Here's the thing.
Even when UM was on top of the world, we couldn't draw big crowds on a steady basis. Even back in the Big East days, we'd get 70k for FSU or VT or an OOC giant like Oklahoma or Penn State, and then we'd pull in 30k for Rutgers or BC. So, given that the BOT and admin could never consistently count on big attendance numbers to drive revenue even in our best years, it makes sense that they'd de-emphasize the fiscal impact of attendance. The ACC contract makes it such that they don't have to worry about finicky South Florida fans. So in the end, it really doesn't matter if you don't show up. Sure, a few more fans in the stands would be nice and would add an extra couple hundred k in revenue into the department, but it's not necessary to keep the program afloat.
As far as how that translates into a desire (or lack of desire) to win, I'm not sure it's really a 1:1 comparison. That is, I don't think that de-emphasizing attendance necessarily equates to a lack of desire to put a quality product on the field and win games. I truly believe that the BOT and the admin believed in both Shannon and Golden as coaches who could get the job done. I don't think they want(ed) to deemphasize football altogether; I just think that they want a coach who is straight-laced and a "good guy," and oftentimes the best CFB coaches are not straight-laced good guys. Whether that makes the BOT and admin dumb or naive or just victims of hiring decisions that backfired (and so many of them do) is up for debate.
