Wilson, Venables, assistants get pay raises

[cvsooner]

Well, this will thrill some of us. Others--not so much. Particularly after last weekend....

OKLAHOMA CITY -- All nine of Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops' assistant coaches have been given raises for this football season.

The university's regents voted Wednesday to approve $45,000 raises for defensive coordinator Brent Venables and offensive coordinator Kevin Wilson. Venables is set to make $440,000 this year, while Wilson will make $430,000.

Quarterbacks coach Josh Heupel got the biggest bump, increasing his total pay from $200,000 to $250,000. Oklahoma's other three offensive assistants got raises of $20,000 while three defensive assistants will be paid about $16,500 more.

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/ou-coaching-staff-given-raises.html

[JLEW1818]

not bad, still not as much as I make




;)

[Iam4OUru]

I'm cool with that. Now, let's geaux earn it.

[oudavid1]

Good for them!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Fire the university regents!!!!

[En_Fuego]

:texan:

[soonerbub]

Gives them little incentive to leave
they would be hard pressed to make that as a mid major head coach

[OU_Sooners75]

We're DOOMED!!!!

[soonercastor]

Why would people be particularly "thrilled" about this?
Good for them.

[JLEW1818]

Stoops should make minimum wage

[CatfishSooner]

mehhhhhhhhhhh

[Leroy Lizard]

Those salaries are nuts.

Barry Switzer bragged back in the early 1980s that he once was able to collect over $100,000 in one year. What was his starting salary in 1973? $30,000? Something like that.

[MamaMia]

We should pay them a fair wage and then pay them extremely large bonuses for what happens during the game. Like 5 grand a touchdown and 2 grand for sacks. ;)

[agoo758]

We should pay them a fair wage and then pay them extremely large bonuses for what happens during the game. Like 5 grand a touchdown and 2 grand for sacks. ;)


How about candy instead?[hairGel]

[soonercastor]

We should pay them a fair wage and then pay them extremely large bonuses for what happens during the game. Like 5 grand a touchdown and 2 grand for sacks. ;)

:eek: :eek: Wilson would have made as much as coach Stoops in 2008

[oumartin]

do they not do performance reviews on these clowns or what?

[Intown]

Is the mob in on this?? I'm banning olive oil from my house.

[Intown]

I'm growing a bushy beard and a mullet. Maybe the giants will let me pitch. ( I will draw the line at pony tails, tatooed taints, and 12 minute ninja exams)

[agoo758]

I still don't get it. 6-0 and nothing happens. Lose game seven and they get a raise? :confused:

[OU_Sooners75]

I still don't get it. 6-0 and nothing happens. Lose game seven and they get a raise? :confused:


It was from the board of Regents. I believe it was also when they were to talk about it or their raises were due.


We are 6-1. I see nothing wrong with the raises...but I would have waited till the end of the season first.

[agoo758]

It was from the board of Regents. I believe it was also when they were to talk about it or their raises were due.


We are 6-1. I see nothing wrong with the raises...but I would have waited till the end of the season first.

Nothing wrong with it all, just seems kind of funny that it happens right after the loss. :P

[OU_Sooners75]

Nothing wrong with it all, just seems kind of funny that it happens right after the loss. :P


Oh I agree. :gary:

[Leroy Lizard]

Nothing wrong with it all, just seems kind of funny that it happens right after the loss. :P

That's probably the best time to do it. Otherwise it comes off as a reward for the outcome of a single game.

[oumartin]

Here's what I say to do. Figure out what each coach makes per game. for every game the team loses the coaches lose a games pay.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Maybe this is why Bob gave up. Wanted his guys to get a raise.

[OU_Sooners75]

I actually like that idea Martin!

[OU_Sooners75]

arent we as tax payers paying their salaries, or part of it?

[oumartin]

we better start discussing something else before we get run outta here.

[Crucifax Autumn]

arent we as tax payers paying their salaries, or part of it?

As I understand it the Athletic department pays for itself and contibutes to the general fund a lot.

[agoo758]

Here's what I say to do. Figure out what each coach makes per game. for every game the team loses the coaches lose a games pay.

I would sure feel sorry for Lou Holtz his first year at south carolina:P

[rainiersooner]

Those salaries are nuts.

Barry Switzer bragged back in the early 1980s that he once was able to collect over $100,000 in one year. What was his starting salary in 1973? $30,000? Something like that.

I think it's called inflation, or something like that. Why are those salaries nuts? By what standard?

[rainiersooner]

Nothing wrong with it all, just seems kind of funny that it happens right after the loss. :P

I'm guessing the regents, like most boards, schedule their meetings several months ahead and when their secretaries compared calendar notes, they hadn't considered that our football team might take three trips inside the red zone for 0 points in a 9 point loss.

[OU_Sooners75]

As I understand it the Athletic department pays for itself and contibutes to the general fund a lot.


Kewl.

[agoo758]

I think it's called inflation, or something like that. Why are those salaries nuts? By what standard?

I had no idea, quarterback coaches like heupal made six figures a year! :eek: I guess that explains why he's been content to stay there for a while.

[OU_Sooners75]

I think it's called inflation, or something like that. Why are those salaries nuts? By what standard?


That and the TV revenue now is a lot more than it was when Switzer was coach.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's probably the best time to do it. Otherwise it comes off as a reward for the outcome of a single game.or another game when we go into TOTAL PREVENT in the 4th qtr.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think it's called inflation, or something like that. Why are those salaries nuts? By what standard?

I highly doubt that inflation would account for such an enormous rise in salaries.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's a plot of median household income over the years. Notice that it has risen by only about 10% since 1980. The salaries of coaches, however, has rocketed out of sight. A coordinator on Barry's team probably only made about $50,000 a year in 1980. Today he's pulling ten times as much.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2009.png

[OU_Sooners75]

take that crap to the SO leroy.

Inflation + tv revenue + ticket price increases (dramatic increases at that) + more seats in the stadium = higher wages.

[Leroy Lizard]

take that crap to the SO leroy.

Inflation + tv revenue + ticket price increases (dramatic increases at that) + more seats in the stadium = higher wages.

So you're saying that an assistant coach is partly paid according to the income generated by the athletic department?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Based on that chart I'm glad we don't have an all-Asian coaching staff!

[OU_Sooners75]

Let's do some math...just for ****s and giggles:

The OU athletic department makes around $6 Million/home game.
There are on average 6 home games per season.
That is roughly $36 Million that the OU athletic department generates just on ticket/gate sells.

Now, How many games has OU had on TV? All of them. I am not sure what they make per game on TV. But I would assume it is at least a couple million.

OU makes the Big 12, that is what, 4 million dollars? (im guessing here).

Now, lets add in the $5 min. concessions at the game. I think those go to the athletic department too.

Now, just by home games alone, OU made more then enough to pay All the coaches Salaries, plus, Capel's, Coale's and all other coaches in the Athletic department.

So yes, I would go out on a limb and say the athletic department pays for our coaches though income generated through the athletic department.

[rainiersooner]

Leroy - I regret not being more specific. I shouldn't have just said inflation, which I think accounts for some of the increase. The other element that I think accounts for the increase is what OUSooners75 is saying; growth in the specific industry. There is more money in college football now, therefore the schools that make most of the money can pay the best coaches more than they did even in relative terms 30 years ago.

Now, if you want to discuss whether or not we get good value for our OC or DC, that's another topic. But Stoops obviously believes they are necessary for the success of our program and therefore the University will pay them market rates to keep them here, rather than have them go somewhere else.

That's why I disagree with your statement that their salaries are nuts. I don't know by what standard you make that comment.

[soonercastor]

30,000 in 1973, is worth about 1,000,000+ now.

[oufan1]

As I understand it the Athletic department pays for itself and contibutes to the general fund a lot.

Yeah but the department is not contributing enough because every year Boren says if the state doesn't give him more money from Tax revenue then he will have to raise tuition.

[soonercastor]

Yeah but the department is not contributing enough because every year Boren says if the state doesn't give him more money from Tax revenue then he will have to raise tuition.

which he did every year when I was a student. He sends a lengthy e-mail then at the end he says OU still ranks among the cheapest in the Big XII :gary:

[Leroy Lizard]

30,000 in 1973, is worth about 1,000,000+ now.

Is that relevant to this discussion?

[rainiersooner]

Is that relevant to this discussion?

Really?? How is it not relevant?

[Leroy Lizard]

That's why I disagree with your statement that their salaries are nuts. I don't know by what standard you make that comment.

Standard 1: Compare to corporations. The OU athletic department brought in gross revenues of $77 million in 2008, which has probably increased to (maybe) $90 million more recently. I doubt any corporation earning so little would pay their head $5 million per year. Add up the salaries of the assistant coaches and you have personnel budgets that, in my view, are completely whacked.

Standard 2: The OU athletic department is a non-profit agency. Handing out multi-million dollar salaries to employees of a non-profit and justifying it on revenues sounds more like the actions of a corporation, not a non-profit. There are plenty of non-profit agencies that bring in more money than the OU athletic department, but their employees do not bring in such huge salaries.

Standard 3: It is not uncommon for an academic department to bring in revenues like the OU athletic department. But the members of the department are not given huge pay raises and are paid much like the rest of the faculty.

At least that's the way I see it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Really?? How is it not relevant?

You must be incorporating interest. Inflation has increased since 1973, but not that much.

This inflation calculator has $30,000 in 1973 pegged at about $145,000 today, which sounds far more reasonable.

http://www.aier.org/research/worksheets-and-tools/cost-of-living-calculator/

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's an interesting reference point:


Barry Switzer, who resigned as head football coach at the University of Oklahoma this week, will continue to draw his regular $7,250 monthly salary until next June and will then earn $145,000 as part of a farewell settlement from the university. Until Feb. 1, Switzer will be on special assignment with Oklahoma but his duties have not been announced. The $225,000 settlement was approved by the university's board of regents, which also voted unanimously to hire the former defensive coordinator, Gary Gibbs, as Switzer's successor.

$7,250 a month. Wow. How much does Stoops make per month? $400,000?

[soonercastor]

well I used a generic equation, taking a reasonable rate. And I guess you have to look at it as a ratio of salary to what the athletic dpt gets off football. That's about the only fair way to really compare it.

[Leroy Lizard]

well I used a generic equation, taking a reasonable rate. And I guess you have to look at it as a ratio of salary to what the athletic dpt gets off football. That's about the only fair way to really compare it.

First of all, non-profits cannot operate like that (basing salary on revenue). Second of all, the ratio of Stoops' salary to total revenue is outrageous, even for a corporation.

[MrJimBeam]

Based on that chart I'm glad we don't have an all-Asian coaching staff!

I'm gonna laugh at this all day........

[SoonerWarMachine#1]

We should pay them a fair wage and then pay them extremely large bonuses for what happens during the game. Like 5 grand a touchdown and 2 grand for sacks. ;)

Love the incentive pay, there's a thought how about pay for performance! How about add deductions: -$1000 for every FLARE pass and - $500 for every negative yard . . . That would balance Kdub's actual worth.:D

[Sooners78]

Love the incentive pay, there's a thought how about pay for performance! How about add deductions: -$1000 for every FLARE pass and - $500 for every negative yard . . . That would balance Kdub's actual worth.:D

love the idea, but imagine the grief ESPN would give Stoops when our starters are still playing in the 4th qtr of a UNT or Rice beatdown.

[Taxman71]

Stoops is paid based on market demand, not a formula/percentage related to revenue, net income, etc. If OU obtained a compensation survey to justify its salaries like many corporations do (to justify such compensation to the IRS, the shareholders, et al.), I would bet it would yield almost exact or slightly more than what Stoops makes compared to his contemporaries (Mack Brown, Urban Meyer, et al.).

OTOH, OU could replace Stoops with a lower-tier coach and pay them under $1 million per year, but I expect lost revenues (and donations) would greatly exceed the $3 million salary reduction....not mention we would have a whole slew of things to gripe about, including our opponent in the Houston Bowl.

[Taxman71]

Love the incentive pay, there's a thought how about pay for performance! How about add deductions: -$1000 for every FLARE pass and - $500 for every negative yard . . . That would balance Kdub's actual worth.:D

Nice idea, but would never work. No coach in demand would accept that contract. It would be like offering Peyton Manning $1 million base with a $25 million bonus if he wins the SuperBowl. He would just go to another team and take $20 million guaranteed.

[SoonerWarMachine#1]

love the idea, but imagine the grief ESPN would give Stoops when our starters are still playing in the 4th qtr of a UNT or Rice beatdown.

That's true. . . on the other hand take into consideration the mizz game, they would owe money back to the university, so it would balance

[StoopTroup]

Coaches scoring TDs and getting sacks for $?

We pay them to Coach not to score TDs and get QBs. WTH? :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Stoops is paid based on market demand, not a formula/percentage related to revenue, net income, etc. If OU obtained a compensation survey to justify its salaries like many corporations do (to justify such compensation to the IRS, the shareholders, et al.), I would bet it would yield almost exact or slightly more than what Stoops makes compared to his contemporaries (Mack Brown, Urban Meyer, et al.).

OTOH, OU could replace Stoops with a lower-tier coach and pay them under $1 million per year, but I expect lost revenues (and donations) would greatly exceed the $3 million salary reduction....not mention we would have a whole slew of things to gripe about, including our opponent in the Houston Bowl.

But my point is that something has gone screwy with the market demand. Why does a $90 million non-profit agency have to pay an employee $5 million a year to meet market demand? There is just something screwy with our priorities, or something.

[StoopTroup]

Why must we give money as incentives. What about Tradition and Magic? How much should that cost?

[sooner518]

But my point is that something has gone screwy with the market demand. Why does a $90 million non-profit agency have to pay an employee $5 million a year to meet market demand? There is just something screwy with our priorities, or something.

Because the revenues for big time college football are huge......
Because ticket prices and TV contracts are high.......
Because 7 Saturdays a year, 85,000 people will pay $125 ticket prices and millions more will watch OU play on TV those 7 Saturdays plus 5 or 6 more for away games.

Theres nothing screwy with market demand.

[texaspokieokie]

who pays $125 ???

[SoonerWarMachine#1]

Coaches scoring TDs and getting sacks for $?

We pay them to Coach not to score TDs and get QBs. WTH? :D

Understood . . obviously this idea was made with tongue in cheek . . I think it's ludicris to give a substantial raise based on mid year performance, whether sub standard or above standard makes no difference, minor raises is another debate. The raise consideration should be based on total team performance at the end of the season. . . if a team in general (say OSWHO)has a record of 6-0 thru the first half and drops 6 straight losses the 2nd half, how ridiculous are mid-season raises then??

[OU_Sooners75]

Standard 1: Compare to corporations. The OU athletic department brought in gross revenues of $77 million in 2008, which has probably increased to (maybe) $90 million more recently. I doubt any corporation earning so little would pay their head $5 million per year. Add up the salaries of the assistant coaches and you have personnel budgets that, in my view, are completely whacked.

Standard 2: The OU athletic department is a non-profit agency. Handing out multi-million dollar salaries to employees of a non-profit and justifying it on revenues sounds more like the actions of a corporation, not a non-profit. There are plenty of non-profit agencies that bring in more money than the OU athletic department, but their employees do not bring in such huge salaries.

Standard 3: It is not uncommon for an academic department to bring in revenues like the OU athletic department. But the members of the department are not given huge pay raises and are paid much like the rest of the faculty.

At least that's the way I see it.


Not sure why you think it is hard to understand why the coaches get paid like they do.

The only explaination is, if they weren't, then they go someplace that does.

A top not CEO of a corp will be the CEO of a corp that pays him and his team of executives the best.

Not really that hard to understand.

[OU_Sooners75]

But my point is that something has gone screwy with the market demand. Why does a $90 million non-profit agency have to pay an employee $5 million a year to meet market demand? There is just something screwy with our priorities, or something.


Stoops new contact (that is extended to 2015) states that he makes a base pay of $250,000/year, which I am sure the "Non-Profit" University pays for.

The rest of his money comes from private unrestricted funds and bonuses.


Bob Stoops contract breakdown

7 years, $30.125 million

Figures do not include potential yearly performance bonuses

2009: $3.675 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$2.725 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2010)

2010: $3.875 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$2.925 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2011)

2011: $4.875 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$3.125 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2012)

$800,000 (payable following the 2011 season)

2012: $4.275 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$3.325 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2013)

2013: $4.475 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$3.525 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2014)

2014: $4.475 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$3.525 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2015)

2015:$4.475 million

$250,000 (base salary)

$3.525 million (unrestricted private funds)

$700,000 (stay bonus payable in July 2016)

[tcrb]

Interesting timing.

[mightysooner]

Wow....rewarding assistant coaches who've been clowned in all of their BCS outings as well as two National Title games, who can't field a strong road team, all in the wake of what appears to be a second consecutive season of mediocrity and inconsistency? High times if you're an assistant coach at U of O.

[Leroy Lizard]

Because the revenues for big time college football are huge......
Because ticket prices and TV contracts are high.......
Because 7 Saturdays a year, 85,000 people will pay $125 ticket prices and millions more will watch OU play on TV those 7 Saturdays plus 5 or 6 more for away games.

Theres nothing screwy with market demand.

Once again, OU only brought in $77 million in 2008. There are far bigger markets out there, but those companies don't hand out such astronomical salaries.

[Leroy Lizard]

A top not CEO of a corp will be the CEO of a corp that pays him and his team of executives the best.

Not really that hard to understand.

Why aren't the CEOs of $77 million companies (which would not even make it a large company) earning $5 million a year?

[OU_Sooners75]

Interesting timing.


If we would have beaten Missouri then it would have been looked by all these naysayers or skeptics that it was an award.

It is just the time of year when the regents meet and give raises.

And they do deserve the raises.

Who would we get that is better than KW as a OC?
Who would we get that is better than BV as a DC?
Who would we get that is a better QB coach?

These coaches may get a lot of ridicule, but they are some of the best in the business and I am actually happy we have them...even if they are inconsistent.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why aren't the CEOs of $77 million companies (which would not even make it a large company) earning $5 million a year?


And as mentioned later.

OU does not pay Stoops 5 million. His base salary is only $250K with incentives, bonuses, and private funds paying the rest, not OU's athletic fund.

[Leroy Lizard]

Stoops new contact (that is extended to 2015) states that he makes a base pay of $250,000/year, which I am sure the "Non-Profit" University pays for.

That makes the situation much more difficult to analyze, for sure.

[OU_Sooners75]

Wow....rewarding assistant coaches who've been clowned in all of their BCS outings as well as two National Title games, who can't field a strong road team, all in the wake of what appears to be a second consecutive season of mediocrity and inconsistency? High times if you're an assistant coach at U of O.


Know much?

Who would you want as assistants that are better?

Ill be waiting.

[OU_Sooners75]

That makes the situation much more difficult to analyze, for sure.


Not when you read the breakdown of his pay.

the only question I have is what is the unrestrictive funds?

[oumartin]

Stoops is paid based on market demand, not a formula/percentage related to revenue, net income, etc. If OU obtained a compensation survey to justify its salaries like many corporations do (to justify such compensation to the IRS, the shareholders, et al.), I would bet it would yield almost exact or slightly more than what Stoops makes compared to his contemporaries (Mack Brown, Urban Meyer, et al.).

OTOH, OU could replace Stoops with a lower-tier coach and pay them under $1 million per year, but I expect lost revenues (and donations) would greatly exceed the $3 million salary reduction....not mention we would have a whole slew of things to gripe about, including our opponent in the Houston Bowl.

I think Stoops demand peaked some 7 years ago.

[Leroy Lizard]

Not when you read the breakdown of his pay.

the only question I have is what is the unrestrictive funds?

Good question. Is this money truly from private donors, or is this just creative accounting?

[mightysooner]

Who would we get that is better than KW as a OC?

Norm Chow



Who would we get that is better than BV as a DC?

Dick Bumpas (this guy doesn't seem to ever struggle with inconsistency or embarrassingly flawed defensive performances)

Bud Foster

[OU_Sooners75]

Good question. Is this money truly from private donors, or is this just creative accounting?


I am thinking it is endorsement deals and private parties, since neither are listed in the breakdown.

[OU_Sooners75]

Norm Chow




Dick Bumpas (this guy doesn't seem to ever struggle with inconsistency or embarrassingly flawed defensive performances)


you mean the Norm Chow that is struggling an offense at UCLA? The only time he had a good offense was when he was at BYU or USC. And we all know the moeny forked out to 5 star prospects such as Reggie Bush.

No, Ill take Wilson over Chow any day!

Dick Bumpas?
When he decides to move to a better position at a better and bigger program, then lets see what he can do. He has been good at TCU. But was mediocre to good at Western Michigan and Houston before hand. The same can be said when he was at Navy from 1995-1998. Mediocre to good defenses. Then his time at Utah State before that, well, yeah, bad.

I will take Brent Venables over Dick Bumpas. The only thing Brent is flawed at is his bend but dont break method and he is scared to blitz certain types of offenses. But overall, he has had some very good defenses. No one was bitching about his defense last year!

[Leroy Lizard]

OU does not pay Stoops 5 million. His base salary is only $250K with incentives, bonuses, and private funds paying the rest, not OU's athletic fund.

Having thought about it, I think OU does pay the bulk of the $5 million. The unrestricted private funds is money collected from donors for the university to use and is part of the university's budget. The money paid to Stoops does not come directly from private donors.

At least that is how I understand it.

[OU_Sooners75]

Having thought about it, I think OU does pay the bulk of the $5 million. The unrestricted private funds is money collected from donors for the university to use and is part of the university's budget. The money paid to Stoops does not come directly from private donors.

At least that is how I understand it.


I agree, but it is not just from the revenue that the Athletic Department pulls. More from Endorsement deals, incentitives, private donations.

I dont think that $77 Million you are talking about includes private funding (donations), just athletic department revenue.

[mightysooner]

you mean the Norm Chow that is struggling an offense at UCLA? The only time he had a good offense was when he was at BYU or USC. And we all know the moeny forked out to 5 star prospects such as Reggie Bush.

No, Ill take Wilson over Chow any day!

Dick Bumpas?
When he decides to move to a better position at a better and bigger program, then lets see what he can do. He has been good at TCU. But was mediocre to good at Western Michigan and Houston before hand. The same can be said when he was at Navy from 1995-1998. Mediocre to good defenses. Then his time at Utah State before that, well, yeah, bad.

I will take Brent Venables over Dick Bumpas. The only thing Brent is flawed at is his bend but dont break method and he is scared to blitz certain types of offenses. But overall, he has had some very good defenses. No one was bitching about his defense last year!

This is from Rivals for the 2009 season ranking de-cos. It would appear they favor at least 17 other de-cos over Venables in power rankings, and they even tip their hat to his 'inconsistency'. I'd like to draw your attention to the name at the top of the list (Foster). It would appear those idiots over at Rivals agree with me.

http://www.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=981887

As far as Bumpas, he sure seems to give power programs a bunch of problems moving the ball when they play him. He sure has given us fits.

As for Venables, when does a "bend but don't break" defense become underachieving defense? Where's the line there?

As for Chow, if you think K-dub's offensive mind is superior to Chows genius, I want some of what you're smoking. He had trouble at Tennessee trying to implement his offensive scheme with a zone read, running QB in Vince Young. Didn't take a genius to know that wouldn't work. He's currently at a talent deprived UCLA operating under an incompetent head coach that's done absolutely nothing in his entire career yet manages to get big jobs (a la Kiffen). Chow would be a steal, and a perfect fit for the type of offense we run in the big XII. Wasn't it Chow who made Venables look like a clown in the NT game against USC? Didn't he just make Muschamp look like a clown too? Nobody thought Chow sucked then. His history says he doesn't suck. If you put him around talent, he does good things, and he's very creative.

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree, but it is not just from the revenue that the Athletic Department pulls. More from Endorsement deals, incentitives, private donations.

I dont think that $77 Million you are talking about includes private funding (donations), just athletic department revenue.

Whether the university pays the money out of its own budget or dips into the general budget is probably not going to make much of a difference.

In essence, OU has a department that grosses $77 million and pays one of its employees $5 million per year, regardless of whether they pay out of their own budget or not.

On a different note, I am not sure how university coaches can sign endorsement deals that allow them to use their association with the university. I certainly cannot do that, even if the market demand was there.

[OU_Sooners75]

This is from Rivals for the 2009 season ranking de-cos. It would appear they favor at least 17 other de-cos over Venables in power rankings, and they even tip their hat to his 'inconsistency'. I'd like to draw your attention to the name at the top of the list (Foster). It would appear those idiots over at Rivals agree with me.

As far as Bumpas, he sure seems to give power programs a bunch of problems moving the ball when they play him. He sure has given us fits.

http://www.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=981887

As for Chow, if you think K-dub's offensive mind is superior to Chows genius, I want some of what you're smoking. He had trouble at Tennessee trying to implement his offensive scheme with a zone read, running QB in Vince Young. Didn't take a genius to know that wouldn't work. He's currently at a talent deprived UCLA operating under an incompetent head coach that's done absolutely nothing in his entire career yet manages to get big jobs (a la Kiffen). Chow would be a steal, and a perfect fit for the type of offense we run in the big XII. Wasn't it Chow who made Venables look like a clown in the NT game against USC? Didn't he just make Muschamp look like a clown too? Nobody thought Chow sucked then. His history says he doesn't suck. If you put him around talent, he does good things, and he's very creative.

I am happy for Rivals and their list. Doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct.

And where the hell did I even say KW had a better offensive mind? I said, I will keep KW over Norm Chow. At least KW has proven to produce top 20 offenses every year he has been the OC. Norm Chow, not so much.

And if you put any coach around outstanding talent they look good. It doesnt matter who they are as long as they know what they are doing.

The key to see how good a coach is what they can do with the talent they already have. We (OU) saw a pretty solid offense last year despite the injuries.

I understand Chow doesn't have all his pieces for his offense. But as the OC, he should be able to run an offense that works well with the personnel he has.

[OU_Sooners75]

Whether the university pays the money out of its own budget or dips into the general budget is probably not going to make much of a difference.

In essence, OU has a department that grosses $77 million and pays one of its employees $5 million per year, regardless of whether they pay out of their own budget or not.

On a different note, I am not sure how university coaches can sign endorsement deals that allow them to use their association with the university. I certainly cannot do that, even if the market demand was there.


it makes a huge difference. you are trying to make it sound as if OU is paying Stoops strictly off the $77 million they make from the athletic department...which is not the case.

If I (or anyone) was an all-knowing brickwall you would still try to argue against any logic or reason given.

[stoopified]

We are 6-1. I see nothing wrong with the raises...but I would have waited till the end of the season first.True dat

[mightysooner]

I am happy for Rivals and their list. Doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct.

And where the hell did I even say KW had a better offensive mind? I said, I will keep KW over Norm Chow. At least KW has proven to produce top 20 offenses every year he has been the OC. Norm Chow, not so much.

And if you put any coach around outstanding talent they look good. It doesnt matter who they are as long as they know what they are doing.

The key to see how good a coach is what they can do with the talent they already have. We (OU) saw a pretty solid offense last year despite the injuries.

I understand Chow doesn't have all his pieces for his offense. But as the OC, he should be able to run an offense that works well with the personnel he has.

Hmmm....well.....what can I say to that? I'll let the folks over at Rivals know their nationally respected analysis may be potentially flawed in terms of Oklahoma's assistants. If we finish 9-3 and end up in another less than illustrious bowl game, just remember, the players just need to execute.

[OU_Sooners75]

Hmmm....well.....what can I say to that? I'll let the folks over at Rivals know their nationally respected analysis may be potentially flawed in terms of Oklahoma's assistants. If we finish 9-3 and end up in another less than illustrious bowl game, just remember, the players just need to execute.


you should probably stick around and/or read the board more often.

I am not afraid to call out the coaching blunders that happens at OU.

I never said that Rivals was flawed. It is an opinion based article...meaning I could go out and write a review of the best coordinators and have a totally different list.

[OU_Sooners75]

mighty sooner:

here is just one example of me talking about our coaching.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3011491#post3011491

[C&CDean]

If we finish 9-3 and end up in another less than illustrious bowl game, just remember, the players just need to execute.

This is the only semi-intelligent thing you've posted in this thread.

Only a blind ****ing retard can't see that these coaches have had this team in a position to win - and win handily - in every game this year. Stoops has mentioned several times that they don't change the schemes going into the 4th quarter, but you geniuses are convinced they go into the fetal beat-me mode. Meh.

Landry goes into his funk? Coach Wilson's fault. ****ernuts misses another field goal or PAT? Coach Wilson's fault. Defensive tackles get bitch-slapped by the other guys' o-line? CW's fault. Same thing goes for **** ups on defense. Wort wiffs on protection? Fire V. No penetration by the d-line? Fire V.

This staff is not perfect. But they're very ****ing good, and only a pathetic excuse for someone who thinks they know something about football sees it otherwise. If this team puts together a string of 4-quarter games they can beat anyone in the country. According to numbnuts like you, it's all on the coaches to get a team of freshmen and sophs performing at that level. Let me give you a clue. It ain't. The coaches have done everything they can to get these guys in position to win. It's shown in the first half of every game. For whatever reason, the players go into a catatonic state upon hearing the bell for the 4th quarter. They've got to find a way to continue playing at the same level they did earlier in the game.

Good on the coaches. I don't think they get paid enough. When your living depends on the performance of 18 and 19 year old kids who you know are superstars and you know can do it (cause they've shown you they can), it's gotta be beyond ripping your hair out frustrating.

Take your frustration and multiply it by 100K.

[mightysooner]

This is the only semi-intelligent thing you've posted in this thread.

Only a blind ****ing retard can't see that these coaches have had this team in a position to win - and win handily - in every game this year. Stoops has mentioned several times that they don't change the schemes going into the 4th quarter, but you geniuses are convinced they go into the fetal beat-me mode. Meh.

Landry goes into his funk? Coach Wilson's fault. ****ernuts misses another field goal or PAT? Coach Wilson's fault. Defensive tackles get bitch-slapped by the other guys' o-line? CW's fault. Same thing goes for **** ups on defense. Wort wiffs on protection? Fire V. No penetration by the d-line? Fire V.

This staff is not perfect. But they're very ****ing good, and only a pathetic excuse for someone who thinks they know something about football sees it otherwise. If this team puts together a string of 4-quarter games they can beat anyone in the country. According to numbnuts like you, it's all on the coaches to get a team of freshmen and sophs performing at that level. Let me give you a clue. It ain't. The coaches have done everything they can to get these guys in position to win. It's shown in the first half of every game. For whatever reason, the players go into a catatonic state upon hearing the bell for the 4th quarter. They've got to find a way to continue playing at the same level they did earlier in the game.

Good on the coaches. I don't think they get paid enough. When your living depends on the performance of 18 and 19 year old kids who you know are superstars and you know can do it (cause they've shown you they can), it's gotta be beyond ripping your hair out frustrating.

Take your frustration and multiply it by 100K.

Well since I'm so football stupid, what exactly IS a coaches responsibility if not to get his players performing at a disciplined high level? Is this staff experiencing something unique that every staff at ever major program doesn't experience? Help me out here....

We've been watching defensive **** ups and coverage busts for years now. We've been known as "giving up the big plays" for years now. We've been "soft against the pass" for years now. We've been "Vulnerable over the middle" for years now. We've been embarrassed in BCS bowls for years now. You're talking about an awful lot of athletes who've come through here that were "put in the position to win" and simply haven't "executed" dude.

I haven't seen this team "in the position to win handily in every game this year". We must be watching different televisions.

We'll see how they finish.

[C&CDean]

Well since I'm so football stupid, what exactly IS a coaches responsibility if not to get his players performing at a disciplined high level? Is this staff experiencing something unique that every staff at ever major program doesn't experience? Help me out here....

We've been watching defensive **** ups and coverage busts for years now. We've been known as "giving up the big plays" for years now. We've been "soft against the pass" for years now. We've been "Vulnerable over the middle" for years now. We've been embarrassed in BCS bowls for years now. You're talking about an awful lot of athletes who've come through here that were "put in the position to win" and simply haven't "executed" dude.

I haven't seen this team "in the position to win handily in every game this year". We must be watching different televisions.

We'll see how they finish.

Coaches can only get the players ready to play. Then, the players have got to execute. Period. Did you watch FSU? Did you watch ISU? Did you watch UT? Did you even watch any games this year? The complete and total inconsistency is so glaring it's blinding. When the PLAYERS learn to compete for 4 quarters this will be a very good team. The coaches are already proven (irregardless of what you seem to think).

Were we embarrassed against UF by poor coaching in the NC game? Nope, we were embarrassed because our players failed to score 2-3 times in the red zone in the first half. Receivers let passes hit their hands and they pop right over to the UF defenders. Yes, I know, poor coaching again:rolleyes:

You can even go back to the GOWWDNS. Everything is fine until what's his face (I can't remember now) decides he needs to try and field a punt that is rolling dead. I'm sure he was coached to do that.

I could go on and on. Stupid penalties, whiffed blocks, dropped passes, missed PATs and FGs, whiffed tackles, poor tackling, etc.

No, I'm not putting it all on the players, but these coaches have had these guys in a position to win every damn game they've played, and win them handily. We lose, and everybody goes "****ing stoops punted? WTF?" when they should be going "I sure wish Landry wouldn't vapor lock, and I sure wish we had a consistent kicker, and I sure wish these guys could tackle somebody or create a pass rush."

And yes, we will see how they finish. Hopefully these very young players picked up something from the L to Mizzou that will finally sink in. You've got play for 60 minutes. You cannot let up. You cannot take plays off.

[mightysooner]

Coaches can only get the players ready to play. Then, the players have got to execute. Period. Did you watch FSU? Did you watch ISU? Did you watch UT? Did you even watch any games this year? The complete and total inconsistency is so glaring it's blinding. When the PLAYERS learn to compete for 4 quarters this will be a very good team. The coaches are already proven (irregardless of what you seem to think).

Were we embarrassed against UF by poor coaching in the NC game? Nope, we were embarrassed because our players failed to score 2-3 times in the red zone in the first half. Receivers let passes hit their hands and they pop right over to the UF defenders. Yes, I know, poor coaching again:rolleyes:

You can even go back to the GOWWDNS. Everything is fine until what's his face (I can't remember now) decides he needs to try and field a punt that is rolling dead. I'm sure he was coached to do that.

I could go on and on. Stupid penalties, whiffed blocks, dropped passes, missed PATs and FGs, whiffed tackles, poor tackling, etc.

No, I'm not putting it all on the players, but these coaches have had these guys in a position to win every damn game they've played, and win them handily. We lose, and everybody goes "****ing stoops punted? WTF?" when they should be going "I sure wish Landry wouldn't vapor lock, and I sure wish we had a consistent kicker, and I sure wish these guys could tackle somebody or create a pass rush."

And yes, we will see how they finish. Hopefully these very young players picked up something from the L to Mizzou that will finally sink in. You've got play for 60 minutes. You cannot let up. You cannot take plays off.

We'll see. I say a 9-3 finish.

[C&CDean]

Maybe. Could be 6-6 or 12-1 too. Depends on how these players respond.

[rainiersooner]

You can even go back to the GOWWDNS. Everything is fine until what's his face (I can't remember now) decides he needs to try and field a punt that is rolling dead. I'm sure he was coached to do that.

What game was that? Oh yeah. Poor Mark Bradley. Ugh!!!

[tulsaoilerfan]

Why would anyone really give a damn what they are paid? With the amount of stress and pressure these guys are under i think they should be paid whatever the university can afford to pay them; it's not like these are the only well compensated college coaches in the country

[rainiersooner]

Why would anyone really give a damn what they are paid? With the amount of stress and pressure these guys are under i think they should be paid whatever the university can afford to pay them; it's not like these are the only well compensated college coaches in the country

Same reason people care about what executives on Wall Street are paid. They've got nothing better to do with their time. :pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

it makes a huge difference. you are trying to make it sound as if OU is paying Stoops strictly off the $77 million they make from the athletic department...which is not the case.

That was not my argument. If Stoops contributed to the engineering department, then factoring in the revenue made by the engineering department would be understandable. But he coaches football and his duties reside within the athletic department, a department that only brings in $77 million per year (or thereabouts).

Money is money. Whether the money is paid to Stoops from the athletic department of the university as a whole is irrelevant.

Can you quit whining about the brick-wall? You're arguing just as much as I am.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why would anyone really give a damn what they are paid? With the amount of stress and pressure these guys are under i think they should be paid whatever the university can afford to pay them; it's not like these are the only well compensated college coaches in the country

I'm not concerned that they get more than other coaches in the country. If the average pay is X, then our coaches deserve well more than X.

My beef is with the average pay being astronomically higher than common sense would dictate. In my view, the emotional desire to win has superceded rational economics, but this is a problem everywhere not just at OU.

[Leroy Lizard]

Same reason people care about what executives on Wall Street are paid. They've got nothing better to do with their time. :pop:

Since coaches are state employees and are paid from university funds, it is not quite the same as the pay of Wall Street executives.

[mightysooner]

New look, no luck: To combat Missouri’s five-wide receiver attack, OU used cornerbacks Jamell Fleming, Demontre Hurst and Aaron Colvin at once. The Sooners also brought in linebacker Corey Nelson to spy on quarterback Blaine Gabbert.

So the Tigers countered by attacking OU’s linebackers with medium-range throws to the middle of the field. With Sooner defensive linemen struggling to pressure Gabbert, and linebackers struggling to keep up with wideouts, Gabbert was able to work around OU’s wrinkle.


Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU/article.aspx?subjectid=92&articleid=20101024_92_B14_Oklaho521760&rss_lnk=2

I knew we had a guy spying Gabbert, instead of blitzing him, for some odd reason I couldn't comprehend.

Blaine Gabbert rushing season total for 2010:

Rushing
Name G Rush Yds Y/G Avg Lng TD
Henry Josey 7 50 319 45.6 6.4 62 4
De'Vion Moore 7 50 273 39.0 5.5 39 4
Kendial Lawrence 6 39 177 29.5 4.5 39 2
Marcus Murphy 4 15 96 24.0 6.4 30 1
James Franklin 5 14 78 15.6 5.6 34 2
Trey Barrow 1 1 26 26.0 26.0 26 0
T.J. Moe 7 2 8 1.1 4.0 7 0
Jared Culver 1 1 2 2.0 2.0 2 0
Blaine Gabbert 7 41 0 0.0 0.0 12 2
Matt Davis 1 1 -3 -3.0 -3.0 0 0

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/teams/mms/stats


haha.....Our wrinkle was to spy a non-threat running QB? His running prowess this season certainly required he be spied. 41 rushes for a season net of 0.0 Y/G, 0.0 Avg, and a season long run of 12 total yds. Interesting....

[Leroy Lizard]

[B]
haha.....Our wrinkle was to spy a non-threat running QB? His running prowess this season certainly required he be spied. 41 rushes for a season net of 0.0 Y/G, 0.0 Avg, and a season long run of 12 total yds. Interesting....

1. What coach told the Tulsa World they had someone spying on Gabbert?
2. If they did spy on Gabbert, they must have had a good reason for doing so.

I mean, c'mon! You're making it sound like our coaching staff is completely new to the game. There is nothing that you know about football that Venables doesn't. :mad:

[mightysooner]

1. What coach told the Tulsa World they had someone spying on Gabbert?
2. If they did spy on Gabbert, they must have had a good reason for doing so.

I mean, c'mon! You're making it sound like our coaching staff is completely new to the game. There is nothing that you know about football that Venables doesn't. :mad:


haha...I'm really not trying to be an a-hole here man. Of course Venables knows more than I. He should given his lofty salary. Look, I'm as big a Sooner fan as there is. I just posted the links because I found the strategy, well, curious. Either you believe Gabbert's 2010 stats from Rivals is somehow inaccurate, or you don't. You make the call. You can always watch the replay yourself to see Nelson waiting for Gabbert. I'm just the messenger.

[Leroy Lizard]

haha...I'm really not trying to be an a-hole here man. Of course Venables knows more than I. He should given his lofty salary. Look, I'm as big a Sooner fan as there is. I just posted the links because I found the strategy, well, curious. Either you believe Gabbert's 2010 stats from Rivals is somehow inaccurate, or you don't. You make the call. You can always watch the replay yourself to see Nelson waiting for Gabbert. I'm just the messenger.

You weren't just playing the role of the messenger. You clearly were taking stabs at our defensive strategy. The coaches are not above criticism, but it is nuts to insinuate that they are so feeble-minded that they would employ a strategy that an ordinary fan could see was illogical. They see the same field as we do. They know just as much about Gabbert as we do. If spying a QB like Gabbert is dumb, they wouldn't have done it.

[goingoneight]

I love how we flip the **** out when a coach makes six figures, but players on a winless NFL team are brainless, spineless thugs who don't produce and we see no problem with them raking in millions.

I don't think anyone should ever make millions for coaching a game, but like stated in the thread earlier, it's a market thing. We didn't start this. If we don't pay market value for a top-flite coach, somebody else will. As for the sarcastic few who say dock the coaches a game's pay for a loss, good luck ever getting a coach with a pulse to Norman with that policy.

Just think if all the armchair quarterbacks and coaches made what these guys made. I think we'd all be a little less bitter after a loss. I know I would. :D

[StoopTroup]

good luck ever getting a coach with a pulse to Norman with that policy.



That right there hits Home

[goingoneight]

I don't particulary read stats. If stats told the truth, Mizzou wouldn't have got out of their own backfield Saturday... yet they gashed us. If stats told the truth, Cincinnati wouldn't have gashed us. The coaches see things on film that suggest gameplanning ideas. I have seen Gabbert run before. He actually was pretty good last year, IIRC. Also, stats are misleading when he had been injured most of this season leading up to last Saturday. Reminds me of how ercy Harvin said he was "only about 80 percent" after the MNC game against OU. Bull****, you punk. You were fine and you know it.

[gaylordfan1]

Blah Blah Blah... We got beat.... We all know it! The game was lost up front! And I think the depth at that position had a lot to do with it. It's not an excuse, its just reality. THis happens. Lets just be thankful our injury list isn't anywhere close to where it was last year.

[misplaced_sooner]

I wish I could be that mediocre at my job and get a $45K pay raise.

[C&CDean]

I wish I could be that mediocre at my job and get a $45K pay raise.

Well maybe someday you'll find something to do that might even pay you $45K per year. In the meantime, get back on the dishwasher where you belong.

[mightysooner]

You weren't just playing the role of the messenger. You clearly were taking stabs at our defensive strategy. The coaches are not above criticism, but it is nuts to insinuate that they are so feeble-minded that they would employ a strategy that an ordinary fan could see was illogical. They see the same field as we do. They know just as much about Gabbert as we do. If spying a QB like Gabbert is dumb, they wouldn't have done it.

You can vilify me if you want to, if that's the best you can do, for questioning our dear leaders. It's right there in black and white. For the record, I was vilified just as bad when I called out Chuck Long after his first season as well. You can take the red pill, or the blue pill.

[OU_Sooners75]

Maybe. Could be 6-6 or 12-1 too. Depends on how these players respond.


Ding Ding Ding...WINNAR!!!!

But Dean, you fail to understand, that it is coaching. :eek: :P


As far as MightySooner goes. You are beating a dead horse.

Our coaches are far from perfect. But our coaches didn't coach Jones to go 0-7 with 1 INT in the 4th quarter.

Our coaches didn't coach our players to allow almost 100 yards rushing in the fourth quarter against Missouri.

I do think there were some adjustments that could have been made for shutting down the middle passing lanes, but then again, our Linebackers were drawn out of the middle. And it really seemed to hurt us even more after Carter got that neck stinger.

You may be right (mightysooner) OU could finish 9-3. However, like Dean said, they could finish 6-6 or 12-1. It now depends on how these kids come out and perform from now on. It isn't totally on the coaches.

[OU_Sooners75]

That was not my argument. If Stoops contributed to the engineering department, then factoring in the revenue made by the engineering department would be understandable. But he coaches football and his duties reside within the athletic department, a department that only brings in $77 million per year (or thereabouts).

Money is money. Whether the money is paid to Stoops from the athletic department of the university as a whole is irrelevant.

Can you quit whining about the brick-wall? You're arguing just as much as I am.


Who cares? Unlike those tenured Professors at OU, Stoops can be fired at the drop of a hat.

Stoops has no assurance, other than winning football games, that he has job security.

[Leroy Lizard]

Who cares? Unlike those tenured Professors at OU, Stoops can be fired at the drop of a hat.

You are making it seem as if Stoops would not collect anything beyond his annual salary if he was fired. But we all know that if OU fired Stoops at the end of this season he would rake in tons of money as part of his contract.

To give you an example, the University of New Mexico would have to pay $1.46 million to buy out their head coach's contract if they were to fire him tomorrow. 1.46 million! University of New Mexico!

But this coach deserves all this money, right? After all, his program probably makes the university millions of dollars, right?

A prof there would have to probably work 15 years to make that kind of money, and that's not including the money the coach made since he arrived.

BTW, Locksley's contract is for $750,000 a year, and I doubt the athletic department has made a dime of money since he arrived or before he arrived. Does that make sense from a financial standpoint?


Stoops has no assurance, other than winning football games, that he has job security.

Again, Stoops is on a multi-year contract, not year-per-year. He may not have job security, but he has financial security that is far beyond any prof.

[Taxman71]

Anyone wanting to replace Kevin Wilson should be checked for a pulse. Is he a different person from 2009 when we set every record under the sun? Should he coach Landry not to throw INT's on screen routes or our RB's not to fumble? You guys think Norm Chow has never coached a game under 50 points.

As for Venables, finding an equal talent to replace him would be tough, but his record warrants some criticism, especially if you compare the number of 30+, 40+ and 50+ points in a game allowed under his tenure versus under Mike Stoops. Or do people was the genius Muschamp who had been beat like a drum this year.

[Crucifax Autumn]

2009?

The only record we set was most injuries in a season.

That and the one Landry Jones picked up for TD passes in a game.

[mightysooner]

2009?

The only record we set was most injuries in a season.

That and the one Landry Jones picked up for TD passes in a game.

I think he means 2008 when several teams in the conference, not just us, were posting gaudy offensive numbers in a defenseless league.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think he means 2008 when several teams in the conference, not just us, were posting gaudy offensive numbers in a defenseless league.

It's amazing how our zeal to undercut KW compels us to diminish our own team's achievements. We can't be proud of an NCAA record, because doing so would admit that KW did a pretty good job. Between Sooner pride and anti-KW, we choose anti-KW.

[Scott D]

also fwiw, since he was mentioned Bud Foster isn't going anywhere. He'll replace Beamer at VaTech when Beamer finally decides to hang em up.

some of you guys are just too much.

[mightysooner]

It's amazing how our zeal to undercut KW compels us to diminish our own team's achievements. We can't be proud of an NCAA record, because doing so would admit that KW did a pretty good job. Between Sooner pride and anti-KW, we choose anti-KW.

I don't have that big of a problem with KW. I'd like to see him be more creative than he is with special players like Broyles, make better in game adjustments, and incorporate important things like PLAY ACTION. Just some tweaks, he doesn't need to be fired.