Monday Mailbag: Football vs. Basketball, and the Wolf Pack’s Future

We’re just 10 days away from Christmas, and all I want under the tree are a few packs of baseball cards. For real. During last year’s Little League season, Topps gave each kid in the league a free pack, and that’s led to me and my son buying cards for the first time since I was a teenager. And those cards are more expensive now than they were in the late 1990s, so send your cards to KRNV (1790 Vassar Street), c/o Chris “Cards” Murray. Just kidding. Don’t send them. Unless they are shohei Ohtani cards. I will take those. Especially if they are rookies. But I hope everybody gets what they want for Christmas, which might be a few more Nevada Wolf Pack wins. Let’s dig into this week’s Monday Mailbag. Thanks, as always, for the inquiries.

Good question, Chris.

The answer is two words: “Josh Allen.”

I’ve broadly touched on this subject before about whether Nevada would rather be great at football or men’s basketball. And 95 percent of athletic directors of FBS schools would pick football over basketball because (a) that’s where the most revenue potential is and (b) that’s what drives media-rights deals and conference realignment. If you want your athletic department to be in the best spot possible, you’d take winning in football over winning in basketball if you had to choose. Nevada is a good example. Wolf Pack men’s basketball has been mostly good in the 2000s with some “great” mixed in and has still struggled financially while being left behind in the Mountain West when the Pac-12 came to raid that league. If Nevada was better in football and worse in basketball in the 2000s, maybe it gets that Pac-12 invitation as it’d be a bigger draw for a media-rights deal, ala Boise State, which has prioritized and succeeded in building a championship-level football program while being good but not great in basketball this century.

That’s the macro view of your question. You’re asking a micro-view question specifically about the 2026-27 season. Would Nevada rather go 9-4 in football next year or see its men’s basketball team reach the NCAA Tournament’s second round? I think wolf Pack fans would pick the basketball second-round NCAA Tournament result. I think Nevada’s governance would pick football going 9-4, especially if that included a mountain West title (if it’s a MW runner-up finish, that’s more debatable). But, more than anything, the Wolf Pack needs to fix its football program to create more revenue for the rest of its sports. So, getting actual results and enthusiasm in that sport is preeminent for Wolf Pack athletics as it makes the transition to the new MW.

For me? I would pick the second-round NCAA Tournament appearance, a place Nevada has reached just four times in its history, and not yet under current coach Steve Alford, so getting more national momentum in that sport is key, to.But Nevada only has two conference football titles since moving to the WAC in 2000, so that’s been an even more rare accomplishment. I just think winning an NCAA Tournament game is more valuable in fan currency than winning a conference football title. From an actual currency standpoint,being good in football is unmatched in college athletics.

Are you asking if six wins is an unavoidable result because Nevada football’s schedule is easy? Or is six wins the targeted mark to hit in 2026 for Jeff Choate’s team to show legitimate progress?

The first is definitely not true. Nevada football can’t lock in six wins in 2026 as the mountain West isn’t as tough given how the program has performed the last four seasons. Play like that again and it will be another three or four victories.

The second interpretation of your question is more fair. I do think Nevada needs to get to a bowl in 2026 to show substantial progress. Going 5-7 in the new MW, which is essentially the old Conference USA, won’t cut it. Bowl or bust.

Ideally, you’d play two games per week, but given the Nevada men’s basketball team’s recent injury issues, this extra rest isn’t the worst thing in the world. Corey Camper Jr. and Joel Armotrading are “probably going to be out” against Boise State.

Nevada’s NIL Challenges and the Private Equity Question

Women’s basketball, and occasionally individual athletes like Sean Yamaguchi in baseball, don’t see huge NIL deals. It’s tough to attract NIL money without winning, and winning is hard without a strong NIL budget. This creates a real problem for Nevada. They simply haven’t consistently won enough to generate important NIL funding.

And it’s not just NIL. Nevada hasn’t sold enough tickets, nor does it have a massive media-rights deal. That means they can’t use those things to attract top recruits. It’s a tough spot.

here’s a fun fact: John Cena wrestled in Reno four times! He fought in 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2016. But honestly, I’ve never watched a Cena match or movie, and I doubt he’ll be helping Nevada with NIL anytime soon.

Here’s a list of names, for reasons I’m not entirely sure:

1. Pat McDade
2. Jace Billingsley
3. Michael Billingsley
4. Beau Billingsley
5. Jim Billingsley
6. Another Random Billingsley
7. Chris Hornbarger
8. John Cena Billingsley
9. “Billy Bob” Billingsley
10. Kelly pollock, Paul Smith, Blake Turner, John Davis, Peter herold, Jarrin Prokasky, Ryan Nelson, Gus Duncan, Skyler Bleck, Jhett Harbor

Athletic departments are increasingly signing private-equity deals. It feels like they’re trading future revenue for cash now. “Give us money now, and we’ll give you a percentage of future media rights, ticket sales, or sponsorships.” I don’t like this model, and I don’t think Nevada will either.

The Wolf Pack doesn’t have a lot of future revenue potential. Their media-rights deal is small compared to the Power 4 conferences. So, it’s hard to see which serious private-equity firms would even be interested. It doesn’t seem like a lasting plan for mid-major schools.

I don’t think college athletics has a revenue problem, really.It’s a spending problem. Private equity doesn’t fix that. Schools just can’t stop the arms race. Expenses are soaring, but wins aren’t necessarily increasing.Someone always loses, no matter if the NCAA spends $1 million or $1 billion a year on sports.