Do the demographics of this situation play into institutional racism? Predominantly Black football programs subsidize all other sports programs and scholarships for predominantly White athletes. It is kinda modeled like slavery ouch!
"This fiscal space could be made if Cal were to really focus on a smaller amount of sports we could save ~$4-5 million a year in eliminating the worst fiscally performing sports to go down to a 19 sport level Utah has. (as long as we remain Title IX compliant)."
Cal has historically complied with Title IX by "continually" expanding the opportunities for the under-represented sex (women); this is known as Prong 2 compliance. If Cal cuts sports or decides not to comply with Title IX on Prong 2, Cal must comply by going to Prong 1.
Prong 1 compliance says that the institution must have a proportional number of opportunities for the under-represented sex compared to that sex's enrollment in the undergraduate population, plus or minus 5%. Women are approximately 52% of undergrad enrollment at Cal. Therefore, the percentage of women athletes at Cal must fall between 47% and 57% in order to comply with Title IX on Prong 1.
Based on the above conditions, Prong 2 compliance has brought Cal closer to Prong 1 compliance, although it is still short. If the number of women athletes stays static at 423, Cal would have to eliminate the opportunities for at least 22 men athletes to comply under Prong 1.
This is a very tough road to travel. We all saw what happened in September 2010 when 10 sports were put on the chopping block, including baseball, rugby, soccer and others. The PR blowback from that event was precipitous: baseball and other sports had some time to get funding together for subsequent seasons and to build endowments.
Cal also has a facilities problem: where to put the facilities needed to support many of the sponsored sports and how to maintain those same facilities. This question only manages to highlight why Stanf*rd had it so good for so many years while John Arrillaga was alive. He gave millions and millions and effectively financed the rebuild of Stanf*rd Stadium. Stanf*rd also doesn't have a physical space problem. It has land it can use to build facilities. Cal, on the other hand has land, it's just that most of it is on hillsides or in sensitive areas (like Strawberry Canyon above Witter Field). The areas that are flatter are mostly built up. What open spaces there are aren't big enough for sports facilities.
Cal needs a major donor or a series of major donors who can have that kind of effect.
That’s probably the best outcome here right now and my true hope. You could argue that in terms of the trend of who Wilcox hired a young up and coming OC is the next move he would make.
To me the key is whether we are sticking with Musgrave because of Wilcox, or in spite of him. If Wilcox is balking at a change to the O staff, out of loyalty or some other reason, then Wilcox needs to go. On the other hand, if he’s lobbying for a change, but hasn’t been able to sell it yet, then I’d be happy keeping him and finding a good O staff.
We know we can have a good defense, and good culture, under Wilcox. An OC reboot takes a million or two dollars, and success/failure is clear in two years max. A head coach reboot takes 10 or so, and five years or more to know if you need to do it again.
I don’t think he’s resistant to change. I think he’s resistant to change in the middle of the season which I have my thoughts. If his thinking is maintaining continuity Atleast to seasons end? I can’t argue with that from a thought process standpoint. Cz it feels like rock bottom but we’re not out of post season contention yet.
You may be right, but I wouldn’t presume to know what he’s thinking nor what he’s discussing with Knowlton. If Knowlton absolutely won’t let him fire Musgrave mid-season, then of course Wilcox is going to publicly support that decision. We’re all just trying read the tea leaves here…
That would be a good outcome. If we can avoid a major coaching change and complete rebuild then so much the better. I don't like complaining (nor do a lot of the other dyed in the wool fans) but the Wazzu game was a gut punch followed by another of greater magnitude, leaving us reeling. Not a good feeling.
Has anyone heard ANYTHING from the athletic department, or the football program? Do they have any concept of how bad the revenue sports seem right now?
Per Jeff Farudo, the buyout for Wilcox is just basically the next years salary. It is not a 5 year buyout. Jeff actually got a FOI copy of the contract. So the buyout at the end of this year is about 3.8 million.
That's not what I see from the way the wording is in the contract we obtained see the screenshot of the clause stating that it is on the lifetime of the deal as if it went through.
For example in FY2020 and FY2021 we still have Wyking Jones' $1 million per year buy out on the books.
“If Cal terminates Wilcox without cause at the conclusion of the first year it must pay him $3.6 million. That buyout increases to $3.75 million in 2023, $3.9 million in 2024, $4.05 million in 2025 and $4.2 million in 2026.”
That reads to me like it’s not a lifetime of the deal buyout.
just to be sure, you're assuming the language is the same but you don't actually know? That question is the big "what if". If we owe Wilcox $25M, we're stuck with him til we join the Big Sky Conference. If we owe him $3.6M (as has been suggested/reported elsewhere), there is a decent shot he is fired (or at least fireable- Knowlton is a tool)
Speaking of language, and with all due respect for the really interesting approach in this article, could someone please explain this last, closing sentence:
“ If we want to be a ~.500 program with rare pluckyness and Big Game wins on a Bi-annual basis:
Wilcox lifetime contract and same wage bill expenditures when?”
Ah I was making a joke. Just saying that if we want to maintain being a roughly .500 team with Big Game wins every other year and a proclivity to be a plucky opponent, then we should give Wilcox a lifetime contract and spend the same amount of money relative to total budget.
Got it. Thank you!! It’s an excellent piece from a unique perspective. And you’re right: If we don’t change what we are doing we will keep getting what we are getting. I especially appreciated the Utah comparison. Nice work.
That language has been consistent across contracts we have given out to Cal coaches in football in the past and in basketball so I really would be hard-pressed to imagine a different wording for Wilcox on this extension.
Of course Wilcox could negotiate with Cal for a smaller or differently structured buy out a la Paul Chryst.
Generally I would agree with you but that extension is fiscally irresponsible if its in the same vein (and again, Knowlton is a moron so it is certainly possible). I understand your logic but I just wanted to be sure that you didn't have the current deal in hand because others, claiming to have the current contract visible ( I believe), have suggested its just a portion of 1 year's salary that is due if he is fired
Do the demographics of this situation play into institutional racism? Predominantly Black football programs subsidize all other sports programs and scholarships for predominantly White athletes. It is kinda modeled like slavery ouch!
Good article, just one question:
Has Musgrave been fired yet?
"This fiscal space could be made if Cal were to really focus on a smaller amount of sports we could save ~$4-5 million a year in eliminating the worst fiscally performing sports to go down to a 19 sport level Utah has. (as long as we remain Title IX compliant)."
Cal has historically complied with Title IX by "continually" expanding the opportunities for the under-represented sex (women); this is known as Prong 2 compliance. If Cal cuts sports or decides not to comply with Title IX on Prong 2, Cal must comply by going to Prong 1.
Prong 1 compliance says that the institution must have a proportional number of opportunities for the under-represented sex compared to that sex's enrollment in the undergraduate population, plus or minus 5%. Women are approximately 52% of undergrad enrollment at Cal. Therefore, the percentage of women athletes at Cal must fall between 47% and 57% in order to comply with Title IX on Prong 1.
Based on the above conditions, Prong 2 compliance has brought Cal closer to Prong 1 compliance, although it is still short. If the number of women athletes stays static at 423, Cal would have to eliminate the opportunities for at least 22 men athletes to comply under Prong 1.
This is a very tough road to travel. We all saw what happened in September 2010 when 10 sports were put on the chopping block, including baseball, rugby, soccer and others. The PR blowback from that event was precipitous: baseball and other sports had some time to get funding together for subsequent seasons and to build endowments.
Cal also has a facilities problem: where to put the facilities needed to support many of the sponsored sports and how to maintain those same facilities. This question only manages to highlight why Stanf*rd had it so good for so many years while John Arrillaga was alive. He gave millions and millions and effectively financed the rebuild of Stanf*rd Stadium. Stanf*rd also doesn't have a physical space problem. It has land it can use to build facilities. Cal, on the other hand has land, it's just that most of it is on hillsides or in sensitive areas (like Strawberry Canyon above Witter Field). The areas that are flatter are mostly built up. What open spaces there are aren't big enough for sports facilities.
Cal needs a major donor or a series of major donors who can have that kind of effect.
Now that my anger has settled after two days. Is there any possibility that we can land a great OC and Wilcox turns the program around?
That’s probably the best outcome here right now and my true hope. You could argue that in terms of the trend of who Wilcox hired a young up and coming OC is the next move he would make.
To me the key is whether we are sticking with Musgrave because of Wilcox, or in spite of him. If Wilcox is balking at a change to the O staff, out of loyalty or some other reason, then Wilcox needs to go. On the other hand, if he’s lobbying for a change, but hasn’t been able to sell it yet, then I’d be happy keeping him and finding a good O staff.
We know we can have a good defense, and good culture, under Wilcox. An OC reboot takes a million or two dollars, and success/failure is clear in two years max. A head coach reboot takes 10 or so, and five years or more to know if you need to do it again.
I don’t think he’s resistant to change. I think he’s resistant to change in the middle of the season which I have my thoughts. If his thinking is maintaining continuity Atleast to seasons end? I can’t argue with that from a thought process standpoint. Cz it feels like rock bottom but we’re not out of post season contention yet.
You may be right, but I wouldn’t presume to know what he’s thinking nor what he’s discussing with Knowlton. If Knowlton absolutely won’t let him fire Musgrave mid-season, then of course Wilcox is going to publicly support that decision. We’re all just trying read the tea leaves here…
That would be a good outcome. If we can avoid a major coaching change and complete rebuild then so much the better. I don't like complaining (nor do a lot of the other dyed in the wool fans) but the Wazzu game was a gut punch followed by another of greater magnitude, leaving us reeling. Not a good feeling.
What kind of person would give such an extension to an average Coach…oh, yeah, our man at the top.
If this is all true, and it probably is (great article), then the best we can hope for in the next few years is a reset at OC.
Third time’s the charm!
Has anyone heard ANYTHING from the athletic department, or the football program? Do they have any concept of how bad the revenue sports seem right now?
Nope, I doubt we'll hear anything until tomorrow at the weekly presser.
Per Jeff Farudo, the buyout for Wilcox is just basically the next years salary. It is not a 5 year buyout. Jeff actually got a FOI copy of the contract. So the buyout at the end of this year is about 3.8 million.
That's not what I see from the way the wording is in the contract we obtained see the screenshot of the clause stating that it is on the lifetime of the deal as if it went through.
For example in FY2020 and FY2021 we still have Wyking Jones' $1 million per year buy out on the books.
From Faraudo’s report in March:
“If Cal terminates Wilcox without cause at the conclusion of the first year it must pay him $3.6 million. That buyout increases to $3.75 million in 2023, $3.9 million in 2024, $4.05 million in 2025 and $4.2 million in 2026.”
That reads to me like it’s not a lifetime of the deal buyout.
just to be sure, you're assuming the language is the same but you don't actually know? That question is the big "what if". If we owe Wilcox $25M, we're stuck with him til we join the Big Sky Conference. If we owe him $3.6M (as has been suggested/reported elsewhere), there is a decent shot he is fired (or at least fireable- Knowlton is a tool)
Speaking of language, and with all due respect for the really interesting approach in this article, could someone please explain this last, closing sentence:
“ If we want to be a ~.500 program with rare pluckyness and Big Game wins on a Bi-annual basis:
Wilcox lifetime contract and same wage bill expenditures when?”
Ah I was making a joke. Just saying that if we want to maintain being a roughly .500 team with Big Game wins every other year and a proclivity to be a plucky opponent, then we should give Wilcox a lifetime contract and spend the same amount of money relative to total budget.
Got it. Thank you!! It’s an excellent piece from a unique perspective. And you’re right: If we don’t change what we are doing we will keep getting what we are getting. I especially appreciated the Utah comparison. Nice work.
That language has been consistent across contracts we have given out to Cal coaches in football in the past and in basketball so I really would be hard-pressed to imagine a different wording for Wilcox on this extension.
Of course Wilcox could negotiate with Cal for a smaller or differently structured buy out a la Paul Chryst.
Generally I would agree with you but that extension is fiscally irresponsible if its in the same vein (and again, Knowlton is a moron so it is certainly possible). I understand your logic but I just wanted to be sure that you didn't have the current deal in hand because others, claiming to have the current contract visible ( I believe), have suggested its just a portion of 1 year's salary that is due if he is fired
Musgrave and McClure are on shorter term deals so their deals would be off the books for Cal after this year.
I'm sure all offensive coaches are involved in the game planning.