|
Post by vballfreak808 on Jun 28, 2024 19:30:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blackiechan1999 on Jun 28, 2024 19:42:58 GMT -5
Her armswing is like VVG's
|
|
|
Post by hookem1 on Jun 29, 2024 11:52:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by huskervolleyfan14 on Jun 29, 2024 19:37:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dragon2owl on Jun 29, 2024 22:17:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jun 30, 2024 12:18:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on Jun 30, 2024 13:31:36 GMT -5
Why the rush? How big will the transfer portal be in two to three years from now? As a fan, will you be as satisfied to know your team is winning because your program is paying more money? I’m sure many don’t care. I prefer some degree of an even playing field. Are coaches who hand out more money better coaches?
|
|
|
Post by Rocky Rover on Jun 30, 2024 15:53:59 GMT -5
Why the rush? How big will the transfer portal be in two to three years from now? As a fan, will you be as satisfied to know your team is winning because your program is paying more money? I’m sure many don’t care. I prefer some degree of an even playing field. Are coaches who hand out more money better coaches? I guess I'll take on the whole "money of it" part of this. I suppose it depends on what you mean. I personally don't love the (mostly football-) money-driven nature of college athletics nowadays, but hey, that's capitalism. I'm told one can love it or leave it. But of course it's always been the case that the head coach of a program is really a CEO. Being a head coach has always required raising money, marketing the team and attracting fans, recruiting the best players (and the players who fit the best), building a culture where those players can thrive, managing personalities and individual expectations, scouting + game-planning, building training programs and developing players, and adjusting various in-game x's and o's. It just so happens that now the raising money part can translate to (more or less) direct payments to athletes. My guess is John Cook hands out more money than just about anyone. Also, I'd say yes he is a better coach than most. But it's obviously not because he hands out more money. He has the most money to hand out substantially because of his work to date, which has allowed him to raise the most money. And before we had "payments," money was still a large factor, and while John Cook wasn't "handing out" money, he was offering the best facilities, charter flights, probably the most gear, probably the nicest training table, whatever, because he raised all that money and brought in 8,000 fans per game. One has always had to raise (and spend) some money to be successful, and one will always have to do other of those things I listed to be successful. You say you prefer some degree of an even playing field. I guess the question is when was there previously an even playing field? Or maybe you are saying you yearn for some ideal that's never existed, and that's fine. But if I look at a list of Final Four and Elite 8 teams through the years, it's generally the same teams over long stretches. Nebraska, Texas, Stanford. Every so often, some teams depart the most elite ranks (maybe Penn St. is an example of this recently; USC and Hawai'i previously), and some teams move into those ranks (Louisville, Pitt recently; Wisconsin somewhat recently; etc.). By the way, I don't think Louisville or Pitt have the same ability to "hand out" money as Nebraska or Texas, but there they are nonetheless. I suppose that was all just a long-winded way of saying the skills and characteristics that make up the "better coaches" are the same as they always were. Handing out more money can be an indicator, sure.
|
|
|
Post by devilhorns24 on Jun 30, 2024 16:15:18 GMT -5
|
|
zzyzx
Sophomore
Posts: 173
|
Post by zzyzx on Jun 30, 2024 16:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1volleyfan on Jun 30, 2024 20:51:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by devilhorns24 on Jun 30, 2024 22:29:42 GMT -5
|
|