gardenstatebear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:

1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.

I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.

---

The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....

Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.

---

The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.

In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.

Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

---

Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say

---

This actually creates an incentive to stay in the Pac-12.

---

Except for the $$$

---

Yeah unless we routinely make playoff trips in a stripped-down PAC-12, better to take the money in the Big Ten even if it means we're getting beaten up a bit.

---

So we're trying to jump to the Big Ten so we can have more money. Money is CRUCIAL to be competitive.
But we're switching to a conference with much harder competition, so we'll be less competitive.

Ok, got it!

And yes, I understand this is the reality of the current college football environment. But when you're chasing money for money's sake, why are you doing it? Who really benefits? Will this improve the game on the field? Will this improve the game-day experience for Cal fans? Will this improve the college football experience for Cal students? Or will the main improvement for fans really just be the spectacle/presentation piped into our homes that we can watch on our 85" screens with all our personal creature comforts? (And no inconveniences like east-side stadium temps, parking hassles and all the rest.)

Oh and the TRUE beneficiaries? Everyone feeding at the trough that is college football, mainly the head coaches, their coordinators, and the top-level execs. throughout the system. THEY are the ones to realize the big benefits of the current system.

Is that really what "student athletes" should be playing for?

---

I think this is a great point TandemBear. We seem to want to go to the Big 10 for no other reason than the "fear of missing out". We almost have to join at this point because if we don't - the house crumbles. We miss out on all the money to get beaten up on so we can save all other sports. Is it worth it? Probably.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We're praying for a Pac 6 lite - to get UCLA, Oregon, SC, Stanford and UW every year, plus 5 more in conference rotation and two OOC pansies. And I say, what is the difference? Probably upwards of $20-30 mil. Perhaps not at the start.

I'm not sure what defines student athlete anymore. But for all the people on their knees begging to get into the Big10, is it worth the price of going .500 or less every year for a few million more? To save intercollegiate athletics at Cal, probably.

---

Setting aside the benefit of saving the scholarships of 800 plus students who might not otherwise be able to attend Cal, I think the subtext is that we believe with the investments we are making we can create a championship program. Candidly the Big 10 is not all that even today and with size, recruiting pool, history and academic profile I like Cal's chances in competing with this group. I personally wouldn't support it, much less promote it, if I didn't think that Cal has the raw building materials to win.

---

Oski87 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say

---

This actually creates an incentive to stay in the Pac-12.

---

Except for the $$$

---

Yeah unless we routinely make playoff trips in a stripped-down PAC-12, better to take the money in the Big Ten even if it means we're getting beaten up a bit.

---

So we're trying to jump to the Big Ten so we can have more money. Money is CRUCIAL to be competitive.
But we're switching to a conference with much harder competition, so we'll be less competitive.

Ok, got it!

And yes, I understand this is the reality of the current college football environment. But when you're chasing money for money's sake, why are you doing it? Who really benefits? Will this improve the game on the field? Will this improve the game-day experience for Cal fans? Will this improve the college football experience for Cal students? Or will the main improvement for fans really just be the spectacle/presentation piped into our homes that we can watch on our 85" screens with all our personal creature comforts? (And no inconveniences like east-side stadium temps, parking hassles and all the rest.)

Oh and the TRUE beneficiaries? Everyone feeding at the trough that is college football, mainly the head coaches, their coordinators, and the top-level execs. throughout the system. THEY are the ones to realize the big benefits of the current system.

Is that really what "student athletes" should be playing for?

---

I think this is a great point TandemBear. We seem to want to go to the Big 10 for no other reason than the "fear of missing out". We almost have to join at this point because if we don't - the house crumbles. We miss out on all the money to get beaten up on so we can save all other sports. Is it worth it? Probably.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We're praying for a Pac 6 lite - to get UCLA, Oregon, SC, Stanford and UW every year, plus 5 more in conference rotation and two OOC pansies. And I say, what is the difference? Probably upwards of $20-30 mil. Perhaps not at the start.

I'm not sure what defines student athlete anymore. But for all the people on their knees begging to get into the Big10, is it worth the price of going .500 or less every year for a few million more? To save intercollegiate athletics at Cal, probably.

---

Part of the value being created with the new mergers and playoffs is that games against pansies will be eliminated in favor of more compelling (and marketable) in-conference matchups. Otherwise, there is little real economic value being created.

The breakup of the PAC-12 is largely due to mismanagement. Thanks to Larry Scott and the ADs that enabled him, we have not be able to capture our full value and squandered much of what we did capture on his lavish offices, lifestyle and love of Olympic sports. A conference with better management sees us as undervalued, is confident they can better market us to TV (and eliminate our sizable overhead) and so adds us to their portfolio. Given the equal revenue sharing in the PAC-12 that meant some schools are SEVERELY under valued. They picked off the highest value programs first, capturing much of that value for their existing members knowing that strengthens their position with the rest which they know will fall like dominoes.

In the end we will be a Pacific Division of some size with a tougher schedule, more late afternoon or night games, better TV contracts and all our games will be more readily found on broadcast or streaming with more money coming in to the AD, but not as much if we had just been competently run all along.

---

Going to the Big 10 our football schedule would not be significantly different than the one we currently have. We play all of the same schools that we currently play except for OSU and WSU, and replace them with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, for example. Is that really a murderers row? I think Utah, ASU, WSU and Ore State is just as formidable. I mean, we still play Oregon, Washington, Stanford, USC and UCLA every year. It's not like they are going to Cal / Ohio State on a every year ticket.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/report-big-ten-targeting-5-major-schools-for-conference-expansion

Quote:

---

The Big Ten is reportedly "targeting" five schools for expansion, including Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and two more Pac-12 schools. Those final two programs likely include Cal and Stanford.

---

---

There would also be an expanded College football playoff.

---

It just did.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say

---

This actually creates an incentive to stay in the Pac-12.

---

Except for the $$$

---

Yeah unless we routinely make playoff trips in a stripped-down PAC-12, better to take the money in the Big Ten even if it means we're getting beaten up a bit.

---

So we're trying to jump to the Big Ten so we can have more money. Money is CRUCIAL to be competitive.
But we're switching to a conference with much harder competition, so we'll be less competitive.

Ok, got it!

And yes, I understand this is the reality of the current college football environment. But when you're chasing money for money's sake, why are you doing it? Who really benefits? Will this improve the game on the field? Will this improve the game-day experience for Cal fans? Will this improve the college football experience for Cal students? Or will the main improvement for fans really just be the spectacle/presentation piped into our homes that we can watch on our 85" screens with all our personal creature comforts? (And no inconveniences like east-side stadium temps, parking hassles and all the rest.)

Oh and the TRUE beneficiaries? Everyone feeding at the trough that is college football, mainly the head coaches, their coordinators, and the top-level execs. throughout the system. THEY are the ones to realize the big benefits of the current system.

Is that really what "student athletes" should be playing for?

---

I think this is a great point TandemBear. We seem to want to go to the Big 10 for no other reason than the "fear of missing out". We almost have to join at this point because if we don't - the house crumbles. We miss out on all the money to get beaten up on so we can save all other sports. Is it worth it? Probably.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We're praying for a Pac 6 lite - to get UCLA, Oregon, SC, Stanford and UW every year, plus 5 more in conference rotation and two OOC pansies. And I say, what is the difference? Probably upwards of $20-30 mil. Perhaps not at the start.

I'm not sure what defines student athlete anymore. But for all the people on their knees begging to get into the Big10, is it worth the price of going .500 or less every year for a few million more? To save intercollegiate athletics at Cal, probably.

---

Setting aside the benefit of saving the scholarships of 800 plus students who might not otherwise be able to attend Cal, I think the subtext is that we believe with the investments we are making we can create a championship program. Candidly the Big 10 is not all that even today and with size, recruiting pool, history and academic profile I like Cal's chances in competing with this group. I personally wouldn't support it, much less promote it, if I didn't think that Cal has the raw building materials to win.

---

Well, perhaps they would be able to attend Cal, but they may not choose to come here if there is no sport to play. I see no investments that we are currently making - apart from the stadium and the SAHPC - that would create a championship program. A winning program? Possibly. A championship one? Seriously?? These investments that you write of have yielded 3 winning seasons since 2012.

Since entry into the Big 10, Maryland has had 2 winning seasons (2014, 2021). Rutgers has had one (2014). We are farther away than you think and likely even further away at being consistently good. It will be a rough road in the B1G. I see nothing in our history that tells a different story

---

To be fair the investments I'm speaking about are new, so the jury is still out on their efficaciousness. The Championship Caliber fund was started last year and we've already received donations and pledges of over $5m all specifically for football. The Certification program to retain grad students is less than 3 years old. The $8m + Cameron Center was founded at the same time. The Travers family endowed the head football coaching position for $7.5 million just last year. Our collective is two weeks old, etc.

Has any of this resulted in a championship yet? Obviously not. But it's also fair to say that the impact of the money and administrative improvements still isn't close to really being felt.

Cal is (finally) making real investments. And we can make a lot more. We just need a shot to see if some of our efforts can pay off.

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.

For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.

For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.

And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.

---

Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.

---

airspace said:

---

Greetings from the hinterlands of Ohio. 1978 Grad of Ohio State.

I have no Big Ten connections BUT have been a long time follower of expansion of the Big Ten since the 1980's. Like most of you, speculation but from a midwestern perspective.

USC/UCLA are going to get a full share. This is based on the revenue they generate from their market value. Based on what the Big Ten has said, they will cover their costs.

The major reason WHY schools have a buy into the Big Ten, is due to the Big Ten Network. The first few years, Big Ten schools did not derive any money from the network. In essence they plowed that money back into the network, building up equity. That is what each school is buying into when joining the Big Ten, thus a lower amount.

Also, each school, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers got separate deals. Each based on their value and their circumstances. Each school did not receive less than what they had in their own conference. Usually more than what they had BUT less than what other Big Ten schools received. After their buy in time, they received equal shares. Maryland, much like you had massive deficits in their athletic fund (why they turned to the Big Ten).

I do believe Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal are going to the Big Ten. I believe they are in negotiations now. Just a matter of what valuation they place on each school and how it is negotiated by each. Could they come in a group buy? Possible, be honest don't know but could happen.

In the media deal, there is room for an increase in the valuation. This is where I believe the payout for the expansion will come without impacting what other Big Ten schools get.

Good luck.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

airspace said:

---

Greetings from the hinterlands of Ohio. 1978 Grad of Ohio State.

I have no Big Ten connections BUT have been a long time follower of expansion of the Big Ten since the 1980's. Like most of you, speculation but from a midwestern perspective.

USC/UCLA are going to get a full share. This is based on the revenue they generate from their market value. Based on what the Big Ten has said, they will cover their costs.

The major reason WHY schools have a buy into the Big Ten, is due to the Big Ten Network. The first few years, Big Ten schools did not derive any money from the network. In essence they plowed that money back into the network, building up equity. That is what each school is buying into when joining the Big Ten, thus a lower amount.

Also, each school, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers got separate deals. Each based on their value and their circumstances. Each school did not receive less than what they had in their own conference. Usually more than what they had BUT less than what other Big Ten schools received. After their buy in time, they received equal shares. Maryland, much like you had massive deficits in their athletic fund (why they turned to the Big Ten).

I do believe Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal are going to the Big Ten. I believe they are in negotiations now. Just a matter of what valuation they place on each school and how it is negotiated by each. Could they come in a group buy? Possible, be honest don't know but could happen.

In the media deal, there is room for an increase in the valuation. This is where I believe the payout for the expansion will come without impacting what other Big Ten schools get.

Good luck.

---

Once again, best case for Cal.

---

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

airspace said:

---

Greetings from the hinterlands of Ohio. 1978 Grad of Ohio State.

I have no Big Ten connections BUT have been a long time follower of expansion of the Big Ten since the 1980's. Like most of you, speculation but from a midwestern perspective.

USC/UCLA are going to get a full share. This is based on the revenue they generate from their market value. Based on what the Big Ten has said, they will cover their costs.

The major reason WHY schools have a buy into the Big Ten, is due to the Big Ten Network. The first few years, Big Ten schools did not derive any money from the network. In essence they plowed that money back into the network, building up equity. That is what each school is buying into when joining the Big Ten, thus a lower amount.

Also, each school, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers got separate deals. Each based on their value and their circumstances. Each school did not receive less than what they had in their own conference. Usually more than what they had BUT less than what other Big Ten schools received. After their buy in time, they received equal shares. Maryland, much like you had massive deficits in their athletic fund (why they turned to the Big Ten).

I do believe Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal are going to the Big Ten. I believe they are in negotiations now. Just a matter of what valuation they place on each school and how it is negotiated by each. Could they come in a group buy? Possible, be honest don't know but could happen.

In the media deal, there is room for an increase in the valuation. This is where I believe the payout for the expansion will come without impacting what other Big Ten schools get.

Good luck.

---

Once again, best case for Cal.

---

Very realistic case, too.

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

GMP said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

"...I think the subtext is that we believe with the investments we are making we can create a championship program."

You may indeed be right. Or this may prove to be a fool's errand. Wishful thinking. (However, I'll admit, I'm assuming by "championship program," you mean at the national level. Cal can easily become a CONFERENCE championship program if they encourage all our current competitive rivals to leave the P12 so we can beat up on the new lower-tier arrivals. But I'm pretty sure that is NOT what we want.)

Because if I remember correctly, we rebuilt the stadium & facilities to give our program a MAJOR boost to achieve that very same goal. Yes, we piggybacked upon the crucially-important seismic upgrade that had to happen, but we didn't have to spend a half a billion bucks to bolt the stadium to its foundation!

We did it to reach the top. And we got close - however, that was BEFORE our new facilities' final plans were even dry! We were on the cusp of a #1 ranking BEFORE the first shovel full of dirt was dug. How ironic that our program reached such lofty heights when we still had the crappiest facilities in the conference!

What have we seen for our expenditure? More mediocrity. If you assess our ROI on the stadium, it's proven to be a complete failure from the hoped-for "success" metric. We never could have known how the college football financial landscape was just about the be ratcheted up into the stratosphere. Now that we know that, I can't imagine how this trend won't not only continue, but accelerate. How does moving to the B10 change this?

I hate to say it, but it's pretty clear we will never devote as much institutional energy, financial commitment, administrative support, or academic devotion to college football, nor ever have anything resembling the rabid fan bases of the tOSUs, Alabamas, LSUs, Texas's or any of the rest. I fear our geographic and demographic position eliminates this possibility.

Southern California naysayers could make the same arguments for U$C and fUCLA: they may NEVER be able to compete for a championship, coming from a part of the country that doesn't value football like the midwest and southeast.

But going along for the ride may still be a lot of fun. I imagine the game on the field will improve. Our involvement in a new conference alignment may bring unexpected benefits we can't even imagine. But I sure will feel for our "student" athletes who have to travel across the country while pretending to be serious college students at a prestigious academic institution.

---

If you ask me what it takes to be a world champion sprinter, I might say, "One if the first things you'll need is a good pair of running cleats. If you try to run barefoot, you're going to get destroyed." For this exercise, we'll ignore natural physical ability.

So then you run out and get a really nice pair of spikes. Light, strong, flashy. Expensive! You are ready! But then you go out and race and lose. Badly! And you come back to me and say, "You said all I needed to do to compete as a world class sprinter was this fancy pair of shoes! But I keep losing!"

"No," I'd say. "That was just the start. You also need to practice and eat healthy and invest time and money into those things. You need to work at least as hard as your competition."

The SAHPC was the start. It's a foundation. Without it, we cannot compete. But that does not mean that with it we don't need to continue to try.

---

philly1121 said:

---

GMP said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

"...I think the subtext is that we believe with the investments we are making we can create a championship program."

You may indeed be right. Or this may prove to be a fool's errand. Wishful thinking. (However, I'll admit, I'm assuming by "championship program," you mean at the national level. Cal can easily become a CONFERENCE championship program if they encourage all our current competitive rivals to leave the P12 so we can beat up on the new lower-tier arrivals. But I'm pretty sure that is NOT what we want.)

Because if I remember correctly, we rebuilt the stadium & facilities to give our program a MAJOR boost to achieve that very same goal. Yes, we piggybacked upon the crucially-important seismic upgrade that had to happen, but we didn't have to spend a half a billion bucks to bolt the stadium to its foundation!

We did it to reach the top. And we got close - however, that was BEFORE our new facilities' final plans were even dry! We were on the cusp of a #1 ranking BEFORE the first shovel full of dirt was dug. How ironic that our program reached such lofty heights when we still had the crappiest facilities in the conference!

What have we seen for our expenditure? More mediocrity. If you assess our ROI on the stadium, it's proven to be a complete failure from the hoped-for "success" metric. We never could have known how the college football financial landscape was just about the be ratcheted up into the stratosphere. Now that we know that, I can't imagine how this trend won't not only continue, but accelerate. How does moving to the B10 change this?

I hate to say it, but it's pretty clear we will never devote as much institutional energy, financial commitment, administrative support, or academic devotion to college football, nor ever have anything resembling the rabid fan bases of the tOSUs, Alabamas, LSUs, Texas's or any of the rest. I fear our geographic and demographic position eliminates this possibility.

Southern California naysayers could make the same arguments for U$C and fUCLA: they may NEVER be able to compete for a championship, coming from a part of the country that doesn't value football like the midwest and southeast.

But going along for the ride may still be a lot of fun. I imagine the game on the field will improve. Our involvement in a new conference alignment may bring unexpected benefits we can't even imagine. But I sure will feel for our "student" athletes who have to travel across the country while pretending to be serious college students at a prestigious academic institution.

---

If you ask me what it takes to be a world champion sprinter, I might say, "One if the first things you'll need is a good pair of running cleats. If you try to run barefoot, you're going to get destroyed." For this exercise, we'll ignore natural physical ability.

So then you run out and get a really nice pair of spikes. Light, strong, flashy. Expensive! You are ready! But then you go out and race and lose. Badly! And you come back to me and say, "You said all I needed to do to compete as a world class sprinter was this fancy pair of shoes! But I keep losing!"

"No," I'd say. "That was just the start. You also need to practice and eat healthy and invest time and money into those things. You need to work at least as hard as your competition."

The SAHPC was the start. It's a foundation. Without it, we cannot compete. But that does not mean that with it we don't need to continue to try.

---

That was NOT how the stadium improvement, SAHPC was sold to us. It was presented to us as a means to stay competitive and to attract recruits. We were more competitive prior to the improvements than when they were finished.

So if our boys stay fit, practice, eat healthy and wear all the latest UnderArmor gear with new facilities to boot - then what? Are you saying that the reason that we have not been successful since 2012 is because we are not trying? It has been 10 years. We have not been competitive in our own conference. Your analogy does not fit the facts.

---

sycasey said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

The whole basketball situation frustrates me because its theoretically very fixable. Get a coach who can recruit, and since freshman can actually have a tremendous impact in college hoops, you could theoretically turn a program around in 1-2 seasons. In fact, with the transfer portal, it's even easier now! Yet, here we are possibly to be handicapped til '24 if Fox fills up too many scholarship spots with the levels of players he's been recruiting

---

Cuonzo basically did it by getting Brown and Raab.

Obviously he wasn't a long-term solution and then stuck us with the worst possible successor, but quick turnarounds can be done. I don't see it happening with Fox.

---

coachdeke said:

---

sycasey said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

The whole basketball situation frustrates me because its theoretically very fixable. Get a coach who can recruit, and since freshman can actually have a tremendous impact in college hoops, you could theoretically turn a program around in 1-2 seasons. In fact, with the transfer portal, it's even easier now! Yet, here we are possibly to be handicapped til '24 if Fox fills up too many scholarship spots with the levels of players he's been recruiting

---

Cuonzo basically did it by getting Brown and Raab.

Obviously he wasn't a long-term solution and then stuck us with the worst possible successor, but quick turnarounds can be done. I don't see it happening with Fox.

---

We'll never know about Wyking; he should of been given another year, unlike Mark Fox who should have been fired last year. We missed an opportunity to Dennis Gates.
Wyking recruited well and we would have seen what he had .

---

coachdeke said:

---

sycasey said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

The whole basketball situation frustrates me because its theoretically very fixable. Get a coach who can recruit, and since freshman can actually have a tremendous impact in college hoops, you could theoretically turn a program around in 1-2 seasons. In fact, with the transfer portal, it's even easier now! Yet, here we are possibly to be handicapped til '24 if Fox fills up too many scholarship spots with the levels of players he's been recruiting

---

Cuonzo basically did it by getting Brown and Raab.

Obviously he wasn't a long-term solution and then stuck us with the worst possible successor, but quick turnarounds can be done. I don't see it happening with Fox.

---

We'll never know about Wyking; he should of been given another year, unlike Mark Fox who should have been fired last year. We missed an opportunity to Dennis Gates.
Wyking recruited well and we would have seen what he had .

---

coachdeke said:

---

sycasey said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

The whole basketball situation frustrates me because its theoretically very fixable. Get a coach who can recruit, and since freshman can actually have a tremendous impact in college hoops, you could theoretically turn a program around in 1-2 seasons. In fact, with the transfer portal, it's even easier now! Yet, here we are possibly to be handicapped til '24 if Fox fills up too many scholarship spots with the levels of players he's been recruiting

---

Cuonzo basically did it by getting Brown and Raab.

Obviously he wasn't a long-term solution and then stuck us with the worst possible successor, but quick turnarounds can be done. I don't see it happening with Fox.

---

We'll never know about Wyking; he should of been given another year, unlike Mark Fox who should have been fired last year. We missed an opportunity to Dennis Gates.
Wyking recruited well and we would have seen what he had .

---

fat_slice said:

---

coachdeke said:

---

sycasey said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

philbert said:

---

Or to use a basketball analogy: getting a practice facility will help you keep up with the competition, but you still need a coach who can recruit well and coach up the players.

---

The whole basketball situation frustrates me because its theoretically very fixable. Get a coach who can recruit, and since freshman can actually have a tremendous impact in college hoops, you could theoretically turn a program around in 1-2 seasons. In fact, with the transfer portal, it's even easier now! Yet, here we are possibly to be handicapped til '24 if Fox fills up too many scholarship spots with the levels of players he's been recruiting

---

Cuonzo basically did it by getting Brown and Raab.

Obviously he wasn't a long-term solution and then stuck us with the worst possible successor, but quick turnarounds can be done. I don't see it happening with Fox.

---

We'll never know about Wyking; he should of been given another year, unlike Mark Fox who should have been fired last year. We missed an opportunity to Dennis Gates.
Wyking recruited well and we would have seen what he had .

---

I could be wrong but I thought some of the main players on the team said they wouldn't be back if Wyoming was still the coach? We just ended up hiring the wrong guy.

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.

---

TandemBear said:

---

Arcadiabear said:

---

Yup. Looks like everyone here is on the exact same page except for tandembear who invented a point that nobody was making.

Switching conference at this point is like giving the program air and water. Does having those mean that you live a great life? no, but it means you get to live for another day.

---

It was said we needed to switch to the Big10 to increase revenue to stay competitive. Actually, the quote said to challenge for a championship (whatever "championship" the poster meant is unclear).

And I've argued the opposite is true. Several have agreed that we won't actually be more competitive. It's so we can simply tread water. I get it. Moving to the Big10 will NOT bring us closer to winning a Big10 championship. Nor a national championship. That's simply not gonna happen. So again, we're just trying to stay afloat.

But is "treading water" worth the effort? Sending our "student" athletes across the country will now be even more taxing. For what point? To be competitive? Nope. To "keep up with the Jonses."

And "the Jonses" are the money-making machine that is college football. We've lost the entire point. We'll be sending our soccer and baseball players and Olympic sports athletes further afield to compete so our coaches and support staff can make more money.

Which is what many here are completely missing.

---