I think I largely agree with your diagnosis even if I don’t agree with your attribution. Yes—mediocrity and complacency exist. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone outside the UW bubble who would argue otherwise. Where I part ways with you is the idea that this mediocrity is some conscious, daily choice being made by leadership.
I don’t see people choosing mediocrity. I see mediocre people in positions with very limited power to materially change outcomes. That’s an important distinction. Internal inertia and very real external constraints shape results far more than intent does. And there’s an irony here when we talk about accountability and compensation: there is a level of pay beyond which the results we’re getting become clearly unjustifiable. I’m not convinced we’re actually there yet.
In fact, if UW truly wanted to change its trajectory, the fastest way would be to radically change who is willing to work here. Double the compensation for top-level administrators—President, AD, deans—and suddenly Wyoming becomes an attractive destination for an entirely different tier of talent. As it stands, we aim for “competitive” pay and then act surprised when we’re subject to the same market forces you’re so reluctant to acknowledge. Saying “we could get these results for much less” isn’t fiscal realism—it’s the express lane to FCS irrelevance. We’ve been drifting that direction for a while already.
And one last thing: the outside forces you dismiss aren’t theoretical. Difficult to quantify is not the same thing as imaginary. Economists study labor deployment and geographic friction constantly. Despite Wyoming’s lower cost of living, the cost to hire is high if you want quality. That’s true whether you’re recruiting an electrical engineer or an offensive coordinator. Geography matters. Markets matter. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.
