Frankly, this is an NCAA existential threat, not just limited to us. Do I think we had leadership that was all in on athletics? No, but most universities balance interest and financial commitment. Jane was okay, but leaving the department with no leader for 18 months was terrible. The choice to gut the alumni association on upper campus was bad, and Vic's choice to get rid of booster groups I also frowned upon.

Then DEI as the primary driver of the university's purpose alienated a lot of those who had loved our university that was already a leader in degrees conferred to minority groups. Achievement replaced by activism eroded what a university was supposed to be. I don't know if King Alexander would have handled it differently, but I know Jane did whatever the group of the day was complaining about, all while scandal rocked the interior of Brotman Hall (most don't know the full details of this, but it was ugly).

Then the push for paying athletes as employees will leave most colleges on uneven playing fields, literally. We have athlete free agency, with agents allowed, and booster groups giving "NIL" money which is really pay to play money. Most these athletes aren't marketable for the money they are getting. A few sure, but that is not what NIL has become.

All these lead to eroding our university identity while the NCAA institutions needed more buy in. Men's volleyball has survived. But men's basketball plateaued and then faltered under Dan. Just as the Pyramid itself started to falter.

Even Paul Finebaum has turned against what College Football has pushed, and said it has gone too far.

When the Pac-12/Mountain West keeps looking at new members, the truth is most are broke, and unless they have university backing, can't really afford the new FBS.

At the end of the day, I support the programs I can, and if the department can find enough people like me, then we will have teams to support. What it looks like beyond that, I think we'll know sooner rather than later.