Why would it not be the best approach?
To me it is the best. It allows the couch to see the needs of the team and adjust. Allows the coaches to see what is not working against the better teams and adjust
Are they building a teams in hopes of being middle of the pack or are they building a team to compete with the best.
Year five! Should the coaches not be competing with the best?
Play the best to be the best.
Can you point to an example of a program that was struggling and successfully overcame that by scheduling more difficult opponents? It’s like the antithesis of the Snyder approach. I thought maybe Notre Dame could be an example here, but when I try to find a specific example I can’t see one.
The Nebraska crossovers were good for TV ratings and conference media value. They were unfair for competitive balance. If Nebraska was dominating the division, it would be no big deal. I’d prefer it that way. But for a group of players who don’t know how to win, this isn’t the way you teach them.
I think the single most impressive positive thing Frost’s staffs have done is keeping a disappointed team with a losing record engaged and giving great effort late at the end of a season. That trait is laudable, but I’d just as soon never see it again.