Brandon's contract

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:09 pm

I will gladly pay my fair share!

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:07 pm

Somebody do the math. I have a history degree, so that is really not my department.

Lets say that the butts in the seats in the stands declines because people have no faith in the coaching staff, and by extension, the team. At what point are we losing more money because of lower attendance, by keeping Brandon, than buying him out? Spread the $250,000 over two years, hope to boost attendance by 1,600 people per game, and you could cover the buy-out. Boost ticket prices a dollar or two, and you can buy him out and pay somebody a lot more.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:13 pm

NWLB wrote:Somebody do the math. I have a history degree, so that is really not my department.

Lets say that the butts in the seats in the stands declines because people have no faith in the coaching staff, and by extension, the team. At what point are we losing more money because of lower attendance, by keeping Brandon, than buying him out? Spread the $250,000 over two years, hope to boost attendance by 1,600 people per game, and you could cover the buy-out. Boost ticket prices a dollar or two, and you can buy him out and pay somebody a lot more.

Exactly. Combine this simple equation with possible lost donations from alumni, loss of valuable reputation, the possibility of slipping into further decline etc etc. All of a sudden, the too much money excuse for canning Brandon gets debunked.

Bottom line -- if the AD decides going in a different direction is in the best interest of the program, the money shouldn't prevent him from doing so.

If the sponsors were ready to fork over all that extra cash to help us make the attendance limit, don't you think we could lean on them for some dough to help turn the program around by hiring a competent head coach?

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:38 pm

I got to thinking about the buyout a little more as well. Seems like the amount is entirely in Brandon's favor. I mean it is big enough to the school to pretty much keep the school from firing him. Yet, if a bigger school was interested in him, $250,000 is chump change to them. They could pay the buyout in a heart beat and Brandon moves on to a much higher paying job.

Which then makes me realize that UNLV really must not have been interested two years ago. They would have paid the cash and not even had to think about it.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:14 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote: ...possible lost donations from alumni...

I am not saying in any way that I am a member of this camp, but you have to remember that for every one of you and Hammb, there is at least one person who is of the opposite opinion out there.

This is one of the leardership challenges that our AD faces, and I think that very few people realize this around here. Things aren't as cut-and-dry as some of us around here seem to think they are.

Whatever our new AD decides, I will support him.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:43 am

Actually, if we fire him its $250,000.

If he leaves for another job it is only $100K.

See the end of paragraph A on page 9.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:10 am

Politically speaking, I thin it would be very tough for a new AD to fire anyone so early in his tenure here. BGSU's culture is a little too...placid...or some other word meaning slow and calm...to allow for that.

Brandon stays...I think he should...others don't and I'd rather lick a random stone on the ground than enter into that debate again.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:16 am

All I'll say about that is -- if the only reason the AD doesn't fire Brandon is office politics, we got the wrong man for the job. New ADs often clean house, sometimes unjustly, shortly after arriving to bring in their people.