Article: It's All About The 'U' Standard

NVA CANE, spot on analysis ESP the part of the slogans sounding hollow. I like the guy a lot except for his football coaching skills
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Great post. The ability to adapt is key to any coach/leader. To this point you have seen Golden come in with his guiding principles and stick to them. They have not worked at UM and he has stuck to his ways. To me this will be his ultimate downfall. We are talented enough to be a double digit win team and compete for the ACC but thie mismatch of scheme and talent so far under Golden do not let us reach our potential.

I hope he can prove us wrong. Go Canes

I actually just read a book, written by a military strategist, about this (adaptability in leadership) and it might as well be a review of Golden's tenure. Golden is the classic 'command leader' while the modern [college football] world has become too complex to do anything other than be adaptable and capable of improvisation. There's a military story in the book about a naval battle fought by the British against a much larger and powerful force. I felt like I was reading about Gus Malzahn vs Al Groh.

The ability to be flexible and build around that culture is the entire difference in today's more complex (because of information and access) world. It's no different in college football. In fact, it's more pronounced.
 
All our great coaches were innovative and had great football minds. They all brought something new to the program or to college football in general. Butch's talent or innovation was his talent evaluation. Guy is the best in the business. Since Coker we've stopped getting these types of coaches and just settled for guys that are "Miami guys" or run a pro style. That is the antithesis of what the program was built upon.

We need forward thinking coaches that know how to run a program. That's what's been missing IMO.

This is why I like this Bob Stitt fellow. The up tempo spread offense really is taylor made for our recruiting base as well.

Along those same lines. How do we feel about Butch in today's college landscape? We know his talent evaluation skills are elite, but what bout his offensive and defensive philosophy? Does he adapt favorably to today's uptempo, spread 'em out style?

I feel with all that time off literally analyzing all the big boys, the man might have solid ideas and philosophies he is ready to bring. Hard to imagine he wouldn't, especially when he has been lobbying for the job. If you're gonna lobby, you BETTER be ready to perform. No honeymoon period this time around.
 
All our great coaches were innovative and had great football minds. They all brought something new to the program or to college football in general. Butch's talent or innovation was his talent evaluation. Guy is the best in the business. Since Coker we've stopped getting these types of coaches and just settled for guys that are "Miami guys" or run a pro style. That is the antithesis of what the program was built upon.

We need forward thinking coaches that know how to run a program. That's what's been missing IMO.

This is why I like this Bob Stitt fellow. The up tempo spread offense really is taylor made for our recruiting base as well.

Along those same lines. How do we feel about Butch in today's college landscape? We know his talent evaluation skills are elite, but what bout his offensive and defensive philosophy? Does he adapt favorably to today's uptempo, spread 'em out style?

I feel with all that time off literally analyzing all the big boys, the man might have solid ideas and philosophies he is ready to bring. Hard to imagine he wouldn't, especially when he has been lobbying for the job. If you're gonna lobby, you BETTER be ready to perform. No honeymoon period this time around.

A squad full of NFL level talent covers up a lot of mistakes, IF YOU LET THEM PLAY. Clappy knew that. Fraudster doesn't.

Firing Day is 87 away.

For you, Mr. Kaaya.

[video=youtube;2uXbz_p5K1U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uXbz_p5K1U[/video]
 
All our great coaches were innovative and had great football minds. They all brought something new to the program or to college football in general. Butch's talent or innovation was his talent evaluation. Guy is the best in the business. Since Coker we've stopped getting these types of coaches and just settled for guys that are "Miami guys" or run a pro style. That is the antithesis of what the program was built upon.

We need forward thinking coaches that know how to run a program. That's what's been missing IMO.

This is why I like this Bob Stitt fellow. The up tempo spread offense really is taylor made for our recruiting base as well.

Along those same lines. How do we feel about Butch in today's college landscape? We know his talent evaluation skills are elite, but what bout his offensive and defensive philosophy? Does he adapt favorably to today's uptempo, spread 'em out style?

I feel with all that time off literally analyzing all the big boys, the man might have solid ideas and philosophies he is ready to bring. Hard to imagine he wouldn't, especially when he has been lobbying for the job. If you're gonna lobby, you BETTER be ready to perform. No honeymoon period this time around.

A squad full of NFL level talent covers up a lot of mistakes, IF YOU LET THEM PLAY. Clappy knew that. Fraudster doesn't.

Firing Day is 87 away.

For you, Mr. Kaaya.

[video=youtube;2uXbz_p5K1U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uXbz_p5K1U[/video]

Yes that is true but he ain't gonna have the talent of the 2001 team right away if ever. Still gonna have to coach these people.
 
None of those other coaches needed "buy-in" from the players in order to succeed.

And all of them ran into immediate success? No. And other than RS, none of them took over a team from a coach who was fired and for whom the players remained loyal.
 
So the grand point of that article is that UM football has underachieved hilariously? Thanks for the bulletin.
 
So the grand point of that article is that UM football has underachieved hilariously? Thanks for the bulletin.

Actually, the "grand point" is that we've accepted a different, lower standard. And, I find it to be our primary problem. One of the supporting points is that we've accepted "hilarious" underachievement continuously.

If you're going to take a shot, reading comprehension is a good place to begin the process. I encourage you to address some of the narrower points of the perspective. I'll be glad to discuss.
 
This article needs to be put in front of every single member of the BOT, as well as Dr. Frenk and Blake James.

Donna Shalala's legacy looks worse with each passing day. A **** shame what she perpetrated on all sectors of this school.
 
Advertisement
Great post. The ability to adapt is key to any coach/leader. To this point you have seen Golden come in with his guiding principles and stick to them. They have not worked at UM and he has stuck to his ways. To me this will be his ultimate downfall. We are talented enough to be a double digit win team and compete for the ACC but thie mismatch of scheme and talent so far under Golden do not let us reach our potential.

I hope he can prove us wrong. Go Canes

I actually just read a book, written by a military strategist, about this (adaptability in leadership) and it might as well be a review of Golden's tenure. Golden is the classic 'command leader' while the modern [college football] world has become too complex to do anything other than be adaptable and capable of improvisation. There's a military story in the book about a naval battle fought by the British against a much larger and powerful force. I felt like I was reading about Gus Malzahn vs Al Groh.

The ability to be flexible and build around that culture is the entire difference in today's more complex (because of information and access) world. It's no different in college football. In fact, it's more pronounced.

Lu, straight up...this **** is brilliant
 
Almost two weeks ago, I began writing an article on my hopes and expectations for the year. As I've noted elsewhere, about 750 words in and a bunch of compiled statistics - things like 3rd down conversion, pace of play and what I hoped we'd see this year on both sides of the ball - I stopped. I was numb to this seemingly endless cycle. I legitimately could not bring myself to repeat some of the things I've hoped for over the course of the past 3 seasons.

A Brief Look Back

I've noted that, in 2013, just before the season started, I spoke with a few of the team's presumed leaders. I asked about broad things, like philosophy (though not in those words), the team's culture, and a host of items I thought were fundamental to whatever progress I hoped to see that year. I was not surprised to hear some of the things they mentioned, but the tone, as I've said other times, was consistent: "everything is whatever; we'll do whatever as long as we win and ball out." You see, culture is not something you can build or state and simply expect it to occur - no matter how many times you repeat words, values or expectations. By almost any definition, culture is a result of the things you do. And, for it truly work, it has to be authentic. Its authenticity comes into question when players do not see the expected results or even close. I think it's fair of many of the players to wonder about alternative approaches.

The strategies our coaches choose trickle from a broader philosophy. Ironically, none of it matters anymore. Conservative vs. aggressive, 3-4 vs 4-3, and the endless discussions about culture are all secondary to an evaluation of this season. What is the standard the 'U' will set? This comes from the very top - beyond our coaches and even the athletic director.

The Evaluation of this Season

The evaluation of this season should not come down to a debate about whether we "improved" from 6 wins or in some statistical categories. I find it misleading, if not outright deceptive, to get into this type of message:

- concede there was a car wreck,
- total a vehicle,
- later get into a second car crash in a new vehicle that isn't as 'bad'
- and consider that to be an improvement

You see, the Miami Hurricanes 2014 football team was talented. While not perfect, most, if not all, would concede that it performed beneath its capacity. Ultimately, the end of the season had a disastrous downturn. We can talk about the weather, other cars, the passengers, etc., but in the end the result is the same: we did less with more.

I have a bigger problem: somehow, we've allowed the 'U' standard to be completely re-constructed.

Yes, we should still evaluate based on context. Looking at "final" wins without context is mostly irrelevant - just like statistics without context are not useful. Yes, the college football landscape has changed. It's more competitive. I don't think anyone is asking for or expecting immediate greatness. While some may point to the immediate turnaround at Ohio State under [admittedly difficult to write] the excellent leadership of Coach Meyer, the circumstances are not all the same. They don't need to be in order to fairly evaluate our results up to this point and going forward.

Because of Miami's geographic location, we'll always have access to very talented players and on the cusp of a relatively superior (in terms of talent) team. It bears repeating that we had 7 drafted players on last year's 6 win team. The 'U' standard is about getting more from less. The entire program was built on bucking what's conventional to produce more and stay ahead of the curve. That's what coaching is about. That's how winning is done.

My biggest fear for any new coach at Miami isn't that he'll be able to make our program "seem" good enough and competitive. Instead, my biggest fear is whether he'll be the type of leader who can potentially navigate through the ACC, into the college football playoffs and ultimately make us competitive for Championships. No, it doesn't mean we have to win them all. But, yes, it means we have to begin to do more with whatever we have. The only evidence we currently have is that we've done less with more. I'll support anyone, including Coach Golden, who can buck that decade-long trend.

Our Bottom Line

No more excuses. As a notable coach in another sport has often said, "we have enough." That attitude would be reflected in our players. Whatever we have, it's enough to compete and win. Whether we win the ACC championship, go 5-7 or whatever outcome, at the end of this season, this program needs to get back to judging itself by a single, high standard:

DID WE DO MORE WITH LESS?

If that does not occur, we need to go in a direction that gets us back on that course. Immediately. Setting that standard will continue to attract the very best talent the region has to offer and beyond. [/url]

Unfortunately, this whole "DO MORE WITH LESS?" is the driving force behind UM standard in its hiring policies. They pay with less $ for coaches while praying for more wins out of these coaches. See, UM BOT & Admin have been trying this do more winning with lesser (and cheaper) coaches for their 3 hires.

How has that policy worked out for them?
 
Hasn't worked out well to date. Let's see if this season is also a dumpster fire and go from there.
 
Firing Day is 82 away.

This single game is often cited as our resurrection. Edgerin James was good for 299 yards.
We lost to McNabb's Syracuse 13-66, the previous week.

We had tickets to the original scheduled date, but Hurricane George did it in.

[video=youtube;KQHIPVIN5OI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQHIPVIN5OI[/video]
 
Almost two weeks ago, I began writing an article on my hopes and expectations for the year. As I've noted elsewhere, about 750 words in and a bunch of compiled statistics - things like 3rd down conversion, pace of play and what I hoped we'd see this year on both sides of the ball - I stopped. I was numb to this seemingly endless cycle. I legitimately could not bring myself to repeat some of the things I've hoped for over the course of the past 3 seasons.

A Brief Look Back

I've noted that, in 2013, just before the season started, I spoke with a few of the team's presumed leaders. I asked about broad things, like philosophy (though not in those words), the team's culture, and a host of items I thought were fundamental to whatever progress I hoped to see that year. I was not surprised to hear some of the things they mentioned, but the tone, as I've said other times, was consistent: "everything is whatever; we'll do whatever as long as we win and ball out." You see, culture is not something you can build or state and simply expect it to occur - no matter how many times you repeat words, values or expectations. By almost any definition, culture is a result of the things you do. And, for it truly work, it has to be authentic. Its authenticity comes into question when players do not see the expected results or even close. I think it's fair of many of the players to wonder about alternative approaches.

The strategies our coaches choose trickle from a broader philosophy. Ironically, none of it matters anymore. Conservative vs. aggressive, 3-4 vs 4-3, and the endless discussions about culture are all secondary to an evaluation of this season. What is the standard the 'U' will set? This comes from the very top - beyond our coaches and even the athletic director.

The Evaluation of this Season

The evaluation of this season should not come down to a debate about whether we "improved" from 6 wins or in some statistical categories. I find it misleading, if not outright deceptive, to get into this type of message:

- concede there was a car wreck,
- total a vehicle,
- later get into a second car crash in a new vehicle that isn't as 'bad'
- and consider that to be an improvement

You see, the Miami Hurricanes 2014 football team was talented. While not perfect, most, if not all, would concede that it performed beneath its capacity. Ultimately, the end of the season had a disastrous downturn. We can talk about the weather, other cars, the passengers, etc., but in the end the result is the same: we did less with more.

I have a bigger problem: somehow, we've allowed the 'U' standard to be completely re-constructed.

Yes, we should still evaluate based on context. Looking at "final" wins without context is mostly irrelevant - just like statistics without context are not useful. Yes, the college football landscape has changed. It's more competitive. I don't think anyone is asking for or expecting immediate greatness. While some may point to the immediate turnaround at Ohio State under [admittedly difficult to write] the excellent leadership of Coach Meyer, the circumstances are not all the same. They don't need to be in order to fairly evaluate our results up to this point and going forward.

Because of Miami's geographic location, we'll always have access to very talented players and on the cusp of a relatively superior (in terms of talent) team. It bears repeating that we had 7 drafted players on last year's 6 win team. The 'U' standard is about getting more from less. The entire program was built on bucking what's conventional to produce more and stay ahead of the curve. That's what coaching is about. That's how winning is done.

My biggest fear for any new coach at Miami isn't that he'll be able to make our program "seem" good enough and competitive. Instead, my biggest fear is whether he'll be the type of leader who can potentially navigate through the ACC, into the college football playoffs and ultimately make us competitive for Championships. No, it doesn't mean we have to win them all. But, yes, it means we have to begin to do more with whatever we have. The only evidence we currently have is that we've done less with more. I'll support anyone, including Coach Golden, who can buck that decade-long trend.

Our Bottom Line

No more excuses. As a notable coach in another sport has often said, "we have enough." That attitude would be reflected in our players. Whatever we have, it's enough to compete and win. Whether we win the ACC championship, go 5-7 or whatever outcome, at the end of this season, this program needs to get back to judging itself by a single, high standard:

DID WE DO MORE WITH LESS?

If that does not occur, we need to go in a direction that gets us back on that course. Immediately. Setting that standard will continue to attract the very best talent the region has to offer and beyond. [/url]

Unfortunately, this whole "DO MORE WITH LESS?" is the driving force behind UM standard in its hiring policies. They pay with less $ for coaches while praying for more wins out of these coaches. See, UM BOT & Admin have been trying this do more winning with lesser (and cheaper) coaches for their 3 hires.

How has that policy worked out for them?

Is that a real question? They're not even close to approaching it correctly. You can pay less and expect to do more with it if you identify talented coaches whose goals (like growing toward the NFL) also work to benefit the program. What you're describing is just poor management - the opposite of effectively doing more with less.
 
DO MORE WITH LESS! UM Admin, of course, would like UM Football to return to its old glorious winning ways, but with putting out less money.

The BOT wants UM Football and its any new coach to have/DO MORE winnings WITH LESS money for hire the coaches.

What does that illusion entail? It entails UM BOT to be some visionary minds in finding that needle in the haystack of most promising coaches with the ambition to make it to the NFL after winning and returning us to Championships to the NCs ringzdome.

Problem is that ain't no visionaries on that BOT & UM Admin. If you keep trusting/expecting them to get UM Football to have more wins with less money, it won't work. UM can no longer afford more chances that this up and comer "program builder" will come to UM for less and get UM more wins.
 
The remaking of UM football program began in, of all places, Columbus, Ohio. Interim athletic director Jim Hackett, on the job just under a month, was in the area for UM-Ohio State football game Nov. 29 and arrived a few days earlier to visit relatives. Instead of engaging his family and friends, he spent significant time alone, eventually deciding to fire UM's current coach, ending what he called the era of experimentation.

"What did the institution need?" Hackett said Friday in an extended interview on the "Huge Show" radio program. "I came away thinking, UM can't afford to experiment more. If you look at the last seven years starting with Rich's arrival – Brady had a good year in there, but there was a seven-year period where it felt like these were experiments, we weren't sure were going to turn out. So there was a gradual decay of 'something' because of that. You can call that fan support, you can call that winning, you can call it enthusiasm for Michigan's history. This is the winningest program ever in this sport and it carried the day for a long time. It certainly wasn't behaving that way now, though.

"The final junction of this weekend, that Sunday night I called UM's president and told him that UM can't afford to experiment anymore. That's the thing that led me to thinking about the next candidate. If there's someone at an upstart program that has great promise and is very young, probably wouldn't cost as much. I didn't think UM could take that risk."

That's where his pursuit of then-San Francisco Forty Niners Jim Harbaugh began as he took one of the more unusual approaches to landing a coach, playing on familiarity and loyalty all while trying to retain integrity in a landscape he didn't know. To many fans, how Hackett got there is irrelevant. All that mattered was Harbaugh, the famous former U-M quarterback who had thrived at three head coaching stops from the Football Championship Subdivision to the NFL, became Michigan's coach.

But for others, the path to landing one of the nation's best coaches at any level was intriguing.

It began with those swim lanes and diagrams that Hackett spoke about when he fired Brad Hoke. He set up huge posters, what he called barbell diagrams, with the qualities of the coach he wanted and created a ratings system he put the candidates through. Harbaugh emerged the closest to his 'X'. He conceded that everyone would say, of course Harbaugh was the best, but Hackett's decades as CEO of Steelcase in Grand Rapids taught him that every situation had to be played out.

"We wanted to come at it the other way and make sure we weren't just talking ourselves into the candidate," he said.

Yet his first call in pursuit of Harbaugh went in a different direction.

"It was after I handled the Brady situation," Hackett said. "The important thing there was the Harbaugh family. Jim and John's father, Jack, was a coach at Michigan when I was there and I knew Jack. I actually called Jack first and hadn't seen him in years but reminded him who I was, …He was such a wonderfully positive guy. I would talk to him every day. I called him and told him what I was working on and said, before I get in the middle of all of this, whether you think there is any interest from Jim. I said I'm looking at a lot of people, but I don't want to waste a lot of his time and my time. So Jack got back to me and said 'I think it's probably worth you talking to him.' " [How hard would it be to reach out to Butch?]

That first move set the groundwork for how Hackett would proceed. According to Hackett's version of the events, everything was a soft sell, a focus on relationships and not the job when talking to Jim Harbaugh. That became the perfect process because Harbaugh didn't want to talk about taking the U-M job when he was still coaching the San Francisco 49ers.

"That started a series of phone calls (with Jim) that never really talked about -- funny thing now that I thought about it -- 'Do you want to come as a coach at Michigan?' " Hackett said. "We started talking more about those barbell diagrams and what it took to win today and what had happened to the Michigan program in the last seven years. The one thing about coaches, they're not going to criticize each other."

Hackett understood and appreciated that the Harbaughs were concerned that Hoke was treated fairly in the evaluation and dismissal process, because it spoke to them not wanting to loom over his demise.

"(Jim) was willing to consider Michigan if he could get comfortable that Brady had been taken care of and wanted to make sure I didn't do something rash," Hackett said. "We started to talk about the program in ways. Now, as I'm experiencing what he's doing, I'm really glad we started there."

Comparing it to courting his wife, Hackett said, "That's what I wanted. I wanted to know him at a much more intimate level before I took the next step."

There were similar conversations occurring with other candidates, not to string them along but to have a relationship if they became Hackett's choice. This was important given he had not offered or specifically discussed the open job and future with Harbaugh.

Hackett knew that if Harbaugh or the other NFL or candidates coaching in major bowls were restricted by their timeline, he would have to make a decision. With Harbaugh, he figured he would at least need a promise and expectation with his word for U-M to wait through a possible playoff run.

But it was never verbalized to Harbaugh because it didn't have to be. The 49ers were eliminated from playoff contention with a Dec. 14 loss to the Seattle Seahawks and the wheels were quickly in motion.

"The minute we learned the 49ers weren't going to make it, I called their organization and said I would like to talk to him," Hackett said of reaching out to 49ers owner Jed York. "There's a gentleman's decorum in this sport. I like it … Jed said, 'I don't mind if you talk to him, but I'd like to talk to him first.' Once those traps had been cleared, so to speak, I had these discussions about Michigan. I had not talked to Jim about the job. Once I got Jed's OK, then we started more serious negotiations. Up until knowing the playoff (situation), there was no offer, there was no financials. It was just two people."

Hackett began to move in other areas as well.

He approached the UM Board of Regents and Schlissel about the money necessary to land a high-level coach, though he didn't specifically say it would be Harbaugh. He figured they had a good idea when he told them "the kind of people we were after."

From there the sides kept coming together, already with a bond built before an offer was there.

According to Hackett, even though the financial figures were being traded back and forth between the sides, Harbaugh refused to agree to any deal until the 49ers' season was officially over.

Yet as he was in the locker room following the final game against Arizona on Dec. 28, the deal was being exchanged.

Hackett got a bit concerned with the actual contract as they reached the final days.

"We had this comical thing, where I was flying back from California – another part where I was doing something else -- I can't get my computer to work on the airplane," he said. "I get to the hotel and they don't have .pdf software on their business computer. It was a disaster. I'm trying to get in front of him my signed document that I've agreed to. The great news about that, the iPhone, I was able to take a picture of the contract and text it to one of his colleagues that was helping. After that last game … he signs the deal Monday and gets on a plane to come to the press conference."

Even that Monday (Dec. 29), though Hackett was confident, he also understood it wasn't done until signed.

He knew that Monday other NFL teams were officially allowed to talk to Harbaugh and feared someone making a massive contract offer that could sway Harbaugh.

But his confidence in the deal came from a few areas – Harbaugh's honor that he had seen, Harbaugh's insistence that he did not want to be college football's highest-paid coach and that Hackett had been the one pushing the ball forward with Harbaugh during the conversations, initially telling him that he needed to decide on college vs. the pros before getting deep into the Michigan decision. So he believed that had already been decided in Harbaugh's mind.

It's a mind that fascinates Hackett, who has dealt with business titans and still sees Harbaugh as unique.

"One of the things I learned about him and love about him is this is a very cerebral guy," Hackett said. "He doesn't talk in anecdotes. He's not passive about wanting to understand things. He slows things down in a way that makes the intensity go up. He really understands every nook and cranny of something, he has an amazing skill to focus. I don't know Tiger Woods, but I hear he has that skill. I don't know the famous downhill skiers, but I hear the best people in sport are like this … competitors."

From Day 1, Hackett apparently had a plan, one that he believed in and was finally validated when the hiring occurred.

"A famous broadcaster that the world would recognize, who's not on sports anymore, said to me, 'You didn't get a great coach, you got the best coach in football today,' " Hackett said. "When he told me that, I had to decide whether to land on this seven-year deal and when I heard that, (I thought) that's what I need to know.

"We're not taking the risk of an experiment here."
___________________

Can the University of Miami continue to afford to take that risk of that rising up and comer coach anymore? ***** NO! Either UM go out and reach and hire a Chip Kelly to coach UM, or holler at Butch Davis to return to UM.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Great post. The ability to adapt is key to any coach/leader. To this point you have seen Golden come in with his guiding principles and stick to them. They have not worked at UM and he has stuck to his ways. To me this will be his ultimate downfall. We are talented enough to be a double digit win team and compete for the ACC but thie mismatch of scheme and talent so far under Golden do not let us reach our potential.

I hope he can prove us wrong. Go Canes

I actually just read a book, written by a military strategist, about this (adaptability in leadership) and it might as well be a review of Golden's tenure. Golden is the classic 'command leader' while the modern [college football] world has become too complex to do anything other than be adaptable and capable of improvisation. There's a military story in the book about a naval battle fought by the British against a much larger and powerful force. I felt like I was reading about Gus Malzahn vs Al Groh.

The ability to be flexible and build around that culture is the entire difference in today's more complex (because of information and access) world. It's no different in college football. In fact, it's more pronounced.


Exactly. I've said this for years about leadership in general from sports to corporate America to parenthood. My HS coach was great when our team had big guys but when they graduated he tried to run the same offense and did not adapt to a guard oriented team. This was his downfall he was a system coach but not a leader that could adapt.

I just do not think he is willing to adapt. This is the year to see if he can.
 
So I've been asking around this morning. Basically, reaching out to anyone I consider close to the program. I'm not surprised by what's going on, but nauseous nonetheless.

Mostly everyone said they didn't know or hadn't heard anything yet. One person mentioned what I anticipated: "we can still win the Coastal."

Folks, even if we were to miraculously win the coastal division, we would be accepting a different standard here. Every single time we accept a different, lower standard, I am going to bump this thread and hope that people bring up this subject. Donors, fans, media people trolling this site or anyone with a social media account.
 
So I've been asking around this morning. Basically, reaching out to anyone I consider close to the program. I'm not surprised by what's going on, but nauseous nonetheless.

Mostly everyone said they didn't know or hadn't heard anything yet. One person mentioned what I anticipated: "we can still win the Coastal."

Folks, even if we were to miraculously win the coastal division, we would be accepting a different standard here. Every single time we accept a different, lower standard, I am going to bump this thread and hope that people bring up this subject. Donors, fans, media people trolling this site or anyone with a social media account.

As I said earlier in the week the lowering of expectations of this fanbase has been pretty startling.

Under Randy, it's gone from "winning the ACC" to "winning the coastal" under Al to (a comment I heard earlier this year), "getting to the coastal game". I'm sure there are fans out there who are also parroting the "at least we lost by only X points to FSU" mantra. Sickening.
 
Back
Top