forums

How to avoid a 2004-2016 slide again?

Advertisement
Mklein13 said:
Also Donna did not care at all about the football program and the university would not open up their wallets for quality coaches.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of Donna, but she DID want to bring Barry Alvarez in. That would have been a great move by UM, but we went with Mr. Player Friendly Clappy. It was downhill from there. We went cheap three times in a row and it really hurt us.

I believe that is why the Adidas deal was so critical. The influx of cash had to help hire Richt.
 
Keep paying what we can for top flight coaches. We aren’t going to be able to keep Diaz much longer at his current rate unless we continue to pay a very competitive wage for assistants. I love how we picked up Simpson and believe he’s going to improve our DL play. And always remember the hand that feeds you Frenk. That hand is the football program.
 
ThomasM said:
I'm no fan of Donna, but she DID want to bring Barry Alvarez in. That would have been a great move by UM, but we went with Mr. Player Friendly Clappy. It was downhill from there. We went cheap three times in a row and it really hurt us.

I believe that is why the Adidas deal was so critical. The influx of cash had to help hire Richt.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Barry Alvarez would have been any better at running a football program at the University of Miami than Larry Coker, Randy Shannon, or Al Golden? If we had hired Barry to replace Butch in 2001 instead of Coker, I'm not even sure we get to the national title game in 2001 or 2002. Yeah, those teams were talented as ****, but Barry Alvarez is about as good a cultural fit for the Miami Hurricanes as a Mormon family of eight from Provo, Utah walking onto an all-*** 10 day meetmeonboard cruise thinking they were getting on a Disney ship.

Say what you will about Coker, he was no worse than Dennis Erickson and was one atrocious officiating decision (or a blown McGahee knee) away from winning back-to-back national titles. If the program/university was being run appropriately at the time, we would have fired him after the 2005 season at the latest and transitioned to the next coach without skipping a beat.

Agree with you the Adidas deal was very important.

Don't go giving The Troll credit where she isn't due any. There are plenty of Big D slurpers on here who will do that regardless of the facts.
 
Advertisement
Tad Footeball said:
Do. Not. Hire/Promote. Unproven. Head. Coaches......or Luigi Cristobal.

That said, I think* we're in good hands with El Presidente Frenkinator. He seems to understand the proper cost/benefit analysis to running a big time program and would seemingly keep investing to keep the successes and associated profitability rolling whereas we just expected it to continue to magically happen in the past.
Click to expand...


This! We should no longer be the proving grounds for some whelp.

I'm not worried with El Frenk. He's both sexier and more ruthless than Putin.
 
How to avoid a slide?

You spend big time money on your coaches. Your HC shouldn't have to pay out of his own pocket to keep em paid. You don't lose coaches to other programs. You lose them to the NFL, if at all.

We just finally paid a HC what Saban got paid back in 2007.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
What makes you think Barry Alvarez would have been any better at running a football program at the University of Miami than Larry Coker, Randy Shannon, or Al Golden? If we had hired Barry to replace Butch in 2001 instead of Coker, I'm not even sure we get to the national title game in 2001 or 2002. Yeah, those teams were talented as ****, but Barry Alvarez is about as good a cultural fit for the Miami Hurricanes as a Mormon family of eight from Provo, Utah walking onto an all-*** 10 day meetmeonboard cruise thinking they were getting on a Disney ship.

Say what you will about Coker, he was no worse than Dennis Erickson and was one atrocious officiating decision (or a blown McGahee knee) away from winning back-to-back national titles. If the program/university was being run appropriately at the time, we would have fired him after the 2005 season at the latest and transitioned to the next coach without skipping a beat.

Agree with you the Adidas deal was very important.

Don't go giving The Troll credit where she isn't due any. There are plenty of Big D slurpers on here who will do that regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...

As for "culturally", that sounds like the same mess people were saying about Jimmy Johnson when he was hired. Good coaches get good results, and Alvarez would have had success here.

I hate it when people act like one national title was worth hiring Coker for. It wasn't. A good coach wins it in 2001, 2002, and who knows how many times between 2003 and now. Coker was a horrible hire.

Like I have said many times, I don't like Shalala. I just don't believe she deserves more hate than the people who made the hiring decisions. If she had her way we would have gotten Alvarez, and more than likely never had Coker, Shannon, or Golden running things because of it. She deserves any vitriol for her part in the Shannon and Golden jokes. Just that those may never have happened had we ponied up and paid a real coach right away. Just my two cents.
 
Advertisement
In retrospect, hiring Alvarez would have been a good move. This team likely would have been better for longer, and probably would not have experienced such a slide. Maybe we would have traded the 2001 title for titles in 2002 *and* 2003. I thought Coker was a good OC - his was a great offense for the personnel at the time, but he just wasn't a head man.

I wasn't a fan of the idea of hiring Alvarez at the time, but in hindsight I can see how the program would have been better off.
 
- Spend Money. You get back what you put in.
- Go after someone that shown he can coach even if he doesn't have the horses to really compete. (look at Saban before LSU, Miles before LSU, Paul Chryst before Wisconsin, Franklin before Penn State etc.)
- Don't EVER hire someone because you think he "saved" a program when in reality the move down to a lower conference is what did. Al Golden had BIG EAST/AAC caliber players in the MAC (Akron, Miami(OH), Buffalo - yea that conference) and he could not win 10+ games. That should of been a red flag.
- Last but not least go after a hot shot coordinator preferably from the SEC/Big12. I know Shannon fell under this category when we hired him but most good coaches were usually coordinators before they got the job.
 
Last edited:
Tad Footeball said:
Do. Not. Hire/Promote. Unproven. Head. Coaches......or Luigi Cristobal.

That said, I think* we're in good hands with El Presidente Frenkinator. He seems to understand the proper cost/benefit analysis to running a big time program and would seemingly keep investing to keep the successes and associated profitability rolling whereas we just expected it to continue to magically happen in the past.
Click to expand...

When he was hired, I actually wondered what the **** he could possibly care about football or any sport, coming from Harvard. It struck me as a move made by the university to further bolster its academic reputation and nothing more than that. He seems to be willing to spend some money on athletics, though.
 
Gentlemen, its really, really simple. We had a president who raised a lot of cash for the school, but was awful for the sports teams. You also have to criticize the BOT for not overriding her and forcing changes. If the school actually invests in the program, something it did not do until Richt, we should never have another slide.
 
Advertisement
LPK2006 said:
When he was hired, I actually wondered what the **** he could possibly care about football or any sport, coming from Harvard. It struck me as a move made by the university to further bolster its academic reputation and nothing more than that. He seems to be willing to spend some money on athletics, though.
Click to expand...

He has been more supportive than Donna (not hard to do), but the big change is the BOT making the commitment as well. In that regard, we owe Clemson a lot of gratitude, they forced our cheap administration to change.
 
As long as they stop pretending to not have any money, they will win consistently. For a decade plus, all we heard was "Miami doesn't have the money to pay coaches. Miami doesn't have the money to upgrade facilities"Meanwhile, everyone else in our conference (they get the same revenue share of the TV contracts) is upgrading and spending. As long as they put football revenue back into the program instead of their own coffers, the team will be successful.
 
UM admin need to understand the university of Miami as a whole is better when the football team is successful. And they need to start continually reinvesting in the program. It will pays dividends everywhere! No more cheap hires! Nobodys should be 'cutting their teeth' here. People want winners! Boosters, donators, and apperal companies included.

It always seem like part of the decline happens when admin decided THE U should be known for its academic reputation over its football success. Yes, its important to keep our academic status but if Joe blow from Iowa doesn't know Miami is a top 50 institution who cares?!? We Know it is!
 
Advertisement
g8rh8rMD said:
Avoid this:
shalalacheck.jpg


Question answered, problem solved, close thread.
Click to expand...

White pleated shorts!!! WTF!! Of course that biach is going to roll over like punk.
 
ThomasM said:
As for "culturally", that sounds like the same mess people were saying about Jimmy Johnson when he was hired. Good coaches get good results, and Alvarez would have had success here.

I hate it when people act like one national title was worth hiring Coker for. It wasn't. A good coach wins it in 2001, 2002, and who knows how many times between 2003 and now. Coker was a horrible hire.

Like I have said many times, I don't like Shalala. I just don't believe she deserves more hate than the people who made the hiring decisions. If she had her way we would have gotten Alvarez, and more than likely never had Coker, Shannon, or Golden running things because of it. She deserves any vitriol for her part in the Shannon and Golden jokes. Just that those may never have happened had we ponied up and paid a real coach right away. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we just disagree about Barry Alvarez's coaching ability. And when I say culturally, you don't need to put it in quotes like that. I'm not talking about what you're talking about when you do that. I'm talking about playing styles, coaching styles, confidence, communication methods. We can never know because it didn't happen, but Wisconsin and Miami are VERY different programs with different types of athletes and recruiting bases. I don't think, and this is the answer you'll get if you ask Vilma, Reed, etc, those guys wouldn't have trusted him coming in and trying to run things the "Wisconsin way".

I agree we would have been better off going out and paying a "real coach", but disagree that Alvarez fits in that category. I'm sure there could be plenty of debate on that, though. But I'm sure you could also agree that, if the university was running the football program responsibly, they would have been investing in the football program and athletic facilities as a whole along the way, Coker would have probably not been given a 5 year extension when he was, he would have been gone after that 40-3 debacle, and the school would and should have gone out and paid a real coach instead of installing a guy in Randy Shannon who sat in the Co-pilot's seat for the crash that created the vacancy which put him in charge.

But yes, at the end of the day, the people who put Shalala in charge of it all got what they wanted just as well as she did. So, I guess we can agree to disagree while agreeing.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
Fair enough, we just disagree about Barry Alvarez's coaching ability. And when I say culturally, you don't need to put it in quotes like that. I'm not talking about what you're talking about when you do that. I'm talking about playing styles, coaching styles, confidence, communication methods. We can never know because it didn't happen, but Wisconsin and Miami are VERY different programs with different types of athletes and recruiting bases. I don't think, and this is the answer you'll get if you ask Vilma, Reed, etc, those guys wouldn't have trusted him coming in and trying to run things the "Wisconsin way".

I agree we would have been better off going out and paying a "real coach", but disagree that Alvarez fits in that category. I'm sure there could be plenty of debate on that, though. But I'm sure you could also agree that, if the university was running the football program responsibly, they would have been investing in the football program and athletic facilities as a whole along the way, Coker would have probably not been given a 5 year extension when he was, he would have been gone after that 40-3 debacle, and the school would and should have gone out and paid a real coach instead of installing a guy in Randy Shannon who sat in the Co-pilot's seat for the crash that created the vacancy which put him in charge.

But yes, at the end of the day, the people who put Shalala in charge of it all got what they wanted just as well as she did. So, I guess we can agree to disagree while agreeing.
Click to expand...

" I'm talking about playing styles, coaching styles, confidence, communication methods."

That's exactly the culture I was talking about. When JJ was hired ALL those things were questioned.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top