Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Hoo's That, post: 5344580, member: 3609"]
The biggest question is "Do we have the money to compete consistently?", and the second biggest is "Do we want our teams to be our students or hires who would just as soon as play for us or someone else?"  I think the answer to the first question is "No," Bama, Georgia, et al., will always have more and enough money to be constantly upping the ante.  And I think the answer to the second is also "No," at least deep in the hearts of the administrators.  A lot of schools are going to have to decide at what point it doesn't become worth the time, effort, and resources anymore.  Do they have values, and, if they do, at what point are they abandoning them?  I can see, the Vanderbilts, Northwesterns, Stanfords, and, hopefully, the Virginias of the college world competing at the same level they are now, which will become the level between the semi-pros and FCS.  Will there be scaling back of some other sports due to reduced resources?  That's quite possible.  I do think there will be a market for these regional teams.

I saw a interesting discussion on the Georgia Tech board.  The South has blown up their college teams to a higher level because of the lack of professional teams until 1960.  That continues because southern pro teams are not good on a consistent basis.  It's not duplicated in other areas, especially the Northeast.  The teams in the Midwest have climbed to the fore because of the lack of consistency of the pro teams in their areas.  There are other places like that, too (Oregon and Washington state, for example).
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?