- Joined
- Aug 29, 2016
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction Score
- 8,785
For the last five years it has been obvious that the BoT's have pursued a policy of benign neglect. We were told that is all that the treasury could afford after it became painfully obvious that Edsall no longer had magic in his bottle.
Then, out of the blue, we get this editorial from downstate titled Let UConn Football Be Bad which publicly advocated for a benign neglect policy -- but more importantly to let the program continue. By implication the writers see the only two choices as killing the program outright or letting it limp along into the future. Increasing UConn's investment for the returns it might provide was not seriously discussed.
The questions I wish to put before this forum are: (1) do you think this existential debate is happening and if so, how do you think it will turn out? and (2) besides more money for ccoaching staff and relaxed recruiting admissions stndards, what else needs to be done to ensure success if the increased investment option is embarked upon?
Then, out of the blue, we get this editorial from downstate titled Let UConn Football Be Bad which publicly advocated for a benign neglect policy -- but more importantly to let the program continue. By implication the writers see the only two choices as killing the program outright or letting it limp along into the future. Increasing UConn's investment for the returns it might provide was not seriously discussed.
The questions I wish to put before this forum are: (1) do you think this existential debate is happening and if so, how do you think it will turn out? and (2) besides more money for ccoaching staff and relaxed recruiting admissions stndards, what else needs to be done to ensure success if the increased investment option is embarked upon?
Last edited: