Listened to a Podcast with Brad Tejada..

[TC@ne]

Marsh being hyping fans up all the time with emojis and recruits. He flirts a lot with that insider ****. Total cornball and stereo typical Twitter fan who seeks attention.

Brad seems more intelligent than Marsh but is a homer too. Early last year, he has defended our Defensive staff and was in total denial about where things were going with that unit. To be fair, the majority of fans were too.

Maybe it’s because of our pessimistic nature, but CIS is always the first group to smell the bullsh*t. MANY of us saw the drop off in Baker’s defense after 1 year and knew what was coming.

There’s a lot of ridiculous stuff on CIS, but no one can tell me we’re not the first ones to know when someone’s sh*t stinks.

 

[Hurracanes]

Maybe it’s because of our pessimistic nature, but CIS is always the first group to smell the bullsh*t. MANY of us saw the drop off in Baker’s defense after 1 year and knew what was coming.

There’s a lot of ridiculous stuff on CIS, but no one can tell me we’re not the first ones to know when someone’s sh*t stinks.

Your first sentence made me laugh out loud. That’s funny.

However, not everyone in CIS was questioning the Defense. I’ve gotten into many disputes here on CIS about how our Defense and the big issues it had. Kept hearing, “Defense isn’t the problem” to justify their lazy position. They won’t ever admit it now.

 

[Cookie917]

Maybe it’s because of our pessimistic nature, but CIS is always the first group to smell the bullsh*t. MANY of us saw the drop off in Baker’s defense after 1 year and knew what was coming.

There’s a lot of ridiculous stuff on CIS, but no one can tell me we’re not the first ones to know when someone’s sh*t stinks.

With the few respected posters, I agree. But it is also because a large CIS fraction really thinks EVERYTHING stinks so when something actually does it is easy to pull receipts. Remember when people thought Phillips was too skinny and too unreliable to play this season and DE would struggle? CIS remembers.

 

[Hoyacane1620]

Don’t want to look too much into this, but Lashlee’s demeanor was different in his interviews during the last couple weeks of season. Could just be his competitive spirit, get kissed and focused when getting beat, but he definitely had an edge in his body language.

Crap. I’ve just stooped to sports/social psychology expert. Now I didn’t work with Rumph. Lol.

i agree. And I was thinking of that game - I think it was NC State- when the camera caught an awkward moment between him and manny. someone brought it up on this board.

 

[Hoyacane1620]

There are some different versions of how to interpret this and we don't know how Banda played his cards.

If Banda said 'do X or I'll go elsewhere,' Manny quite likely said (or should have said) 'thanks for your service.' But that's an unlikely way for the conversation to have gone, IMO. Because it unnecessarily burns the only bridge he has if it doesn't play out well, which it can't, anyhow.

I think it's reasonably likely (no info, just instinct) that Banda's smart enough to know that from his own career perspective, he's got to move away from Manny and broaden out at this point. He's been at UM for 5 years, with Manny. Even if he gets promoted to DC, he'll get blamed if it goes poorly and if Manny fails he'll be looking for a new mentor. Given his atypical background, it's smart for him to spread his wings at this point.

So not sure Manny actually took Baker's side. Banda could have been smart enough to tell Manny he thinks its time in his career to call plays, understands that's not an option at UM, and hopes to get Manny's help and support in finding an opportunity that makes sense for him, plus some blah blah about working together against down the road.

Yes, I can see that side, too.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Would like to see Gino as AD. I think AH wanted too much control and would not have been a good fit as his role would have diluted the AD and HC roles within the football program. I get under the current situation fans would have liked that, but for the future what HC and AD worth their salt would want that kind of situation?

I think those questions are a bit misguided. That's not a personal attack, allow me to explain. Miami would have been creating a new position, true. But there was no requirement for that position to continue forever. With the powers that Highsmith was asking for, it could have (eventually) become the AD job itself.

What I'm saying is that the "Highsmith job" would have been an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. That job would never have persisted as some sort of "AD dilution" job. That's the part of the discussion that is misguided, structurally.

For example, just as easily as we can create "Co-DC" jobs, we can eliminate them and hire just one DC. No big deal.

 

[CaneDawgCrew]

Hi Mr. Campbell are you a fan of South Beach in recruiting paradise? Yes? Good.
Hi Manny do you feel we need a change at DC? No?

Bye Manny. Hello Mr. Campbell.

Disclosure...I like Iowa State as family members have season tickets and they love the man.
Disclosure Part II...I hope Manny succeeds.

 

[canesstevealum08]

I think those questions are a bit misguided. That's not a personal attack, allow me to explain. Miami would have been creating a new position, true. But there was no requirement for that position to continue forever. With the powers that Highsmith was asking for, it could have (eventually) become the AD job itself.

What I'm saying is that the "Highsmith job" would have been an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. That job would never have persisted as some sort of "AD dilution" job. That's the part of the discussion that is misguided, structurally.

For example, just as easily as we can create "Co-DC" jobs, we can eliminate them and hire just one DC. No big deal.

I think there's a clear assumption by the worst parts of the fan base that assume that man he's a dead man walking because he can't improve on 8-2 so no decision he makes in preparation for 2021 will matter. I'm not sure that not firing Baker yet is a sign of incompetence. I'm hoping it's patience

 

[Salt]

I think those questions are a bit misguided. That's not a personal attack, allow me to explain. Miami would have been creating a new position, true. But there was no requirement for that position to continue forever. With the powers that Highsmith was asking for, it could have (eventually) become the AD job itself.

What I'm saying is that the "Highsmith job" would have been an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. That job would never have persisted as some sort of "AD dilution" job. That's the part of the discussion that is misguided, structurally.

For example, just as easily as we can create "Co-DC" jobs, we can eliminate them and hire just one DC. No big deal.

you mean like this guy?

 

[AlexCane]

I dunno, but I'm not buying this. It doesn't jive with what we've seen both from the board dating back to Golden and likely further. Historically, it seemed that the board has been content to (1) not spend too much; (2) not rock the boat with coaching departures; (3) defer to the head coach/AD re: scheme, coaching changes, etc. We've all griped forever about the board's seeming contentment with the status of the program. This is why we've all pushed for a more aggressive AD to run the room. The notion that Manny wanted to run it back and the notoriously hands-off board is now questioning the defensive coaching just isn't consistent with what we've observed the last several years. Nor is the idea that they've offered to open up the wallet books without prodding from either Manny or the AD (particularly under the circumstances, where I presume covid has affected revenue, finances).

 

[TheOriginalCane]

you mean like this guy?

YES!

If only Frenk/BOT would have said "You ain't got no problem, CIS. I'm on the motherfvcker. Go back in there, chill them posters out, and wait for the Highsmith, who should be coming directly."

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I dunno, but I'm not buying this. It doesn't jive with what we've seen both from the board dating back to Golden and likely further. Historically, it seemed that the board has been content to (1) not spend too much; (2) not rock the boat with coaching departures; (3) defer to the head coach/AD re: scheme, coaching changes, etc. We've all griped forever about the board's seeming contentment with the status of the program. This is why we've all pushed for a more aggressive AD to run the room. The notion that Manny wanted to run it back and the notoriously hands-off board is now questioning the defensive coaching just isn't consistent with what we've observed the last several years. Nor is the idea that they've offered to open up the wallet books without prodding from either Manny or the AD (particularly under the circumstances, where I presume covid has affected revenue, finances).

But...you're wrong.

First, you can't act like "The Board" is some monolithic one-voice entity.

Second, your recall of history is not accurate. "The Board" offered Butch a Top 3 college head coach salary (at the time), though Butch had issues with the buyout and (higher) competing NFL money. Coker was being paid a Top 20 college head coach salary when he was fired. Richt was paid a very competitive salary. Did Miami pay first-time HC Shannon and former Temple HC Golden at a lower rate that was commensurate with their experience/accomplishments (compared to the other college HCs)? Yes.

As for the combo platter of "The Board" and "The AD" being involved with coaching decisions, it has absolutely happened over the past 20 years. When Coker wanted to hire his buddy Berry to be OC, it was vetoed and Big Dog was rehired instead. Part of the reason that Richt retired was due to the pressure to fire/re-assign his son. There have been numerous other situations where SOMEONE from UM has pressured/demanded/vetoed some of the hiring/firing decisions by the Head Coach. And, yes, sometimes the approval/non-approval of a salary is one of the negotiating tools used when a HC just wants to hire who he wants (and others at UM disagree).

 

[Salt]

YES!

If only Frenk/BOT would have said "You ain't got no problem, CIS. I'm on the motherfvcker. Go back in there, chill them posters out, and wait for the Highsmith, who should be coming directly."

our Co- DCs?

 

[AlexCane]

But...you're wrong.

First, you can't act like "The Board" is some monolithic one-voice entity.

Second, your recall of history is not accurate. "The Board" offered Butch a Top 3 college head coach salary (at the time), though Butch had issues with the buyout and (higher) competing NFL money. Coker was being paid a Top 20 college head coach salary when he was fired. Richt was paid a very competitive salary. Did Miami pay first-time HC Shannon and former Temple HC Golden at a lower rate that was commensurate with their experience/accomplishments (compared to the other college HCs)? Yes.

As for the combo platter of "The Board" and "The AD" being involved with coaching decisions, it has absolutely happened over the past 20 years. When Coker wanted to hire his buddy Berry to be OC, it was vetoed and Big Dog was rehired instead. Part of the reason that Richt retired was due to the pressure to fire/re-assign his son. There have been numerous other situations where SOMEONE from UM has pressured/demanded/vetoed some of the hiring/firing decisions by the Head Coach. And, yes, sometimes the approval/non-approval of a salary is one of the negotiating tools used when a HC just wants to hire who he wants (and others at UM disagree).

That may (or may not) be true. But nothing about any coaching hire in 20 years suggests the Board wants to dabble in the world of big-time CFB. Let's not forget, they hired two first timehead coaches (Shannon, Coker); decided to retain Golden a 4th year when it was clear his regime was a failure (allegedly b/c of a buyout). Then, Richt fell in their lap and they were content to hire a has-been b/c he checked a lot of boxes from perception standpoint as opposed to actual results. And then they hired Manny with a questionable-if any-actual coaching search. (Another first-time head coach.) The idea the board is now demanding or dictating change on the defensive side of the ball-when it's been notoriously aloof-is just not likely IMO. It's possible, sure; but likely, no.

 

[Salt]

Your first sentence made me laugh out loud. That’s funny.

However, not everyone in CIS was questioning the Defense. I’ve gotten into many disputes here on CIS about how our Defense and the big issues it had. Kept hearing, “Defense isn’t the problem” to justify their lazy position. They won’t ever admit it now.

except this year's offense paired with last year's defense and we are probably in Charlotte at the end.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

That may (or may not) be true. But nothing about any coaching hire in 20 years suggests the Board wants to dabble in the world of big-time CFB. Let's not forget, they hired two first timehead coaches (Shannon, Coker); decided to retain Golden a 4th year when it was clear his regime was a failure (allegedly b/c of a buyout). Then, Richt fell in their lap and they were content to hire a has-been b/c he checked a lot of boxes from perception standpoint as opposed to actual results. And then they hired Manny with a questionable-if any-actual coaching search. (Another first-time head coach.) The idea the board is now demanding or dictating change on the defensive side of the ball-when it's been notoriously aloof-is just not likely IMO. It's possible, sure; but likely, no.

Look, you're entitled to your opinions, and there probably are not any facts that are going to get you to change your mind, but...

Yes, Coker was a first-time HC. That hire was an unusual situation, and really involved the opinions of the players and the concept of "running it back", rather than some penny-pinching desire to "not to dabble in the world of big-time CFB". As I pointed out, a few weeks prior to hiring Coker, we offered Butch a Top 3 college HC salary, so let's not pretend that our BOT/AD suddenly decided to "exit the world of big-time CFB" in the span of a couple of weeks. AND, Coker DID win a NC immediately. We can debate the long-term stuff, but that bald mo-fo led us to back to back National Championships (I do not acknowledge Ohio Taint's win).

Shannon, yes, he was a first-time HC. Yes, Donna believed in hiring "up-and-comers" and Randy is a UM alum. Clearly, things didn't work out, Randy's paranoid personality did him no favors. But let's not act like he didn't check every single other box besides "Head Coach at another school".

Golden...well now, this one is interesting. It is impossible to claim that we didn't interview others (cough, cough, Mullet). This is one that we can all acknowledge was a horrible failure of the "up-and-comer" model.

Richt...look, you can rip his "has-been" quality, but he was widely hailed as an excellent hire at the time. Oh, and we also interviewed Mullet again.

Diaz...I think everyone acknowledges the quick/desperation flopsweat nature of Beta Blake's hiring process.

Again, throwing money at coaches does not constitute "dabbling in the world of big-time CFB".

 

[AlexCane]

Look, you're entitled to your opinions, and there probably are not any facts that are going to get you to change your mind, but...

Yes, Coker was a first-time HC. That hire was an unusual situation, and really involved the opinions of the players and the concept of "running it back", rather than some penny-pinching desire to "not to dabble in the world of big-time CFB". As I pointed out, a few weeks prior to hiring Coker, we offered Butch a Top 3 college HC salary, so let's not pretend that our BOT/AD suddenly decided to "exit the world of big-time CFB" in the span of a couple of weeks. AND, Coker DID win a NC immediately. We can debate the long-term stuff, but that bald mo-fo led us to back to back National Championships (I do not acknowledge Ohio Taint's win).

Shannon, yes, he was a first-time HC. Yes, Donna believed in hiring "up-and-comers" and Randy is a UM alum. Clearly, things didn't work out, Randy's paranoid personality did him no favors. But let's not act like he didn't check every single other box besides "Head Coach at another school".

Golden...well now, this one is interesting. It is impossible to claim that we didn't interview others (cough, cough, Mullet). This is one that we can all acknowledge was a horrible failure of the "up-and-comer" model.

Richt...look, you can rip his "has-been" quality, but he was widely hailed as an excellent hire at the time. Oh, and we also interviewed Mullet again.

Diaz...I think everyone acknowledges the quick/desperation flopsweat nature of Beta Blake's hiring process.

Again, throwing money at coaches does not constitute "dabbling in the world of big-time CFB".

You are micro-managing the discussion. I am talking big picture (and was using the coaching hires to discuss big picture). There isn't a whole lot historically to suggest the board, the admin, or the current AD is proactive, aggressive or any way desirous of willing UM football to the top. And that's my point-what was suggested in the podcast could be true, but the notion of the various players now pushing Manny to make changes is suspect. (I mean, just last season the idea of Highsmith overseeing Manny was nixed.) So, what would give you the impression they're now interested in forcing change on their end?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You are micro-managing the discussion. I am talking big picture (and was using the coaching hires to discuss big picture). There isn't a whole lot historically to suggest the board, the admin, or the current AD is proactive, aggressive or any way desirous of willing UM football to the top. And that's my point-what was suggested in the podcast could be true, but the notion of the various players now pushing Manny to make changes is suspect. (I mean, just last season the idea of Highsmith overseeing Manny was nixed.) So, what would give you the impression they're now interested in forcing change on their end?

I'm pointing out that when situations get bad, the UM administration has frequently pushed for certain coaching decisions to be made (late stage Coker, late stage Golden, late stage Richt, and currently).

 

[UMFarArcher]

We got sauces on the BOT meetings with Manny now??

Can't beat Whoop!

Gold!

 

[canes732]

to summarize, he said the Board met with Manny just after the bowl loss to see where Manny stood re: the defensive staff. Manny seemed set to run it back, with the exception of Rumph and of course Banda's expected departure. He added that Ed Reed and Banda didn't see eye-to-eye on some things.
According to Brad the trustees weren't exactly thrilled with Manny's plans and allowed time to "re-group" before again meeting with Diaz Mon. January 4. In that meeting trustees expressed concern regarding a repeat scenario of Golden-D'Nofrio in terms of the Diaz-Baker working relationship. Apparently finances for new staff members were then discussed, and Manny was given the backing to field a competitive crew on the defensive side of the ball. The board is confident in terms of the provision available for these hires to the point of saying the Diaz will fix the problem(s) coaching-wise on the defensive side of the ball - and if he doesn't we'll make sure it's fixed. That didn't come off to me as a threat to Diaz's job status, but assurance that quality hires would be made, and unqualified current staff members would be moved/removed. MY GUESS: Reid's evaluations may play a factor here.
So Manny has been given the resources to build his staff, according to Brad, with the inference being however that Blake Baker will NOT be defensive coordinator, or if retaining the title, being nothing more than a glorified position coach.

I personally find it interesting that the moment trustees leaned on Manny (if true)to break status quo, the topic of $ came up. Let's face it, Diaz hired Baker as D-Coordinator from La.Tech, so one would imagine the salary is moderate, possibly not even moderate as far as D-Coordinator salaries run. Patke was given a promotion/raise when Richt left, but guessing again a moderate salary for a position coach. Lord knows whatever Rumph got was too much. I always hear UM people saying there's plenty of money for coaches, BUT when looking at that side of the ball with Baker, Banda, Patke, and Rumph - these all would appear to be bargain-basement hires, coaches hired from HS ball, or lower-profile college positions. I'm troubled that though there's "plenty of money" for quality hires, that money somehow isn't always used. On offense? Yes. To overpay Manny? Yes. For the defensive staff? Remains to be seen.

Hopeful that Baker is gone. Start with signing TRob then find a DC