you would have to include Sonny and the coordinators salaries in the football average.

Unit2Sucks;842610359 said:

---

3. If our assistants want more money they should try to do their jobs better: What makes you think they haven't already done that? The way that hard work manifests itself is in terms of offers for employment at a higher wage - eg what we saw happen with many of our position coaches over the years including guys like Likens and low performers like Yenser. There is plenty of reason to believe our position coaches are paid below market because they frequently leave for higher paying jobs in lower cost of living areas. When Berkeley has trouble finding professors, I'm sure we will pay more for them or suffer the consequences. The point of this discussion is that the consequences of underpaying position coaches aren't worth the $500k-$1M a year in the aggregate it would cost to pay them well enough for long-term retention of the ones we want to retain.

---

Because our receivers regressed this year under a new coach. Because our corners got beat a lot. Because our defense got lit up. Because our O Line looked overwhelmed and failed to dominate the LOS. If they were really great at their jobs, they would have gotten other offers.

Likens didn't leave because of pay. He left because he wanted to be a coordinator. And he did a terrible job this year.

I'm not saying that every humanities prof should be paid $250k. I'm just saying that our position coaches are paid market value for their abilities, and that their pay is more than enough to live very comfortably in the Bay Area. Professors live in the same city for far less.

When Sonny came on board, the team was loaded with a bunch of, to be delicate, dumb fucks. For some reason, the administration of the University of California was somewhat embarrassed and upset. Sonny walked into a cluster **** with a small, vocal and entitled fan base.

I, for one, am enjoying the show.

:gobears:

Oski Bear;842610373 said:

---

Simple. Cal's professors are some of the best in the world. We have more top 5 academic departments than any university on earth. Our position coaches have not earned us a top 5 ranking. Our professors are the best in their fields. Our football coaches are not. Other schools try to raid our faculty all the time. No one is lining up to steal Garrett Chachere or Jacob Peeler.

Most of our faculty members make far less than$150k. If you want to do averages, you would have to include Sonny and the coordinators salaries in the football average.

Because our receivers regressed this year under a new coach. Because our corners got beat a lot. Because our defense got lit up. Because our O Line looked overwhelmed and failed to dominate the LOS. If they were really great at their jobs, they would have gotten other offers.

Likens didn't leave because of pay. He left because he wanted to be a coordinator. And he did a terrible job this year.

I'm not saying that every humanities prof should be paid $250k. I'm just saying that our position coaches are paid market value for their abilities, and that their pay is more than enough to live very comfortably in the Bay Area. Professors live in the same city for far less.

---

I will concede I don't know if the $150k number I quoted was median or mean, but do you have any support for the statement that most professors make far less than $150k? How much do you think our professors make? I bet it has something to do with demand.

I don't know about Chachere but Peeler is a great recruiter and that is absolutely an in demand quality that will get him paid sooner or later by Cal or someone else.

Finally I should note that Sonny was the outside receivers coach this year so you could argue the loss of Likens played into that.

It's just really silly to compare assistant coaches and professors. We may as well compare athletes and musicians. They exist in different markets.

Wow, pretty shocking disparity on the pay with with our non-coordinator assistants and bad for the program. Cal definately needs to step-up and get more competitive on the pay. Besides the high cost of living, if one of our assistants is making $180K (and is good) they would be easy pickings for the other teams to recruit. "Come on over we'll boost your pay up to $380K", a no brainer for the coach.

The assistants are mediocore coaches and they are getting paid for what they are worth. they would probably have a hard time finding jobs even close to what they are making now. get rid of st, dl and lb coaches. there will be better coaches who make less other places willing to come. and sony stop coaching the wide receivers. they were disappointing this year. get a real coach. think about getting a kicker that can reach the end zone most of the time.

Unit2Sucks;842610389 said:

---

I will concede I don't know if the $150k number I quoted was median or mean, but do you have any support for the statement that most professors make far less than $150k? How much do you think our professors make? I bet it has something to do with demand.

I don't know about Chachere but Peeler is a great recruiter and that is absolutely an in demand quality that will get him paid sooner or later by Cal or someone else.

Finally I should note that Sonny was the outside receivers coach this year so you could argue the loss of Likens played into that.

It's just really silly to compare assistant coaches and professors. We may as well compare athletes and musicians. They exist in different markets.

---

I had a friend who went to teach at Williams College (MA) straight out of grad school. He was also offered a tenure-track job at Cal. English prof. Williams paid him $30k more.

The housing markets are the same regardless of your profession. It is the pay that is different. If profs can survive in the Bay Area, so can football coaches who make far more.

Our inside receivers regressed this year. Lots of drops. Peeler recruited Duncan (mostly 4 star). But that's it as far as elite talent at the WR position. He hasn't earned a raise yet. No one is trying to steal him away.

LodeBear;842610402 said:

---

The assistants are mediocore coaches and they are getting paid for what they are worth. they would probably have a hard time finding jobs even close to what they are making now. get rid of st, dl and lb coaches. there will be better coaches who make less other places willing to come. and sony stop coaching the wide receivers. they were disappointing this year. get a real coach. think about getting a kicker that can reach the end zone most of the time.

---

Maybe the same kicker that won the last game for us?

Couple thoughts:

1) The White interview was telling (since Dr. White probably was speaking on the AD's behalf) about needing better assistants (paraphrased wording), and I suspect that means more budget for assistants, and not the raise Sonny was expecting. Reading the tea leaves, it also may mean they are telling Sonny he needs to rethink staffing.

2) Sonny decided first thing to pay his assistants the same salary level, which may sound democratic, but may not be the smartest way to attract more talented coaches. Its a market economy, not a egalitarian experiment.

I know everyone wants to blame "Cal" or the "Administration" or someone, but its a more complicated issue.

Final thought to **** everyone off. Who cares what faculty makes of this purpose? Completely irrelevant unless the faculty wants short term contracts, have the ability to lose their jobs when their bosses change, no say over their hours, etc. and I say this knowing most faculty (1) work very hard; and (2) supplement their income with publishing, consulting, and other income sources so they can contribute to the income distribution inequality they all consider so terrible.

Its just a horrible analogy.

One way to level the pay scale at Cal would be to provide subsidized housing for assistants making under X amount. I don't think the university can do it, but perhaps private donors could set something up. Don't know how it would work but taking market rate housing out of the equation can help not scare people away. The short term nature of the profession and the crazy Bay Area real estate prices makes a move less attractive. At least take that element out of it.

That said, yeah it's completely nuts to consider anyone making $180k needing a housing subsidy anywhere, including the Bay Area. But that's part of the deal in the Bay Area.

beelzebear;842610419 said:

---

One way to level the pay scale at Cal would be to provide subsidized housing for assistants making under X amount. I don't think the university can do it, but perhaps private donors could set something up. Don't know how it would work but taking market rate housing out of the equation can help not scare people away. The short term nature of the profession and the crazy Bay Area real estate prices makes a move less attractive. At least take that element out of it.

That said, yeah it's completely nuts to consider anyone making $180k needing a housing subsidy anywhere, including the Bay Area. But that's part of the deal in the Bay Area.

---

Well, to be fair, if you are a single income household, want to own/rent a home in a good/decent part of Berkeley or Oakland (forget SF and nicer suburbs like Orinda, Walnut Creek, etc.), AND you have kids (private school depending on your school district, college fund, etc.), $180K is barely enough, especially if you are from a part of the country where $500K buys you a nice, new, large McMansion in a clean, safe, planned community... whereas $500K doesn't even get you a 1200 sq. foot 2 BR, 1 BA 100 year old Craftsman in need of modernization here. Not everybody is charmed by historic architecture and an urban lifestyle.

You can certainly make it work, but you're not really living super comfortably... not that being a football coach entitles you to a comfortable lifestyle, just saying that while they aren't "squeaking by", they also are not really living large. And yes, plenty of people get by on far less. I don't imagine "getting by" is good enough when it isn't hard for another place to pay more or the same in a less expensive part of the country.

Again, this is all assuming that assistant pay scale is a real problem that has prevented Dykes from building the staff he really wants, not sure if there have been documented cases where we missed out on some assistant coach because of compensation issues.

technobear;842610481 said:

---

just saying that while they aren't "squeaking by", they also are not really living large.

---

Our current position coaches have done nothing to merit a "living large" salary.

I am all in favor of paying more for better coaches. But not for these coaches.

180k is more than plenty for Peeler, Chachere, Jones, Burns, Tate and Lovett. Our current coaches will get paid more when their units improve or when they start consistently landing 4 and 5 star recruits.

Oski Bear;842610373 said:

---

Simple. Cal's professors are some of the best in the world. We have more top 5 academic departments than any university on earth. Our position coaches have not earned us a top 5 ranking. Our professors are the best in their fields. Our football coaches are not. Other schools try to raid our faculty all the time. No one is lining up to steal Garrett Chachere or Jacob Peeler.[/QUOTE

Chachere - no, but plenty of teams want to steal Peeler. Good recruiters are at a premium in college football. Bad example. Should have used Tommerdahl as your example. LOL

Oski Bear;842610581 said:

---

Our current position coaches have done nothing to merit a "living large" salary.

I am all in favor of paying more for better coaches. But not for these coaches.

180k is more than plenty for Peeler, Chachere, Jones, Burns, Tate and Lovett. Our current coaches will get paid more when their units improve or when they start consistently landing 4 and 5 star recruits.

---

180k is enough hmm..wow

Agree 100%. BTW based on wins and losses IMO AK and TF are overpaid. Neither would command that $$$ in the open market. Both would be working in the Mountain West or MAC making far less if working in college at all. Also the overall number of staff is poor. TF working as a RB coach in addition to OC/QB coach and SD as HC/WR coach is not a good way to operate. I would love to see changes in assistant pay, staffing and personnel. There are BTW many young assistants that would willingly work at Cal for the paltry 6 figure salaries the assistants receive to pad their resume. A mix is good. A couple of young enthusiastic assistants that would recruit their ass off is not a bad thought IMO. Peeler on the current staff is a great example of this. Too many put too great an emphasis on the experience of the position coach. Many a good coach falls victim to not having enough talent to work with. A strong mix of youth and experience IMO is a good way to go.

txwharfrat;842610585 said:

---

plenty of teams want to steal Peeler. Good recruiters are at a premium in college football. Bad example. Should have used Tommerdahl as your example. LOL

---

Really? Who wants to steal him? Please name names.

He has only landed one (mostly) 4 star player in his entire career. And his unit underperformed this year.

technobear;842610481 said:

---

Well, to be fair, if you are a single income household, want to own/rent a home in a good/decent part of Berkeley or Oakland (forget SF and nicer suburbs like Orinda, Walnut Creek, etc.), AND you have kids (private school depending on your school district, college fund, etc.), $180K is barely enough, especially if you are from a part of the country where $500K buys you a nice, new, large McMansion in a clean, safe, planned community... whereas $500K doesn't even get you a 1200 sq. foot 2 BR, 1 BA 100 year old Craftsman in need of modernization here. Not everybody is charmed by historic architecture and an urban lifestyle.

You can certainly make it work, but you're not really living super comfortably... not that being a football coach entitles you to a comfortable lifestyle, just saying that while they aren't "squeaking by", they also are not really living large. And yes, plenty of people get by on far less. I don't imagine "getting by" is good enough when it isn't hard for another place to pay more or the same in a less expensive part of the country.

Again, this is all assuming that assistant pay scale is a real problem that has prevented Dykes from building the staff he really wants, not sure if there have been documented cases where we missed out on some assistant coach because of compensation issues.

---

Probably Akina

Given Tedford's problems retaining coaches, our not hiring Akina, and our failure to hold onto our WR coach, and our lowest in league assistant pay scale scale, it is not unreasonable to conclude Dykes is hampered by a low budget.

Oski Bear - you are starting to sound like a troll. Peeler just became a full coach six months ago but was instrumental in much of our recruiting previously. Also he doesn't sniff $180k. I don't k ow offhand how much he makes but think it's closer to $120k. You are either deliberately or cavalierly playing fast and loose with the facts and it seems like you have a motivation to do so. Perhaps you are a frustrated English prof who thinks they should be valued higher than they are, I have no idea.

The facts are the facts. We had the second lowest paid coaching staff in all of Power 5 conferences last year. This isn't just about paying te coaches we have more it's about the ability to get good coaches. You can't have filet on a ground chuck budget long-term.

I suspect none of this is lost on you and that in fact you are trolling but whatever.

Edit: looked it up and Chachere makes $100k. That's what Ingram made too and I suspect same for Peeler. Tommerdahl $115k. All SDSU coaches were at least $157k. Those are the real numbers so let's stop talking BS about everyone making $180k.

That's one way to look at it. But would they have been hired in the first place if there was a bigger salary pool? And if they underperform and are released, would we get better assistant coaches with the same salary constraints? How do you propose to upgrade the coaching without increasing the salaries?

Oski Bear;842610581 said:

---

Our current position coaches have done nothing to merit a "living large" salary.

I am all in favor of paying more for better coaches. But not for these coaches.

180k is more than plenty for Peeler, Chachere, Jones, Burns, Tate and Lovett. Our current coaches will get paid more when their units improve or when they start consistently landing 4 and 5 star recruits.

---

Unit2Sucks;842610662 said:

---

This isn't just about paying the coaches we have more it's about the ability to get good coaches.

---

This is where I am with this issue. If Dykes is the CEO of the football program, let him build it without too much restriction. Otherwise, we get the "he did a good job, considering all the obstacles at Cal" refrain, which I'm really tired of hearing. If coaching ability is more or less directly related to market value, as has been argued, then it follows that increasing our ranges improves our ability to attract better coaches.

I am perfectly happy to NOT compromise on academic standards as I believe there is some sweet spot where the drive to do well in the classroom equates to competitive drive and focus on the field. I also believe that we have to honor the original ideals behind athletic scholarships (hint: it's not to field a better football team) and kids who don't have the tools are just going to flounder and have what enthusiasm they have for the classroom and their confidence destroyed at Cal.

But, raising the assistant salary pool seems like a relatively easy thing to do... it helps Dykes but it also helps future coaches, should Dykes turn out to not be the guy. And yes, if Dykes just uses the funds to do "feelgood" mediocre hires from his network, then it's just another indication of his ultimate ability and will also show on the field, but at least there wouldn't be an excuse.