Based on the rollover provision, I don't have much faith that the buyout hasn't been increased to some exceptionally large number. I also think seven wins is too low a standard, although I'm happy that it's accompanied by an ongoing academic progress requirement that is high. Like others, the question is how much will it cost us to get out of the deal if he goes under .500 next year. My guess is if the buyout is reset to $2 million as it was up until Dec. 31, that's going to result in sticking with Dykes through at least one additional losing season, even if seven wins is his high point.

LethalFang;842614769 said:

---

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

---

I don't plan on losing any sleep over it...

kaplanfx;842614727 said:

---

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

---

Cal is basically communicating to us that 7 win seasons, on average, are the best we can do with the kinds of academic restrictions we have.

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

---

LMFAO! :rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:

LethalFang;842614769 said:

---

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

---

+1

Yes, the seven-win clause is MW's imprimatur of mediocrity. Don't get it - and why reward beating OOC patsies? For the life of me I don't understand why this clause would not be, at a minimum, a winning Pac 12 record.

It seems like an insult.

KoreAmBear;842614803 said:

---

Cal is basically communicating to us that 7 win seasons, on average, are the best we can do with the kinds of academic restrictions we have.

---

Correct, and that's very sad. Today is a very depressing, but not surprising, day for Cal fans. Our worst fears and suspicions have been realized. I guess we just have to resign ourselves to on-field mediocrity. Sigh. :cry:

89Bear;842614737 said:

---

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

---

Boom. I'm with you on taut forecast and that is NOT just wishful thinking. Many posts have outlined credible analyses that point to enough to go bowling. I would go further and say bowling plus an exciting preview of 2017 where we could have a year like 2004

this is horrible on most fronts.
- We're giving a 50% raise for horrendous (2013) to mediocre (2015) performance.
- We give out a rolling extension with a laughably easy to meet win criterion - and we did this after the AD rolled out a donor to talk about what we learned from the Tedford contract which had a much tougher win provision. And on the heels of the 3-9 and good grades comments... I guess the real number is between 3 and 7 (7 automatically extends so 5 or 6 probably are borderline ok).
- We do all this after Dykes proves there is no market interest from same or higher level programs and makes it publicly seem that he wants out and that Cal is a last choice default. Who were we negotiating against at the end?
- We increased the buyout. I don't know for sure, I have no info on it but I would be pretty surprised if we didn't. It was set to drop to $1.5M on Jan 1 I believe. What are the odds that it's not higher either proportional to the raise he got or the extra years? And what are the odds that the auto extension doesn't auto-increase his buyout?

Also, on the buyout front... there's upside risk and downside risk. Downside risk is often talked about here as the key - how much would it cost to fire him. But we should have also negotiated down our upside risk. How much would he owe us if he leaves on his own (presumably after a good season for a better offer)? If he somehow goes 10-2 next year he'll demand more money yet again despite his "dream job" bs (and no chance he agrees to a lower salary if he goes 2-10). If the cost of hiring him away from us is prohibitive that gives us some protection and lessens our risk.

SmellinRoses;842614816 said:

---

Yes, the seven-win clause is MW's imprimatur of mediocrity. Don't get it - and why incentivize the OOC scheduling of patsies? For the life of me I don't understand why this clause would not be, at a minimum, a winning Pac 12 record.

It seems like an insult.

---

Who says it incentivizes the scheduling of patsies? Sonny doesn't make his own schedule.

Yes. Edited mistake...

Hopefully we start scheduling tougher opponents to increase ticket sales and have the staff earn their jobs. The auto-extension could be a trade for buyout terms that favor Cal -- a bit of security for both sides: 7-5 shouldn't be too hard to achieve and isn't embarrassing for Cal. If that's the peak, then we move on with a reasonable buyout. I do like the increased assistant pool.

Another way of looking at this contract is Cal trying to paint an image of reasonable expectations and signaling that the institution is willing to support its coaching hires -- something that will be helpful if we need to move on from the Dykes' administration.

technobear;842614901 said:

---

Another way of looking at this contract is Cal trying to paint an image of reasonable expectations and signaling that the institution is willing to support its coaching hires -- something that will be helpful if we need to move on from the Dykes' administration.

---

This is exactly how I see it.

upsetof86;842614820 said:

---

I would go further and say bowling plus an exciting preview of 2017 where we could have a year like 2004

---

Que? Is Aaron coming back?

HaasBear04;842614910 said:

---

Que? Is Aaron coming back?

---

nah ... he's a Butte commit ... solid, no chance, especially if teddy's the coach.

technobear;842614901 said:

---

Hopefully we start scheduling tougher opponents to increase ticket sales and have the staff earn their jobs. The auto-extension could be a trade for buyout terms that favor Cal -- a bit of security for both sides: 7-5 shouldn't be too hard to achieve and isn't embarrassing for Cal. If that's the peak, then we move on with a reasonable buyout. I do like the increased assistant pool.

Another way of looking at this contract is Cal trying to paint an image of reasonable expectations and signaling that the institution is willing to support its coaching hires -- something that will be helpful if we need to move on from the Dykes' administration.

---

I started typing something similar, but it wasn't coming-out well as I would have liked... I lacked the energy or dedication to craft it better, so deleted it. A very reasonable take technobear.

Seven wins next year, especially w/o Goff, would seem pretty tough. We might start Pac-12 play 1-2, with SDSU and Texas getting us back... If so, we'd need to go 6-3 in conference play.

89Bear;842614737 said:

---

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

---

How do you figure? We'll be breaking in a qb with zero starts and we are losing most of our best players.

KoreAmBear;842614803 said:

---

Cal is basically communicating to us that 7 win seasons, on average, are the best we can do with the kinds of academic restrictions we have.

---

From what I understand The roll over provision is for next year. Without Goff 7 wins are a long shot. Worthy of an extension.

Remember the interview where MW had the quote about 3-9 but great academics? Here's what I said at the time:

tequila4kapp;842595544 said:

---

Here's one way to assess William's win vs academics comments: would this same type of middling, up and down, taking 8 years to become elite scenario be tolerated on the academic side? Of course not (and it shouldn't). But I think we all know it absolutely will be tolerated on the football side as long as academics and revenue streams are okay. That tells us the real answer - academics are mandatory, wins are nice to have. So while William's words are significantly better than the "8-4 is perfect" quote attributed to Bockrath, there's an institutional reality that tells us things probably haven't really changed since then.

---

And now we have the definitive answer - Bockrath was more demanding than MW, who only needs to see 7 wins. Pathetic.

Another way to see this deal is that 980 APR is the equivalent to 7 wins for Cal. I'm not 100% sure what that means, but I am suspicious it confirms my views.

BearBones;842614599 said:

---

This is good news both for the football program and for BI (which can now recover some of its collective sanity).

Go Bears! Beat Air Force!

---

Sanity doesn't drive traffic.

MinotStateBeav;842614638 said:

---

This whole episode feels like we spanked our kids for stealing, then took them out for ice cream and dinner at Chez Panisse.

---

+1
And they got to eat desert first.

I'm glad we stepped out to out bid......Who did we out bid again??? Oh yeah......ourselves.

Thank you for saying "...on average...". Harbaugh averaged 7 wins at furd. I'd be cool with that. And I think next years schedule is easier. Facing the 7th toughest schedule isn't easy even with a veteran qb.