Let's face it, relatively few schools really pour in all that is needed to compete at the highest level. Oh they may pay lip service, like the U, they may market well, like the U, but is the support really there. The IPF is really nice, but one person paid for almost half of that, the school was able to sell the idea and make it go, that is a thumbs up, but it is really window dressing if the players and coaches inside are not the quality that we need.
Conferences are a lot like socialism. The bottom performers make pretty much get the same as the top performers. So you are going to make money no matter. In socialism when you stop working for yourself, and for the collective, it is easy to lose incentive. I wonder if that is what happens to a lot of programs once they are in a lucrative conference that assures the bills being paid regardless of performance. Why pour that money into the program at a high level if it doesn't appreciably change your bottom line?
Maybe conferences should hold back a portion and give bonus payments based on productivity (performance).
Conferences are a lot like socialism. The bottom performers make pretty much get the same as the top performers. So you are going to make money no matter. In socialism when you stop working for yourself, and for the collective, it is easy to lose incentive. I wonder if that is what happens to a lot of programs once they are in a lucrative conference that assures the bills being paid regardless of performance. Why pour that money into the program at a high level if it doesn't appreciably change your bottom line?
Maybe conferences should hold back a portion and give bonus payments based on productivity (performance).
