(01-30-2018 10:32 AM)jgardne Wrote:  Economically Tubby is as unmitigated a disaster as Pastner. Tickets sales steadily declining. The trend won't reverse itself while Tubby is here

What craziness is this statement based on? Pastner's average attendance was higher than Cal's and the program experienced an economic windfall when he was our coach.

Cal's Average Attendance (9 seasons)
15,339 (in all fairness, includes 2005 when RC and Heisley screwed us)

Pastner Average Attendance (7 seasons)
15,366

Tubby's Attendance (TWO seasons)
15,686 = 9,622 + 6,064

And that doesn't factor in the 2,000 free tickets, the fact that the athletic department started including coaches, maintenance staff, concession staff, and every other living breathing soul in the arena in their attendance count.

(01-30-2018 10:52 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:43 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 01:50 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 12:17 AM)Shooters Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 05:37 PM)TigersRuleAll Wrote:  Tubby will be back for a third season unless: 1) the wheels completely fall off the remainder of this season (like 1-2 more wins), or 2) another massive round of transfers after the season ends, including Martin. If either of those two occur, all bets are off.

Math is not my strong suit but (and correct me if I am wrong):
A-we have to have a mens BB coach
B-we are obligated to pay Tubby $3M next year unless we negotiate a reduced buyout
C-You guys say we can get a good up and coming coach who will recruit and possibly turn this program around for $1M. I think it would take $1.5M just because we are a high major.

So if we let Tubby go and hired Mr Right, our additional costs are $1.5. If this new coach can get only 600 season ticket holders to come back (or keep them from leaving-makes no difference) in the high dollar seats (lower level) with an average season ticket/seatdonation of $2,500 we have broken even. ONLY 600 SEASON TICKET HOLDERS!

Someone tell me the flaw to make a no brainer decision to hire a new coach as Tubby has lost this fan base just as Pastner did.

I see no flaws in your list and would add D.

D. We ain't getting our 850,000 payout from the Grizz this year unless we average about 12,200 fans to all but one or two of our remaining home games.

Simple math. Just as when Pastner left, most fans would have been happy with almost anyone who replaced him. The fans will be happy with almost anyone that replaces Tubby.

IF the new hire gets us from 6,000 paid attendance to 9,000 paid attendance, that is a spike of at least $1.5 million and you get the payout from the Grizzlies. If it took only 2 years for Tubby to chop attendance in half from Pastner's last season, it won't take more than 2 seasons for the new coach to bring it back to that level if him and his staff have a pulse.

Tubby can be paid off at $1.5 million per year for the next 6 years at the end of this year after he is sacked or quits.

Which, IMO, gives Memphis (i.e. the boosters) in the neighborhood of $1.5 per to spend on a new coach out of the gate. Limits the pool some, but not completely. I'd be all in on an Eric Musselman type.

At an average price of $25 per ticket, if you have an increase of 3,000 fans per game and you have 19-20 home games, you are looking at $1.5 million. I would have to think that with donations, the seats average out to $50 each, which doubles that amount.

I don't think it limits the candidate pool at all. The program will lose even more money next year if Tubby is around and there will barely be enough D1 players to field a team if he is here for the 2020 season.

I don't think it limits the candidate pool at all, because I would assume that if we ever had the opportunity to hit a homerun, that attendance would double overnight, which would more than offset the Tubby debacle.

(01-30-2018 11:11 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:52 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:43 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 01:50 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 12:17 AM)Shooters Wrote:  Math is not my strong suit but (and correct me if I am wrong):
A-we have to have a mens BB coach
B-we are obligated to pay Tubby $3M next year unless we negotiate a reduced buyout
C-You guys say we can get a good up and coming coach who will recruit and possibly turn this program around for $1M. I think it would take $1.5M just because we are a high major.

So if we let Tubby go and hired Mr Right, our additional costs are $1.5. If this new coach can get only 600 season ticket holders to come back (or keep them from leaving-makes no difference) in the high dollar seats (lower level) with an average season ticket/seatdonation of $2,500 we have broken even. ONLY 600 SEASON TICKET HOLDERS!

Someone tell me the flaw to make a no brainer decision to hire a new coach as Tubby has lost this fan base just as Pastner did.

I see no flaws in your list and would add D.

D. We ain't getting our 850,000 payout from the Grizz this year unless we average about 12,200 fans to all but one or two of our remaining home games.

Simple math. Just as when Pastner left, most fans would have been happy with almost anyone who replaced him. The fans will be happy with almost anyone that replaces Tubby.

IF the new hire gets us from 6,000 paid attendance to 9,000 paid attendance, that is a spike of at least $1.5 million and you get the payout from the Grizzlies. If it took only 2 years for Tubby to chop attendance in half from Pastner's last season, it won't take more than 2 seasons for the new coach to bring it back to that level if him and his staff have a pulse.

Tubby can be paid off at $1.5 million per year for the next 6 years at the end of this year after he is sacked or quits.

Which, IMO, gives Memphis (i.e. the boosters) in the neighborhood of $1.5 per to spend on a new coach out of the gate. Limits the pool some, but not completely. I'd be all in on an Eric Musselman type.

At an average price of $25 per ticket, if you have an increase of 3,000 fans per game and you have 19-20 home games, you are looking at $1.5 million. I would have to think that with donations, the seats average out to $50 each, which doubles that amount.

I don't think it limits the candidate pool at all. The program will lose even more money next year if Tubby is around and there will barely be enough D1 players to field a team if he is here for the 2020 season.

I don't think it limits the candidate pool at all, because I would assume that if we ever had the opportunity to hit a homerun, that attendance would double overnight, which would more than offset the Tubby debacle.

Excellent point in regards to enthusiasm and increased attendance. I was simply looking at the salary and CTS's pay-off of the contract (over 6 years) and a new hire at $1.5M/per could be a wash in terms of total coach salary for the next few years.

No one that i recall has pointed out any pitfalls (of all the great minds assembled here) so I guess the AD would have figured this out by now and we will soon know whether he will act on it.

Perhaps we otter not credit or equate great minds with big money and power.

(01-30-2018 10:57 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:32 AM)jgardne Wrote:  Economically Tubby is as unmitigated a disaster as Pastner. Tickets sales steadily declining. The trend won't reverse itself while Tubby is here

What craziness is this statement based on? Pastner's average attendance was higher than Cal's and the program experienced an economic windfall when he was our coach.

Cal's Average Attendance (9 seasons)
15,339 (in all fairness, includes 2005 when RC and Heisley screwed us)

Pastner Average Attendance (7 seasons)
15,366

Tubby's Attendance (TWO seasons)
15,686 = 9,622 + 6,064

And that doesn't factor in the 2,000 free tickets, the fact that the athletic department started including coaches, maintenance staff, concession staff, and every other living breathing soul in the arena in their attendance count.

We've been on a steady downward trend since the "four kings" graduated. It wasn't as bad as it is now, but that was clearly when it started. Pastner's last year was a disaster. Losing ticket sales, losing revenue, can't afford to fire the coach.

The situation is the same it's just more dire now because we are down another 4000 tickets/year.

you can pay the buyout over 6 seasons so you don't have to come up with the money all at once.

The snag with paying out the contract over 1 year, 3 years or 6 years is that it is new money from the boosters. This seems like an obvious point, but the importance of it is that if the boosters don't pay it and we keep Tubby, they don't lose any money, they are at the same commitment as they were at when Tubby was hired. I would think that the dynamic that is at play is whether Rudd and Bowen were the most enthusiastic about hiring Tubby, or if the boosters thought it was a great idea. This is kind of a key point, because if the boosters convinced Rudd and Bowen that it would be a good idea to hire Tubby, they would possibly be more open to paying for their mistake. If the boosters said that they weren't crazy about the idea but they would fund it anyway, then the admin might have a hard time convincing them to shell out the money for a buyout.

If the boosters pay it, it is right out of pocket on their part. If the boosters don't want to pay the buyout, the school loses all of the revenue.

I feel somewhat similar to this as I did with Pastner. It was time for him to go after the 2015 season, but I didn't want the school to fire him unless they were going to find a really good replacement. The situation with Tubby is not exactly the same because we are selling 100,000 less seats per season now than we were in 2016, Pastner's last season. If you figure that the average ticket price is between $30-60 when you factor in donations...that is a huge chunk of change.

The next hire is incredibly important, but I don't think we can afford to be as choosy as we would like. By the end of this season, not including his salary or staff salaries, Tubby will have cost the program anywhere between $5-10 million in ticket and donation revenues.

(01-30-2018 02:46 PM)Shooters Wrote:  No one that i recall has pointed out any pitfalls (of all the great minds assembled here) so I guess the AD would have figured this out by now and we will soon know whether he will act on it.

Edit: ad nauseum

(01-30-2018 04:32 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 02:46 PM)Shooters Wrote:  No one that i recall has pointed out any pitfalls (of all the great minds assembled here) so I guess the AD would have figured this out by now and we will soon know whether he will act on it.

Not sure what you mean by pitfalls. If it’s in regards to your contract logic for Tubby, th pitfall is the option in the contract to reduce the per year salary by 50% and double the remaining time. 1.5/year is what we owe Tubby in that situation. Hiring another coach to Memphis at 1.5/ would be a wash from what the Tub is making now.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume no increase in season ticket sales with a new coach who is willing to promote Tiger BB and recruit. Doing those two things successfully would probably triple the break even point of 600 new season tickets

(01-30-2018 04:23 PM)Stammers Wrote:  The snag with paying out the contract over 1 year, 3 years or 6 years is that it is new money from the boosters. This seems like an obvious point, but the importance of it is that if the boosters don't pay it and we keep Tubby, they don't lose any money, they are at the same commitment as they were at when Tubby was hired. I would think that the dynamic that is at play is whether Rudd and Bowen were the most enthusiastic about hiring Tubby, or if the boosters thought it was a great idea. This is kind of a key point, because if the boosters convinced Rudd and Bowen that it would be a good idea to hire Tubby, they would possibly be more open to paying for their mistake. If the boosters said that they weren't crazy about the idea but they would fund it anyway, then the admin might have a hard time convincing them to shell out the money for a buyout.

If the boosters pay it, it is right out of pocket on their part. If the boosters don't want to pay the buyout, the school loses all of the revenue.

I feel somewhat similar to this as I did with Pastner. It was time for him to go after the 2015 season, but I didn't want the school to fire him unless they were going to find a really good replacement. The situation with Tubby is not exactly the same because we are selling 100,000 less seats per season now than we were in 2016, Pastner's last season. If you figure that the average ticket price is between $30-60 when you factor in donations...that is a huge chunk of change.

The next hire is incredibly important, but I don't think we can afford to be as choosy as we would like. By the end of this season, not including his salary or staff salaries, Tubby will have cost the program anywhere between $5-10 million in ticket and donation revenues.

Not sure where you are coming up with $30-60 with donations. I remember when the CHEAPEST seat in the lower level was about $600 for season ticket and donation was $750 = $1350 ish divided by 18 games which is about $75 per game. The AVERAGE would be much higher.

One incentive for boosters is there is NO MONEY going to football program now and it will be needed at some point. Need to get back to 10-12K in attendance for a good start. I know you will pick this apart like a buzzard on road kill, but this is a concept not a financial proposal.

The biggest incentive will be when money from the FB program must be diverted to BB.

It has been said that BB is already losing money. I don't have access to the books. lol

(01-30-2018 05:14 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  The biggest incentive will be when money from the FB program must be diverted to BB.

It has been said that BB is already losing money. I don't have access to the books. lol

BB is not losing money -- it is making a lot less than it did , so it is a loss to the Athletic Department.

FB is not making money - it is no longer losing MILLIONS so it is a gain to the athletic department.

(01-30-2018 05:11 PM)Shooters Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 04:23 PM)Stammers Wrote:  The snag with paying out the contract over 1 year, 3 years or 6 years is that it is new money from the boosters. This seems like an obvious point, but the importance of it is that if the boosters don't pay it and we keep Tubby, they don't lose any money, they are at the same commitment as they were at when Tubby was hired. I would think that the dynamic that is at play is whether Rudd and Bowen were the most enthusiastic about hiring Tubby, or if the boosters thought it was a great idea. This is kind of a key point, because if the boosters convinced Rudd and Bowen that it would be a good idea to hire Tubby, they would possibly be more open to paying for their mistake. If the boosters said that they weren't crazy about the idea but they would fund it anyway, then the admin might have a hard time convincing them to shell out the money for a buyout.

If the boosters pay it, it is right out of pocket on their part. If the boosters don't want to pay the buyout, the school loses all of the revenue.

I feel somewhat similar to this as I did with Pastner. It was time for him to go after the 2015 season, but I didn't want the school to fire him unless they were going to find a really good replacement. The situation with Tubby is not exactly the same because we are selling 100,000 less seats per season now than we were in 2016, Pastner's last season. If you figure that the average ticket price is between $30-60 when you factor in donations...that is a huge chunk of change.

The next hire is incredibly important, but I don't think we can afford to be as choosy as we would like. By the end of this season, not including his salary or staff salaries, Tubby will have cost the program anywhere between $5-10 million in ticket and donation revenues.

Not sure where you are coming up with $30-60 with donations. I remember when the CHEAPEST seat in the lower level was about $600 for season ticket and donation was $750 = $1350 ish divided by 18 games which is about $75 per game. The AVERAGE would be much higher.

One incentive for boosters is there is NO MONEY going to football program now and it will be needed at some point. Need to get back to 10-12K in attendance for a good start. I know you will pick this apart like a buzzard on road kill, but this is a concept not a financial proposal.

I am being extremely conservative in my estimate to prevent from possibly exaggerating how screwed we are. There are a lot of tickets in the upper bowl that are not that expensive. If I had to guess I would say that he is probably going to cost us $12 million in revenues last year and this year.

(01-30-2018 05:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 05:11 PM)Shooters Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 04:23 PM)Stammers Wrote:  The snag with paying out the contract over 1 year, 3 years or 6 years is that it is new money from the boosters. This seems like an obvious point, but the importance of it is that if the boosters don't pay it and we keep Tubby, they don't lose any money, they are at the same commitment as they were at when Tubby was hired. I would think that the dynamic that is at play is whether Rudd and Bowen were the most enthusiastic about hiring Tubby, or if the boosters thought it was a great idea. This is kind of a key point, because if the boosters convinced Rudd and Bowen that it would be a good idea to hire Tubby, they would possibly be more open to paying for their mistake. If the boosters said that they weren't crazy about the idea but they would fund it anyway, then the admin might have a hard time convincing them to shell out the money for a buyout.

If the boosters pay it, it is right out of pocket on their part. If the boosters don't want to pay the buyout, the school loses all of the revenue.

I feel somewhat similar to this as I did with Pastner. It was time for him to go after the 2015 season, but I didn't want the school to fire him unless they were going to find a really good replacement. The situation with Tubby is not exactly the same because we are selling 100,000 less seats per season now than we were in 2016, Pastner's last season. If you figure that the average ticket price is between $30-60 when you factor in donations...that is a huge chunk of change.

The next hire is incredibly important, but I don't think we can afford to be as choosy as we would like. By the end of this season, not including his salary or staff salaries, Tubby will have cost the program anywhere between $5-10 million in ticket and donation revenues.

Not sure where you are coming up with $30-60 with donations. I remember when the CHEAPEST seat in the lower level was about $600 for season ticket and donation was $750 = $1350 ish divided by 18 games which is about $75 per game. The AVERAGE would be much higher.

One incentive for boosters is there is NO MONEY going to football program now and it will be needed at some point. Need to get back to 10-12K in attendance for a good start. I know you will pick this apart like a buzzard on road kill, but this is a concept not a financial proposal.

I am being extremely conservative in my estimate to prevent from possibly exaggerating how screwed we are. There are a lot of tickets in the upper bowl that are not that expensive. If I had to guess I would say that he is probably going to cost us $12 million in revenues last year and this year.

Agreed, conservatively.