- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 8,992
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:
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
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?
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]
None of those other coaches needed "buy-in" from the players in order to succeed.
So the grand point of that article is that UM football has underachieved hilariously? Thanks for the bulletin.
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.
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]
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?
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.
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.