Would you rather have us be 9-1 or 10-1 (Like Houston/Navy) playing today for spot in AAC final or be in the B1G (attempting to build program) and playing who we did this year. Don't answer you would rather be good in the B1G because at this point we just don't have the coach/talent ect for that. The question is only A or B....
Would you rather?
- Thread starter jerseyja
- Start date
I'd rather be in the Big Ten... although it's truly debatable as to whether or not we're attempting to build a program.
Only ad idiot would rather be Houston.
Heres why - because in the next 14 months Houston is going to have to go find a new coach to keep this level of success up, despite their previous AD having managed to lure a great one there. On the flip side, if we got a great HC, chances are fairly high that he would stay - he certainly wouldnt be leaving after one year.
Big ten . And hold out hope we may be respectable some day , even if it's by accident
F the Pac 12
Marry the Big Ten
Kill the AAC
Marry the Big Ten
Kill the AAC
If we never plan on competing in the Big Ten at least at the level of the bottom teir teams in terms of spending on coaching and facilities, I wish we would have stayed in the AAC. The manner in which we have made this move is a joke. And I have no faith things will change in five years. Or if there will be anything left to our fan base at that point.
Its not really a joke. Its just reality.
Every other Big Ten school except RU is getting over $25 million a year. We are getting $11 million a year. Every one has had decades as a P5 level team. We have had at best 20 years, and I would say 2 years given the level of the Big East was really somewhere lower than the current P5 as a whole. Every other Big Ten school is running at no subsidy, we are running a huge one. Most havent been getting their academic budget cut for a decade (some have in the past few years - none going back to before the recession.)
We will get a new coach at some point, he might or might not succeed. But the fan base will come back quickly when we finally do get a good one.. Just look at 2003-2006 - we went from 20,000 to 40,000. But yes - its gonna be a while before we invest big time to the point where great seasons arent just occasional one offs like Schiano had in 2006.
This will be just like when we started in the Big East. We will get pounded for the first 5-10 years with investing nothing into the program and just cashing checks. Then we will decide it's time to try once the subsidy is reduced to acceptable levels(where academia and media can no longer bitch). By that time we will be down, with only about 20,000 to 30,000 showing up for games and the cavern created will be vast to climb out of. It will take one maybe two coaches to get us out say another 5 to 7 years than we will be decent. So by my math give or take 13 years till we are competitive. This seems to be the administrations thought process if you go by previous decisions. It's not pretty for the next decade. But hey we're in the B1G right, there is a faint light at the end of a long, long, long tunnel.
That being said - it would be no different in the AAC. Need I remind you that we didnt win a single conference title in the BIg East. We barely eked into a four way co-cha,pionship in the AAC.
Its like RUBB - a team that was barely hanging onto middling ended up getting drubbed.
The difference I think will be - we will actually have SOME money to spend relative to many of the nations lower tier P5 programs because of the HUGE Big Ten payouts- unlike BB - where we spent basically nothing on the program because the FB program and the conference werent making all that much at the time.
O I'm not saying I'd rather be in the AAC. Far from it. I'm just looking at reality here. We can't spend because of pressure put on athletics via academia, politics and the media I get that. You get this subsidy down to say 5 mil. then when you spend people really can't bitch although they may try it will be laughed at. That's when you can start spending. It's going to be along way off till we are at least competitive. If you go by history I really don't think my math is that far off. I'm just saying it's going to be a long dark road till then. With stadiums filled with 30,000 fans and visiting teams fans taking over the stadium (see Indiana and Purdue).
Im not saying its that far off. Im just saying the end result will be better than BB has been. Because we will have SOME money to spend relative to other teams nationally, the FB (and BB) teams will recover unlike BB in the Big East.
My other point is - duh - this was obvious when we accepted the invitation in 2012. I dont know why people thought otherwise.
