Once again, we’re not Burns level bad in football, but we’re still very bad. We ARE the worst combined level of football & basketball I can remember over the last 40+ years.
TU usually has at least one of the 2 sports at a decent competition level at a given year(s). When Burns coached football, we were NCAA tournament caliber in basketball. We were selling out the Reynolds Center. They were reseating the Reynolds Center every few years.
As much as I like Konkol & hope he will eventually bring back glory days to TU basketball, we are not even close today. Attendance is horrible, our team is AAC preseason #10 in a one or two bid league. I’ve had season tickets in both sports for decades. I have experienced good & bad eras.
Apathy in both football and basketball is high. This is the lowest combined excitement for TU football/basketball I can remember.
On what to do in one sport, you cannot base your analysis of two sports states of being. That much should be obvious. Read this post over again. \/
I think we have a little crowd think going on here as well. Two or four people took the step off the cliff, and everybody followed. I realize there have been signs, but not as many as the group dive warranted.
I think the right people dove around the same time because there is a mutual cynicism that was already enveloping the college sports world. With the portal, nil, conference realignment, a new 'excluding' power group trying to form, etc, etc., it is bringing the fortress of gloom upon us. It's not surprising that the board has gone a little too far down the dark end of the street.
You can't attack one or both programs early(after 2 or 3 seasons of a new coach) because the fans are apathetic over the state of college sports and the state of the programs as a
joint venture.(basketball & football) Just because the sports are doing something negative for one of the few times in the history of TU sports, is no reason to throw out being analytical.
You have to be a little more analytical and a lot less emotional in times like these. You also have to give the coaches a little more latitude for operating in a NIL environment with a small amount or no amount of NIL, to work with. You may end up with a coach who does no better because of lack of NIL. It may not provide any judgement on the abilities of the two coaches before and after the change in regimes, caused by their coaching ability. For instance, you might fire Wilson and hire a new coach and they both fail because of NIL, when Wilson was a bad coach and the new coach was a good coach, or vice versa.
You have a lot more variables to contend with now, and hiring and firing early with equal decision making processes may hire a coach who was no better than the last one,(or worse than the last one) because it was a knee jerk reaction to early performance of a coach who wasn't provided the proper amount of time to resurrect the program because of newly created pressure in the industry.(nil, transfers, etc)
I'm not saying we give them 8 or 9 years like we did with Frank or Monty, but you don't necessarily go in the opposite direction, and fire them really early in their tenure here.(after 2 or 3 years here) Being very measured in your decision making and considering leaving them in the position for 4 or 5 years might be the more valuable decision, then canning them after 2 or 3 years.
Wilson went with a choice that was probably a good one in a very precarious environment, to go after better freshman, and let them develop. But we are not allowing them to even get to their sophomore year, before we want to can Wilson. That's really not fair to Wilson & staff, to the players, and probably not to the TU program, to give this philosophy no time to bear fruit. Yes, time is limited but you can't half do a philosophy and have it give anything but poor results, just beause the industry is moving quickly. We are caught between a rock and a hard spot, but that doesn't mean acting rationally is the improper thing to do. And rational rarely involves early decisons.