AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Charles Clark to Oregon
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
If that's what he's like, we are better off without him. Find some real coaches please and soon. Quite frankly, that ****ing pisses me off about him.
Well apparently mac knew for a while that leavitt was leaving but it seems like Clark is waiting for him to get back and tell him face to face.
And welcome to sitting on an offer while your current company counters. It sucks.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't wait on him, wanna leave, see ya. We have better things to do.
Is this a saying people use??
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Something like that lol.
I'm assuming this is tied to the next DC hire. If it's Tumpkin, then you can make a counter offer and try to keep Clark. If it's not Tumpkin, then you need to know what the new DC's staffing plan is before you make that offer to Clark?
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's gonna be Tumpkin honestly. I want him on the staff but Idk if I want him as DC. I just hope to see some movement sooner rather than later.
Some say screw the pooch...but the sentiment is the same.
I should have explained myself better, sorry.
According to the reference below, we are about 1.1 million short annually of what assistant pay is for the #20 school on the list and about 2 Million short of the #20 school on the list for head coaches annually. The higher up the top 20 we go the farther back we are of course. We sit at number 43 and 55 respectively. Not every school high on the list is going to end up in the top 20 this year, but the vast majority are and most of them are perennial top 20 programs.
And this is my point - if we want to become a perennial top 20 program then we are going to have to be competitive in what we pay both head coach and staff if we want to avoid getting raided constantly by other schools. A little old fashioned here but I feel stability means a lot, especially when you are rebuilding.
So you are right we have some work to do but I am not quite so convinced that we are solid in the salary department. It looks to me like we are generally paying like a 45th ranked school for the most part, about 25 off from where we want to be.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/
Clark is gone.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
I also think it has something to do about being a State employee here in CO too that's a deterant here.
I think that is right as well.
Bufffan68
Club Member
I think it's a constitutional issue...TABOR.
But it can't be amended via a bill or would it have to be a state wide vote?
Good question because many of the top 20 in head and assistant coach salaries are SEC schools not historically known to be located in the riches states in the union. Somehow they find the dough and the State is ok with throwing it at state university football salaries.
It does tie back into TABOR.
It has to do with the state not being able to tie itself to future financial obligation.
What I have wondered is if it would be possible to create a separate foundation that "employ" coaches and other key persons contingent on their continued employment by the university. Donations that would normally go into the AD would go to the foundation which would pay the coaches for a number of personal appearances, luncheons with the donors, etc.
If this happened the portion of their salaries paid by the university would still not be guaranteed but they could receive long term guarantees from the foundation.
It would require legislation to would provide for state oversight of the foundation and state that the "employment" is not a conflict of interest or other violation of state employment.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Sounds like you might have Title IX issues if you're carving out football expenses from the University.
Comparing CU and the state of Colorado with schools and states in the south, for example, is not apples to apples. Colorado is largely populated with people who aren't from Colorado and their allegiances are elsewhere. Compare that to Alabama where I'd guess nearly all the population is from there, many generations over. I think that's why it's so difficult to garner support for higher ed in general in the state of Colorado.
Might actually be a way of avoiding title IX issues. If Urban Meyer signs a contract to do commercials for an auto dealer does that income count against Title IX?
If he were to accept an offer to make an appearance on the NC game would what he gets paid count? Both of these would be as a direct result of his position as HC of tOSU.
