Barry Jackson -update on the UM/Diaz situation later today.

[Negro-Wan Kanobi]

This is why the banner flyers have always been right and part of the solution, while the latte drinking tut-tutters who look down on them have always been part of the palace guard.

The only thing that gets the attention of the BOT and Admin is the risk of embarrassment. If they think no one notices or cares that the program sucks, they'll go right on ignoring it.

I'm ready to donate

 

[who]

No doubt a nationally televised blowout is a million more times impactful then a $600 banner flying over HRS that only a limited amount of people see. If anyone thinks millionaire/billionaire BOT members/donors are impacted by that $600 banner, they’re delusional.

Believe what you want but they do notice and care about the banners. It’s simply a bad look that they want no part of. It’s a callout of sorts. Blowout losses - no effect since most trustees will not care and it has become the norm.

Again to all - why did UM interfere with the US1 billboard (something far more visible) if they don’t care about these sort of things.

 

[Salt]

Not directed at you specifically, but here's the issue I have with this whole line of thinking.

I would say to UM.... If you want people to donate more money to athletics, then show that you're invested in it. Show potential donors their money will be well-spent. Produce an exciting and winning product. Give people something to get fired up about and throw their support behind.

You can't whine about how not enough people donate money when you're not showing people that you're making any kind of effort at all.

considering the NIL factor, companies that want potential big name stars to market their apparel or services, etc. should be looking to financially help local Universities build up their sports programs to lure bigger name talent. Kind of makes sense looking at the big picture that a better program lures better talent and local companies benefit getting access to these potential stars to promote their business.

 

[RVACane]

I hear what you both are saying, but if the school acted proactively and gave any form of an impression that standards are not being met then this wouldn't happen. There is no universe where Blake James should still be collecting paychecks from the school outside of severance. If they fired him, showed they are paying attention, and made an action to establish standards, I would bet a majority of people would not feel like they need to go to those lengths to make their opinions heard. Some may still, but a majority would be pacified to wait and see.

Thinking back to Golden (forgetting Richt, as he stepped down after year three), there are not many athletic departments that would have given him that fifth year to prove what everyone knew after years three and four. The school largely does it to themselves.

And if they wanted to fly a banner to say get Julio Frenk out, I would not judge them for that either. Anyone that cares about the school beyond athletics should want the same, as should any alum whose degree is being devalued under his watch.

It's a hard tightrope to walk.

Generally speaking, it's not pleasant to see anything which makes my alma mater look bad.

However, after three decades of dealing with a private school hierarchy that was frequently unresponsive to its students (I could cite numerous tuition-increase protests in the 1980s, the painfully slow response to installing blue-light phones across campus to increase safety in the 1980s-1990s, or the incredibly delayed process of building a pedestrian bridge over US 1 which finally came to completion a few years ago, after DECADES of efforts), I will tell you that it is perversely delightful to see Trustees and UM administrators publicly humiliated by banners.

I was not a fan of the "Butch" banner, as I thought Butch was a great coach in a bad situation.

I was a fan of the other "coaching change" banners.

I believe that "AD change" banners should focus squarely on Beta Blake.

Sadly, our Athletic Department is strangely disconnected from the rest of UM in the traditional "command-structure" organization. To the best of my knowledge only one AD has been forced out in the past 40+ years (though it's possible that The Shermanator was also nudged to leave).

I ain't gonna lie, I do derive some amusement from the Athletics-related banners, and the huffing and puffing the banners cause among the Trustees. This amusement tends to outweigh the general feeling of alma mater embarrassment.

Now, if people started flying banners that mocked our dorms or course offerings or the number of volumes in the Richter Library, I might be more concerned.

Then say that. By saying it has no to minimal effect is disingenuous. They absolutely do care about bad PR. Embarrassing losses does not fall under that to them. Not much heat from the media since it’s now the “norm”. Banners flying over an empty stadium, absolutely. Media will be all over that.

I think the banners embarrass the fanbase too and targeting people for embarrassment who give millions to the school is not a part of my personal value system. These people have their own areas of interest - medicine, law…etc.

It takes a BOT member who wants to properly champion and fund Athletics to step up. Ideally, one of the psychos on CIS who is or becomes a zillionaire can fill that void.

 

[SWFLHurricane]

Miller is still very involved at the school.

Not like he used to be...Lennar takes up most of his time...Hence him stepping down as BOT Chairman....

 

[561Cane]

I'm sure it is. Again, inaction by a body is a decision.

USC re: Helton reached a different conclusion.

One day, Miami's BoT will reach the same re: Flake und Manuela.

Zehr gut.

It took USC 7 years to reach such conclusion.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I think the banners embarrass the fanbase too and targeting people for embarrassment who give millions to the school is not a part of my personal value system. These people have their own areas of interest - medicine, law…etc.

It takes a BOT member who wants to properly champion and fund Athletics to step up. Ideally, one of the psychos on CIS who is or becomes a zillionaire can fill that void.

All very valid and meaningful points.

We also need a BOT member (the entire BOT?) to step up and reform the BOT structure itself. I can give you specific names of Trustees who have been on the board since I was in school at UM. I am not so sure that "giving millions" should translate into a Trustee position, not to mention a decades-long Trustee position.

Many, many other institutions of higher learning are able to function and succeed with smaller boards and/or boards that have limitations on the tenure of board members.

I truly appreciate all of the contributions made to UM, from small to large. The way in which UM has roughly translated large contributions into lifelong Trustee positions has been problematic for decades.

Again, to take one example, the effort to build a pedestrian bridge over US 1 took three decades. Several UM students died in the meantime. The overall cost was not prohibitive, and nearly every year for three decades "US 1 pedestrian bridge" was a "platform plank" of one or more Student Government candidates.

Clearly, hiring/firing ADs and HCs is not quite as life-and-death as building a bridge over US 1. Whatever the reasons, whether it is organizational malaise in an 80-member board, or the lack of leadership by one or more people who fail to take the reins, we still face a significant challenge in translating the desires of thousands of members of the university community into impactful action by an 80-member BOT.

At some point, the BOT needs to figure out a way to listen to its constituents and build trust that it will act to represent our interests and desires. We all want to make UM better, whether it is in US News or Hard Rock Stadium. But just as Beta Blake has not gotten his job done, and Manny has not gotten his job done, the BOT (as a group) has not gotten the job done for decades.

The BOT issues are much bigger than AD/HC, but firing the AD/HC is probably one of the most visible issues they must deal with.

 

[Fluffhead]

I think the banners embarrass the fanbase too and targeting people for embarrassment who give millions to the school is not a part of my personal value system. These people have their own areas of interest - medicine, law…etc.

It takes a BOT member who wants to properly champion and fund Athletics to step up. Ideally, one of the psychos on CIS who is or becomes a zillionaire can fill that void.

I totally hear you and respect that, but let me give the counter to that. Board Member Smith gives $10m to the School of Creative Dance. Doesn't know or care about sports. Now sees this through friends, word of mouth, social media, tv, whatever, and says well this isn't a good look, let me see what is going on. Now they are a vote against Blake or Manny because they don't want to deal with it, don't like the look, whatever. I don't know that this is that far fetched. It is bringing awareness and highlighting issues to those board members that may not care about sports, but do care about public perception.

Candidly, under the current administration, the board should be embarrassed about the direction of the school under Frenk without a banner. If I were giving that much money, I would be ****ed about the trajectory of things. Whether people agree with the US News rankings or not, not a single person thought they'd be looking up at FSU in the overall rankings, in addition to multiple school rankings. If they need a banner to highlight some of these issues and draw an emotion, maybe it is time to either become more involved or step away as a board member.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

We also need a BOT member (the entire BOT?) to step up and reform the BOT structure itself. I can give you specific names of Trustees who have been on the board since I was in school at UM. I am not so sure that "giving millions" should translate into a Trustee position, not to mention a decades-long Trustee position.

Many, many other institutions of higher learning are able to function and succeed with smaller boards and/or boards that have limitations on the tenure of board members.

Agreed, and I have made this point in private (and maybe even on this board) many times. UM's BOT has 39 elected members, 3 alumni representatives, 17 senior members, 6 ex-officio members, 4 national members, 22 emeriti members, and one student representative. And at UM, once you have given $X, you basically get voted into the BoT club for life. It's a cumbersome, slow-moving, bureaucratic monster that has just become more and more bloated over the years.

Most university's have boards a fraction of ours. The University of Florida has 13 total members on its Board of Trustees.

Private schools do tend to have more, but even then we pale in comparison to schools with much greater endowments. Stanford has an endowment more than 25 times UM's, yet its BOT is 33 members. Duke University has an endowment about 8 times UM's and they have 37 board members.

Fixing UM's BOT reminds me campaign finance reform. The majority of rational constituents with an opinion think its a problem. But the people with the power to most easily do something to fix the issue (i.e., the BOT) won't because to do so is to act against their self-interest.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

Candidly, under the current administration, the board should be embarrassed about the direction of the school under Frenk without a banner. If I were giving that much money, I would be ****ed about the trajectory of things. Whether people agree with the US News rankings or not, not a single person thought they'd be looking up at FSU in the overall rankings, in addition to multiple school rankings. If they need a banner to highlight some of these issues and draw an emotion, maybe it is time to either become more involved or step away as a board member.

Well said.

 

[Brains]

I'm going to take a related, but slightly different angle here, and suggest that an overall BOT that does not, cannot, or will not recognize the value of a strong University of Miami football program, is an incompetent BOT. I don't know how you can overlook the positive impact on student life and in the surrounding community. It's the best publicity your school could dream of.

And an individual member who doesn't get it, probably isn't BOT material.

no, you don't destroy the school on account of a football program. But that's a false choice here.

 

[Empirical Cane]

It took USC 7 years to reach such conclusion.

Only 4 more to go baby.

Quit yer bïtchin'!!

 

[Empirical Cane]

Agreed, and I have made this point in private (and maybe even on this board) many times. UM's BOT has 39 elected members, 3 alumni representatives, 17 senior members, 6 ex-officio members, 4 national members, 22 emeriti members, and one student representative. And at UM, once you have given $X, you basically get voted into the BoT club for life. It's a cumbersome, slow-moving, bureaucratic monster that has just become more and more bloated over the years.

Most university's have boards a fraction of ours. The University of Florida has 13 total members on its Board of Trustees.

Private schools do tend to have more, but even then we pale in comparison to schools with much greater endowments. Stanford has an endowment more than 25 times UM's, yet its BOT is 33 members. Duke University has an endowment about 8 times UM's and they have 37 board members.

Fixing UM's BOT reminds me campaign finance reform. The majority of rational constituents with an opinion think its a problem. But the people with the power to most easily do something to fix the issue (i.e., the BOT) won't because to do so is to act against their self-interest.

That is Politburo / Central Planning Committee unwielding.

 

[HurricaneHauk]

Believe what you want but they do notice and care about the banners. It’s simply a bad look that they want no part of. It’s a callout of sorts. Blowout losses - no effect since most trustees will not care and it has become the norm.

Again to all - why did UM interfere with the US1 billboard (something far more visible) if they don’t care about these sort of things.

You still actually believe someone interfered with the billboard?

Where did the other 3k go after he paid his brother to drive a van around

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

Agreed, and I have made this point in private (and maybe even on this board) many times. UM's BOT has 39 elected members, 3 alumni representatives, 17 senior members, 6 ex-officio members, 4 national members, 22 emeriti members, and one student representative. And at UM, once you have given $X, you basically get voted into the BoT club for life. It's a cumbersome, slow-moving, bureaucratic monster that has just become more and more bloated over the years.

Most university's have boards a fraction of ours. The University of Florida has 13 total members on its Board of Trustees.

Private schools do tend to have more, but even then we pale in comparison to schools with much greater endowments. Stanford has an endowment more than 25 times UM's, yet its BOT is 33 members. Duke University has an endowment about 8 times UM's and they have 37 board members.

Fixing UM's BOT reminds me campaign finance reform. The majority of rational constituents with an opinion think its a problem. But the people with the power to most easily do something to fix the issue (i.e., the BOT) won't because to do so is to act against their self-interest.

There is also the problem that for whatever reason, the BOT refuses to allow booster clubs to pay for coaches. Booster clubs paid for most of Saban's salary and even his gazillion dollar house. I don't understand why the BOT refuses to allow this. It's obviously legal since basically every other school does it, so I can't think of a valid reason why they would forbid the booster money to go to coaching salaries.

 

[Fluffhead]

Not like he used to be...Lennar takes up most of his time...Hence him stepping down as BOT Chairman....

Not for nothing, but he stepped down as CEO of Lennar and much of its day to day leadership couple of years back as well.

 

[who]

You still actually believe someone interfered with the billboard?

Where did the other 3k go after he paid his brother to drive a van around

I will not bother arguing with you since I remember your username well. Remember your involvement in the sabotage of @NicKane ‘s banner?

https://www.canesinsight.com/thread...-the-plane-to-fly-the-banner-guys-smh.152759/

 

[TheOriginalCane]

There is also the problem that for whatever reason, the BOT refuses to allow booster clubs to pay for coaches. Booster clubs paid for most of Saban's salary and even his gazillion dollar house. I don't understand why the BOT refuses to allow this. It's obviously legal since basically every other school does it, so I can't think of a valid reason why they would forbid the booster money to go to coaching salaries.

I made this point before (in a different thread?), but it is really a bit of a misunderstood issue. The Hurricane Club does not NEED to pay a coaching salary at UM, because UM (as a private school) has no need to evade any state law that could limit the amount paid to a state employee (football/basketball coach).

That is not an argument FOR OR AGAINST the Hurricane Club doing more. But whether we make our donations to UM directly or the Hurricane Club indirectly, it's pretty much going to be US paying more for a coach. And I have no problems if some/most are in favor of it, I'm just pointing out that we don't NEED to do it for legally evasive reasons.

If UM wants to budget $10M per year for the head football coach, that is allowable. Given the fact that we do not need to pay for annual maintenance for an on-campus stadium, I certainly think that we SHOULD devote a bigger percentage of our Athletic budget to coaches.

But if HC gets involved...then the HC will be expecting bigger checks from all of us. Personally, I'd rather have a transparent process where UM pays full-freight for the coaches, but I also understand that people look around at what other schools do and then wonder why we are not doing it.

 

[RVACane]

I totally hear you and respect that, but let me give the counter to that. Board Member Smith gives $10m to the School of Creative Dance. Doesn't know or care about sports. Now sees this through friends, word of mouth, social media, tv, whatever, and says well this isn't a good look, let me see what is going on. Now they are a vote against Blake or Manny because they don't want to deal with it, don't like the look, whatever. I don't know that this is that far fetched. It is bringing awareness and highlighting issues to those board members that may not care about sports, but do care about public perception.

Candidly, under the current administration, the board should be embarrassed about the direction of the school under Frenk without a banner. If I were giving that much money, I would be ****ed about the trajectory of things. Whether people agree with the US News rankings or not, not a single person thought they'd be looking up at FSU in the overall rankings, in addition to multiple school rankings. If they need a banner to highlight some of these issues and draw an emotion, maybe it is time to either become more involved or step away as a board member.

I think they’ve got bigger priorities, IMO, with the deteriorating academics or perception of it which goes to the school’s primary purpose, unlike sports. That said, a thriving athletics program, led by football, helps the school as I see it but people have priorities and where they value the various components.

 

[gacaneaddict]

So 50 million to buyout Mario, buyout Manny, and then pay Mario 7 million per year?