BGS would mean he would be more likely to open the pocket book for facilities and coffee cups and the like.
In some ways, I am somewhat glad BGJ isn't and alumni and into to football. Not sure we want to be a school like T. Boone Pickens OSU or Nike U so beholden to one single Uber booster.
Perfect first loser setup.
Meaning I'm making loser talk or "they" (i.e., Okie State or Oregon) are the first losers?
BGS would mean he would be more likely to open the pocket book for facilities and coffee cups and the like.
In some ways, I am somewhat glad BGJ isn't and alumni and into to football. Not sure we want to be a school like T. Boone Pickens OSU or Nike U so beholden to one single Uber booster.
Perfect first loser setup.
Meaning I'm making loser talk or "they" (i.e., Okie State or Oregon) are the first losers?
The latter. Both programs, uber booster financed and controlled, neither better than first loser. Poor atempt at Sarkasm on my part.
Money is required to build a program and there is no doubt that both of those programs are far better off with uber booster money. Neither program is a traditional football power, they were elevated with money from billionaires. Getting over the hump takes a bit more. A top-shelf coaching staff and compelling reasons for some of the best players in the country to go to a particular program are needed. Those things may or may not be easier when the program is under the control of a single uber booster. So far I would say the jury is out on that. So far neither of those programs has attracted a Pete Carroll or a Nick Saban or an Urban Meyer, etc and neither has recruited at a level consistent with programs like USC, Alabama, Ohio State, etc, even given the vast monetary resources they have at their disposal. From a program perspective they are both in great shape but they're not at the so-called Elite level even with so-called Elite level funding. So, you may be onto something. It may turn out that it's healthier to have the vast majority of an athletic department's revenues come from a mix of rabid well-heeled alumni and fans rather than primarily from a single source that has too much control. I don't know, but it's easy to over analyze these kinds of things and in the end it probably just comes down to having the right people in place.
Comments
Money is required to build a program and there is no doubt that both of those programs are far better off with uber booster money. Neither program is a traditional football power, they were elevated with money from billionaires. Getting over the hump takes a bit more. A top-shelf coaching staff and compelling reasons for some of the best players in the country to go to a particular program are needed. Those things may or may not be easier when the program is under the control of a single uber booster. So far I would say the jury is out on that. So far neither of those programs has attracted a Pete Carroll or a Nick Saban or an Urban Meyer, etc and neither has recruited at a level consistent with programs like USC, Alabama, Ohio State, etc, even given the vast monetary resources they have at their disposal. From a program perspective they are both in great shape but they're not at the so-called Elite level even with so-called Elite level funding. So, you may be onto something. It may turn out that it's healthier to have the vast majority of an athletic department's revenues come from a mix of rabid well-heeled alumni and fans rather than primarily from a single source that has too much control. I don't know, but it's easy to over analyze these kinds of things and in the end it probably just comes down to having the right people in place.
Cool story, bruh