Forbes.com is Just Making Crap Up (More Cheap Shots and Lies about Charlie Weis)
So I fire up my e-mail this morning, and polluting my in-box is an "important message" from one of my USC buddies. The only thing in the e-mail is this link to a Forbes.com article naming the "The Best (And Worst) College Football Coaches For the Buck."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that USC's Pete Carroll is listed as one of the "underpaid" coaches, and Notre Dame's Charlie Weis is listed as one of the "overpaid" coaches.
Of course, Forbes based its "determination" on Coach Weis' 10-year contract extension, "reportedly worth between $30 and $40 million over the length of the deal."
Here was my e-mail response to my buddy:
Forbes has been making fools of themselves lately, publishing a bunch of embarrassing sports-related articles. The one that got the biggest splash was their proclamation that Nick Saban is the "most powerful coach in sports."
Not Pete Carroll. Or Charlie Weis. Or Joe Pa. Or Coach K or Phil Jackson or Joe Torre. Nick "Total Failure in Miami who is a Known Liar" Saban!
Thus, I take what Forbes has to say about college football not very seriously. The article you send is (1) yet another in a long line of cheap shots at CW, and (2) factually inaccurate.
People have been wildly overestimating CW's salary ever since he signed his "Monster" contract extension. University tax records for 2007 showed that CW was paid just $598,000 in salary to coach the Irish football team.
Incidentally, the University actually paid Ty Willingham $650,000 over the same period to NOT coach the Irish football team.
Yes, last year was tough. But at $500K, Coach W is not overpaid.
It pains me a little to link to Mike Rothstein's work at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, because he's an idiot sometimes, and I've called him out for it at OC Domer.
But his reporting on the Weis salary issue is right on the money and needs to get more play in order to debunk the widespread misinformation that is out there about Coach Weis.
I sure hope nobody is actually taking financial advice from those guys at Forbes.
[NOTE TO READERS: I'm doing the best I can with the formatting of this article. Bleacher Report is automatically inserting crap into the middle of the post that is screwing it up.]
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?