Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy

Washington State announces football coach Nick Rolovich, men’s hoops coach Kyle Smith, AD Pat Chun & WSU President Kirk Schulz will voluntarily take 5% salary cut thru 2020-21 academic year & also will not receive any contract bonuses/incentives.

Nice move there, and I suspect this will be a trend throughout college athletics.

About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

(04-13-2020 06:01 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

(04-13-2020 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:01 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

(04-13-2020 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy

Washington State announces football coach Nick Rolovich, men’s hoops coach Kyle Smith, AD Pat Chun & WSU President Kirk Schulz will voluntarily take 5% salary cut thru 2020-21 academic year & also will not receive any contract bonuses/incentives.

Nice move there, and I suspect this will be a trend throughout college athletics.

"Voluntarily"

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:01 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:01 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:01 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  About $150,000 cut for Rolovich.

Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

(04-14-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before taxes.

About half that after tax.

WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

I got that point entirely. Just not sure why why it matters that he gave up $90K or $150K if both are in your opinion nominal amounts anyway. I don't think it's a heroic gesture but it's real money to a guy who probably made a heck of a lot less most years of his career.

More interestingly is whether this is a starting point or it gets a lot worse across the nation if and when football doesn't happen.

(04-14-2020 09:50 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

I got that point entirely. Just not sure why why it matters that he gave up $90K or $150K if both are in your opinion nominal amounts anyway. I don't think it's a heroic gesture but it's real money to a guy who probably made a heck of a lot less most years of his career.

More interestingly is whether this is a starting point or it gets a lot worse across the nation if and when football doesn't happen.

Well, 5% is kind of nominal anyway - I suspect they are the first shots in a campaign to cut costs across the board. Leading by example.

The $90K is real money, but not a lifestyle changer at this point.

(04-14-2020 09:50 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 06:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  WA has no state income tax so it’s actually not too bad.

Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

I got that point entirely. Just not sure why why it matters that he gave up $90K or $150K if both are in your opinion nominal amounts anyway. I don't think it's a heroic gesture but it's real money to a guy who probably made a heck of a lot less most years of his career.

More interestingly is whether this is a starting point or it gets a lot worse across the nation if and when football doesn't happen.

I think this is a starting point, and something that many other companies/industries are going to be doing.

In my industry (civil/environmental engineering) we're seeing a mix of responses. Some companies are laying off staff, some or furloughing/reducing hours, some are instituting pay freezes and compensation cuts for senior practitioners, and some are employing a mix of all three.

I think these steps - basically letting a bit of blood to try and keep the whole organization to stay afloat - are proactive measures that may avoid layoffs. But I expect that everything will continue to evolve over the next few months.

(04-14-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:50 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 08:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Still in the top federal bracket.

In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

I got that point entirely. Just not sure why why it matters that he gave up $90K or $150K if both are in your opinion nominal amounts anyway. I don't think it's a heroic gesture but it's real money to a guy who probably made a heck of a lot less most years of his career.

More interestingly is whether this is a starting point or it gets a lot worse across the nation if and when football doesn't happen.

I think this is a starting point, and something that many other companies/industries are going to be doing.

In my industry (civil/environmental engineering) we're seeing a mix of responses. Some companies are laying off staff, some or furloughing/reducing hours, some are instituting pay freezes and compensation cuts for senior practitioners, and some are employing a mix of all three.

I think these steps - basically letting a bit of blood to try and keep the whole organization to stay afloat - are proactive measures that may avoid layoffs. But I expect that everything will continue to evolve over the next few months.

I too think it is a starting point. I expect it to go to 20% university wide.

(04-14-2020 11:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:50 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 08:32 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  In this instance the point isn't to punish "high earning" college football coaches it's to cut the budget to meet revenues or free up resources to spend elsewhere, the whole amount counts. If you want to make a comment on coaches or CEO's making too much I might be with you (taking into account the ultra crappy road to make it to that level) but I don't see what tax bracket has to do with this. You could conversely argue that this cut maximizes the reduction in future federal tax receipts at a time we have a lot more to pay for.

My point was none of the things you seem to think it might be.

My point was that giving up a nominal $150K only hit his wallet by $90K (60% take home).

Yes, tax receipts are reduced also. In this case, by the other 40% of the $150K savings to the U. But that is a matter for different discussion.

I got that point entirely. Just not sure why why it matters that he gave up $90K or $150K if both are in your opinion nominal amounts anyway. I don't think it's a heroic gesture but it's real money to a guy who probably made a heck of a lot less most years of his career.

More interestingly is whether this is a starting point or it gets a lot worse across the nation if and when football doesn't happen.

I think this is a starting point, and something that many other companies/industries are going to be doing.

In my industry (civil/environmental engineering) we're seeing a mix of responses. Some companies are laying off staff, some or furloughing/reducing hours, some are instituting pay freezes and compensation cuts for senior practitioners, and some are employing a mix of all three.

I think these steps - basically letting a bit of blood to try and keep the whole organization to stay afloat - are proactive measures that may avoid layoffs. But I expect that everything will continue to evolve over the next few months.

I too think it is a starting point. I expect it to go to 20% university wide.

My gut tells me it's more likely to see lay offs/furloughs/part-time than an across-the-board 20% cut.

There are a lot of positions at universities that pay less than $100k per year (Assistant Professors on down) and I think people with salaries like that would be best served getting a reduction in workload along with the 20% decrease - especially if they have children to care for.

Plus, professors are typically bringing in their own funding that basically pays a good portion of their salaries plus the costs to conduct research and employ TA's and grad students. So I don't think you'll see pay cuts in the academic areas for a while (hiring and pay freezes are another story).