Borges Gets Contract, Raise
April 16th, 2012 at 11:07 PM ^
Also according to Rivals
2010 pts per game 34.3
2011 pts per game 34.2
Ahhhhhh... so close.
April 16th, 2012 at 11:17 PM ^
Also according to Rivals
2010 yds per game 500.9
2011 yds per game 423.1
Ahhhhhh... not so close. So I stand firm in saying that it's not every day that you see an OC get a raise after making the offense worse.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:12 AM ^
Denard is not the qb for this offense, so judge Borges down the road. In the meantime Im happy that the RB position is once again relevant under Borges.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
You're still fighting the Rodriguez/Hoke battle?
Are you mentally ill, obsessive, or insanely bored?
All of the above?
April 17th, 2012 at 12:09 AM ^
Rivals didn't take into account the bowl games. Also, RR had 3 overtime periods in 2010 vs. the 1 overtime period in 2011. If you only count regulation, you can remove 22 points from the 2010 total and 3 from the 2011 total.
April 16th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^
April 17th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^
You've obviously never seen the Simpsons...
I thought the goal in 2011 was to win games, not to score points or gain yards. 11-2 versus 7-5 seems like a pretty good counter-argument to any statements about making the offense worse. If we go from 11-2 to 12-1, for instance, he can make the offense worse (score fewer points per game or generate fewer yards per game) for all I care.
April 17th, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^
We played all of our tough opponents at home last year. And all of them away in 2010. That must be really tricky for people to understand. It isn't a riddle.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^
So the reason we went from scoring seven points vs. Ohio in 2010 to 40 (and it should have been 44) at home in 2011 was just the location of the game?
Are you related to Rodriguez or something?
In case you're too lazy to click the link, the contract contains a pretty awesome clause where everytime they run Vincent Smith out of the I-Form, Borges loses $1,000. It's really going to make this offense better.
a $5k bonus per bubble screen or at least some sort of bonus for actually acknowleging Heiko's inevitable question regarding said screen(s) per presser.
One thing I don't get are the incentives. I mean, when you are talking about this kind of money, how in the hell is a 6% bonus payment (the $39,000 for a B1G title appearance) really supposed to incentivize anything? Realistically, shouldn't they keep the base contract (the $650,000, not the BS $250,000 they cite as the base) lower and heap it with lucrative incentives if the incentives are to mean anything? Just my $.02
April 16th, 2012 at 11:13 PM ^
What? Find anyone making under a million a year who isn't motivated by $39,000. Plus, if he wins that game, he gets an extra $65,000 for well over $100k. That seems like a decent incentive to me.
Let me add that I'm not too worried about Borges not being really motivated to make a B1G title appearance, even if there's no extra cash. And it's not like the university gets the only say on the contract. If they want low base pay, they'd have to pay out like crazy on the incentives--if I'm a coach and the university wants to pay a small base salary, the only way I'd sign is if I expected to average well over what I would make with a higher salary.
I am not really worried about his motivation either. That was not my point. It just seems like the bonus payments are relatively modest given the triggers. I know of at least one sales rep for a major pharma company here in N. MI who gets a $50,000 bonus for meeting whatever sales goal they have set for him. He seems to get it every year. His total comp package is less than $200,000. He is highly motivated to get it. Al Borges total pay package this year is $750,000 counting the deferred comp, $800,000 next year, etc. I just don't see the same kind of relation to the base pay as in my poker buddy whom I just mentioned.
Now, Al only has control of the offensive playcalling, so it may not really be fair to tie too much of his compensation to those kinds of outcomes. My point was just that the bonus appears relatively insignificant in relation to the pay package as a whole, and therefore it does not appear to fulfill the role of the incentive payments that most of us encounter in our lives.
I explicitly recognized that fact. My point is that the incentives seem relatively pointless and almost pro forma, almost like handing a waiter a tip. They cannot really do much to make Al more motivated to do anything.
April 17th, 2012 at 10:05 AM ^
If I got a 6% bonus, I'd be pretty fucking stoked. That's basically an extra 3 weeks of pay. Plus, the article says that the bonus is matched in his deferred compensation account, so he's actually getting double that.
"U-M’s offense increased in points per game in 2011 (33.3, up from 32.8 in 2010), despite implementing a new offensive system."
and was more consistent in games vs. good defenses.
Congrats to Al. Im glad Michigan has extended his contract.
which defenses were good? msu, va tech, iowa, nd? i will give you osu.
April 17th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/team-total-defense
Michigan State, Illinois, Va Tech, Ohio were all top 25 defenses by YPG. ND, EMU, and Nebraska were top 50.
Good, this should keep him around and Mattison is too old (and too well paid) to go anywhere either. As long as we keep these two anchors on both sides of the ball, if an assistant here or there goes, we should be okay. Should also work hard to keep Heck and Funk around, they are good position coaches and VERY valuable on the recruiting trail.
Mattison too old is kind of what bothers me. I think he will stick around for 5 years max. Oh well, we should enjoy him while we have him.
How does Fickell get a salary anywhere near GM?
April 16th, 2012 at 10:30 PM ^
April 16th, 2012 at 10:30 PM ^
I wondered that myself. Fickell was basically a position coach before his promotion last year..he is in over his head as DC down there. His career resume has nothing remotely close to what Greg Mattison has accomplished.
April 16th, 2012 at 10:47 PM ^
taking one for ohio last year by trying to coach that team. Probably also to keep his mouth shut. I would not be surprised to see him quietly leave (be removed) after next year.
Yeah I don't know why everyone is wasting time feeding the troll on this thread when we should be discussing the FAR more interesting take away from this article:
Luke Fickell is getting paid the same amount as Greg Mattison, and Fick isn't even their sole D-coordinator. Yet another hilariously inept decision by their AD.
April 17th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^
To be fair to their incompetent AD, I'm sure he had to give Fickell some little token as a "thank you for stepping down and taking a demotion without so much as a whimper" present.
"U-M athletic director Dave Brandon has said from the day he arrived he felt U-M employees need to be paid what the marketplace dictates."
Talent retention is a huge deal, especially with the new staff only going into its second year, and more to the point, more often than not, you really do get what you pay for when it comes to staffing the team's leadership. Smart move by David Brandon and congratulations to Al Borges.
that it is void if he calls any bubble screens!
April 16th, 2012 at 10:01 PM ^
April 16th, 2012 at 10:35 PM ^
Mattison will retire in A2.
April 16th, 2012 at 10:43 PM ^
I'm kind of surprised he only made 350k last year. Given his experience and success, it's only right that he gets a big bump in salary.
April 16th, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^
Mattison's contract is only for two years (he's in year two). Shouldn't he be getting an extension soon?
Please don't retire soon...
April 16th, 2012 at 11:29 PM ^
Good point. Dave Brandon needs to give Mattison a contract extension and a raise, and then raise ticket prices to pay for it. /s
April 16th, 2012 at 11:17 PM ^
I'm sure I'll get negged for this (because I did last time), but I will autoneg any freep link until the end of time. It is unacceptable that certain individuals (or is it just one now?) are employed there. I say this because being negged isn't important. Taking a stand as a consumer is important. You might say that a few page views (probably over 1,000, actually) is nothing to protest about, but I think this can make a difference. Please only post freep links unless there is no alternative.
Sincerely,
-Man who believed the practicegate story for several months
April 17th, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^
April 17th, 2012 at 12:29 AM ^
Just sayin. He's not getting any younger. Keeping it real my friend.
There's no good reason that I can imagine, to diminish the job that Al Borges has done. Or to suggest that he somehow "doesn't deserve" a contract that Dave Brandon is happy to offer him.
And there's no good reason to compare/contrast Rich Rodriguez, who labored under an entirely different set of problems and constraints. (Didn't anybody read Three and Out ?)
What is relevant is the sea-change attitude and philosophy from the day that David Brandon arrived and realized what had happened in his predecessor's failed efforts to retain Jeff Casteel with an actual contract, such as what Mattison got right away and what Borges now has. At a comparatively small amount (<$275,000) for Casteel. That's the story; that Michigan had had a big problem with assistant coach salaries until Greg Mattison agreed to come to town and Brandon agreed to pay the national-market rate.
That was the story. Mark Snyder of the Free Press whiffed on that story for all of the years that Rodriguez was in Ann Arbor, and he has missed it again -- deliberately, no doubt.
Mark Snyder: Your Michigan Sportswriter of the Year for 2011. Nominated and elected over John U. Bacon, who authored the most important Michigan sports book of perhaps the last decade in 2011.
We're not talking about the bible here. I love John Bacon's writing and read his blog religiously, but the book was riddled with inconsistencies and was written with a decided slant. It's not any kind of a book of the decade.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:15 AM ^
Hoke is in for long haul. Is Matttison??????????
April 17th, 2012 at 12:15 AM ^
if I was a big-time cfb head coach, i'd rather take a more modest salary (1.5 - 2.5 mill) and shell out more to keep my assistants happy, then vice versa. Staff continuity = big thing. Keeping your players in the same system for longer amounts of time: BIG thing.
Think of the kids on the current team who graduated playing under 3 or 4 different defensive systems (coordinator switching)
The bottom line is that, if you are satisfied with your assistants, and you want to be the "leaders and best," you have to pay those assistants enough that nobody will outbid you for them. Hopefully, this keeps the "Big Three" on the staff intact long enough to create stability. And, of course, Rose Bowls and BCS "plus one" berths.