again..you’re talking about the team. My post is about the “program” which was rendered dead by many on Thursday. There’s a difference between the two - but tonight’s game at the RAC put to rest, in my opinion, the program is dead.
The team? Sure, we’ll see where they are at in the next few games.
So the question for you is.. if this team continued as it had been, finished at .500 even with 2 superstars.. does that mean the program is mired in mediocrity for long enough to call it "dead"?
Also, while we have 2 superstars in these early days of NIL.. could we afford that based on the idea that if big time supporters fund big time recruits then we will become a top-flight program.. only to see this year's results dispute that? If the money dries up, then, in these days of NIL, would the program then be effectively "dead"?
I don't really care about entertaining and arguing answers to these questions. I am merely pointing out that those who want to see problems and danger can do so without too much effort.. and do so logically.
Just think about the last days of Big East football and Rutgers going to the AAC. Seemed like the end of the world. Schiano saw recruiting failures and the problems and limitations involved in being in such a conference. Some here could have talked about the effective end of the program.. and rightfully so. And then... the Big Ten came calling.
So.. my response to questions about the end of the football or basketball programs is that we are in the Big Ten... so that ain't gonna happen. But I understand the conditions that can limit future success.
