(Bear with me, long-*** post.)
Stepping aside and attempting to look at it objectively, this is a fascinating situation from a hiring strategy and budgeting sense.
First off, I’m shocked at the lack of performance (as are most of us). All else aside, I expected at least some performance from the coordinators and assistants. Should we retain them?
On defense, it’s obviously pretty bad. Looking at assistants, I have seen the D-ends getting some good pressure over the past few games. Honestly not sure if that’s play calling or the group, but I can give Marco Coleman the benefit of the doubt, because their performance seems to be somewhat consistent. But the linebackers are meh, and the secondary has gotten increasingly worse not just every season, but every GAME.
Offense, meanwhile, is not awful, but decidedly mediocre. I’m still surprised the O-line under Key is still so bad 3 seasons in. Choice seems to be the only offensive coach that’s not…well, offensive. Would hate to lose him. But I suppose one man cannot make a coaching staff.
All of this is to say, a common (& perhaps justified) thought on this board and elsewhere is that we should clean house of coordinators and assistants, and give CGC a better OC and DC and maybe an experienced analyst to coach HIM up.
But I think there’s a fallacy there. Consider:
1 - common logic has it that the buyout amount goes down dramatically after next year. This means if we retain CGC, he’s at best a lame duck next year in need of a serious change in results.
2 - what coordinator - up and coming or not - will want to come in under a coach who the economics say only has 1 year remaining unless he turns it around dramatically?
I would love to have someone like Nate Woody back as DC. But someone with his talent would be a fool to come here. First off, Woody has already been the victim of bad timing once. Are we going to be able to turn this around with an unproven DC & OC? Particularly ones whom Collins hires?
& 3 - overall, what up-and-coming coordinator will want to coach under Collins given his record - and his, well, schtick?
—-
In addition to that, let’s look at the buyout.
Per the terms of his contract, If we fire Collins after this year, we owe him $13.8M (minus whatever he’s hired for in another role - which let’s face it, won’t likely happen, so let’s not even consider that).
Meanwhile, If we fire him after next season - ostensibly to save a lot of money - the buyout goes down to 7.2M. But we have to pay him for another god-awful season (I.e., next season) of “coaching” at $3.3M. So really the cost of keeping him for another season, then letting him go is actually $10.5M.
Ergo, effectively, it’s not a $7M difference in cost - because retaining him next year will cost us $3.3M, and for that we’ll get another season of his ‘performance.’ That’s not exactly money well spent - if we’re spending that either way, will it be worth that much to NOT have him on the sidelines?.
IOW, it only costs us an extra $3.3M net on paper to fire him after this season. The rest, we’re paying either way.
We also have to consider other costs. What happens to season ticket sales next season?
And then there’s the team. Part of the strategy for hiring CGC was to maybe not have huge success, but to at least be mediocre and to leave the cupboard full for the next coach. Most of us can agree we failed on the mediocre part of that.
At this point, however, I find myself thinking: Tech recruits are smart. They’ll likely not buy the “we’re turning this around’ story for that much longer. And much like coordinators worth a salt, most smart recruits will think twice about wanting to play for a dead man walking.
And that’s not even considering current players. We now have a slew of talented players - and most talented players aren’t accustomed to losing. Most don’t like it. I wonder how long it will be before CGC loses control of the locker room? Will we start to lose talented players to the transfer portal?
All things considered, there’s a definite potential for a sunk cost fallacy here. The question being, is it worth saving $3.3M (the difference in cost after keeping him 1 more year) on paper, but suffering the fallout of another 3-win season? Or do we punt now, eat the extra $3.3M cost, and move on?
$3.3M is a lot of cash - but at this point, I see the potential damages of keeping him around for another season to be equal to or worse than that payout. Seems like a big gamble whether or not current recruits and players stay at this point, or whether season tickets remain the same in a non-COFH year. I personally wouldn’t want to keep throwing good money after bad - Will be interesting to see what Stansbury does.
(Apologies for the long post. If you’ve read this, you are a gentleman and a scholar for watching as I worked this all out on digital paper).
