TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Clearly the aforementioned 10 wins isn't a realistic expectation. But "bowl eligibility" is a laughable acceptable standard imo.
Also, being happy with 1 conference championship a decade seems sad as well - given the state of the B12. Sure that could change, but if CDA had been on his game last year, we could have been leading the conference this year. Shoulda, woulda, couldas.
Anyway my belief is that we should be top quarter team nearly every year in the B12. Not every year, but very frequently. Winning the conference should happen more than once per decade, but I don't have a set timeline.
CDA stays if he can create a successful winning program clearly. Problem is some of your definitions of winning is just mediocre at the end of the day. Sure 6 or 7 wins is better than 3, but its not a success imo. An improvement yes, success, no.
And honestly I can be OK with a mediocre 5-7 win program if we just can't compete due to NIL. If that's ever the case, let's not try to pretend that we're serious though. Let's drop the massive coaching salaries and give it to basketball.
Dude. There are 15 other teams trying to win the conf title and they are not just going to let you have it.
The historical precedent of schools dominating their conference for the most part are examples of one or two schools beating up on lesser competition. Think Nebraska and OU back in the Big 8 days. Alabama rattling off conference titles in a deep conference is very ahistorical.
At two conference titles per decade you are ahead of LSU, Georgia, Penn State, and others. You're on par with Texas post-1980.
In a different phase of life I would have focused on the outcomes. But today, I'm with the poster up thread. Be grateful for the time spent watching our Bears and really enjoys the highs when they come around.