Those are livable salaries in the Bay Area so that's good. Not sure how competitive they are within the conference but seems like it's at least workable. Don't really care if individual coaches are overpaid on these 1-year contracts since it keeps subsequent assistants from scoffing when we come asking.
Great article and very fascinating! I'm surprised at the total values (outside of Musgrave). Some tech jobs at the FAANG companies can actually pay more in total comp than what Aristotle or Angus make.
That is an awesome use of FOIA. Assuming this is all paid directly from the university, did they reveal where the funds come from? General budget or some sponsorship? Speaking of sponsorship, does Cal have the info on of it the coaches have monies coming from some sponsorship or boosters?
I figured as much. It is my understanding that most of the most well paid coaches got their large salaries via talent fees. I'm not sure if that was the same for Cal.
Thanks. We hear all the time about coaching salaries and competitiveness within our league and across the country. Good to have a sense of scale about it. Seems the typical assistant other than Musgrave is around $300K. That's a living wage in the Bay, but you are not buying that home in Kensington unless you've saved a lot.
Angus is way over paid, some of that money should go to AT. Now, if the OL is worth a shit this year, then only a 50% cut in his salary would be appropriate. Have to say Chryst making more than AT is a head scratcher as well. The TE position group needs to perform as promised by Musgrave and Chryst.
I think Angus and Chryst get the veteran bonus with Angus being a long time CFB mainstay and Chryst being a long time NFL guy. AT's outcomes are much better and I think in the long run he will out-make the aforementioned duo but at this stage of his career it is understandable.
You always delete your comments that I end up replying to a bunch of "deleted" Just keep it there so that readers can have a better idea of the conversation.
Talent fee is stated for each coach in the article.
I don't think you understand talent fees.
They make that talent fee in a year, regardless of how many interviews or speeches they do. It's just BS writing to justify/define the talent fee, but basically it's just their salary.
Even Nick Saban makes only $275,000 in base salary, and his talent fee is about $9 million.
You have to have a low base salary because they are state employees paid by tax dollars. Talent fee comes from sponsors, etc (non-tax dollars) It's just a way to pay coaches more than what the university can pay with tax dollars.
This article's purpose is to present facts of the contracts and have this as open information rather than make normative judgements about them. Feel free to debate amongst yourselves about the value vs. cost.
What an assholish way to respond to something. What ever happened to, "if you aren't interested, don't read it". In any case this site is run by volunteers, so if you have an idea why don't you volunteer something?
Great deep dive!
Those are livable salaries in the Bay Area so that's good. Not sure how competitive they are within the conference but seems like it's at least workable. Don't really care if individual coaches are overpaid on these 1-year contracts since it keeps subsequent assistants from scoffing when we come asking.
Great article and very fascinating! I'm surprised at the total values (outside of Musgrave). Some tech jobs at the FAANG companies can actually pay more in total comp than what Aristotle or Angus make.
That is an awesome use of FOIA. Assuming this is all paid directly from the university, did they reveal where the funds come from? General budget or some sponsorship? Speaking of sponsorship, does Cal have the info on of it the coaches have monies coming from some sponsorship or boosters?
I think total comp including equity for Sr. Engineers in MAANG come out to around $400K-$500K. At least it used to, that's a few years old.
Sadly no, IIRC salaries are university paid but the talent fees are bit more in the gray area.
I figured as much. It is my understanding that most of the most well paid coaches got their large salaries via talent fees. I'm not sure if that was the same for Cal.
OT: is Trace Travers no longer w/ Rivals??
https://twitter.com/tracetravers3/status/1529651369044418561?t=C_mYaAmjM6QOS-uvvKum5g&s=19
I feel that. Burnout sucks.
Thanks. We hear all the time about coaching salaries and competitiveness within our league and across the country. Good to have a sense of scale about it. Seems the typical assistant other than Musgrave is around $300K. That's a living wage in the Bay, but you are not buying that home in Kensington unless you've saved a lot.
Angus is way over paid, some of that money should go to AT. Now, if the OL is worth a shit this year, then only a 50% cut in his salary would be appropriate. Have to say Chryst making more than AT is a head scratcher as well. The TE position group needs to perform as promised by Musgrave and Chryst.
I think Angus and Chryst get the veteran bonus with Angus being a long time CFB mainstay and Chryst being a long time NFL guy. AT's outcomes are much better and I think in the long run he will out-make the aforementioned duo but at this stage of his career it is understandable.
You always delete your comments that I end up replying to a bunch of "deleted" Just keep it there so that readers can have a better idea of the conversation.
Once or twice?
You have three in just this article alone.
Talent fee is stated for each coach in the article.
I don't think you understand talent fees.
They make that talent fee in a year, regardless of how many interviews or speeches they do. It's just BS writing to justify/define the talent fee, but basically it's just their salary.
Even Nick Saban makes only $275,000 in base salary, and his talent fee is about $9 million.
You have to have a low base salary because they are state employees paid by tax dollars. Talent fee comes from sponsors, etc (non-tax dollars) It's just a way to pay coaches more than what the university can pay with tax dollars.
It is taxable.
Nice use of power to obtain information.
I didn't see anything too surprising in the legalese except the clause on lateral moves within the Pac12 which is, financially, frowned upon.
FOIA’s & stuff? Dang, you guys ain’t even playing. Bravo 🙌
Not so boring afterall, eh?
This article's purpose is to present facts of the contracts and have this as open information rather than make normative judgements about them. Feel free to debate amongst yourselves about the value vs. cost.
What an assholish way to respond to something. What ever happened to, "if you aren't interested, don't read it". In any case this site is run by volunteers, so if you have an idea why don't you volunteer something?
See, it is a very interesting topic. Not boring at all. Lots to talk about.
1. Yes
2. It is a very easy yes or no type of determination. Did you even read the article?
Well you seem to be very interested in this topic