Ok... I am tired of the back and forth on Edsall, with the "gotta give him at least 3 years" or "fire him for poor performance". A lot of arguments can be made either way, so they are kind of pointless. First off, I will watch every game regardless of how good or bad we are. I was against the RE hire from the jump, but when I am faced with a debate over my school, I look at what I want to happen and weigh it against the numbers. I thought it would not be financially feasible to fire Edsall, but look at the history.
In 2000, Ralph increased attendeance by an avg of 9,436 per game. This would be the equivalent of making a splash with the next coach in 2012. Assuming people spend about $60 per game(parking, ticket, food and beverage... low estimate I think, but anyway) This equated to an extra $6.01 million in revenue in a single season. That could easily pay for your buyout. Then after the original year, Ralph increased revenue by an average of $450,000.00 per year. (Than he started going backwards until he was resigned/ fired).
Now the flip side of the coin using history, regardless of it being Edsall. Here are the years following bad seasons.
Yr. Record Attendance Drop per game Financial +/- yr.
1989-90 3-7 to 6-5 -4,200 -$1.24 mil.
1991-92 2-10 to 3-9 -10,300 -$3.70 mil.
1993-94 2-9 to 4-7 -7,400 -$2.52 mil.
2009-10 2-10 to 9-4 -5,400 -$2.20 mil.
So no matter what Edsall does next year, we are looking at around $2.4 million deficit on top of our already bad financial situation. The numbers make sense even though they are very rudimentary. Edsall has to go, so their goes the financial argument. So for all of you out there that say he needs more time... Time is money and the more time he gets the more money OUR school loses and the further we get set back from excellence. I am a huge fan and will never be accused otherwise, and me calling for his head has a base behind it and is not short sided. So if you find your self arguing to no avail... point to the numbers, they never lie.