Suck it dogs

[kougkurt]

Sources: Washington State hiring Brian Ward as defensive coordinator

Jake Dickert snapped Washington State's 7-game Apple Cup losing streak on Saturday, a victory that helped him secure the Cougars' full-time head coaching

footballscoop.com

 

[kougkurt]

5 years. 2.7 million for Dickert

 

[WillieThePimp]

Sources: Washington State hiring Brian Ward as defensive coordinator

Jake Dickert snapped Washington State's 7-game Apple Cup losing streak on Saturday, a victory that helped him secure the Cougars' full-time head coaching

footballscoop.com

Lol. That’s got to be a first.

 

[WillieThePimp]

5 years. 2.7 million for Dickert

Hopefully that means they are willing to more spend on assistants.

 

[425cougfan]

I don't have a huge problem with $2.7m, but I don't understand why they didn't pay Dickert more like $2.25 to 2.5m in view of his experience and lack of other options. Nobody else in P5 would give him a legitimate look as a head coach right now. Still defensible and you're not pissing him off, and you extend him (with more $) if he performs. You could give him the raise as early as this coming year if warranted.

 

[kougkurt]

They probably had to make it somewhat competitive within the Pac. That salary puts him tied at 11th.

 

[425cougfan]

They probably had to make it somewhat competitive within the Pac. That salary puts him tied at 11th.

Sure, but why not 12th (by a slim margin)? Someone in a 12-team league has to be last. The guy has only even been in P5 for whatever 2020 was and this past season, was only a coordinator in the Mountain West for a short period, and has zero head coaching experience, of course. Now he apparently won't be his own DC (a wise move, probably, but which adds to the expense; Leach was his own OC).

Wilcox or Smith were the lowest-paid in the league when they got their first-time head coaching shots after having been coordinators, I believe. Wilcox, especially, had a pretty long record as a P5 DC and was a legitimate candidate for other jobs.

I don't have a big problem with $2.7m. Takes a lot of $50 "wave the flag" donations to make up for just tossing around $400k or more you don't have to, though, and then we hear about how poor the school is when it can't give more money to keep assistants around.

 

[chugspig]

Looks like a DT coach was hired from Wyoming. He appears to be a Washington alum from their 91 team.

 

[kougkurt]

Actually, he only got 2 mil. His wife got the other 700k

 

[Glad Cougar]

Looks like a DT coach was hired from Wyoming. He appears to be a Washington alum from their 91 team.

If WSU hired Pete Kaligis to be the DT coach....he appears to be a no-nonsense guy. Holy smokes, he looks like he just hopped off Mike Leach's Pirate Ship. Should have a dagger between his teeth.

 

[Coug90]

Actually, he only got 2 mil. His wife got the other 700k

Think you got that backwards

 

[SaveFerris]

Sources: Washington State hiring Brian Ward as defensive coordinator

Jake Dickert snapped Washington State's 7-game Apple Cup losing streak on Saturday, a victory that helped him secure the Cougars' full-time head coaching

footballscoop.com

Did the article get edited? Beyond the headline all I see is the following in the article:

"However, Kalen DeBoer and Ward are known to be very good friends as well."

The mutt site is saying maybe offered as a position coach and that "might be better" than at WSU as the DC. Typically WDWHA even though they don't even know if they offered. Doesn't matter either way. Dickert has moved quickly and will be interesting to see how the offensive side comes together.

 

[Glad Cougar]

That's a good sign that Dickert beat out DeBoer on the DC. This could be the beginning of a strong coaching rivalry between the two new head guys. Not only do Dicker & DeBoer share a Midwest/Dakota coaching background, they seem to be similar in what they envision for a staff & perhaps players, assuming both make in-state recruiting an important component.

Glad Cougar

 

[chugspig]

Did the article get edited? Beyond the headline all I see is the following in the article:

"However, Kalen DeBoer and Ward are known to be very good friends as well."

The mutt site is saying maybe offered as a position coach and that "might be better" than at WSU as the DC. Typically WDWHA even though they don't even know if they offered. Doesn't matter either way. Dickert has moved quickly and will be interesting to see how the offensive side comes together.

Yes they edited it.

 

[BiggsCoug]

If WSU hired Pete Kaligis to be the DT coach....he appears to be a no-nonsense guy. Holy smokes, he looks like he just hopped off Mike Leach's Pirate Ship. Should have a dagger between his teeth.

He is half the size he used to be.

 

[79COUG]

If WSU hired Pete Kaligis to be the DT coach....he appears to be a no-nonsense guy. Holy smokes, he looks like he just hopped off Mike Leach's Pirate Ship. Should have a dagger between his teeth.

Minshews long lost older brother...

 

[Coug-Vandal]

I don't have a huge problem with $2.7m, but I don't understand why they didn't pay Dickert more like $2.25 to 2.5m in view of his experience and lack of other options. Nobody else in P5 would give him a legitimate look as a head coach right now. Still defensible and you're not pissing him off, and you extend him (with more $) if he performs. You could give him the raise as early as this coming year if warranted.

This certainly wins the prize for nit-picking. This clearly makes Dickert one of the lowest paying head coaches in Power 5 conferences. Maybe that is right given his experience but you want to make it even less. I actually thought he would have gotten closer to 4 or 5 million over 5 years given what seems to be the going rate in power 5 conferences.

 

[Coug90]

This certainly wins the prize for nit-picking. This clearly makes Dickert one of the lowest paying head coaches in Power 5 conferences. Maybe that is right given his experience but you want to make it even less. I actually thought he would have gotten closer to 4 or 5 million over 5 years given what seems to be the going rate in power 5 conferences.

The contract is fair. And if he goes out and wins 9 games next year you rework his deal.

 

[425cougfan]

This certainly wins the prize for nit-picking. This clearly makes Dickert one of the lowest paying head coaches in Power 5 conferences. Maybe that is right given his experience but you want to make it even less. I actually thought he would have gotten closer to 4 or 5 million over 5 years given what seems to be the going rate in power 5 conferences.

This might hurt my feelings if it wasn't coming from a guy thinking Jake Dickert was going to get paid close to 4 to 5 million over 5 years.

Damn right I'll pick "nits" like $400k a year when we're negotiating against ourselves. Maybe it's because I actually donate some money.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Guys, there are likely to be incentives that did not make it into the $2.7m headline. Who knows what he could be making if we do well? Mid-level bowl and another AC win and he almost has to be over $3, and maybe $3.5. I'm assuming here...that is dangerous...but all we seem to know is the base salary at this point. If the Sun Bowl is a $4m + bowl, it makes sense that it would yield a bonus for both the HC and his staff.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

This might hurt my feelings if it wasn't coming from a guy thinking Jake Dickert was going to get paid close to 4 to 5 million over 5 years.

Damn right I'll pick "nits" like $400k a year when we're negotiating against ourselves. Maybe it's because I actually donate some money.

What I fine amusing about this list is the constant sense of outrage that so many people carry around. I also donate and I assume that someone who is worthy of being Head Coach of a Pac-12 football program will get a Pac-12 size contract. I'm fine with the contract I just thought it would be more. What did the Huskies pay? Yes I know DeBoer has been a head coach at Fresno for a year and half. How much more than being a head coach for a half year at WSU is that worth?

 

[SDCoug]

What I fine amusing about this list is the constant sense of outrage that so many people carry around.

I’m with ya. I just don’t understand it.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

What I fine amusing about this list is the constant sense of outrage that so many people carry around. I also donate and I assume that someone who is worthy of being Head Coach of a Pac-12 football program will get a Pac-12 size contract. I'm fine with the contract I just thought it would be more. What did the Huskies pay? Yes I know DeBoer has been a head coach at Fresno for a year and half. How much more than being a head coach for a half year at WSU is that worth?

To answer my own question DeBoer's contract was apparently 3.1 million a year so the Huskies think he is worth 6 times what the Cougs paid Dickert.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

I don't have a huge problem with $2.7m, but I don't understand why they didn't pay Dickert more like $2.25 to 2.5m in view of his experience and lack of other options. Nobody else in P5 would give him a legitimate look as a head coach right now. Still defensible and you're not pissing him off, and you extend him (with more $) if he performs. You could give him the raise as early as this coming year if warranted.

I agree. I figured 2-2.25M + incentives that are easy to reach ($250k for 6 wins, $100k for 90% graduation rate/academic standards, etc.)

 

[425cougfan]

To answer my own question DeBoer's contract was apparently 3.1 million a year so the Huskies think he is worth 6 times what the Cougs paid Dickert.

No idea what you're arguing at this point, but I hope you're enjoying yourself. You're not making any sense.

More generally, this isn't difficult. Pay the guy within market in the Pac-12, but it can -- and should -- be on the lowest end of that for now. We don't get any benefit by overpaying him even a few hundred grand a year. Something like what CougSinceBirth laid out makes sense.

That would reflect his credentials and where he's at, and most importantly, it's all you need to pay him. Zero other schools were considering him for a head job. We were bidding against ourselves.

No assistants or recruits are going to think less of him for making $2.3m a year instead of $2.7. Certainly nothing palpable.

Then, as a nice bonus, you can always give him a raise (with or without an extension) as early as next year, if he's killing it, and certainly by the end of year 2 in the context of an extension. That's a nice opportunity for some good news that helps with momentum and positive perception of him and the program as opposed to just overpaying the guy, with zero incremental credit or momentum from doing so, from the outset.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

I completely misunderstood what his contract was. Thus, you are correct I wasn't making any sense.

 

[dgibbons]

5 years. 2.7 million for Dickert

Short-term gain, long-term loss IMO. Hope he's got a ton of easy to reach incentives.

 

[dgibbons]

If WSU hired Pete Kaligis to be the DT coach....he appears to be a no-nonsense guy. Holy smokes, he looks like he just hopped off Mike Leach's Pirate Ship. Should have a dagger between his teeth.

Dude looks like a movie character from Cannonball Run or Blazing Saddles or something.

 

[CougPatrol]

I completely disagree with the notion that we should have paid him less. As Biggs has pointed out, in the grand scheme of collegiate football, WSU is a very good job. It's Power 5 football, and there aren't a lot of opportunities to coach a program that's been to 7 bowls in the past 10 years. It's a job that should be coveted, and once you settle on your head coach, you pay him a P12 coaching salary. Doing otherwise sends a message that you're cheaping out. That you found your head coach in the bargain bin at Walmart.

If Dickert has success again next season, even if it's only 6-6 or 7-5, I would immediately bump his salary up to at least what Rolovich was making. You find the money for the single most important position at Washington State University. You let everyone know that we're not F@cking around.

 

[425cougfan]

I completely disagree with the notion that we should have paid him less. As Biggs has pointed out, in the grand scheme of collegiate football, WSU is a very good job. It's Power 5 football, and there aren't a lot of opportunities to coach a program that's been to 7 bowls in the past 10 years. It's a job that should be coveted, and once you settle on your head coach, you pay him a P12 coaching salary. Doing otherwise sends a message that you're cheaping out. That you found your head coach in the bargain bin at Walmart.

If Dickert has success again next season, even if it's only 6-6 or 7-5, I would immediately bump his salary up to at least what Rolovich was making. You find the money for the single most important position at Washington State University. You let everyone know that we're not F@cking around.

What specific advantages do we gain by paying Jake Dickert $2.7m instead of $2.25m with incentives this year? I don't mean generalized notions of "this is a good job and we're not f__ing around," unless you want to make, and can support, arguments that specific benefits will accrue from paying him more when negotiating against ourselves that are worth the incremental $. What exactly? What in particular would be different if we paid him $2.25m this year and then gave him a raise and/or extension next year if he merited it?

I think some conflate the discrete matters of (i) cheaping out on a coach, in terms of who you can attract and who you hire, and (ii) what you pay the person you choose to hire. I am not in favor of cheaping out on the expenditure for our head coach. If we could gain the right coach for our program by paying $4.5m a year, I would want to do that. If the person we hire does not need to be paid more, though, I fail to see what in particular we gain from paying that person excessively as a pure ego play, and generalized allusions to things like "it makes us feel better about the program" ignore the real impacts of something like $400k that could, e.g., instead go to an ace DC or OC, other assistants, raises to keep any of the foregoing around if someone else starts sniffing around, charter flights, incentives, or go to the myriad other things I constantly am hit up for donations for.

 

[FnuLnu]

I completely disagree with the notion that we should have paid him less. As Biggs has pointed out, in the grand scheme of collegiate football, WSU is a very good job. It's Power 5 football, and there aren't a lot of opportunities to coach a program that's been to 7 bowls in the past 10 years. It's a job that should be coveted, and once you settle on your head coach, you pay him a P12 coaching salary. Doing otherwise sends a message that you're cheaping out. That you found your head coach in the bargain bin at Walmart.

If Dickert has success again next season, even if it's only 6-6 or 7-5, I would immediately bump his salary up to at least what Rolovich was making. You find the money for the single most important position at Washington State University. You let everyone know that we're not F@cking around.

Tell us if the AD budget deficit is real or not (seriously).

Or if the contract has clauses covering future bans on in person attendance.

Dickert probably has a sports agent negotiating for him while WSU often has a former fundraiser, sales person who gets along with his bosses in the AD chair.

 

[95coug]

I don't have a huge problem with $2.7m, but I don't understand why they didn't pay Dickert more like $2.25 to 2.5m in view of his experience and lack of other options. Nobody else in P5 would give him a legitimate look as a head coach right now. Still defensible and you're not pissing him off, and you extend him (with more $) if he performs. You could give him the raise as early as this coming year if warranted.

I'm in the same place. I'm on record for several weeks saying we should have a base below market with incentives that push it above average.

Almost regardless of experience, I like the idea of having significant incentives in a head coach's contract. I'm not interested in paying $4-5M to go 4-8. If your team ends up below average, your salary should too.

Example:
$2M base salary
$250K for getting bowl eligible
$250K per regular season win above 6

In addition:
$100K for winning AC
$100K for winning a non-NY6 bowl
$100K to appear in the Pac-12 title game, $250K for winning it
$100K to appear in an NY6 game, $250K for winning it
$250K to appear in the NC game, $500K for winning it

Under this, this year's 7-5 season with an AC win gets $2.6M, and winning the bowl gets him to $2.7M.

Also:
$10K for being conference coach of the year, $25K for national
$50K for each player who wins a national award
$50K for a Heisman finalist, $100K for a winner. Position coach gets the same.
$250K for an APR score above the 4-year average

In the event a WSU team runs the table and wins an NC, he gets:
$2M base
$250K for being bowl eligible
$1.5M for wins #7-12
$100K for AC win
$100K for being in the Pac-12 title game
$250K for winning the Pac-12
$100K for qualifying for NY6
$250K for winning NY6
$250K for qualifying for the NC
$500K for winning the NC

Total: $5.3M, plus whatever awards and APR bonuses he qualifies for

Where I get a bit progressive is that the team performance bonuses (not including bowl results) get added to his 2022 base (they go away in 2023, so he gets a 1 season reward for doing well). So in the year following this hypothetical undefeated season, his base is $4.2M

Rewards for sustaining success:
Base is increased permanently by $250K for each consecutive season of 6 wins (up to 4)
Base is increased permanently by $500K for consecutive seasons winning 8 games (up to 4)
Base is increased permanently by $250K for consecutive bowl wins (up to 10)

 

[CougPatrol]

What in particular would be different if we paid him $2.25m this year and then gave him a raise and/or extension next year if he merited it?

What's different is that WSU would be the lowest paying job in the P12 conference. The top coaches in the Mountain West Conference make over $1.5M. WSU should be a $3M/year job. A P12 job should be among the most coveted in all of college football. The optics of WSU being a low end, "prove it" gig has far reaching negative sterotypes that we should avoid.

If we had the budget to pay Leach what we were paying him 3 years ago, we have the money to pay Dickert $2.7M. The AD deficit is absolutely real, but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Full steam ahead with the program that will determine the fate of every program on campus.

 

[425cougfan]

What's different is that WSU would be the lowest paying job in the P12 conference. The top coaches in the Mountain West Conference make over $1.5M. WSU should be a $3M/year job. A P12 job should be among the most coveted in all of college football. The optics of WSU being a low end, "prove it" gig has far reaching negative sterotypes that we should avoid.

If we had the budget to pay Leach what we were paying him 3 years ago, we have the money to pay Dickert $2.7M. The AD deficit is absolutely real, but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Full steam ahead with the program that will determine the fate of every program on campus.

I don't feel that strongly about this and don't want to be a jerk to you personally or anyone, really, but this lack of any real justification for paying more just as an ego play, or out of some vague sense regarding "negative stereotypes," is what I was getting at.

I'll ask again: how, exactly, does WSU suffer if paying this first-time head coach $2.25m with the potential for incentives and a raise/extension, as I described? You aren't talking about anything specific or, as far as I can tell, even palpable or meaningful. People care about a coach's standing and credentials, not the number he is getting out of the gate in his first head coaching gig (or otherwise, really).

Nobody said "wow, Wilcox isn't really a legit head coach" when his original deal paid $1.5m the first year in total comp, and averaged $1.9m annually, all the way back in ... 2017.

What exactly would happen if someone thought "oh man, WSU is only paying this guy 50% more than a $1.5m Mountain West range?" You haven't articulated anything real at all, much less something that outweighs the cost of the incremental outlay.

Also, "[w]e had the money to pay Leach what we were paying him, so we have the money to pay Dickert $2.7m," even to the extent one might argue that's true despite the deficit, since we can continue to carry debt and run at a deficit, has no logic behind it. Mike Leach was paid what he was paid due to market forces. There was no market for Jake Dickert. He would have taken $1.5m if we offered it, not that we needed to, nor that I am arguing for that. Mike Leach making x doesn't establish anything in particular about what the job pays. UW didn't pay Jimmy Lake what Chris Petersen made, nor should it have. If we went out today to hire someone like Norvell, we probably would have had to pay more like $3.75m or 4m, and I would be fine with that if he was the best choice, but that's due to the market, not because "it's what we pay."

 

[triscuit one]

I really don’t mind the contract and could care less if it was 2 or 2.7. Jed Fisch made just under 2.7 this year (1.8 base and .8ish for promotional and fundraising duties) as a former career assistant and he has a record of 1-11. Smith singed a new deal worth 3.35 so he is only above Fisch next year. Yeah, Fisch coach the NFL and at P5 schools, but Dickert was able to show a little of what he could do as a head coach HERE. I think that counts for something.

Maybe its PR move due to the Rolovich situation. Don’t give accommodation to a guy making 3 mil and fire him and sign his assistant at 1.5? Not a great look to some.

Could a thank you to Dickert for sticking in and doing a job well done hoping to build some loyalty along with pleasing some boosters (maybe Pres?) who wanted to hire.

Could be he talked to the AD at OSU and Cal who said he would have done their contract different they could have done it all over again.

Low balling a guy at 1.5 mil and adding 10-25 incentive looks weak to me and I can’t think of another P5 coach that has a contact with a ton of incentives. Not sure it’s reassuring to recruits or fans either. “Sure, we like the guy, but we don’t like or trust him that much. We think we will stick with the guy”.

Also, the assumption is he would take 1.5 and that he had no others offers. We don’t know that for certain. Maybe there was some leverage. Mass player exodus? P5 coordinator or lower level HC gig?

Who know what the reasoning is?

Personally, I thought the contract was a little high and thought it would come in at 2 mil, but 2.7…ehh ok. Don’t have enough details and really don’t care either way. I wanted us to get a “splash hire” at 4-5 mil or Dickert. I am fine with the outcome.

 

[CougPatrol]

I don't feel that strongly about this and don't want to be a jerk to you personally or anyone, really, but this lack of any real justification for paying more just as an ego play, or out of some vague sense regarding "negative stereotypes," is what I was getting at.

I'll ask again: how, exactly, does WSU suffer if paying this first-time head coach $2.25m with the potential for incentives and a raise/extension, as I described? You aren't talking about anything specific or, as far as I can tell, even palpable or meaningful. People care about a coach's standing and credentials, not the number he is getting out of the gate in his first head coaching gig (or otherwise, really).

Nobody said "wow, Wilcox isn't really a legit head coach" when his original deal paid $1.5m the first year in total comp, and averaged $1.9m annually, all the way back in ... 2017.

What exactly would happen if someone thought "oh man, WSU is only paying this guy 50% more than a $1.5m Mountain West range?" You haven't articulated anything real at all, much less something that outweighs the cost of the incremental outlay.

Also, "[w]e had the money to pay Leach what we were paying him, so we have the money to pay Dickert $2.7m," even to the extent one might argue that's true despite the deficit, since we can continue to carry debt and run at a deficit, has no logic behind it. Mike Leach was paid what he was paid due to market forces. There was no market for Jake Dickert. He would have taken $1.5m if we offered it, not that we needed to, nor that I am arguing for that. Mike Leach making x doesn't establish anything in particular about what the job pays. UW didn't pay Jimmy Lake what Chris Petersen made, nor should it have. If we went out today to hire someone like Norvell, we probably would have had to pay more like $3.75m or 4m, and I would be fine with that if he was the best choice, but that's due to the market, not because "it's what we pay."

I don't take this as you being a jerk to me at all. My take on these matters has been influenced by my career in corporate sales. If Leach was making North of $3.5M/year, Rolo was making $3.1/M, then a contract in the area of $2.5-$2.7M/year is as low as we should have gone.

This is a unique situation. Dickert, if you classify the Portland State game as a no-count, has coached half a season and guided to WSU to an Apple Cup win and a bowl game throughout a highly tumultuous set of circumstances. Half of a season is 12.5% of a 4-year contract. That's the prove-it clause.

Look, your argument isn't wrong. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't sympathize with WSU on this. The athletic department has a deficit so we should bottom out the salary of the football coach? Absolutely not. That's not at all the way I'd handle it. You find the money for the baseball complex, for the IPF, and now you're talking about a new basketball complex, but you're not able to pay the head football coach? Nope. Dickert is already a bargain.

 

[425cougfan]

CP, thanks for the response on this. I understand where others are coming from. I would have liked to see us save a little (to be used elsewhere) and have that tailor-made opp to give him a raise next year, but I don't have a huge issue with what he's making.

 

[sellas]

I don't feel that strongly about this and don't want to be a jerk to you personally or anyone, really, but this lack of any real justification for paying more just as an ego play, or out of some vague sense regarding "negative stereotypes," is what I was getting at.

I'll ask again: how, exactly, does WSU suffer if paying this first-time head coach $2.25m with the potential for incentives and a raise/extension, as I described? You aren't talking about anything specific or, as far as I can tell, even palpable or meaningful. People care about a coach's standing and credentials, not the number he is getting out of the gate in his first head coaching gig (or otherwise, really).

Nobody said "wow, Wilcox isn't really a legit head coach" when his original deal paid $1.5m the first year in total comp, and averaged $1.9m annually, all the way back in ... 2017.

What exactly would happen if someone thought "oh man, WSU is only paying this guy 50% more than a $1.5m Mountain West range?" You haven't articulated anything real at all, much less something that outweighs the cost of the incremental outlay.

Also, "[w]e had the money to pay Leach what we were paying him, so we have the money to pay Dickert $2.7m," even to the extent one might argue that's true despite the deficit, since we can continue to carry debt and run at a deficit, has no logic behind it. Mike Leach was paid what he was paid due to market forces. There was no market for Jake Dickert. He would have taken $1.5m if we offered it, not that we needed to, nor that I am arguing for that. Mike Leach making x doesn't establish anything in particular about what the job pays. UW didn't pay Jimmy Lake what Chris Petersen made, nor should it have. If we went out today to hire someone like Norvell, we probably would have had to pay more like $3.75m or 4m, and I would be fine with that if he was the best choice, but that's due to the market, not because "it's what we pay."

I don't feel strongly about this, but here is my 100th paragraph on the subject.

 

[425cougfan]

I don't feel strongly about this, but here is my 100th paragraph on the subject.

Sorry to have troubled you, champ. Scroll past next time. Most can conceive of not needing to go to the mat on something but still wanting to explore it, even if the five paragraphs makes your brain overheat.

 

[Suudy]

Sorry to have troubled you, champ. Scroll past next time. Most can conceive of not needing to go to the mat on something but still wanting to explore it, even if the five paragraphs makes your brain overheat.

I don't think it's so much that. It rather like discussing the royals. We will never be one. We will never be friends with one. We will never party with one. Talking about folk who make 7+ figures is boring to some. I think that's all. Don't read too much into it.