|
Post by hammer on Jul 22, 2017 10:20:04 GMT -5
2016 figures are out, Keegan's take home pay was $242,700. The phrase "take home pay" usually means the amount one gets after taxes are deducted. I suspect the $242,700 is before taxes. The phrase "total compensation" may have been what you were looking for. I hope he's got a hefty Nebraska bonus is his contract.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 22, 2017 13:33:50 GMT -5
The phrase "take home pay" usually means the amount one gets after taxes are deducted. I suspect the $242,700 is before taxes. The phrase "total compensation" may have been what you were looking for. I hope he's got a hefty Nebraska bonus is his contract. UW and NU have faced in the Regionals four out of the last five years, five out of the last seven, and six out of the last nine, so that is basically covered, courtesy of the Committee.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Jul 22, 2017 14:11:23 GMT -5
UW's administration should add a big bonus incentive for beating Nebraska so the Dawgs can finally get over that hump.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 22, 2017 14:50:20 GMT -5
You mean put a "bounty" on the other Cook? If he beats him in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, he'll be rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 22, 2017 17:19:09 GMT -5
I hope he's got a hefty Nebraska bonus is his contract. UW and NU have faced in the Regionals four out of the last five years, five out of the last seven, and six out of the last nine, so that is basically covered, courtesy of the Committee. It's almost criminal how many times they have met up lately ... it isn't supposed to be a rigged game, but sometimes the NCAA lives on the edge of credulity
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 22, 2017 19:29:10 GMT -5
The only seasons since 2008 where the Huskies didn't face Nebraska: 2009 (@ Colorado State), 2011 (@ Minnesota), and 2013 (@ USC). What are the chances the Committee will match up Washington and Nebraska for the fourth straight time?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 22, 2017 19:52:19 GMT -5
What is the obsession with bringing up the UW-Nebraska series? I don't see the big deal in playing them in the post season. If we can't beat them we wouldnt/shouldn't be making final fours and winning NC anyway. We should relish any opportunity to take down a storied vb program. IMO we should play Nebraska ALL the time.
Of the years we've been in the same quarter of the bracket with Nebraska, this past year is the only time I raise an eye brow, and NOT because Nebraska was the 1 seed, but because UW was the 8 seed. In 2015 UW/Nebraska at 4 and 5 only made sense given the overall body of work. In 2013, with Nebraska as a low seed, it was a crap shoot. Frankly with UW as the national #3 seed and hosting a regional, it should not matter who we play, we shouldn't be losing. In 2012, Washington had an average year and the regional hosts were either @ PSU, @texas or @nebraska.... there were already 2 seeded PAC 12 teams out west, you really think a 3rd would have been anymore fair? Again, I see no issue with this. In 2010 we were unseeded yet hosting a regional, nothing to complain about. 2008 again as the 4 and 5 seed, no issue, neither team should have taken a top 3 spot and #6 that year was so much worse than either team that NOT having Uw and Nebraska at the 4/5 spot would be an insult.
My point is please stop complaining about this as if it's some conspiracy. It's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 22, 2017 21:16:44 GMT -5
It came up in the context of someone saying that K. Cook should be given a bonus for beating Nebraska, with my responding that that would be covered by incentives for making Elite 8s and Final 4s, given how often the Committee has matched up the two teams in Regionals. My point was not about any particular match-up being unfair, but the high frequency of its having happened, and thus the probability of its happening again.
I do think that Nebraska hosting at Lincoln does give them a large home-court advantage.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 22, 2017 21:31:56 GMT -5
It's beyond stupid to argue that the coach should have an incentive in his clause to beat any individual team. The goal should be to win the PAC12, not to beat Stanford. The goal should be to win the National Championship, not to beat Nebraska.
And what if there actually were some kind of incentive clause like this? What if the coach spent an inordinate amount of practice time on the "incentive team" and failed to prepare for the other team(s) that week? You see how such an incentive could be sub-optimal?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 22, 2017 22:45:43 GMT -5
Does anyone think Cook is not properly incentivized to beat Nebraska in an Elite 8 match? Is beating Nebraska in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 any different than beating any other team?
|
|
|
Post by durtpile on Jul 23, 2017 12:55:02 GMT -5
Does anyone think Cook is not properly incentivized to beat Nebraska in an Elite 8 match? Is beating Nebraska in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 any different than beating any other team? If he doesn't have enough incentive, tell him the real Cook makes 2 1/2 times what he is getting.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Jul 23, 2017 14:56:20 GMT -5
Does anyone think Cook is not properly incentivized to beat Nebraska in an Elite 8 match? Is beating Nebraska in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 any different than beating any other team? If he doesn't have enough incentive, tell him the real Cook makes 2 1/2 times what he is getting. Yeah, but he has to live in Lincoln.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 23, 2017 15:01:44 GMT -5
Hey, if anyone should get financial incentives, it should be the players! I mean, it worked for Don James...
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 23, 2017 15:48:40 GMT -5
It's beyond stupid to argue that the coach should have an incentive in his clause to beat any individual team. The goal should be to win the PAC12, not to beat Stanford. The goal should be to win the National Championship, not to beat Nebraska. And what if there actually were some kind of incentive clause like this? What if the coach spent an inordinate amount of practice time on the "incentive team" and failed to prepare for the other team(s) that week? You see how such an incentive could be sub-optimal? It was a Stanford fan who proposed this, half-jokingly, at the least, I can only presume. No doubt, K. Cook will be richly rewarded if he can get out of the Regionals to the Final Four.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Jul 23, 2017 16:13:08 GMT -5
Back to the original topic; good for Keegan his salary is just below $250K, with the new Seattle income tax he falls just below the threshold.
|
|