It is an interesting question.

In the definitely yes case, the record, the long losing streaks, the ability to find ways to lose almost every close game.

But, there are questions that I do not know the answer to that might mitigate the case against Acker. The recent revelation that only 25 student athletes receive full scholarships makes me wonder how many of those are MMB players? Are we providing Acker with significantly less funds than the bulk of the BW schools? In the new climate (NIL, Pro instead of amateur) is it reasonable to expect winning without a competitive budget. I do know that Conoley made it clear when she put athletics under the budget director that winning was not the priority and that the only priority was controlling spending. Did they cut the program financially to the point that we are at the bottom of the BW? In a climate where we need to compete financially for players, are we Walmart, paying only minimum wage and hoping for high performing players?

I want to emphasize that I do not know the answer to these questions, but, I suspect that the actual answer may be a combination of both possibilities, Acker may be underperforming, but not as badly as it might seem given the lack of funding.