Staff Raises

[The Prowler]

Damn kaos, whenever you're getting the shit beat outta you, you just resort to completely making shit up or taking posts to their extreme.  Very Woman like, I might add.  No where did I state that the raises were handed out only because of the staff's recruiting abilities.  On that thought, for a second, you still have doubts about this staff's recruiting abilities, LMAO!!!!  When Auburn lands another Top 5 or Top 10 Signing Class in '11....Will you eat that huge plate of crow I have made up for ya?

[AUChizad]

I remembered Chizik getting his salary doubled.  I thought I read at the same time that his staff budget was the highest in the SEC.  I'm almost positive I read that.  I think what you did was twist that around by adding the head coaching salary in (not the point) and then go off on another rant using skewed information.  If Auburn's assistant's combined salary isn't the highest, then I was wrong.  But even before the raises wasn't it top two or three (combined assistant's salaries, not head coaches, not individual coaches)?  That's what I remembered reading and what I was going by.  Hardly slave wages by any estimation.  How is that (your words) "unfounded negativity?"  How is that negative at all?

This appears to be the problem. Instead of actually reading my argument that is presented to you, you see red and ignore it entirely, or see it how you want to see it.

The source that I sited explicitly says that head coaching salaries are not factored in. And we were fourth on that list. Combined assistant's salaries, not head coaches, not individual coaches.

I said that if you did factor in head coaching salaries, we'd be significantly lower. Florida, for example, is seventh on the list, but would be a close second to Alabama when you factor in Urban's salary. We're not a one man show at Auburn, and that's fine with me. We're still spending less than over half of the SEC are on our coaching staff. Our ENTIRE STAFF, HEAD COACH INCLUDED makes less than Nick Saban by himself. That is substantially worth noting.

You brought up Chizik's salary. As you conveniently ignored, he's only ahead of SC, UK, and Mississippi State (and presumably Vanderbilt) in head coaching salaries. Houston Nutt at Ole Miss sure does think we spoil him.

For more insight on how our coaching staff is far from overpaid, I suggest reading my posts in this thread again (for the first time), without the rage storm blocking your view.

You responded somewhere that Malzahn is the "most coveted OC" or somesuch.  Whether you like it or not, I do know people who work with other SEC programs.  I like to know what they think.  General consensus is that the jury is still out.  Some like him.  Some don't.  Because a handful of Arkansas fans on a message board think he's great, you extrapolated that into an entire "ask Arkansas if they'd take him back" argument.  Maybe they would.  I know some people -- people who've got more money and influence than your or I will ever have in Arkansas -- who wouldn't.  Doesn't mean they're right or wrong.

But you can't address that.  You have to dip into Prowler territory and pull out the "authority on everything because you had so many jobs" line again.  

First of all, actually read my posts before you go off about what I did and did not address.

Secondly, burden of proof and such. I can, and have, supplied indisputable justification for my position. You claim to have BBQ with "people who work with other SEC programs". Just like you claim to have an inside track on everything that is ever discussed on this board. You were previously a writer, football coach, basketball coach, baseball coach, curling coach, teacher, computer programmer, politician, auto mechanic, Hollywood director, insurance adjuster, dentist, stapler manufacturer....the list grows with every new topic in which you claim you know what you're talking about and no one else does.

I don't even really read RWS stuff.  When you and him or you and Prowler start up I just skip it all.  

So which is it? You ignore us, or you angrily pound out ten paragraph diatribes? Of course, you claim to ignore us when even you, as creative and argumentative as you are, can't possibly dispute the facts you're presented (see your misinterpretation of the list of coach's salaries).

Just FYI?  When Prowler jumps to your defense?  You've already lost.  That happens a lot with you Sancho.  

The only people to ever come to your defense are GreaseyWeasel and RWS.

Case closed.

[RWS]

I think your argument took a big hit in credibility when you reached and brought 7-6 Alabama and Major Applewhite into it.   I see what you were getting at, but it just wasn't a good example or comparison. 

In 2007, Alabama finished 27th in scoring defense.  Auburn finished 79th last year.  In 2006, the year before Applewhite got there, Alabama averaged 25 points per game.  Under him, they averaged 27.  In 2008 Auburn averaged 17 points per game (111th) , under Malzahn, it went up to over 33 points per game (17th).

There really just isn't anything comparable about Applewhite's job as OC for 7-6 Alabama and Malzahn's job as OC for 8-5 Auburn. 

My point is simple. Thats fine that he brought PPG up 100 spots. AU played half of 2008 without an OC. It would be tragic if Malzahn COULDN'T improve on that. Great that some team and individual records were broken. The big question: does any of it matter when you are battling for the spot above Vanderbilt in the SEC overall, and next to last in the West? Are you gonna be fine with breaking all of these records, and an offense that is 17th in PPG if you went 8-5 every year? I'm just not seeing how Malzahn is possibly the most coveted OC in the SEC when his offense fell flat on its face in a few games last season.

[Kaos]

This appears to be the problem. Instead of actually reading my argument that is presented to you, you see red and ignore it entirely, or see it how you want to see it.

The source that I sited explicitly says that head coaching salaries are not factored in. And we were fourth on that list. Combined assistant's salaries, not head coaches, not individual coaches.

I said that if you did factor in head coaching salaries, we'd be significantly lower. Florida, for example, is seventh on the list, but would be a close second to Alabama when you factor in Urban's salary. We're not a one man show at Auburn, and that's fine with me. We're still spending less than over half of the SEC are on our coaching staff. Our ENTIRE STAFF, HEAD COACH INCLUDED makes less than Nick Saban by himself. That is substantially worth noting.

You brought up Chizik's salary. As you conveniently ignored, he's only ahead of SC, UK, and Mississippi State (and presumably Vanderbilt) in head coaching salaries. Houston Nutt at Ole Miss sure does think we spoil him.

For more insight on how our coaching staff is far from overpaid, I suggest reading my posts in this thread again (for the first time), without the rage storm blocking your view.
First of all, actually read my posts before you go off about what I did and did not address.

Secondly, burden of proof and such. I can, and have, supplied indisputable justification for my position. You claim to have BBQ with "people who work with other SEC programs". Just like you claim to have an inside track on everything that is ever discussed on this board. You were previously a writer, football coach, basketball coach, baseball coach, curling coach, teacher, computer programmer, politician, auto mechanic, Hollywood director, insurance adjuster, dentist, stapler manufacturer....the list grows with every new topic in which you claim you know what you're talking about and no one else does.
So which is it? You ignore us, or you angrily pound out ten paragraph diatribes? Of course, you claim to ignore us when even you, as creative and argumentative as you are, can't possibly dispute the facts you're presented (see your misinterpretation of the list of coach's salaries).
The only people to ever come to your defense are GreaseyWeasel and RWS.

Case closed.

Wrong.  I never see that color.

[War Eagle!!!]

Wrong.  I never see that color.

Mod Request:
Can we please change everything that Chopper, Chizad and Prowler write to look like this so no one has to read these stupid ass threads.

Thanks!

[AUChizad]

Mod Request:
Can we please change everything that Chopper, Chizad and Prowler write to look like this so no one has to read these stupid ass threads.

Thanks!

[Tiger Wench]

Mod Request:
Can we please change everything that Chopper, Chizad and Prowler write to look like this so no one has to read these stupid ass threads.

Thanks!

I so heart you...

[jadennis]

My point is simple. Thats fine that he brought PPG up 100 spots. AU played half of 2008 without an OC. It would be tragic if Malzahn COULDN'T improve on that. Great that some team and individual records were broken. The big question: does any of it matter when you are battling for the spot above Vanderbilt in the SEC overall, and next to last in the West? Are you gonna be fine with breaking all of these records, and an offense that is 17th in PPG if you went 8-5 every year? I'm just not seeing how Malzahn is possibly the most coveted OC in the SEC when his offense fell flat on its face in a few games last season.

I get all that, it just isn't a good argument (in my opinion, I guess I should add).

If we're 17th in ppg every year, and the rest of the team improves significantly from where they were last year (the defense and the special teams), then we won't be 8-5 every year.  I think that's the point.  No one is sitting around thinking, "if we could only score some points then maybe we could win 10 games this year".  The focus is on the defense and the special teams.

While the offense wasn't flawless, by any stretch, and occassionally had problems with consistency (led by Todd's inconsistency) and in short yardage situations, the point is, it was by far the best unit Auburn put on the field for 2009.  If it improves even slightly from last year, Auburn will be a decent defense and consistent special teams play away from being in the hunt for the SEC West.

I can't speak for how much coveting goes on from other programs.  But I can say that 4 years at the division 1 level, he's made a huge impact everywhere he's been.  That much is for certain, no question.  I also think anyone who followed the "skreets" of recruiting can acknowledge he was a major part for the offensive recruits we were able to land this year.  Even if he didn't personally recruit them week to week, it was the excitement of playing in his offense that was echoed by nearly every offensive recruit we signed.

So, add all that up (best unit Auburn put on the field, one of the top producing offenses in the league, and a huge talent magnet because of his offense) and I can't see how you have such huge reservations about his pay raise.

Again, look at this list below...

Chavis gets $700k at LSU.
Smart get $750k+ at Alabama.
Orgeron was getting $650k at Tennessee as the D-line coach.
Crowton at LSU makes $400k (and sucks)
Grantham at Georgia makes $750k
Joe Pendry made over $400k with bonuses ($390k salary) as the o-line coach.
Nick Holt at Washington gets $650k
Jimbo Fisher was getting $675k at FSU
Ellis Johnson at S. Carolina makes $700k

I can't see how you think any of those guys are so much more important to their program than Malzahn is to the Auburn program right now.  And those salaries (the market) are what determines if he's "over paid" or appropriately paid.  Looking at Crowton's $400k and Pendry's $390k, I would say $500k for Malzahn is about right....maybe even a tad low if you take recruiting attraction into it.

[RWS]

I get all that, it just isn't a good argument (in my opinion, I guess I should add).

If we're 17th in ppg every year, and the rest of the team improves significantly from where they were last year (the defense and the special teams), then we won't be 8-5 every year.  I think that's the point.  No one is sitting around thinking, "if we could only score some points then maybe we could win 10 games this year".  The focus is on the defense and the special teams.

IF. IF. IF. Why can't every team in the SEC say that? If South Carolina's offense could improve just a little, they won't be 7-6 every year. If UT could get just a little better QB they won't be 7-6 every year. They could be in the hunt for the SECC.

While the offense wasn't flawless, by any stretch, and occassionally had problems with consistency (led by Todd's inconsistency) and in short yardage situations, the point is, it was by far the best unit Auburn put on the field for 2009.  If it improves even slightly from last year, Auburn will be a decent defense and consistent special teams play away from being in the hunt for the SEC West.

Wait. What did you say towards the end of the previous paragraph? Same concept, only you're replacing "offense" with "defense and special teams". Did we not hear the same thing in 2007? 2008? And now 2009? "Man, only IF we could _____________, we would be in the hunt for the west."

I can't speak for how much coveting goes on from other programs.  But I can say that 4 years at the division 1 level, he's made a huge impact everywhere he's been.  That much is for certain, no question.  I also think anyone who followed the "skreets" of recruiting can acknowledge he was a major part for the offensive recruits we were able to land this year.  Even if he didn't personally recruit them week to week, it was the excitement of playing in his offense that was echoed by nearly every offensive recruit we signed.

So now we're basing it on some kids straight out of high school that aren't even on campus yet. Gotcha. Nearly your entire argument is based on things that haven't even happened yet, or things that might potentially happen. It is also based on nothing changing. Under your scenarios, you consider no improvement by an opposing team either. You simply look at it in black and white. Its not as simple as plugging in assumed improvement and backdating that to the 2009 season, and voila, AU wins the west. Thats a sad mistake made by our fanbase when Shula was the coach. Some of our fans always thought we were on the cusp of greatness because we were only losing games by a TD or less. All we needed was that little something extra to make us great. All kinds of bullshit.

[War Eagle!!!]

FUCK ME...

 

RWS, Which color do you not see?

[Tiger Wench]

FUCK ME...

 

RWS, Which color do you not see?

Me love you long time.

[jadennis]

IF. IF. IF. Why can't every team in the SEC say that? If South Carolina's offense could improve just a little, they won't be 7-6 every year. If UT could get just a little better QB they won't be 7-6 every year. They could be in the hunt for the SECC.
Wait. What did you say towards the end of the previous paragraph? Same concept, only you're replacing "offense" with "defense and special teams". Did we not hear the same thing in 2007? 2008? And now 2009? "Man, only IF we could _____________, we would be in the hunt for the west."
So now we're basing it on some kids straight out of high school that aren't even on campus yet. Gotcha. Nearly your entire argument is based on things that haven't even happened yet, or things that might potentially happen. It is also based on nothing changing. Under your scenarios, you consider no improvement by an opposing team either. You simply look at it in black and white. Its not as simple as plugging in assumed improvement and backdating that to the 2009 season, and voila, AU wins the west. Thats a sad mistake made by our fanbase when Shula was the coach. Some of our fans always thought we were on the cusp of greatness because we were only losing games by a TD or less. All we needed was that little something extra to make us great. All kinds of bullpoop.

RWS, I'm not sure why, but you are unusually missing the entire point here.  You do know that we are discussing Malzahn and Auburn's offense right?  How are you missing this?  I'm addressing the question you asked about if we would be happy to be 17th in scoring, but going 8-5.

This started based on the raise given to Malzahn and if it was warranted.  You keep referencing 8-5 and asking if we'd be happy being 17th in points per game and also being 8-5 on the year.  My point was that we would NOT be 8-5 if we had a good defense and special teams.  That "IF, IF, IF" had nothing to do with Malzahn and the offense....which, again, is my entire point.  The "ifs" were connected to the defense and the special teams.

NO, we would not be happy being 17th in points per game AND going 8-5....but again, the point was that if we had a good defense and decent special teams (notice I didn't mention an "if" in conjunction with the offense)....thanks to being 17th in points per game, we would NOT BE 8-5.  

How are you not comprehending this?  I'm trying not to say condescending things, because I know you're not an idiot.  But this seems so simple to follow.  Your last post was so disjointed from what we were even talking about.   Do you not see that if Auburn continues to be one of the top offenses in the country (as they were in 2009) AND improves the other parts of the team, we will not continue to be 8-5?  Do you notice that the point to saying that is to point out that the OFFENSE is not one of the three phases of the game that needs vast improvement to improve on the 8-5 record?  Do you know that Malzahn runs that offense, the one that, if it continues with the same production, is among the most productive in the country?

Again, the answer is NO, we do not wish to continue going 8-5.  Do you understand that in order to improve on that 8-5 record, the DEFENSE and the SPECIAL TEAMS are what need improvement....NOT so much the offense?  

We went 8-5 IN SPITE of the defense and the special teams.  The offense was the only thing noteworthy in 2009.  

And what am I tying to kids out of high school?  Recruiting?  Yeah, I'm tying our recruiting class ranking to the kids we just signed out of high school?  Is that not a normal thing to do?  What kids do you base your recruiting success (on signing day) on?  Transfers?  JUCO kids?  I'm not sure I follow.  Malzahn's offense was very much responsible for us attracting a lot of the offensive recruits that we did.  What is it you find confusing about this statement?  I'm tying some of his value to the program is in recruiting, if that's what you're confused about.  But isn't that a big part of a lot of coaches value?  The ability to recruit well?

Anyway, I'm a little confused about what you're missing here or what it is you think my point is.  You somehow wandered off the Malzahn part of the discussion and context and started making "ifs" about being better than 8-5 the main point of the discussion.  

Again, if Malzahn and his offense were coupled with a top 25 defense and competent special teams...based on what we've seen, a team like that would not be 8-5.

Maybe look at it like an equation..if that helps you.

A- (offense) + D+ (defense) + C- (special teams) =  8-5 season

So we can project...

A- (offense) + B (defense) + B+ (special teams) =  > 8-5 season

This equation exists because you asked the question about being an A- offense that goes 8-5 every year...as if our offense is what equals the 8-5 record.  Hopefully the visual aid above makes some sense.

[War Eagle!!!]

RWS, I'm not sure why, but you are unusually missing the entire point here.  You do know that we are discussing Malzahn and Auburn's offense right?  How are you missing this?  I'm addressing the question you asked about if we would be happy to be 17th in scoring, but going 8-5.

This started based on the raise given to Malzahn and if it was warranted.  You keep referencing 8-5 and asking if we'd be happy being 17th in points per game and also being 8-5 on the year.  My point was that we would NOT be 8-5 if we had a good defense and special teams.  That "IF, IF, IF" had nothing to do with Malzahn and the offense....which, again, is my entire point.  The "ifs" were connected to the defense and the special teams.

NO, we would not be happy being 17th in points per game AND going 8-5....but again, the point was that if we had a good defense and decent special teams (notice I didn't mention an "if" in conjunction with the offense)....thanks to being 17th in points per game, we would NOT BE 8-5.  

How are you not comprehending this?  I'm trying not to say condescending things, because I know you're not an idiot.  But this seems so simple to follow.  Your last post was so disjointed from what we were even talking about.   Do you not see that if Auburn continues to be one of the top offenses in the country (as they were in 2009) AND improves the other parts of the team, we will not continue to be 8-5?  Do you notice that the point to saying that is to point out that the OFFENSE is not one of the three phases of the game that needs vast improvement to improve on the 8-5 record?  Do you know that Malzahn runs that offense, the one that, if it continues with the same production, is among the most productive in the country?

Again, the answer is NO, we do not wish to continue going 8-5.  Do you understand that in order to improve on that 8-5 record, the DEFENSE and the SPECIAL TEAMS are what need improvement....NOT so much the offense?  

We went 8-5 IN SPITE of the defense and the special teams.  The offense was the only thing noteworthy in 2009.  

And what am I tying to kids out of high school?  Recruiting?  Yeah, I'm tying our recruiting class ranking to the kids we just signed out of high school?  Is that not a normal thing to do?  What kids do you base your recruiting success (on signing day) on?  Transfers?  JUCO kids?  I'm not sure I follow.  Malzahn's offense was very much responsible for us attracting a lot of the offensive recruits that we did.  What is it you find confusing about this statement?  I'm tying some of his value to the program is in recruiting, if that's what you're confused about.  But isn't that a big part of a lot of coaches value?  The ability to recruit well?

Anyway, I'm a little confused about what you're missing here or what it is you think my point is.  You somehow wandered off the Malzahn part of the discussion and context and started making "ifs" about being better than 8-5 the main point of the discussion.  

Again, if Malzahn and his offense were coupled with a top 25 defense and competent special teams...based on what we've seen, a team like that would not be 8-5.

Maybe look at it like an equation..if that helps you.

A- (offense) + D+ (defense) + C- (special teams) =  8-5 season

So we can project...

A- (offense) + B (defense) + B+ (special teams) =  > 8-5 season

This equation exists because you asked the question about being an A- offense that goes 8-5 every year...as if our offense is what equals the 8-5 record.  Hopefully the visual aid above makes some sense.

Dude...you aren't ever going to get your point across. Just call him a dumb ass and move on...

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Dude...you aren't ever going to get your point across. Just call him a dumb ass and move on...

This.  The guy just argues to argue.  There was no defense for what he tried to say earlier, but kudos to jadennis for humoring him with conversation.

It's his opinion, he's entitled to it... 

[The Prowler]

Dude...you aren't ever going to get your point across. Just call him a dumb ass and move on...

Mods can we change all of WE's posts to Pink, so we can notice them easier and by pass what they're saying.

[Kaos]

Here is thee problem in a nutshell. You read whatever I write and process it through two filters. 

First, you ascribe an emotion to it. You assume rage or pissed off or whatever. No basis for it at all. Haven't been pissed off since the KY game I don't think. I'm hardly ever mad about anything. It's just the way I write. So you start initially with a gross misconception that gives you license to apply motives that don't exist. Liberally.

Second you assume that because I state my opinion as fact -- something you do when you write unless you're Scarbinsky and only ask open ended questions -- I'm attemping to portray myself as an authority. It's just the way I write.  I've been fortunate enough in my life to have a number of jobs. Through them and other situations  I've been lucky enough to make some fantastic associations.  Why those are irrelvant in the context of the discussion I don't know.  It does seem to irk you as evidenced by your repeated immature references.

The fact that you process everything in this manner makes even mild disagreemt with you practically impossible.

This is not a major issue at all. My opinion is (and remains) that raises and extensions are premature. Had this staff been hired with a sterling pedigree and the gravitas to back it up, I could see the need to lay the coin. But when you're the seventh place program and you've yet to prove you belong in the upper half, there is nothing wrong with drawing middle of the pack pay.

Saban? Hate him. Worth the money.  Miles? Dumb but with a NC. He's done it. Richt? Won the SEC. Meyer? No question. Nutt? He won at Arkansas. Petrino? He had the resume.

I can see where it could be a good PR move. If you tried to justify it from that angle I might buy it. But the "slave wages" comment was absurd.  He did a credible job his first season. Not spectacular. Recruiting was energetic and effective. Another positive. But has this staff really reached the point that we have to be freaking out because they don't make more than everybody? You say yes based on what you see and hear. I say no based on the same. (insert obligatory Chizad crack about my days as a gnome herder or when I used to build robots made of twine and Hershey's kisses)

 

This appears to be the problem. Instead of actually reading my argument that is presented to you, you see red and ignore it entirely, or see it how you want to see it.

The source that I sited explicitly says that head coaching salaries are not factored in. And we were fourth on that list. Combined assistant's salaries, not head coaches, not individual coaches.

I said that if you did factor in head coaching salaries, we'd be significantly lower. Florida, for example, is seventh on the list, but would be a close second to Alabama when you factor in Urban's salary. We're not a one man show at Auburn, and that's fine with me. We're still spending less than over half of the SEC are on our coaching staff. Our ENTIRE STAFF, HEAD COACH INCLUDED makes less than Nick Saban by himself. That is substantially worth noting.

You brought up Chizik's salary. As you conveniently ignored, he's only ahead of SC, UK, and Mississippi State (and presumably Vanderbilt) in head coaching salaries. Houston Nutt at Ole Miss sure does think we spoil him.

For more insight on how our coaching staff is far from overpaid, I suggest reading my posts in this thread again (for the first time), without the rage storm blocking your view.
First of all, actually read my posts before you go off about what I did and did not address.

Secondly, burden of proof and such. I can, and have, supplied indisputable justification for my position. You claim to have BBQ with "people who work with other SEC programs". Just like you claim to have an inside track on everything that is ever discussed on this board. You were previously a writer, football coach, basketball coach, baseball coach, curling coach, teacher, computer programmer, politician, auto mechanic, Hollywood director, insurance adjuster, dentist, stapler manufacturer....the list grows with every new topic in which you claim you know what you're talking about and no one else does.
So which is it? You ignore us, or you angrily pound out ten paragraph diatribes? Of course, you claim to ignore us when even you, as creative and argumentative as you are, can't possibly dispute the facts you're presented (see your misinterpretation of the list of coach's salaries).
The only people to ever come to your defense are GreaseyWeasel and RWS.

Case closed.

[Tiger Wench]

Mods can we change all of WE's posts to Pink, so we can notice them easier and by pass what they're saying.

Why would we want to do that?  They are usually straightforward and to the point.  They don't make feeble attempts to out smartass the biggest smartass on the board.  And more importantly, they don't run on for eleven paragraphs of nothingness.

[Kaos]

I respectfully request that WE remove Chop's name from his clever response as well.

Bygones and all.

[The Prowler]

Here is thee problem in a nutshell.

^^^That's when I stopped reading^^^

[AUChizad]

Damn, I thought we were done. You got your last comment and all.

I agree..that we can agree...to disagree.

Since you're still stuck on the clearly hyperbolas comment that you'd rather our staff make slave wages (not that they presently do), I apologize for it.