Bumped from the diaries. Hope folks at Morgan Center read this post closely, especially that last line from 77. GO BRUINS. -N
I must admit to a large amount of Dump Dorrell fatigue (not the web site, just the subject). The reasons for Toast's just and imminent departure are too numerous and have been discussed pretty much without end here on BN and are also taking hold in the MSM. I was putting a personal moratorium on the continued discussion because it seems so obvious why Toast is toast. Unfortunately, I keep getting riled up by the speculation that Toast could still be around next year. So as a cathartic end to my frustration with Toast, I am posting what are expect to be my final rebuttal to what I believe are the only two semi-plausible arguments still out there for retaining Toast: 1) to retain the recruits that have orally committed; and, 2) UCLA can't afford, or won't pay, for a decent replacement, plus cover the cost of Toast's buyout package.
One class of recruits is not going to make or break for UCLA football. Does it make sense to jeopardize the potential for turning around a floundering program by betting on one recruiting class? Also, why does anyone believe that keeping Toast at this point will hold this recruiting class together? With all the open speculation about the future of Toast, even if these commits are in love with playing for Toast (I know that is a dubious assumption, but one that is thrown out by the Dorrellistas), these recruits have to recognize, based on Toast's record to date, that his days as the head coach at UCLA are limited. Since many of these potential incoming freshmen would most likely redshirt next year, they have to rbe thinking that they most likely will never play a down for Toast. Therefore, if Toast is the attraction for them to come to UCLA, for that reason alone, they are probably already reconsidering their commitments.
Point two is even more ridiculous than the "keep the recruits" argument. UCLA can not afford to keep Toast. Last year (2006) UCLA's football attendance for seven home games was 454,683. That's an average of almost 65,000 per game. If Toast is retained and the Bruins continue to put a mediocre team on the field, attendance will drop. Assuming that average attendance drops by only 5,000 per game, which is less than 10%, at an average ticket price of around $40, UCLA will lose $200,000 per game in ticket sales. That doesn't even count lost parking and concession revenue or the financial impact from a drop in donations and lost TV revenue (since TV appearances will also most likely go down). I think these are very conservative estimates, but in ticket sales alone, the lost revenue from ten games will pay for Toast's buyout. Also, assuming the program turns around, a 10% increase in attendance is not unreasonable. That could more than pay for the increased salary of a high profile coach. If Dan Guerrero can't be convinced that Toast is toast based on his inept on field performance, then maybe the money argument will make sense to him and his fiduciary responsiblities for UCLA athletics.
While I would love to say this is the last time I will let the Dorrellistas and there unsupported arguments to retain the most inept coach UCLA has had in generations, get under my skin. But as a season ticket holder of more than 30 years, I just can not let stand any chance that Toast will not be gone by December 3. Of course, if he isn't gone, my annual donation to the Bruin Athletic Club and season tickets will be gone from the cofers of the UCLA Athletic Department