forums

More conference musical chairs?

How does an article on Boise State possibly joining the AAC (which would not, in a million years, lead to a Power 5 "musical chairs" situation) turn into a big debate about the ACC?
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
So your genius solution would have been to stay in the Big East? Got it.
Click to expand...
I mean we had no choice u got to make the money move. Just didn't know we wouldn't try to win anymore. For football it hasn't been good....but for the university it was probably a smart move. Just talking football here cause this is a football forum.
 
Dwinstitles said:
I mean we had no choice u got to make the money move. Just didn't know we wouldn't try to win anymore. For football it hasn't been good....but for the university it was probably a smart move. Just talking football here cause this is a football forum.
Click to expand...


Look, I can understand not liking our joining of the ACC, but for rocket scientist Warren Sapp to act as if we should not have joined...it makes no sense at all. Just like him cutting up the adidas shoes that were sent to him when we signed with adidas. Sure, it would have been great if Nike had extended our deal, but Nike fvcked Miami and we signed with the company that wanted us.

And let's be honest. Let's say that "the guaranteed money" is what made Miami complacent (let's ignore the couple of years of decline that happened BEFORE we joined the ACC). Would things have been ANY DIFFERENT if Miami joined the SEC? Heck, we would have gotten MORE MONEY in the SEC.

Bottom line, it's not the money or the conference that was Miami's downfall. It was our failure to hire better Head Coaches.

Just break it down into two parts.

First, the revenue side. The ACC conference share is spent on the entire Athletic Department. Football revenue has always subsidized all UM sports. The money doesn't go back to UM, generally. Thus, the University President and the Board of Trustees see no benefit from the ACC revenue sharing check (except, possibly, sleeping better at night about having a balanced budget in the Athletic Department because UM's program is no longer dependent upon the unequal payouts from the Big East).

Second, the expenditure side. The myth of "Miami doesn't pay the football coaches enough" is a recent one. I've posted this info before:

"In 1999, Oklahoma pried Bob Stoops away from Spurrier’s staff. Midway through OU’s title-winning 2000, OU doubled his salary to $1.4 million. It was the third-largest salary, going to a man who wasn’t yet 40.

By 2004, at least 23 college football coaches made $1 million annually in total compensation."

Now, in 2000, Butch's offer from UM was for over $1.3 million per year. Butch ONLY had a problem with the buyout. As a point of comparison, in 2000, that offer would have made Butch a top-5-salary coach in college football.

Next, in 2006, when Coker was fired, he was being paid over $2 million per year (I've seen a report that said it was nearly $3 million). As seen above, Coker would have been around the Top 10-20 for coaching salaries at that time, maybe even Top 10.

When we hired Shannon, he was a first-time HC. He had not yet taken UM to the #2 spot, as Butch did, or won a NC, as Coker did. Shannon was initially paid less than $1 million per year. Miami offered him an extension at $1.4 million per year. This time period is really the genesis of Miami not paying the football coaches enough, but it is relatively recent and not due to the ACC money.

Miami paid Richt well. We spent a lot (some of it buyout money) on Manny. Maybe we don't always get the results, but Miami has consistently paid coaches well (or offered to pay well) who succeed at Miami.

The ACC money isn't why Miami slid. Poor decisions on ADs and Head Coaches is why Miami has declined.
 
ThomasM said:
Their history of ******** us with officiating when ANYTHING of substance is on the line says otherwise. We were brought in to be their Washington Generals. Remember the year we had no holding calls against opposing OLs? Yeah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.
Click to expand...
Why would the ACC bring in one of the top 2-3 programs in CFB only to conspire against success?
 
ThomasM said:
Turn us into a punching bag to prop up their BB conference.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. They bring in a top 2-3 program and conspire against them to boost the conference?

Having a top 2-3 program, like Clemson is now, is what boosts the conference.
 
TemplarCane said:
This makes no sense. They bring in a top 2-3 program and conspire against them to boost the conference?

Having a top 2-3 program, like Clemson is now, is what boosts the conference.
Click to expand...
They have no problem one of their own being up there. Can you honestly say you haven't witnessed extreme bias in officiating the last 15 years? Man, I sure have.
 
Advertisement
ThomasM said:
They have no problem one of their own being up there. Can you honestly say you haven't witnessed extreme bias in officiating the last 15 years? Man, I sure have.
Click to expand...
I have noticed bad officiating the past 15 years. In almost all ACC games, and frankly almost all CFB games. I think Miami’s problem in the ACC are five consecutive bad HC hires; Coker, Shannon, Golden, Richt, and Diaz.
 
Back
Top