Question is in the thread title. Say the school/Tilman/whoever pay off Dana and hire someone like Jeff Traylor, who would actually be a pretty solid get for us this cycle. Would we have a better team the next 3 years just with Traylor and no change to NIL or if instead of paying the $15 million to fire Dana he got that in the NIL to buy transfers and recruits? I honestly kind of think it would be the latter.
This isn’t a Dana defense/pumper thread and it’s also not quite that easy. But in the NIL age there may end up being a correction in how this money gets allocated. Aggie boosters bought Jimbo a #1 recruiting class and it didn’t quite work out, but even still they may have been better off giving him $10 million or whatever the next several years to go shopping in the portal rather than hiring Kiffin or whoever ends up replacing him.
Imo, players are going to leave a bad situation. Might as well get paid at new spot. I don’t think losing players to NIL would be as big of a problem if we were winning. Winning means guys are playing well and NIL would be better. Maybe we still lose a few players anyway but end of day Dana isn’t winning so guys start looking.
I get your point, i truly do but id rather invest in a coach that can get the most out of his players and level them up. Being dependant on talent alone is not a winning formula in the longrun. (Jimbo)
A coach that can win and beat more talented squads is a coach id ride with. Dana does not inspire
Question is better answered after it is done. All depends on which coach is hired and which players are bought. Buy the wrong players and the whole thing was a waste. Get the wrong coach and hte whole thing is a waste.
SigEpCoog2005
(SHAUN - Bill Yeoman needs to be honored with a BOBBLEHEAD!)
15
I think the problem is if we tap out the donors to pay the 6thish largest buyout in the history of college football do we have any money left for NIL… and in 2 years yall will be calling for the new guys head because we fire coaches that go 8-4.
I don’t think the fans turned on CDH purely on wins and losses. Poor recruiting and poor post game comments also facfor into this. Btw I’m not on the Fritz or Traylor train for replacements.
Im not a Briles fan and not sure what he has to do with Dana. Dana has had more advantages than any coach in recent memory and been a disappointment. Throwing more money for players is a band-aid remedy.
It will not solve the issue of his work ethic, recruitment or gameplanning. When he was a young coach he was hungry and it showed. Hes a vet now and as with any job sometimes those who feel theyve paid their dues tend to not work as hard
I’m not expecting a Tom Herman miracle to occur after Holgorsen is gone. I’m just saying bring in a coach and good assistants who can build a program from the ground up. Hire someone who can get a respectful recruiting ranking and not take chances by being lazy and depend mostly on the transfer portal.
If we have a losing record his first season, it won’t be unexpected. If that record improves over the next few seasons, we win bowls and start getting votes in the polls, people on here will be wanting to keep that coach like they wanted to keep Briles, Sumlin, and Herman.
As for who we should hire, I would think we’ve been researching that and already have a list of names we want to choose from.