forums

It's all about the InfrastrUcture: we've got another once in a decade chance

LuCane

LuCane

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
15,460
I think the biggest thing left out of the upcoming coaching debate is "does any candidate impact fundamental infrastructure changes."

What do I mean by infrastructure? It's almost another post altogether, but it includes all aspects of administration starting with a true leader at AD and whoever he or she hire as support. This means medical/training staff, a real system of player evaluation (I'm in talent development and can tell you this is wildly overlooked in our AD), investment in talented admin *professionals* to surround whoever is the coach. Infrastructure is a system that will support a coach and realistically outlast any specific coach.

This post is about which coach comes with these more fundamental changes, as the reality is each candidate comes with different warts. That's what happens with coaches who've gone to war already.

I 100% have concerns about Mario's history on offense, the gameday stuff, and the situation with reliance on coordinators. I 100% have concerns with Lane's ability to build a program/foundation and CEO/lead his way to a solid evaluation and selection of coordinators and player talent. I 100% have concerns about Stoops (and I like him!). I 100% have concerns about Aranda's ability to build a program down here (and I really like the dude!). I have 1000% concerns with doing any other experiment with a coordinator or someone from a program with different current and future problems.

But, our question is luckily a simpler business question: is the cost of any coach's risk less than the benefit of what comes with ________ (insert coach's name)? Who has the best cost-benefit for our current and future problems in the current competitive landscape of college football?

That's why we need someone leading these decisions right now who actually knows business and strategy. That's why Blake needed to be let go immediately, if not sooner. That's why anyone who entrusted Blake to make near-unilateral decisions or at least massively influence full-on leadership decisions needs to step aside for this one.

Personally, I despise how we almost always go back to "how things were when we won." Mainly, because the environment changes and therefore problems are not the same. If we're going to look back at any real past successes that match the current problem, then that conversation needs to have the word "Jankovich" in it and how he surrounded himself with really great Associate ADs (ask around, these were great people!) and true leaders (unafraid to hire alpha coaches).

Bottom line? If any of our specific candidates cause a monumental shift in our [entire] program's infrastructure, if that person is the catalyst for that commitment, then you have to mark extra pluses on that column. I'm not sitting in Rudy's or Joe Echevarria's office to have the details of what candidate does that more, so I can't really say much about the details of what boosters will contribute more or less to systemic changes. Maybe it's Mario because of his leverage? Maybe it's Lane or Freeze or Aranda because they have holes in their leadership resume and need this type of system of support?

I really don't know (and don't care) because I only care that we take this opportunity to build a system.

I'll repeat: what ails this program is at its root! Please stop looking at past, external successes (or failures) for what may solve current and future problems. We have an infrastructure problem that permeates everything from how the program is run to how players are evaluated for recruitment to how coaches and players are evaluated for on-field success. Is this not obvious to everyone who's watched us crash our program into the rocks for 20 years?

For once, let's make this decision based on foundational reasons rather than the bizarre external reasons (player preference for Coker, Randy's perceived local advantage, Golden's "organizational pillars," Richt's "polished" history, Diaz's apparent proximity to the Hecht office) we've used for the last 5 hires. Someone, anyone, make a real business decision here. Please. I don't care who the **** is coach so long as our infrastructure is weak and fake.
 
Advertisement
streetja said:
For all the reasons you lay out why our infrastructure is rotten and what a potential HC would bring that can change that, I think the AD hire is 1000x more important than the HC hire.
Click to expand...
I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, I’ve been told it may be linked or done concurrently, and that is my concern. I wanted to lay out as many reasons as I could (without making this an absolute novel) as to why I think the coach is secondary to systemic changes, but I’m also told some coaches may affect that more than others. If that’s the case, it should get significant weight.
 
Advertisement
streetja said:
For all the reasons you lay out why our infrastructure is rotten and what a potential HC would bring that can change that, I think the AD hire is 1000x more important than the HC
Click to expand...

Exactly, we botch this AD search and it’s going to be another 5+ years of mediocrity on all levels in the athletic program.
 
When the champagne hangover from firing Blake wears off, we will need to contend with the fact that they are essentially repeating the same mistakes. There is likely going to be no search for an AD or a coach. This was all orchestrated to put Gino and Highsmith in charge of the program, and to get Mario. It may ultimately work out because those guys are more competent than the combo of Manny and Blake, but it seems like they've learned nothing.
 
Last edited:
JimmyJohnsonsHair said:
When the champagne hangover from firing Blake wears off, we will need to content with the fact that they are essentially repeating the same mistakes. There is likely going to be no search for an AD or a coach. This was all orchestrated to put Gino and Highsmith in charge of the program, and to get Mario. It may ultimately work out because those guys are more competent than the combo of Manny and Blake, but it seems like they've learned nothing.
Click to expand...
We can extend this thread into what infrastructure actually is and bring in @Ethnicsands in since he's talked about this deeply for years. Process matters, man.
 
Advertisement
People ignore the background stuff that goes into winning. They see players and coaches, but there's so much underneath. A football program is some iceberg sh*t. All those stupid analysts and assistants at bama mean something. Having a system means something. I think we're stuck evaluating players and coaches with our gut while the winners of the world have a system that yields the best evals the highest percentage of the time. They have recruiting systems that land those players the highest percentage of the time. I'll be the first to admit that's not my world, and I'm sure there's much more than I realize, but that's the point. We keep thinking we can fix things with a coach because that's what we understand, and that's what worked in the 80s. Everything has evolved but we haven't. It's time to change that.
 
I think the obvious main issue is that the fractured infrastructure of the powers that be - BOT, President, and other decision makers - still remain. Until something changes in that structure, we could very well wind up where we’ve been the last 20 years.

Hopefully, the decision makers realize the past failures and take a much different approach in this next hiring process.
 
Advertisement
A college football program needs to be run like an NFL front office these days which is why I'm intrigued with Zo's (potential) involvement. You need to have different controls/processes/systems in place to make sure you are maximizing talent acquisition and then developing that talent yielding a positive end result (wins).

Recruiting
Transfer Portal
Strength and Conditioning
Nutrition
Scouting
Self-Scouting
Facilities
Operations

All of the above demands money and resources to make it successful in unison with each other. The big questions are how bad does Miami want it and are they able to get the right pieces at the top of the pyramid?
 
Canes Legacy said:
A college football program needs to be run like an NFL front office these days which is why I'm intrigued with Zo's (potential) involvement. You need to have different controls/processes/systems in place to make sure you are maximizing talent acquisition and then developing that talent yielding a positive end result (wins).

Recruiting
Transfer Portal
Strength and Conditioning
Nutrition
Scouting
Self-Scouting
Facilities
Operations

All of the above demands money and resources to make it successful in unison with each other. The big questions are how bad does Miami want it and are they able to get the right pieces at the top of the pyramid?
Click to expand...
Lot of overlooked pieces in what's been described as our operations. And, that's disappointing because it's totally within our control. It's not even the most expensive piece. But, it's usually a tell-tale sign of leadership issues. As an example, how are we not doing deep personality and "soft" (they're not soft) skills assessments and development plans? Modern corporations are run this way for a reason. Talent development isn't some random compliance check thing anymore.
 
Advertisement
LuCane said:
Lot of overlooked pieces in what's been described as our operations. And, that's disappointing because it's totally within our control. It's not even the most expensive piece. But, it's usually a tell-tale sign of leadership issues. As an example, how are we not doing deep personality and "soft" (they're not soft) skills assessments and development plans? Modern corporations are run this way for a reason. Talent development isn't some random compliance check thing anymore.
Click to expand...

Approaching the AD as a business HAS to be the model in order for this to succeed. You're right, they need to build this like you're building a company. Laying out a vision that includes all of the things mentioned earlier is key. A 5-10+ year strategy is a vision that the next AD has to implement and then all of the tactical stuff comes as building blocks (e.g. like talent development, support staff, etc.).
 
That’s why I am interest in the Brian white name. His family is ingrained with College athletics and they know how things work and seem to be very well respected. I wish we could’ve gotten his brother Danny. Just keep his brother Mike white far away from the basketball program I can’t find one gator fan that likes him.
 
AUcane said:
Approaching the AD as a business HAS to be the model in order for this to succeed. You're right, they need to build this like you're building a company. Laying out a vision that includes all of the things mentioned earlier is key. A 5-10+ year strategy is a vision that the next AD has to implement and then all of the tactical stuff comes as building blocks (e.g. like talent development, support staff, etc.).
Click to expand...
All good points. It is a business and it needs to be built like a business. But whoever is laying out the plan for this business needs to have up to date football knwoledge or should surround himself/herself with advisors who know what a successful FOOTBALL operation entails. Details of what this operation entails has been talked about above and maybe more that we don't know about as fans. That's a reason why I'm intrigued by including Alonzo Highsmith in this rebuild in some role. Not because he is alum or ex-player but because he has seen up close how NFL teams operate and he deeply cares about the success of this program.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top