I've been watching all this bantering about the funding of minor sports "as opposed" to the football program. Here is how I see it, though the use of an analogy.....
Iowa State is a P5 athletic program, not just in football alone. But, the entire athletic program has been badly neglected for decades. It wasn't just football that had been neglected, and holisic major renovations were needed throughout.
The analogy is that Iowa State athletics was a "This Old House" project. And before anything could be done with the most visible part of the structure, the foundation and infrastructure needed to be shored up.
(Baseball was the dilapidated sun porch on the north side of the house.)
That foundation and infrastructure is essentially the minor sports, whether anybody cares or not.... certainly less visible, but necessary just the same if a P5 athletic department was going to have P5 credibility.
The football program is the structure above the foundation, and essentially the "purpose" of the foundation. Football is the "street view" of the athletic program. But if one put all of the money into that visible part first...it may look good for a while, but would ultimately still ultimately collapse on top of a bad foundation.
Thus Iowa State did what it had to do to make sure that the football program did not fall flat on it's face during the interim....it shaved off money to shore up the foundation.
In that context, I not only do not fault Pollard....I commend him! You have to build the program from the bottom up to assure long term stability.
The question is though...is the foundation now solidified up enough that it is now time to turn the resources on the highly visible football program?
If I can carry that scenario all the way through, I don't fault Rhoads exclusively for his failures either. In this scenario, he was essentially collateral damage, or basically budget cannon fodder (or schedule fodder for the sake of budget.)
It's not a case of success or fail, nor even right or wrong or blame. But rather the need for the "greater good" at the time when decisions were made.
That is why I consider the evaluation of Rhoads a moot point....he may or may not be a reason for Iowa State's failure.....but he is far, FAR away from being the exclusive reason for the failure.
There is a difference between who is to "blame" (which I think that Pollard deserves some of that) as opposed to whether that person was a "fault" (which means that Pollard may not have had a choice, and did the right thing.)
I feel that same way about Rhoads. We can rightfully "blame" him.....but was it really exclusively his "fault"?
It just was what decision needed to be made at that moment in tome..... for the sake of the long term "greater good".
That, of course, is a grossly over-simplified analogy. But it is my way of trying to explain that there may have been no "wrong" parties at fault here, or wrong decisions made by Pollard or anybody. (But that also isn't saying there isn't either. That's for Leath and Pollard to evaluate.)
The question now is....
Just exactly what is the "greater good" at this point in time? Is it the football program's turn or not?
And if Iowa State decides that at this point in time that football is indeed the greater good......are we in a position to put comparative unrestricted focus and resources into to making football successful?
Or do even have those resources at all, considering the obstacles that Iowa State faces is big that the vast majority of P5 programs?
Regardless, I am solidly convinced that a mere change of a coach.....is not a sufficient solution to the problem.
And that Pollard and/or Leath have some very big decisions to make.
(In my opinion.)
Iowa State is a P5 athletic program, not just in football alone. But, the entire athletic program has been badly neglected for decades. It wasn't just football that had been neglected, and holisic major renovations were needed throughout.
The analogy is that Iowa State athletics was a "This Old House" project. And before anything could be done with the most visible part of the structure, the foundation and infrastructure needed to be shored up.
(Baseball was the dilapidated sun porch on the north side of the house.)
That foundation and infrastructure is essentially the minor sports, whether anybody cares or not.... certainly less visible, but necessary just the same if a P5 athletic department was going to have P5 credibility.
The football program is the structure above the foundation, and essentially the "purpose" of the foundation. Football is the "street view" of the athletic program. But if one put all of the money into that visible part first...it may look good for a while, but would ultimately still ultimately collapse on top of a bad foundation.
Thus Iowa State did what it had to do to make sure that the football program did not fall flat on it's face during the interim....it shaved off money to shore up the foundation.
In that context, I not only do not fault Pollard....I commend him! You have to build the program from the bottom up to assure long term stability.
The question is though...is the foundation now solidified up enough that it is now time to turn the resources on the highly visible football program?
If I can carry that scenario all the way through, I don't fault Rhoads exclusively for his failures either. In this scenario, he was essentially collateral damage, or basically budget cannon fodder (or schedule fodder for the sake of budget.)
It's not a case of success or fail, nor even right or wrong or blame. But rather the need for the "greater good" at the time when decisions were made.
That is why I consider the evaluation of Rhoads a moot point....he may or may not be a reason for Iowa State's failure.....but he is far, FAR away from being the exclusive reason for the failure.
There is a difference between who is to "blame" (which I think that Pollard deserves some of that) as opposed to whether that person was a "fault" (which means that Pollard may not have had a choice, and did the right thing.)
I feel that same way about Rhoads. We can rightfully "blame" him.....but was it really exclusively his "fault"?
It just was what decision needed to be made at that moment in tome..... for the sake of the long term "greater good".
That, of course, is a grossly over-simplified analogy. But it is my way of trying to explain that there may have been no "wrong" parties at fault here, or wrong decisions made by Pollard or anybody. (But that also isn't saying there isn't either. That's for Leath and Pollard to evaluate.)
The question now is....
Just exactly what is the "greater good" at this point in time? Is it the football program's turn or not?
And if Iowa State decides that at this point in time that football is indeed the greater good......are we in a position to put comparative unrestricted focus and resources into to making football successful?
Or do even have those resources at all, considering the obstacles that Iowa State faces is big that the vast majority of P5 programs?
Regardless, I am solidly convinced that a mere change of a coach.....is not a sufficient solution to the problem.
And that Pollard and/or Leath have some very big decisions to make.
(In my opinion.)
