Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:I never said by signing Moorhead that the fans would immediately come back. He has to win and I think he will. The argument over having to pay Daz 2.5 million for the next two seasons and not being able to more than make up that revenue up with increased ticket sales is stupid. Nobody is coming back for another season of this shit!
And now... let me play devils' advocate. You have touted the economic windfall associated with the hiring of Moorhead. Yet, you now admit the reality that such financial gains will not be realized in Year 1. Here is the economic ramifications with such an admission (spoiler alert: changing coaches is not the economic no-brainer you pretend).
For the purposes of this analysis I make the following assumptions: (1) Daz makes $2.5mm each year through the end of 2020, (2) Daz's replacement will also make $2.5mm and (3) where we are now in revenues is the baseline as (after a decade of irrelevance) these fans have proven nearly impossible to kill off.
In 2018, the total Head Coach salary obligation balloons to $5mm (for Daz to stay home and the new coach to work). With that, everyone agrees comes no appreciable economic gain. So, 1-year in, the school just dug a $2.5mm deeper hole.
In 2019, if Moorhead is TC-like in quality, there is an uptick in revenues due to increased tickets. That uptick is not in the form of season tix, but like TC's 2nd year... in the form of single game tix from locals and alums as curiosity is piqued by a sudden run up the National Rankings. It is complete folly to think this interest (which necessarily means the first games of the year to have the same financial malaise of the previous year) will equate to massive revenue increases. But, for argument sake, let's blow it out as a $1.5mm increase y.o.y. After 2 years, the program is now in a $4mm hole.
In 2020, if Moorhead is TC-like, season tix are being gobbled up. The financial gain here is meaningful. Let's say that the additional revenues increase another $1.5mm y.o.y (meaning $3mm more in game-day revs over what Daz delivered). In this year, the hole decreases to a $3.5mm net loss.
In 2021, BC no longer has to pay Daz to stay home. Not only do we take that obligation off, but we are now crushing it with an additional $3mm in revs thanks to Moorhead. Everything is perfect (i.e. the aforementioned net loss gets flat in this year). However... TC never made it to Year 4. Moorhead (with TC-like success) wouldn't either. Either, he will be gone to a better program or, if we were to keep him, we'd be paying him twice what he was making (thus occupying the additional revenues gleaned).
That... is the best case scenario. There is also a chance that Moorhead (like Donnie Brown's D) takes 2 full seasons before he starts moving the program forward. Such a result, deepens the losses by an additional $2.5mm. That is a the second best scenario (that after 3 years, we are looking at a net loss of approximately $6mm). Then there is the (most likely) possibility that Moorhead isn't the answer and can only deliver Dazoo-like results. In such a situation, firing Daziani is a net $7.5mm mistake.
Sure, there is a chance for better donations (though we had one of our best years coming off an 0-fer-ACC season). Sure, there is the Flutie Effect and exposure benefits that come from a winning program (though some say that the real benefits are over-hyped... as evidenced by our academic ranking going up the last 10 years). Again... at the end of the day, firing Daz is a very expensive proposition that, not only is unlikely to provide profitable results, but also puts Jarmond's head on the chopping block (ala BB) should his chosen FHCRD-like hire fails to overwhelm.