My Take on the Buyout Costs

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Been seeing a lot of bad guesses and incorrect assumptions being used on how much the buyout would actually cost, how it will be paid out and how much Keli needs to raise.

If we take the $28m that everyone is using courtesy of NJ.scum, the buyout math on an annual basis would be $9.33 million straight-lined, if no one finds new jobs.

However, with the way the contracts are structured, year one will be the biggest hit and by year three you're paying basically Greg's last year and not too much else. For hypothetical purposes you're looking at $12m | $9m | $7m = $28m.

The above doesn't account for the expected offsets from staff finding new positions, so hypothetically, the real cost will be less, like $9m | $7.5m | $6m = $22.5m. This doesn't include any money that Keli has lined up to offset Greg's salary since the amounts are unknown at this time. However, if she raised half of what's due him now that $22.5m drops to $6m | $4.5m | $3m = $13.5m.

---------------------------

Since some will invariably argue that Keli needs to find donor money for the next staff. Anyone saying that has no concept of how businesses and universities operate or is gaslighting you.

Every athletic team has an operating budget to cover salaries for coaches, assistants and other staff. Full stop.

Keli will need to fund raise for some of the next head coach's salary because that was also done with Greg and there will be associated expenses with the coaching search. It's not going to be $30+m as some baboons on these boards are claiming.

------------------

What Keli needs to line up is a good hire that wins and drives across the board revenue increases from winning.

Do you agree or disagree with the above and how does it change your view on whether the buyout can be afforded?

 

[Jtung230]

Been seeing a lot of bad guesses and incorrect assumptions being used on how much the buyout would actually cost, how it will be paid out and how much Keli needs to raise.

If we take the $28m that everyone is using courtesy of NJ.scum, the buyout math on an annual basis would be $9.33 million straight-lined, if no one finds new jobs.

However, with the way the contracts are structured, year one will be the biggest hit and by year three you're paying basically Greg's last year and not too much else. For hypothetical purposes you're looking at $12m | $9m | $7m = $28m.

The above doesn't account for the expected offsets from staff finding new positions, so hypothetically, the real cost will be less, like $9m | $7.5m | $6m = $22.5m. This doesn't include any money that Keli has lined up to offset Greg's salary since the amounts are unknown at this time. However, if she raised half of what's due him now that $22.5m drops to $6m | $4.5m | $3m = $13.5m.

---------------------------

Since some will invariably argue that Keli needs to find donor money for the next staff. Anyone saying that has no concept of how businesses and universities operate or is gaslighting you.

Every athletic team has an operating budget to cover salaries for coaches, assistants and other staff. Full stop.

Keli will need to fund raise for some of the next head coach's salary because that was also done with Greg and there will be associated expenses with the coaching search. It's not going to be $30+m as some baboons on these boards are claiming.

------------------

What Keli needs to line up is a good hire that wins and drives across the board revenue increases from winning.

Do you agree or disagree with the above and how does it change your view on whether the buyout can be afforded?

Since you mentioned concept of business and university works. Please tell us your qualifications. RU is a public university. I’m not sure all the ifs and the hypotheticals will fly during a budgeting process. We have 2 options. Find the money or borrow money. It’s time for Keli to prove her worth.

 

[RUtix4me]

Been seeing ….so let me start another thread and offer mine

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Since you mentioned concept of business and university works. Please tell us your qualifications. RU is a public university. I’m not sure all the ifs and the hypotheticals will fly during a budgeting process. We have 2 options. Find the money or borrow money. It’s time for Keli to prove her worth.

I have or 30 years of work experience in finance and accounting including 10 years managing budgets and strategic plans for a multinational company, which included a global legal department with personnel in eight countries. During that time, I was involved in having to manage budgets through three different reorganizations and work with my business partners to find significant cost savings and layer them into the budgets, reforecasts and strategic plans with when they would be realized.

What's your background now?

 

[Knight Shift]

I have or 30 years of work experience in finance and accounting including 10 years managing budgets and strategic plans for a multinational company, which included a global legal department with personnel in eight countries. During that time, I was involved in having to manage budgets through three different reorganizations and work with my business partners to find significant cost savings and layer them into the budgets, reforecasts and strategic plans with when they would be realized.

What's your background now?

jtung is the master of whataboutisms to distract from the topic at hand and cling on to his man, Greg. Rutgers being a public university and budgeting-budget and finance concepts from private business are equally applicable to public entities, with a couple of extra caveats.

 

[Jtung230]

I have or 30 years of work experience in finance and accounting including 10 years managing budgets and strategic plans for a multinational company, which included a global legal department with personnel in eight countries. During that time, I was involved in having to manage budgets through three different reorganizations and work with my business partners to find significant cost savings and layer them into the budgets, reforecasts and strategic plans with when they would be realized.

What's your background now?

I used to manage an $8 billion portfolio for a public finance company. I’m 100% certain that I’m not qualified to run finances at a government entity.

Does your job allow you to make assumptions such as potential savings for budgeting purposes? Especially when the company is operating in the red.

 

[Rutgers Chris]

I used to manage an $8 billion portfolio for a public finance company. I’m 100% certain that I’m not qualified to run finances at a government entity.

Does your job allow you to make assumptions such as potential savings for budgeting purposes? Especially when the company is operating in the red.

I’m no governmental accountant but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[iReC89]

90% of public university athletic department operate at a loss and the majority of people responsible for athletic budgets should be fired

 

[Jtung230]

jtung is the master of whataboutisms to distract from the topic at hand and cling on to his man, Greg. Rutgers being a public university and budgeting-budget and finance concepts from private business are equally applicable to public entities, with a couple of extra caveats.

I just deal with facts. I stated early on in the season that it’s time for a coaching change. Everyone just wants some big donors to step up and magically solve the problem. That’s not happening. We don’t have the public support from the state, faculty and residents. It will be a short term for Tate if he thinks this is Luisiana.

 

[yesrutgers01]

My apologies upfront for this long post-

I agree with much of this, but I think we're missing a much bigger financial question.

Everyone keeps talking about what it would cost Rutgers to move on from Schiano. But what is it costing Rutgers to keep him?

Maybe it's just the way my business mind works, but if I'm running an organization, I'm not looking solely at the cost of making a change. I'm also looking at the cost of doing nothing.

SHI Stadium holds 52,454 fans. Let's use 20,000 empty seats per game, which I don't think is unreasonable based on what we're seeing.

At an average of $75 per ticket, that's $1.5 million in potential ticket revenue per game.

Now add parking, concessions and merchandise. Using some fairly reasonable estimates, you're looking at approximately $2.2 million in potential gross revenue per home game.

Over 6 or 7 home games, that's roughly $13–15.5 million in potential annual revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting every empty seat represents a lost ticket sale, or that all of that money would be pure profit. But those numbers alone should be part of the conversation.

And to me, that's not even the biggest financial concern.

Look at what Keli Zinn is being tasked with accomplishing. Rutgers needs major donors, corporate sponsors, NIL-related financial support, and substantial investment in facilities and improvements if we're going to compete in the Big Ten.

How much harder does that become when you're trying to sell the future of a football program that's losing games, fans and television viewers?

These are people and businesses being asked to commit serious money, sometimes millions of dollars. They want to believe in the direction of the program. They want to see excitement, growth, visibility and a reason to invest.

And while the Big Ten media rights agreement provides Rutgers with substantial revenue regardless of our weekly television ratings, that doesn't mean declining viewership and fan interest have no financial consequences. Rutgers still has its own sponsorships, advertising relationships, fundraising efforts and brand value to worry about.

That's where I think the real financial exposure could be.

Losing a few million dollars in ticket revenue is one thing. Losing the confidence of major financial supporters, or failing to attract new ones, could have consequences for years.

And let's not forget where Rutgers is located.

We're sitting in one of the largest and wealthiest markets in the country. And like it or not, NY/NJ has a history of jumping on the bandwagon when teams start winning.

We saw it ourselves in 2006 and the years immediately following. Rutgers football became a hot ticket. Season tickets were selling, waiting lists were growing, and people who had never cared about Rutgers football suddenly cared.

And that was before we were even in the Big Ten.

I'm certainly not suggesting that hiring a new coach guarantees success. You have to get that hire right, and there's financial risk involved.

But there's also risk in continuing down the same road.

So when everyone is debating a buyout that would be paid over multiple years, why aren't we also asking what the projected financial damage could be over those same years if nothing changes?

What does continued declining attendance cost? What happens to corporate sponsorships? What happens when major donors decide to hold off on funding facilities or supporting player compensation initiatives because they've lost confidence in the direction of the program?

And what is the potential financial upside if the right coach turns Rutgers around?

Those are the questions I'd expect the leadership of any major organization to be asking.

The buyout is a known expense. I understand that.

But the cost of doing nothing is very real too, even if it's harder to put an exact number on it.

Sometimes the most expensive business decision is the one you decide not to make.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

My apologies upfront for this long post-

I agree with much of this, but I think we're missing a much bigger financial question.

Everyone keeps talking about what it would cost Rutgers to move on from Schiano. But what is it costing Rutgers to keep him?

Maybe it's just the way my business mind works, but if I'm running an organization, I'm not looking solely at the cost of making a change. I'm also looking at the cost of doing nothing.

SHI Stadium holds 52,454 fans. Let's use 20,000 empty seats per game, which I don't think is unreasonable based on what we're seeing.

At an average of $75 per ticket, that's $1.5 million in potential ticket revenue per game.

Now add parking, concessions and merchandise. Using some fairly reasonable estimates, you're looking at approximately $2.2 million in potential gross revenue per home game.

Over 6 or 7 home games, that's roughly $13–15.5 million in potential annual revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting every empty seat represents a lost ticket sale, or that all of that money would be pure profit. But those numbers alone should be part of the conversation.

And to me, that's not even the biggest financial concern.

Look at what Keli Zinn is being tasked with accomplishing. Rutgers needs major donors, corporate sponsors, NIL-related financial support, and substantial investment in facilities and improvements if we're going to compete in the Big Ten.

How much harder does that become when you're trying to sell the future of a football program that's losing games, fans and television viewers?

These are people and businesses being asked to commit serious money, sometimes millions of dollars. They want to believe in the direction of the program. They want to see excitement, growth, visibility and a reason to invest.

And while the Big Ten media rights agreement provides Rutgers with substantial revenue regardless of our weekly television ratings, that doesn't mean declining viewership and fan interest have no financial consequences. Rutgers still has its own sponsorships, advertising relationships, fundraising efforts and brand value to worry about.

That's where I think the real financial exposure could be.

Losing a few million dollars in ticket revenue is one thing. Losing the confidence of major financial supporters, or failing to attract new ones, could have consequences for years.

And let's not forget where Rutgers is located.

We're sitting in one of the largest and wealthiest markets in the country. And like it or not, NY/NJ has a history of jumping on the bandwagon when teams start winning.

We saw it ourselves in 2006 and the years immediately following. Rutgers football became a hot ticket. Season tickets were selling, waiting lists were growing, and people who had never cared about Rutgers football suddenly cared.

And that was before we were even in the Big Ten.

I'm certainly not suggesting that hiring a new coach guarantees success. You have to get that hire right, and there's financial risk involved.

But there's also risk in continuing down the same road.

So when everyone is debating a buyout that would be paid over multiple years, why aren't we also asking what the projected financial damage could be over those same years if nothing changes?

What does continued declining attendance cost? What happens to corporate sponsorships? What happens when major donors decide to hold off on funding facilities or supporting player compensation initiatives because they've lost confidence in the direction of the program?

And what is the potential financial upside if the right coach turns Rutgers around?

Those are the questions I'd expect the leadership of any major organization to be asking.

The buyout is a known expense. I understand that.

But the cost of doing nothing is very real too, even if it's harder to put an exact number on it.

Sometimes the most expensive business decision is the one you decide not to make.

Totally agree and I've commented multiple times on the Round Table about how much the program stands to lose for the reasons you mentioned above.

One example is the SHI naming rights deal; it runs through 2029 with a two-year option to extend by SHI. If Rutgers makes the wrong move by retaining Greg and it's an even bigger disaster, not only may SHI exercise the option, but you may have damaged what the open market is willing to pay to be the new sponsor. As it is the deal pays a little over $2m by the end which is a paltry amount when you take into account that all the night games RU has played the last few years that have brought in large national audiences.

 

[Knight Shift]

I just deal with facts. I stated early on in the season that it’s time for a coaching change. Everyone just wants some big donors to step up and magically solve the problem. That’s not happening. We don’t have the public support from the state, faculty and residents. It will be a short term for Tate if he thinks this is Luisiana.

You have no idea what's happening with the big donors. None.

 

[Jtung230]

You have no idea what's happening with the big donors. None.

1st, what’s the definition of a big donor at RU?

2nd, I don’t have any clue because nothing is happening.

 

[iReC89]

My apologies upfront for this long post-

I agree with much of this, but I think we're missing a much bigger financial question.

Everyone keeps talking about what it would cost Rutgers to move on from Schiano. But what is it costing Rutgers to keep him?

Maybe it's just the way my business mind works, but if I'm running an organization, I'm not looking solely at the cost of making a change. I'm also looking at the cost of doing nothing.

SHI Stadium holds 52,454 fans. Let's use 20,000 empty seats per game, which I don't think is unreasonable based on what we're seeing.

At an average of $75 per ticket, that's $1.5 million in potential ticket revenue per game.

Now add parking, concessions and merchandise. Using some fairly reasonable estimates, you're looking at approximately $2.2 million in potential gross revenue per home game.

Over 6 or 7 home games, that's roughly $13–15.5 million in potential annual revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting every empty seat represents a lost ticket sale, or that all of that money would be pure profit. But those numbers alone should be part of the conversation.

And to me, that's not even the biggest financial concern.

Look at what Keli Zinn is being tasked with accomplishing. Rutgers needs major donors, corporate sponsors, NIL-related financial support, and substantial investment in facilities and improvements if we're going to compete in the Big Ten.

How much harder does that become when you're trying to sell the future of a football program that's losing games, fans and television viewers?

These are people and businesses being asked to commit serious money, sometimes millions of dollars. They want to believe in the direction of the program. They want to see excitement, growth, visibility and a reason to invest.

And while the Big Ten media rights agreement provides Rutgers with substantial revenue regardless of our weekly television ratings, that doesn't mean declining viewership and fan interest have no financial consequences. Rutgers still has its own sponsorships, advertising relationships, fundraising efforts and brand value to worry about.

That's where I think the real financial exposure could be.

Losing a few million dollars in ticket revenue is one thing. Losing the confidence of major financial supporters, or failing to attract new ones, could have consequences for years.

And let's not forget where Rutgers is located.

We're sitting in one of the largest and wealthiest markets in the country. And like it or not, NY/NJ has a history of jumping on the bandwagon when teams start winning.

We saw it ourselves in 2006 and the years immediately following. Rutgers football became a hot ticket. Season tickets were selling, waiting lists were growing, and people who had never cared about Rutgers football suddenly cared.

And that was before we were even in the Big Ten.

I'm certainly not suggesting that hiring a new coach guarantees success. You have to get that hire right, and there's financial risk involved.

But there's also risk in continuing down the same road.

So when everyone is debating a buyout that would be paid over multiple years, why aren't we also asking what the projected financial damage could be over those same years if nothing changes?

What does continued declining attendance cost? What happens to corporate sponsorships? What happens when major donors decide to hold off on funding facilities or supporting player compensation initiatives because they've lost confidence in the direction of the program?

And what is the potential financial upside if the right coach turns Rutgers around?

Those are the questions I'd expect the leadership of any major organization to be asking.

The buyout is a known expense. I understand that.

But the cost of doing nothing is very real too, even if it's harder to put an exact number on it.

Sometimes the most expensive business decision is the one you decide not to make.

I hear you, but that kind of thinking is why most programs lose money. There is no bankable expectation of improved ticket sales with a new coach. Less then 30% of coaching changes result in better records. Too big to fail is a losing business strategy here now.

 

[yesrutgers01]

I hear you, but that kind of thinking is why most programs lose money. There is no bankable expectation of improved ticket sales with a new coach. Less then 30% of coaching changes result in better records. Too big to fail is a losing business strategy here now.

The only question in the equation- do we hire the right replacement. There is actually somethings we know at this moment- standing still - is a loss...ok- that is really the only thing you need to know- we cannot progress under status quo - keeping Greg from this moment on equals a loss

 

[RU on Manns Planet]

My apologies upfront for this long post-

I agree with much of this, but I think we're missing a much bigger financial question.

Everyone keeps talking about what it would cost Rutgers to move on from Schiano. But what is it costing Rutgers to keep him?

Maybe it's just the way my business mind works, but if I'm running an organization, I'm not looking solely at the cost of making a change. I'm also looking at the cost of doing nothing.

SHI Stadium holds 52,454 fans. Let's use 20,000 empty seats per game, which I don't think is unreasonable based on what we're seeing.

At an average of $75 per ticket, that's $1.5 million in potential ticket revenue per game.

Now add parking, concessions and merchandise. Using some fairly reasonable estimates, you're looking at approximately $2.2 million in potential gross revenue per home game.

Over 6 or 7 home games, that's roughly $13–15.5 million in potential annual revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting every empty seat represents a lost ticket sale, or that all of that money would be pure profit. But those numbers alone should be part of the conversation.

And to me, that's not even the biggest financial concern.

Look at what Keli Zinn is being tasked with accomplishing. Rutgers needs major donors, corporate sponsors, NIL-related financial support, and substantial investment in facilities and improvements if we're going to compete in the Big Ten.

How much harder does that become when you're trying to sell the future of a football program that's losing games, fans and television viewers?

These are people and businesses being asked to commit serious money, sometimes millions of dollars. They want to believe in the direction of the program. They want to see excitement, growth, visibility and a reason to invest.

And while the Big Ten media rights agreement provides Rutgers with substantial revenue regardless of our weekly television ratings, that doesn't mean declining viewership and fan interest have no financial consequences. Rutgers still has its own sponsorships, advertising relationships, fundraising efforts and brand value to worry about.

That's where I think the real financial exposure could be.

Losing a few million dollars in ticket revenue is one thing. Losing the confidence of major financial supporters, or failing to attract new ones, could have consequences for years.

And let's not forget where Rutgers is located.

We're sitting in one of the largest and wealthiest markets in the country. And like it or not, NY/NJ has a history of jumping on the bandwagon when teams start winning.

We saw it ourselves in 2006 and the years immediately following. Rutgers football became a hot ticket. Season tickets were selling, waiting lists were growing, and people who had never cared about Rutgers football suddenly cared.

And that was before we were even in the Big Ten.

I'm certainly not suggesting that hiring a new coach guarantees success. You have to get that hire right, and there's financial risk involved.

But there's also risk in continuing down the same road.

So when everyone is debating a buyout that would be paid over multiple years, why aren't we also asking what the projected financial damage could be over those same years if nothing changes?

What does continued declining attendance cost? What happens to corporate sponsorships? What happens when major donors decide to hold off on funding facilities or supporting player compensation initiatives because they've lost confidence in the direction of the program?

And what is the potential financial upside if the right coach turns Rutgers around?

Those are the questions I'd expect the leadership of any major organization to be asking.

The buyout is a known expense. I understand that.

But the cost of doing nothing is very real too, even if it's harder to put an exact number on it.

Sometimes the most expensive business decision is the one you decide not to make.

Completely agree and I’ve also pointed this out many times on the board. Unfortunately, many on the board don’t want to be burdened with thinking through such multi variable analysis but of course the analysis is far more nuanced than simply looking at the cost of the contracts to pay out.

Keli has made it clear that we have more of a revenue problem than a spending problem so she obviously is looking at this also. I skipped my first game of the season today, but from what I heard, the stadium was very empty and also that the Michigan presence was notable. The emptiness represents potential revenue loss. The Michigan presence is simply embarrassing, and I have to believe that Zinn and Tate find it embarrassing.

What is also difficult to build into the entire $ equation is the opportunity cost of doing nothing from the standpoint of raising money. There are many alumni and businesses that simply are not going to put money into this version of the program. Keli must be feeling this pain firsthand.

 

[RU on Manns Planet]

I hear you, but that kind of thinking is why most programs lose money. There is no bankable expectation of improved ticket sales with a new coach. Less then 30% of coaching changes result in better records. Too big to fail is a losing business strategy here now.

Curious what the stats show when the record was 2-10 or 3-9.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Completely agree and I’ve also pointed this out many times on the board. Unfortunately, many on the board don’t want to be burdened with thinking through such multi variable analysis but of course the analysis is far more nuanced than simply looking at the cost of the contracts to pay out.

Keli has made it clear that we have more of a revenue problem than a spending problem so she obviously is looking at this also. I skipped my first game of the season today, but from what I heard, the stadium was very empty and also that the Michigan presence was notable. The emptiness represents potential revenue loss. The Michigan presence is simply embarrassing, and I have to believe that Zinn and Tate find it embarrassing.

What is also difficult to build into the entire $ equation is the opportunity cost of doing nothing from the standpoint of raising money. There are many alumni and businesses that simply are not going to put money into this version of the program. Keli must be feeling this pain firsthand.

She's also reigned in some of Greg's wasteful spending habits. Apparently in years past, every staff person traveled to away games, now only essential personnel are going, and this will save a bit in travel, lodging, meals and other expenses. I'm going to assume it will be several million when you look at the size of the staff.

 

[RU on Manns Planet]

She's also reigned in some of Greg's wasteful spending habits. Apparently in years past, every staff person traveled to away games, now only essential personnel are going, and this will save a bit in travel, lodging, meals and other expenses. I'm going to assume it will be several million when you look at the size of the staff.

There were other budget cuts also in terms of staff. And some other silliness that I can’t share right now.

 

[Caliknight]

She's also reigned in some of Greg's wasteful spending habits. Apparently in years past, every staff person traveled to away games, now only essential personnel are going, and this will save a bit in travel, lodging, meals and other expenses. I'm going to assume it will be several million when you look at the size of the staff.

There is a lot in that space she cleaned up. There are numerous other areas. Schiano had no respect for the finances around his program.

On the dept side it was a disaster. We weren’t even using our sponsors services for the most part. The Hobbs regime is looking really bad with what’s been uncovered.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

There were other budget cuts also in terms of staff. And some other silliness that I can’t share right now.

If he returns, I fully expect her to force cuts there. If you're saying she already did some of that, then great.

 

[Shelby65]

My apologies upfront for this long post-

I agree with much of this, but I think we're missing a much bigger financial question.

Everyone keeps talking about what it would cost Rutgers to move on from Schiano. But what is it costing Rutgers to keep him?

Maybe it's just the way my business mind works, but if I'm running an organization, I'm not looking solely at the cost of making a change. I'm also looking at the cost of doing nothing.

SHI Stadium holds 52,454 fans. Let's use 20,000 empty seats per game, which I don't think is unreasonable based on what we're seeing.

At an average of $75 per ticket, that's $1.5 million in potential ticket revenue per game.

Now add parking, concessions and merchandise. Using some fairly reasonable estimates, you're looking at approximately $2.2 million in potential gross revenue per home game.

Over 6 or 7 home games, that's roughly $13–15.5 million in potential annual revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting every empty seat represents a lost ticket sale, or that all of that money would be pure profit. But those numbers alone should be part of the conversation.

And to me, that's not even the biggest financial concern.

Look at what Keli Zinn is being tasked with accomplishing. Rutgers needs major donors, corporate sponsors, NIL-related financial support, and substantial investment in facilities and improvements if we're going to compete in the Big Ten.

How much harder does that become when you're trying to sell the future of a football program that's losing games, fans and television viewers?

These are people and businesses being asked to commit serious money, sometimes millions of dollars. They want to believe in the direction of the program. They want to see excitement, growth, visibility and a reason to invest.

And while the Big Ten media rights agreement provides Rutgers with substantial revenue regardless of our weekly television ratings, that doesn't mean declining viewership and fan interest have no financial consequences. Rutgers still has its own sponsorships, advertising relationships, fundraising efforts and brand value to worry about.

That's where I think the real financial exposure could be.

Losing a few million dollars in ticket revenue is one thing. Losing the confidence of major financial supporters, or failing to attract new ones, could have consequences for years.

And let's not forget where Rutgers is located.

We're sitting in one of the largest and wealthiest markets in the country. And like it or not, NY/NJ has a history of jumping on the bandwagon when teams start winning.

We saw it ourselves in 2006 and the years immediately following. Rutgers football became a hot ticket. Season tickets were selling, waiting lists were growing, and people who had never cared about Rutgers football suddenly cared.

And that was before we were even in the Big Ten.

I'm certainly not suggesting that hiring a new coach guarantees success. You have to get that hire right, and there's financial risk involved.

But there's also risk in continuing down the same road.

So when everyone is debating a buyout that would be paid over multiple years, why aren't we also asking what the projected financial damage could be over those same years if nothing changes?

What does continued declining attendance cost? What happens to corporate sponsorships? What happens when major donors decide to hold off on funding facilities or supporting player compensation initiatives because they've lost confidence in the direction of the program?

And what is the potential financial upside if the right coach turns Rutgers around?

Those are the questions I'd expect the leadership of any major organization to be asking.

The buyout is a known expense. I understand that.

But the cost of doing nothing is very real too, even if it's harder to put an exact number on it.

Sometimes the most expensive business decision is the one you decide not to make.

Firing him doesn’t mean ticket sales, concessions etc will increase/rebound. The 2027 damage is already done, revenue will crater either way.

There’s no doubt it’s financially better to keep him as long as possible.

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Firing him doesn’t mean ticket sales, concessions etc will increase/rebound. The 2027 damage is already done, revenue will crater either way.

There’s no doubt it’s financially better to keep him as long as possible.

Why are you looking only at next year, you clearly don't understand the long-term ramifications with this response.

 

[RUChet]

Greg will be back next year - mark my words

The athletic department is so far in debt they won’t buy him out

Attendance next year will be Shea/Ash level bad

I think we finding 3-9 and next year without Duff and Raymond we may even be worse

 

[Shelby65]

Shelby has been the loudest and longest critic of The Grifter and knew he would take the team to ruin. But unfortunately the odds of recouping firing costs from sales increases next year, 28 and ‘29 are slim.

 

[MADHAT1]

Greg will be back next year - mark my words

The athletic department is so far in debt they won’t buy him out

Attendance next year will be Shea/Ash level bad

I think we finding 3-9 and next year without Duff and Raymond we may even be worse

To my dismay, I believe you;re right and Zinn will find an excuse for bringing him back .
Unless she admits the buyout is the reason and says she couldn't raise enough from the boosters to buy him out .
In either case
2027 will see that

 

[RUChet]

To my dismay, I believe you;re right and Zinn will find an excuse for bringing him back .
Unless she admits the buyout is the reason and says she couldn't raise enough from the boosters to buy him out .
In either case
2027 will see that

We will lose a lot of commits but who cares as they may not play for years unless they are a CB who Greg always seems to play early

Attendance will suck

The program will spiral down to the abyss

 

[Jtung230]

The only reason GS will be back is due to money.