because we spent $15MM. The rest of the SEC spent way more than us. We are Vandy now circa 1980. We arent spending like the rest of the SEC does
Printable View
I think it is a brain dead take to say any coach besides Lebby has us 7-5. I guess the assumption would be we win 2 out of 3 of Florida Texas and Tenn. We averaged 31 points in those 3 games. So Qs argument is that while Lebby had us competitive in those 3 games against much more talented rosters, everything that went wrong was on Lebby but everything that went right to have us competitive against much more talented rosters is disregarded. Doesnt make sense to me.
How does every thread turn into Q just rambling about we were talented enough to be 7-5. Dude typing a bunch of words over and over do not make you right, rest your bell
Whether or not you are in favor of bringing Arnett back, can someone explain to me why you would need to give someone a 3 year contract that currently is not even actively coaching anywhere? And didn't he leave UNLV under some supposedly disturbing circumstances?? Just asking.
**** C34, give it a rest. We know State is poor. Unless some alumni hits the life lottery and invents the cure for cancer, we will not consistently have 25mm+ rosters every year. It?s just not financially feasible to rely on the limited millionaire boosters we have to continue doing that
We are low in the SEC. However, where did we end up, outside the top fifty in the overall rankings. We rank better than that from a spending standpoint. Now not allocating the same percentage of the funds to football as other schools would affect it but I highly doubt we're doing that. Bottom line: more money will help but we need better value from what we're already spending.