Collins, year 4

GT98 said:
An interim coach won’t be “turning things around” after your proposed season start, so what does it matter if Collins finishes a lost season out?
Click to expand...
Get a head start on recruiting, assemble a staff, evaluate the roster, etc. No particular reason other than those.

Outside of GT possibly getting a bump in fundraising and ticket sales which would mitigate the overall cost of $1M firing him, it's pretty much a no brainer. We just need to find a brain.
 
Liberty said:
Get a head start on recruiting, assemble a staff, evaluate the roster, etc. No particular reason other than those.

Outside of GT possibly getting a bump in fundraising and ticket sales which would mitigate the overall cost of $1M firing him, it's pretty much a no brainer. We just need to find a brain.
Click to expand...
$1M overall to fire him? Nope.

His contract says if he is relieved as coach before the end of his fourth contract year (2022) he would be owed 100% of the remaining salary for 2023 2024 and 2025, or $10,500,000 total. His 2022 salary of $3.3M has always been guaranteed no matter when he is relieved. If relieved after the 2022 season, he would "only" get $2.4M for each of the remaining 3 years, or $7.2M total.

So, if they're fiscally responsible, instead of firing him during the season as some meaningless gesture, if they wait a few weeks longer, they reduce what they end up owing the current football coach by $3.3M. That's worth leaving him to limp to the end of a season that's lost anyway.

Besides, if the season goes the way it appears, I wouldn't assume Stansbury will be the one to choose the next football coach either. He linked his own future at Tech to the current coach's success or failure in 2022. It is a lot easier to replace HIM mid-season allowing the new AD to bring in his own guy. As for getting a head start on a coach search, any current (or future) AD always maintains an up to date list of their top coaching candidates with lines of communication, and they can get their head start on gauging interest, formal background checks, and opening salary terms with candidates' representation while the rest of the season bleeds out.
 
GT98 said:
Why? If he was brought back this season in part due to his huge buyout that TDope gave him, why in the world would he be fired a less than two months before it drops substantially. An interim coach won’t be “turning things around” after your proposed season start, so what does it matter if Collins finishes a lost season out?

That would be really dumb to fire a guy when you save millions waiting less than 2 months.

I’m hoping for a miracle this season even if the odds look “unpossible” at this point.
Click to expand...
TDope raised 140 mil in a recent year. The money issue is a smokescreen, A decent AD won't have problems with this.
Up to when G**C*** is fired, we can get Neville Chamberlain'ed again.
As soon as he's gone everything can get better! (coaching,development,recruiting,attendance,merchandising,etc)
 
BuzzDraft said:
$1M overall to fire him? Nope.
Click to expand...
A couple of times here I ran the financial analysis of what firing Collins would really cost if it was your business & you were trying to figure out what to do. The choice is clear, unless you really want to retain him. Guess what, Stansbury wants to keep him.

The net (revenues minus expenses) for GT is $1M/yr to fire him today. This includes lost revenue in the out years, loss of goodwill from the fanbase, extra expense from hiring a new guy at $1M/yr salary and upping the $$ for staff, etc. I did not count any drag from stuff like bad recruiting & having wretched records, etc. That's the amount you'd have to fundraise to breakeven between keeping him and letting him go. The money's there. We save an additional $250k if we fire him at the end of the season. You can raise that in a day, maybe a couple hours if you tried. When you're dealing with numbers like $750k-1M in a very large budget like GT atletics it's not like it's completely insignificant, but it's almost in footnote range.

Stansbury knows this as he's gone over these numbers many times before, the big money knows it. It's why you read stuff in the fish wrap like "the money's there". It is. The only people who don't know it are the ones that can only look at a number on a contract & are incapable of factoring in any other relevant variables, can't understand costs vs benefits, etc.
 
BuzzinWreck78 said:
TDope raised 140 mil in a recent year. The money issue is a smokescreen, A decent AD won't have problems with this.
Click to expand...

Yep, but what point is there to firing a guy when you wait about 6 weeks and save $3 mil. + ? The GTAA isn't swimming in money. If Collins is gone, a new AD will be making the hire. See @BuzzDraft post above or this below:

BuzzDraft said:
His contract says if he is relieved as coach before the end of his fourth contract year (2022) he would be owed 100% of the remaining salary for 2023 2024 and 2025, or $10,500,000 total. His 2022 salary of $3.3M has always been guaranteed no matter when he is relieved. If relieved after the 2022 season, he would "only" get $2.4M for each of the remaining 3 years, or $7.2M total.
Click to expand...
 
Liberty said:
A couple of times here I ran the financial analysis of what firing Collins would really cost if it was your business & you were trying to figure out what to do. The choice is clear, unless you really want to retain him. Guess what, Stansbury wants to keep him.

The net (revenues minus expenses) for GT is $1M/yr to fire him today. This includes lost revenue in the out years, loss of goodwill from the fanbase, extra expense from hiring a new guy at $1M/yr salary and upping the $$ for staff, etc. I did not count any drag from stuff like bad recruiting & having wretched records, etc. That's the amount you'd have to fundraise to breakeven between keeping him and letting him go. The money's there. We save an additional $250k if we fire him at the end of the season. You can raise that in a day, maybe a couple hours if you tried. When you're dealing with numbers like $750k-1M in a very large budget like GT atletics it's not like it's completely insignificant, but it's almost in footnote range.

Stansbury knows this as he's gone over these numbers many times before, the big money knows it. It's why you read stuff in the fish wrap like "the money's there". It is. The only people who don't know it are the ones that can only look at a number on a contract & are incapable of factoring in any other relevant variables, can't understand costs vs benefits, etc.
Click to expand...
OK, now I see your rationale for your number. Although the "netted cost" of retaining him the extra 6-8 weeks is speculative, there is also something to be said for providing the donor base at all levels some hope, and evidence they're being listened to. That alone would likely provide a reward kicker to donations and bolster season ticket sales.

And I also agree that the money was there at the end of last year for the buyout... that's why I say by rejecting the wishes of a faction of the whale donors, Stansbury put his own neck on the line. Garrett made it quite clear that Stansbury did just that and Stansbury knows it - his "I have my man" response will be his epitath. I still tabulate 4 wins in 2022. If we open 2-4 facing a tough last 5 game schedule, that's enough of an indicator that the program will be making a change. I just don't see Stansbury being allowed to make the next coaching choice if that happens, and Stansbury may have to go first to clear the decks so a new AD can establish themselves and get a head start on the process for bringing in their own preferred candidate.
 
AlabamaBuzz said:
If he can be relieved of his duties - put on paid leave basically - that would be the wise thing to do.

Any $$ saved at this point is critical to the future of GT football, having $$ for coaches and NIL.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure NIL money comes from outside the school.
 
BuzzDraft said:
OK, now I see your rationale for your number. Although the "netted cost" of retaining him the extra 6-8 weeks is speculative, there is also something to be said for providing the donor base at all levels some hope, and evidence they're being listened to. That alone would likely provide a reward kicker to donations and bolster season ticket sales.

And I also agree that the money was there at the end of last year for the buyout... that's why I say by rejecting the wishes of a faction of the whale donors, Stansbury put his own neck on the line. Garrett made it quite clear that Stansbury did just that and Stansbury knows it - his "I have my man" response will be his epitath. I still tabulate 4 wins in 2022. If we open 2-4 facing a tough last 5 game schedule, that's enough of an indicator that the program will be making a change. I just don't see Stansbury being allowed to make the next coaching choice if that happens, and Stansbury may have to go first to clear the decks so a new AD can establish themselves and get a head start on the process for bringing in their own preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
If you've ever spent time at a company throwing money at a doomed program because the leadership staked their reputations on that program succeeding, you've witnessed what's playing out at GT right now with our major athletic programs. You don't just damage near term prospects or performance, you lose confidence in the entire organization that you're capable of winning or making good decisions, customers lose faith, etc. It's an ugly cycle.
 
BuzzDraft said:
OK, now I see your rationale for your number. Although the "netted cost" of retaining him the extra 6-8 weeks is speculative, there is also something to be said for providing the donor base at all levels some hope, and evidence they're being listened to. That alone would likely provide a reward kicker to donations and bolster season ticket sales.

And I also agree that the money was there at the end of last year for the buyout... that's why I say by rejecting the wishes of a faction of the whale donors, Stansbury put his own neck on the line. Garrett made it quite clear that Stansbury did just that and Stansbury knows it - his "I have my man" response will be his epitath. I still tabulate 4 wins in 2022. If we open 2-4 facing a tough last 5 game schedule, that's enough of an indicator that the program will be making a change. I just don't see Stansbury being allowed to make the next coaching choice if that happens, and Stansbury may have to go first to clear the decks so a new AD can establish themselves and get a head start on the process for bringing in their own preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering about the mindset of a big time donor. Are they a big donor because they want power and access to something, or is it more because they have a passion for something. Does the fact that someone they don’t particularly like is in charge of their passion, diminish their feelings to the point that they lose their passion thus holding back their money.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
I’m wondering about the mindset of a big time donor. Are they a big donor because they want power and access to something, or is it more because they have a passion for something. Does the fact that someone they don’t particularly like is in charge of their passion, diminish their feelings to the point that they lose their passion thus holding back their money.
Click to expand...
Donors contribute out of their love and loyalty for Tech in hopes of helping increase Tech's athletic programs success.

At what point does financially supporting the GTAA through donations and season ticket sales at times like now when the primary revenue sports are failing badly cross over the line to the point where their financial support is simply enabling the GTAA to continue on their existing course of failure without consequence?

If the GTAA is not acting on their words of reason to effect change in direction, donors will resort to effecting change by voting with their wallets.
 
BuzzDraft said:
Donors contribute out of their love and loyalty for Tech in hopes of helping increase Tech's athletic programs success.

At what point does financially supporting the GTAA through donations and season ticket sales at times like now when the primary revenue sports are failing badly cross over the line to the point where their financial support is simply enabling the GTAA to continue on their existing course of failure without consequence?

If the GTAA is not acting on their words of reason to effect change in direction, donors will resort to effecting change by voting with their wallets.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m comparing giving to the college you support to giving to your church. You give to a church, make friends there and enjoy attending. The real reason you give to the church is you love the Lord and believe in their message. If that church gets a pastor you don’t like most people still attend and give money. There are some people that are always switching churches, but that rarely happens with faithful football fans.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
I guess I’m comparing giving to the college you support to giving to your church. You give to a church, make friends there and enjoy attending. The real reason you give to the church is you love the Lord and believe in their message. If that church gets a pastor you don’t like most people still attend and give money. There are some people that are always switching churches, but that rarely happens with faithful football fans.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Interesting take.

I think a lot more people switch congregations that switch "churches." You might switch to the Baptist Church across town because you don't like the new Pastor at your current congregation, but how many switch to Team Catholic? Probably not many. Then again, maybe the way to look at it is that I was baptized into Tech 40+ years ago, and after all these years I'm not likely to leave Team Tech for Bama just like I am not likely to leave Team Jesus for Team Muhammad.

I probably need at least another half dozen beers to really wrap my head around this analogy. :drink2:
 
Nehru Jacket said:
I guess I’m comparing giving to the college you support to giving to your church. You give to a church, make friends there and enjoy attending. The real reason you give to the church is you love the Lord and believe in their message. If that church gets a pastor you don’t like most people still attend and give money. There are some people that are always switching churches, but that rarely happens with faithful football fans.
Click to expand...
I will never switch teams. Just a total loss of interest in what GT is putting on the field. It is not enjoyable to watch (to me). Others feel differently and I'm good with that.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
I guess I’m comparing giving to the college you support to giving to your church. You give to a church, make friends there and enjoy attending. The real reason you give to the church is you love the Lord and believe in their message. If that church gets a pastor you don’t like most people still attend and give money. There are some people that are always switching churches, but that rarely happens with faithful football fans.
Click to expand...
Interesting analogy.

If the pastor consistently delivers lousy homilies and members of the congregation aren't coming away with a positive experience and no longer enjoy attending, they stop going. Whether I liked the pastor or not, if I felt my donations were not being applied effectively to a good cause, or being misused or wasted, I would stop giving them until changes are made.
 
BuzzDraft said:
Interesting analogy.

If the pastor consistently delivers lousy homilies and members of the congregation aren't coming away with a positive experience and no longer enjoy attending, they stop going. Whether I liked the pastor or not, if I felt my donations were not being applied effectively to a good cause, or being misused or wasted, I would stop giving them until changes are made.
Click to expand...
I think that even if the pastor delivers lousy homilies, the majority of the people continue to go to the church out of a sense of habit or tradition. It’s the big donor that’s more likely to switch churches or with hold their money.

The big donor uses his money to wield power, while the majority know that the little bit they give doesn’t really change things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top