The point, therefore, is not to indulge in the game day histrionics on message boards or comments sections, and focus on the capital building process.
Think Brad Pitt's Billy Beane in Moneyball. "I never watch the games." Or Sun Tzu: "every battle is won before it's fought."
We've agreed to compete in a league for 7 years under unfair competitive circumstances, already forgetting the standard competitive disadvantages of the league in which we compete (no "salary cap," no talent draft, geared toward sustaining the "status quo" ...), so the idea that Rutgers should or can be competitive on the field or court against teams that enjoy such rich advantages seems rather astounding. Kind of ridiculous, actually. The Big Ten is already reaping the rewards of the New York City DMA -- which, as anyone will tell you -- is the only reason we're in the conference. If the conference is already seeing its dividends, it seems patently unfair that we're not.
With that in mind, I tend to keep my focus on shovels and cranes rather than whether or not we can convert on third-and-short. Rutgers is not a championship athletic department, and it won't be without facilities. Not a facilities plan, but actual facilities.
For the first time in years, I like the leadership I have in Piscataway, rather than being merely loyal to them, no matter what. If Hobbs had been able to go out and raise $75MM in a year to fund Rutgers Athletics' capital ambitions, I might have said, "yes, we should start winning immediately." The fact that this effort is going to take longer than that goes hand-in-hand with the notion that "winning" is a longer build as well, and it's easier to gauge progress in bricks and mortar than it is in wins and losses.
