Steve Berkowitz ‏@ByBerkowitz 1h1 hour ago

Cal's extension for Sonny Dykes includes 1-yr rollover if team has 7 regular-season wins and APR of 980 or better.
0 retweets 0 likes

Faraudo also tweeted this.

GinFizzBear;842614667 said:

---

Your negative stance ignores the win trajectory, academic improvement from the students, achievement of coaching metrics established by the athletic department, the skills/experience/health of the team in year one of Sonny's Cal stint, a decidedly more positive opinion of him from other institutions, and the extremely low pay that he and the assistants were getting relative to both other conference coaches and the cost of living in the Bay Area. Other than that, it's a great analysis. /sarcasm

---

"win trajectory?" lol

7 wins JT
3 wins JT
1 win SD
5 wins SD
7 wins SD
(projected) 3 wins SD

Great trajectory!!!

is goff coming back ??? lets be realistic, with an inexperienced qb my guess is 5 or less wins in 2016.

oskimama;842614621 said:

---

Cal has to be the only school that would give a 40% raise and a 2-year extension to a coach who delivered a 13-23 record in his first three years, has not won a single game against the top 4 teams in the conference, and who nobody else wants.

---

Well, if you put it that way . . .

I wonder if there is any extension on the buyout. For example, does it just go away in two years (on either side) or did they extend it two years (so that would be 3 million next year, 2 million the year after, 1 million the year after).

Frankly, even at that, a two million buy out Jan 2017 is not too bad. No matter what, you are going to have a buy-out for any coach - just the way it is. Having a three year buy-out is what killed us with JT.

oskimama;842614621 said:

---

You're exactly right regarding higher than expected and the buyout. Cal has to be the only school that would give a 40% raise and a 2-year extension to a coach who delivered a 13-23 record in his first three years, has not won a single game against the top 4 teams in the conference, and who nobody else wants. And we wonder why attendance at our home games is so poor and our athletic department has financial difficulties.

---

Wow, cranky people!

Whatever your personal assessment of Sonny, this is GOOD news!
The powers that be believe Sonny is a worthy Pac 12 coach. And as such they paid him and his staff a worthy Pac 12 pay scale, without committing Cal to some massive long-term obligation.
This is a GOOD THING! It means that Cal is willing to play with the rest of the Pac in terms of coaching pay.
Okay, maybe *you* don't think Sonny is the coach who will take Cal there. Fine. Time will tell. But CAL has made a statement - we're in this to win. If not with Dykes, then the next good coach (better) we get, because Cal is not cheap and Cal is playing to win.

This is VERY good news for Cal's long-term future.

Go Bears!

Dbearson;842614640 said:

---

How do you know that was the original number before he we went on interviews and linked to other jobs?

---

I have altered the terms of the deal, pray that I do not alter them further.

Some context for $3M assistant coach "pool".

Looks like total spend this year on assistants was $2.5M, so this is a bump from that.

Based on current numbers (which will certainly change), a $3M assistant pool would put Cal 8th in the Pac-12 (Furd and $C numbers aren't known, for sure, but assume they are higher). UCLA at just under $4M leads the "known" numbers, followed by Oregon, Washington, ASU, and then Arizona - U of A at $3.04M.

Cal at $3M would then be ahead of Colorado at $2.75M, then Utah, OSU, and Wazzu - with the Cougs at $2.32M.

With the contract thru 2019, I guess that means we get to do this all over again in two years (no coach can go into the season with only two years remaining on the contract, right?), although there is mention of a one year "roll over clause" for any season with 7 or more wins AND an APR of 980 or better. Since the next year APR number was "leaked" at 997, I'm wondering if that means that if we win 7 next year, there is another year added to the contract.

Lots of questions to be answered still - roll over clause implications, other incentives, buy out provisions, etc.

northendbear;842614687 said:

---

Some context for $3M assistant coach "pool".

Looks like total spend this year on assistants was $2.5M, so this is a bump from that.

Based on current numbers (which will certainly change), a $3M assistant pool would put Cal 8th in the Pac-12 (Furd and $C numbers aren't known, for sure, but assume they are higher). UCLA at just under $4M leads the "known" numbers, followed by Oregon, Washington, ASU, and then Arizona - U of A at $3.04M.

Cal at $3M would then be ahead of Colorado at $2.75M, then Utah, OSU, and Wazzu - with the Cougs at $2.32M.

With the contract thru 2019, I guess that means we get to do this all over again in two years (no coach can go into the season with only two years remaining on the contract, right?), although there is mention of a one year "roll over clause" for any season with 7 or more wins AND an APR of 980 or better. Since the next year APR number was "leaked" at 997, I'm wondering if that means that if we win 7 next year, there is another year added to the contract.

Lots of questions to be answered still - roll over clause implications, other incentives, buy out provisions, etc.

---

Thank goodness for the California Public Records Act.

northendbear;842614687 said:

---

I'm wondering if that means that if we win 7 next year, there is another year added to the contract.

---

I'm no big fan of Sonny, but if we do win 7 in the first season post-Goff, then I'd happily extend him for another year.

sycasey;842614693 said:

---

I'm no big fan of Sonny, but if we do win 7 in the first season post-Goff, then I'd happily extend him for another year.

---

But that 7 + 980 APR bar is for every subsequent year too. I'm not sure we should be sustaining that kind of borderline success perpetually. We've just enabled him to be "Seven Win Sonny." Get the shirts printed off.

Lumberjack_Cal;842614597 said:

---

Average $2.85 million with $3 million assistant pool.

http://footballscoop.com/the-scoop/

Please comment.

---

Somehow Cal seems to find the best agents in the business, football coaches - not so much.

Can't coach.
Can't recruit.
Can't hire.
0-12.

But hey - time for a big raise! You can't say football coaching is not a good business.

Same cruddy feeling when Holmoe was hired, nothing happening for a few years...

Go Bears.

KoreAmBear;842614695 said:

---

But that 7 + 980 APR bar is for every subsequent year too. I'm not sure we should be sustaining that kind of borderline success perpetually.

---

That point I was not clear on. If it's for every season, then I agree, not so sure about this provision.

Of course, it really all comes down to the buyout.

Looperbear;842614677 said:

---

"win trajectory?" lol

7 wins JT
3 wins JT
1 win SD
5 wins SD
7 wins SD
(projected) 3 wins SD

Great trajectory!!!

---

Taking out the projected for next year and running a regression on the SD era, I'm projecting 15 wins in 2019!!!

-kap

sycasey;842614697 said:

---

That point I was not clear on. If it's for every season, then I agree, not so sure about this provision.

Of course, it really all comes down to the buyout.

---

Footballscoop blurb (if they got it right):

Quote:

---

Cal: Cal has officially announced a four-year contract extension for Sonny Dykes taking him through 2019. Deal will average $2.825 million annually with a $3 million pool for assistant coaches. The new contract includes a one year rollover clause for each year he wins seven regular season games and the team achieves an APR of 980 or higher.

---

Ok coaches. Now go out there and recruit!!!

PutYourNameOnIt;842614616 said:

---

typiCAL

bidding against itself

well done

---

Exactly. He wasn't going anywhere, dumb move by Cal.
We'll be whining about the buy out in a year after we go 3-9.

Curious, curious, curious.

The announced terms make the entire episode seem so ridiculous and unecessary. Was Cal was willing to pay that much - which seems really quite generous for Sonny - all along? Did Sonny really think he was worth more? Did we let this (generous) offer sit out there unchanged while Sonny stupidly drove his value down by proving nobody else wanted him? I hope the buy out clause is very pro-Cal, otherwise what the hell?

tequila4kapp;842614712 said:

---

Curious, curious, curious.

The announced terms make the entire episode seem so ridiculous and unecessary. Was Cal was willing to pay that much - which seems really quite generous for Sonny - all along? Did Sonny really think he was worth more? Did we let this (generous) offer sit out there unchanged while Sonny stupidly drove his value down by proving nobody else wanted him? I hope the buy out clause is very pro-Cal, otherwise what the hell?

---

I know huh. No more MW love?

FrankBear21;842614650 said:

---

Pretty fair deal. I like it.

---

+1 I think he is worth it Glad the others are getting bump too.

tequila4kapp;842614712 said:

---

Curious, curious, curious.

The announced terms make the entire episode seem so ridiculous and unecessary. Was Cal was willing to pay that much - which seems really quite generous for Sonny - all along? Did Sonny really think he was worth more? Did we let this (generous) offer sit out there unchanged while Sonny stupidly drove his value down by proving nobody else wanted him? I hope the buy out clause is very pro-Cal, otherwise what the hell?

---

If Sonny had actually gotten the Missouri job he would have been paid between $3-4 million. He obviously overestimated his market value.

The ridiculous part is the automatic extension for a measly 7 wins, which can allow him to linger here until 2023 if only does it every other year. That was foolish. Can the donors write this off as a charitable donation? That's what it is.

Edit. Of course they can. By definition.

Oh well. Not my money.

bearsandgiants;842614723 said:

---

The ridiculous part is the automatic extension for a measly 7 wins, which can allow him to linger here until 2023 if only does it every other year. That was foolish. Can the donors write this off as a charitable donation? That's what it is.

---

Well duh, remember the griping around here in 2008 when Tedford got his contract extended after a 9-win season and the idea that a coach could get an automatic extension for just 9 wins seemed ridiculous. This threshold however is two-fold, if we are going to be mediocre, our APR better not be trash.

bearsandgiants;842614723 said:

---

The ridiculous part is the automatic extension for a measly 7 wins, which can allow him to linger here until 2023 if only does it every other year.

---

It's 7 wins PLUS the APR. While I agree with you, at least there is a huge incentive to both have winning seasons (even if they are "measly") AND to maintain academic standards.

-kap

Strykur;842614726 said:

---

Well duh, remember the griping around here in 2008 when Tedford got his contract extended after a 9-win season and the idea that a coach could get an automatic extension for just 9 wins seemed ridiculous. This threshold however is two-fold, if we are going to be mediocre, our APR better not be trash.

---

All this is background at this point. The rub is the buyout provision. MW's skills will be judged on that.

KoreAmBear;842614729 said:

---

All this is background at this point. The rub is the buyout provision. MW's skills will be judged on that.

---

Like waiting on an earnings call, for the forecast, not so much the now.... That's what moves the sentiment needle.

I trust that the 7 wins is regular season ones at least. That of course can relate to a losing Pac-12 season, as we saw this year. In 2016, with SDSU on the road, what should probably be a stronger Texas team, loading-up on the non-conference wins might not be easy, which was expected in 2015...

Looperbear;842614708 said:

---

Exactly. He wasn't going anywhere, dumb move by Cal.
We'll be whining about the buy out in a year after we go 3-9.

---

I don't think we're going 3-9 next year. Even without Goff I think the team goes to a bowl.

kaplanfx;842614686 said:

---

I have altered the terms of the deal, pray that I do not alter them further.

---

I'm reminded of this....

[video=youtube;WpE_xMRiCLE][/video]

LethalFang;842614610 said:

---

How much will it cost us in real terms if we fire him 1) at the end of 2016, or 2) at the end of 2017?

---

And conversely, what's HIS buyout should he meet with unexpected success and some bigger money school want to steal him away. Hey, it could happen! What would it cost HIM to get out of the contract early and work elsewhere?

philbert;842614743 said:

---

I'm reminded of this....

---

I was going to post that, but wasn't sure if there were Robot Chicken fans on here.

:rollinglaugh:

-kap

JimSox;842614755 said:

---

And conversely, what's HIS buyout should he meet with unexpected success and some bigger money school want to steal him away. Hey, it could happen! What would it cost HIM to get out of the contract early and work elsewhere?

---

I firmly believe none of us needs to worry about that.

KoreAmBear;842614729 said:

---

All this is background at this point. The rub is the buyout provision. MW's skills will be judged on that.

---

Normally, I would agree that the buyout is what he would be judged on, but I can't agree when you have the 7 win clause. Forget about the 3-9 comment, this publicly states that Cal is fine with mediocrity to the extent they are willing to commit to it contractually.

It is one thing to financially support a program that is trying and failing. It is another to financially support a program that isn't trying. Are they stupid enough to believe that they can pay off the stadium debt with infinite 7 win seasons? Or have they basically just hoodwinked the state into financing their boondoggle and don't care.

KoreAmBear;842614702 said:

---

Footballscoop blurb (if they got it right):

---

If we get our APR in order and we go 7-5, then Sonny is viewed as doing a good job and his contract is extended a year. That is simply too low of a standard. If we go 7-5 every year, then he could be our coach indefinitely. That is pathetic. Even if the buyout is favorable to us, it sends the message that 7-5 is acceptable each year. It will be tough for Cal to later argue that 7-5 is not good enough when the contract has a provision that indicates that 7-5 is good enough. I would like to see the wording of the provision, but this provision sounds terrible.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know. When will we get the full contract details? After it's approved by the Regents and signed?

OaktownBear;842614779 said:

---

Normally, I would agree that the buyout is what he would be judged on, but I can't agree when you have the 7 win clause. Forget about the 3-9 comment, this publicly states that Cal is fine with mediocrity to the extent they are willing to commit to it contractually.

It is one thing to financially support a program that is trying and failing. It is another to financially support a program that isn't trying. Are they stupid enough to believe that they can pay off the stadium debt with infinite 7 win seasons? Or have they basically just hoodwinked the state into financing their boondoggle and don't care.

---

MW and Sonny will tell you that this is just financial security, and they will be gunning for Rose Bowls whoo hoo. Man, if this was put in because Sonny did his roadshow last week, MW and counsel basically caved. You are right. And if it was already there, that's even worse (and what Sonny did was greedy).