I appreciate the response.
This program's first season being independent was in 1927. Prior to Howard in 79', this program's win/loss record was 334-248. From 79' to present this program's win/loss record is 400-163, & that is despite 35 yrs of that time being affiliated with a conference. If the growth in illegal bags/payments is what is driving the disparities between P5 teams, then why didn't this program win more games during the period when it was less of an issue? It appears to me that the most important factors that have contributed to this program's ability to win, have been coaching/player development, & mainly the deregulation of TV rights. The same TV rights that enabled MIA to win 5 NCs, is also what has led to the explosion in profligate spending within CFB, & conference realignment that moves towards an eventual march towards a P2.
What also grew during that same period is coaching salaries, & funding for infrastructure projects. On one hand u are suggesting that MIA fell behind other programs because the NCAA gave preferential treatment to certain schools regarding illegal bags/payments to players, but when MIA could've competed with those same schools LEGALLY, it chose not to. The NCAA did not force MIA to make bargain bin coaching hires within the last 20+ yrs. The NCAA did not force MIA to siphon resources away from the football program, & towards other business operations within the university. I'm not even blaming MIA for prioritizing academics instead of athletics within the last 20+ yrs, but if we're going to understand the problem, then it at least requires an accurate assessment of how we got here. Furthermore, I don't mean to sound like an apologist for the NCAA, but the very nature of CFB is such that not all teams have the same profile or visibility; based on geography alone the intensity of the microscope placed upon a program like MIA or USC is going to be greater than at a place like Tuscaloosa, Knoxville, Athens, etc, which is why it's more or less impossible for a governing body like the NCAA to completely eliminate impermissible benefits to players.
If we are going to blame the NCAA, then it should be for failing to intervene with spending controls once revenue generation amongst P5 conferences began to grow too unequal. College athletics are unique from the standpoint, that even though programs are structured as non-profit organizations, they are simultaneously engaged in fierce zero-sum competition with one another, which incentivizes the spending of nearly 100% of all revenue in investments that will help them achieve success in their competitive mission. This means only a few athletic programs are able to maintain profitability & dictate the spending patterns for the entire sport. Other programs try to keep pace even if it means incurring huge losses, & their debt servicing approaches unsustainable levels.
I know full well the history of UM football, I have multiple books that I've purchased since I first enrolled in 1986.
Yes, Miami got a lot better since hiring Howard. I don't need a lecture on the modern era of college football vs. everything that happened before that time.
What you are doing is conflating two different things. One involves the rise of college football resources generally, including coaching salaries, "facilities" arms races, and a reshaping of university priorities.
This is still a different issue from the way that "soft money" arose, and the use of bags SPECIFICALLY in the recruiting phase of the process. Sure, we could go on and on and on about all of the things that have happened, but to argue that "Miami didn't pay enough money for Shannon or Golden" as the root of our problems with recruiting is just misguided.
Yes, Miami has faced a variety of issues. But you are using all of the OTHER issues to dismiss a phenomenon that has absolutely been transpiring, and on a disproportionate basis, in the rise of illicit payments (and the blind eye turned to this phenomenon) that has created a RECRUITING disparity between certain programs that have embraced the cheating and those that have not done so as heavily.
I used the line of demarcation of 1992 NOT to blame conferences or funding or any other issue, but to shine more light on the "but we won 5 NCs" argument. Speaking as a person who was there and knew most of the student-athletes at the time, it was a time when the illicit money was not as prevalent in the decision-making processes of recruiting. That's just a fact. That is not to say that there was NO illicit money, but that the risk-reward analysis was more balanced. Not only was the money not as great (quantity-wise), but a lot of programs and players steered clear of the stereotypical "bag full of money" out of a legitimate fear that the NCAA punishment would be so severe as to render the risk of getting caught to be a devastating blow.
But nature abhors a vacuum, so as programs were NOT caught/punished, and as the illicit money proved to be a stronger determinant of on-field success, this approach continued to grow. Look, from the 1980s and 1990s, I know that some of the Miami players accepted some extra benefits. I can also tell you that this was not the driving motivational factor for why they chose Miami, nor did they have some secret stash of money somewhere. I spent time and broke bread with so many student-athletes at the time, and they struggled just to have enough money to eat at an off-campus restaurant. A lot of the (minor) illicit money that was received was given to family, and I could cite examples (but I won't). The only guy at Miami who had absolutely no monetary issues was Rohan.
Again, to act as if "Miami didn't pay coaches enough" is the cause of recruiting misses is strange. To act as if we could have "competed legally" merely by paying a coach also ignores the distinction between athletic department budgets (something where Miami has ALWAYS lagged, from being an Independent when conferences were small, to being in the Big East when our rivals were in better conferences, to being in the ACC while the SEC and Big 10 were leaving the ACC in the dust) and the actions by certain boosters to use illicit methods as a force multiplier on the recruiting trail.
And, yes, the NCAA has multiple issues of its own. But to use the argument that "illicit money has always existed" and "there are a lot of reasons" simply ignores the reality that the use of illicit money on the recruiting trail has ABSOLUTELY skyrocketed in the past 30 years as NCAA enforcement has withered in those same 30 years.
So, no, I am not going to run around citing "5 national championships" as a reason for why we shouldn't be better right now. 80% of that success came in a simpler time when the margins between "cheating" and "not so much cheating" were much narrower, I am proud of what Miami accomplished, but I am also clear-eyed about what we need to do FOR OURSELVES, as well as what we must GUARD AGAINST so that we do not go right back to the disparities we have suffered for the past 30 years.
I also know a lot of UM alums and boosters, including many of the ones with deep-pockets. And very few of them are interested in being SEC-style cowboys, shelling out illicit payments to student-athletes just to bolster their egos. So if we want to remain competitive, we need to make sure we don't go back to the more lawless days of NCAA recruiting.
