Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Doc5120, post: 2755961, member: 3594"]
I agree with literally everything you're saying. Football drives the bus financially. I am not debating that. I believe we're using different sets of criteria to evaluate football vs bball school. I'm looking at it from a success, fanbase, interest level, quality of play perspective, whereas you (and perhaps others) are looking at it more from a financial perspective.

One could argue the reason Widlhack's # 1 priority is to fix football is because basketball wasn't broken. And I realize that even if it were, fixing the football program would trump that.

I would never in a million years argue that football doesn't control where/how we spend our money. It [I]should [/I]be the sole driver when it comes to better positioning the University financially because there is more money in it.

I'm asking because I don't know, but do schools such as Kentucky, Louisville, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas spend more on their football programs or basketball programs? All of those schools are basketball first, and I don't think there's even a debate there. If football is driving the financial decisions, does that make them football schools? I think you'd have a hard time convincing their fanbase and the rest of the country that that holds true.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?