Disclaimers first: I'm not a Mullen fan and think we need to move on from him. This post is not about whether I think we will or should hire him.
With that said, hiring Mullen presents some interesting potential budgetary benefits.
1. No buyout. I've seen numbers ranging from $8-12 million to buy out candidates like Chadwell, Lashley, etc. My assumption is that we don't pay buyouts out of operating funds and that major boosters kick in the money. What if we could convince heavy hitters to throw, say, $5MM that would have gone to a buyout into NIL if we hire Mullen? Seems like that would move the needle significantly.
2. Recruiting isn't Dan's strong suit. Would an NIL fund that's no longer last in the SEC offset this weakness enough?
3. Dan might be induced to take a relatively low salary in exchange for performance incentives. This is because unlike other candidates (a) he's made big money already, (b) he knows exactly what he's getting into and what's possible, and (c) he could buy himself some goodwill with people upset with him for leaving before by taking a salary of "only" $3 million. This would free up a few million per year to boost the recruiting budget, hire portal analysts, and all the other things we complain about not spending money on.
Clearly, we shouldn't hire the wrong guy just because of money. But Mullen presents some significant financial upside opportunities while allowing us to make a relatively low-risk hire.
With that said, hiring Mullen presents some interesting potential budgetary benefits.
1. No buyout. I've seen numbers ranging from $8-12 million to buy out candidates like Chadwell, Lashley, etc. My assumption is that we don't pay buyouts out of operating funds and that major boosters kick in the money. What if we could convince heavy hitters to throw, say, $5MM that would have gone to a buyout into NIL if we hire Mullen? Seems like that would move the needle significantly.
2. Recruiting isn't Dan's strong suit. Would an NIL fund that's no longer last in the SEC offset this weakness enough?
3. Dan might be induced to take a relatively low salary in exchange for performance incentives. This is because unlike other candidates (a) he's made big money already, (b) he knows exactly what he's getting into and what's possible, and (c) he could buy himself some goodwill with people upset with him for leaving before by taking a salary of "only" $3 million. This would free up a few million per year to boost the recruiting budget, hire portal analysts, and all the other things we complain about not spending money on.
Clearly, we shouldn't hire the wrong guy just because of money. But Mullen presents some significant financial upside opportunities while allowing us to make a relatively low-risk hire.
