[BostonCard]

I find it interesting that so many people seem to think it's a money problem when a team that spends less on player compensation just handed us the second worst loss in program history.

Money is not deterministic, but it is the most reliably and reproducible way to improve outcomes.  Otherwise, it's just vibes.  We've basically been through four coaches since the portal and NIL have been a reality, and Matt's analysis basically shows that we are reliably a bottom 20% football team year in year out in every post-pandemic year (and you probably could have extended the analysis to 2019).  Sure, we bounce around a bit, but it looks like statistical noise to me, not any sort of trend, and it doesn't look any coach is better or worse than any of the others.  We now have a coach who had been very successful under the pre-NIL model, a coach who had been very successful in FCS, a coach with an NFL pedigree (grant it in a caretaker role) and a coach nobody here wanted. All equally bad.  Maybe if the magic will happen if we get our fifth different coach in 7 years.  We've tried bringing a GM in.  We've tried opening up to the portal (rather unsuccessfully to Matt's analysis).  If there is a lever that could reliably be pulled that would result in success, I mean, good luck.  But mostly it is people saying "this is unacceptable" and "the administration needs to show 'commitment'".  Sorry, "hope" is a campaign slogan, not a plan for success.

To be clear, even though it would probably work, I don't think we should spend more money on player compensation.  Collegiate athletics (especially football) has fundamentally changed in a way that is anathema to the values that originally spawned it, and the rational part of me thinks we ought to drop it, that we are just chasing good money after bad, and that the 20 or so million we already spend on football player compensation probably has better uses in the athletic department , if not the university than to pay players to give us results like that.  That's really tough to write (and yes, what am I doing here if that's what I believe is up there with why am I still trying to keep up my wordle streak; sometimes the the the rest of me isn't quite ready to follow the rational part of me).  Also, we don't have the money.  It's easy to call on the University to spend the money, but as I keep pointing out, it recently enacted budget cuts of over $140 million.  I wouldn't call on the University to lay off another few dozen employees just to get a handful more wins (whatever I might think of administrative bloat).  I wouldn't call on the University to increase tuition to the rest of the students by a few grand either.  But hey, if any of the newly minted AI billionaires want to fund this...

BC

[BostonCard]

I find it interesting that so many people seem to think it's a money problem when a team that spends less on player compensation just handed us the second worst loss in program history.

Money is not deterministic, but it is the most reliably and reproducible way to improve outcomes.  Otherwise, it's just vibes.  We've basically been through four coaches since the portal and NIL have been a reality, and Matt's analysis basically shows that we are reliably a bottom 20% football team year in year out in every post-pandemic year (and you probably could have extended the analysis to 2019).  Sure, we bounce around a bit, but it looks like statistical noise to me, not any sort of trend, and it doesn't look any coach is better or worse than any of the others.  We now have a coach who had been very successful under the pre-NIL model, a coach who had been very successful in FCS, a coach with an NFL pedigree (grant it in a caretaker role) and a coach nobody here wanted. All equally bad.  Maybe if the magic will happen if we get our fifth different coach in 7 years.  We've tried bringing a GM in.  We've tried opening up to the portal (rather unsuccessfully to Matt's analysis).  If there is a lever that could reliably be pulled that would result in success, I mean, good luck.  But mostly it is people saying "this is unacceptable" and "the administration needs to show 'commitment'".  Sorry, "hope" is a campaign slogan, not a plan for success.

To be clear, even though it would probably work, I don't think we should spend more money on player compensation.  Collegiate athletics (especially football) has fundamentally changed in a way that is anathema to the values that originally spawned it, and the rational part of me thinks we ought to drop it, that we are just chasing good money after bad, and that the 20 or so million we already spend on football player compensation probably has better uses in the athletic department , if not the university than to pay players to give us results like that.  That's really tough to write (and yes, what am I doing here if that's what I believe is up there with why am I still trying to keep up my wordle streak; sometimes the the the rest of me isn't quite ready to follow the rational part of me).  Also, we don't have the money.  It's easy to call on the University to spend the money, but as I keep pointing out, it recently enacted budget cuts of over $140 million.  I wouldn't call on the University to lay off another few dozen employees just to get a handful more wins (whatever I might think of administrative bloat).  I wouldn't call on the University to increase tuition to the rest of the students by a few grand either.  But hey, if any of the newly minted AI billionaires want to fund this...

BC