Neuheisel on Miami administration: "They should be ashamed"

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

 

[duke4heisman]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

 

[Tad Footeball]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

 

[FullyERicht]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

GOD we have truly dumb fans.

Miami used to HAVE to be good in football in order to pay for all other athletics. In the past, if Miami wasn't elite, we couldn't make money to field other sports. It's why only AFTER our dominant run in the 80s did basketball return.

Miami success equaled more TV, better bowl games, Nike endorsements, merch sales, etc. That uptick in money helped build a ton of ****, and allowed all the free riding sports to exist.

Now? Miami can go 0-12 every year and still gets its fat check. There is no incentive, financially, to have a successful team. Tad Foote hated football, but was forced to allow it to be what it was b/c it PAID for ****. The admin has never wanted to be a football powerhouse; they were forced to be for the cash.

Now they no longer need to have a dominant football team, and it's all about what they want. And clearly, they could care LESS about winning as long as the black kids don't embarrass them and their mediocre 52nd ranked institution.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

GOD we have truly dumb fans.

Miami used to HAVE to be good in football in order to pay for all other athletics. In the past, if Miami wasn't elite, we couldn't make money to field other sports. It's why only AFTER our dominant run in the 80s did basketball return.

Miami success equaled more TV, better bowl games, Nike endorsements, merch sales, etc. That uptick in money helped build a ton of ****, and allowed all the free riding sports to exist.

Now? Miami can go 0-12 every year and still gets its fat check. There is no incentive, financially, to have a successful team. Tad Foote hated football, but was forced to allow it to be what it was b/c it PAID for ****. The admin has never wanted to be a football powerhouse; they were forced to be for the cash.

Now they no longer need to have a dominant football team, and it's all about what they want. And clearly, they could care LESS about winning as long as the black kids don't embarrass them and their mediocre 52nd ranked institution.

You're a shining example of our dumb fans, there, chief.

--Miami began cutting sports LONG ago, back when we were in the Big East, because EVEN WHEN WE WERE WINNING, the AD was hemorrhaging money. That's not a good long-term business strategy, dumbass.

--To get on better financial footing, to the point that the athletic department can be self-sufficient (which is the goal), the move to the ACC was necessary.

 

[Dingaan1828]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

It allows the lazy to be content with being lazy. Those who are not lazy will aim higher than a welfare check.

 

[Tad Footeball]

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

I was just using your verbiage, pal. Revenue sharing. Whatever. It's the shared wealth aspect of an overall capitalistic enterprise but it still allowed a school like UM to not invest in big time football early on in Shalala's tenure. Had we done so then maybe we wouldn't still be trying to "get back" a decade plus later.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

I was just using your verbiage, pal. Revenue sharing. Whatever. It's the shared wealth aspect of an overall capitalistic enterprise but it still allowed a school like UM to not invest in big time football early on in Shalala's tenure. Had we done so then maybe we wouldn't still be trying to "get back" a decade plus later.

Wasn't my verbiage, pal; I was responding to someone else who used the term.

Point is that revenue sharing is not the reason UM didn't invest in football. You guys can make up all the right-wing anti-leftist political allegories you'd like; the plain fact is that UM hasn't ever invested in football in the way that you'd like. The move to the ACC allowed UM's athletic department to become self-sufficient, which is something it wasn't and hadn't been up to that point, at least not on a regular year-in/year-out basis. It was good business sense.

 

[Tad Footeball]

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

I was just using your verbiage, pal. Revenue sharing. Whatever. It's the shared wealth aspect of an overall capitalistic enterprise but it still allowed a school like UM to not invest in big time football early on in Shalala's tenure. Had we done so then maybe we wouldn't still be trying to "get back" a decade plus later.

Wasn't my verbiage, pal; I was responding to someone else who used the term.

Point is that revenue sharing is not the reason UM didn't invest in football. You guys can make up all the right-wing anti-leftist political allegories you'd like; the plain fact is that UM hasn't ever invested in football in the way that you'd like. The move to the ACC allowed UM's athletic department to become self-sufficient, which is something it wasn't and hadn't been up to that point, at least not on a regular year-in/year-out basis. It was good business sense.

We're arguing apples and oranges here and you're also conflating football finances with overall athletic department self-sustainabilty. Nobody is arguing that the move to the ACC was bad business sense. We're arguing that Shalala and the BoT had bad business sense beyond that as they were content with the financial climate it created regarding athletics. If you can't see that we left tens of millions of dollars (if not more) in potential additional revenues on the table by taking that stance regarding coaching, stadiums and facilities in the early to mid 2000's and allowing this program to decay then you're just refusing to admit what a cashcow a sustained and monetized elite college football program can be.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The communism thing exacerbated and permitted that attitude. The was no financial motivation to play with the big boys and certainly no foresight to see the potential fiduciary windfall of doing so. The hiring of Shannon and the limping away from The OB for guaranteed money at SLS epitomized this laziness. We just don't have the widespread booster and alumni influence to ever challenge it.

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

I was just using your verbiage, pal. Revenue sharing. Whatever. It's the shared wealth aspect of an overall capitalistic enterprise but it still allowed a school like UM to not invest in big time football early on in Shalala's tenure. Had we done so then maybe we wouldn't still be trying to "get back" a decade plus later.

Wasn't my verbiage, pal; I was responding to someone else who used the term.

Point is that revenue sharing is not the reason UM didn't invest in football. You guys can make up all the right-wing anti-leftist political allegories you'd like; the plain fact is that UM hasn't ever invested in football in the way that you'd like. The move to the ACC allowed UM's athletic department to become self-sufficient, which is something it wasn't and hadn't been up to that point, at least not on a regular year-in/year-out basis. It was good business sense.

We're arguing apples and oranges here and you're also conflating football finances with overall athletic department self-sustainabilty. Nobody is arguing that the move to the ACC was bad business sense. We're arguing that Shalala and the BoT had bad business sense beyond that as they were content the financial climate it created regarding athletics. If you can't see that we left tens of millions of dollars in potential additional revenues on the table by taking that stance regarding coaching, stadiums and facilities in the early to mid 2000's and allowing this program to decay then you're just refusing to admit what a cashcow a sustained and monetized elite college football program can be.

Cashcow for whom? There have been tons of studies on the issue; most of them are inconclusive at best, while some outright show that "sustained and monetized elite college football" benefits few other than the coaches, administrators, and teams themselves. Bigger stadiums and coaching contracts don't necessarily equate to long-term fiscal benefits for the university on the whole, nor does it do a helluva lot to improve the overall mission of the university.

I understand that football success can cause a rise in notoriety, which can then translate into more applications, and the university can be more selective, thus raising its academic profile. But those effects are not long-standing. That is to say, if you have a team that has historically done crappy, and then they do great, then yes, it can increase the profile of the school...as happened at UM. But that doesn't mean that, in order to maintain that higher academic profile, the football team needs to keep winning. It simply doesn't work that way, despite many on the board believing that it does.

Beyond that, I'm curious to know how much you think we "left on the table" with regard to the OB situation, and further, what could have been done about it, and when?

 

[Gatorhater]

30 years late on the news!
Even in our best years , fans only showed up for big games.

This is Miami. I sat in OB during the Dolphins undefeated season and every game was a sell out but had a few thousand "no-shows". They would announce it so we could boo them. Miami was a "happening" town long before the Heat got here. BUT today's attendance problems have a lot more to do with losing than location. Maybe losing has to do with NOT being in the OB, but if the Canes beat FSU and go 8-0 two years ago, I think the VT game would have been rocking OB style, rain or no rain. Joe Robbie stadium sucks and always has, but Fins fans went there until the losing became a habit. I want the OB back as much as anyone, but winning would put butts in the seats anywhere.

 

[Colombie]

I was wondering how coaches felt about the Stadium issue and here is a coach voicing his opinion. Now, I know he can only speak for himself here but I have a gut feeling many coaches around the country feel the same way as tricky Rick does here.

They don't like the fact Miami does not have a fun SEC type of college atmosphere feel to it. And the fans who do show up, well.... ...just ask Rumph about that.


So for all of you clamoring for some big name coach keep this in mind when we don't get one. And this issue is one of many that keeps the big names away.

Did we have a problem hiring Howard? No? Didn't think so.

If the University focuses on football instead of image, we can hire whoever we want.

This is not the late 70's / early 80's.

I think in today's landscape it is difficult to find a big name head coach who wants to come to Miami for many, many reasons.
I would love to be wrong though. We are due to make a splash.

 

[Crazy4thecanes]

Funny how you guys politicize every **** thing.

The "communism thing" isn't communism at all. It's good ol capitalism at work. We won big in the BE and weren't getting paid enough, our AD was constantly struggling to break even, and the university was forking over money left and right to keep the AD afloat, cutting sports, etc. So we went with a competitor who paid us what we were worth, and got on steadier footing.

Same with the hiring of Shannon, the move to SLS, etc. It's common effing business sense.

I was just using your verbiage, pal. Revenue sharing. Whatever. It's the shared wealth aspect of an overall capitalistic enterprise but it still allowed a school like UM to not invest in big time football early on in Shalala's tenure. Had we done so then maybe we wouldn't still be trying to "get back" a decade plus later.

Wasn't my verbiage, pal; I was responding to someone else who used the term.

Point is that revenue sharing is not the reason UM didn't invest in football. You guys can make up all the right-wing anti-leftist political allegories you'd like; the plain fact is that UM hasn't ever invested in football in the way that you'd like. The move to the ACC allowed UM's athletic department to become self-sufficient, which is something it wasn't and hadn't been up to that point, at least not on a regular year-in/year-out basis. It was good business sense.

We're arguing apples and oranges here and you're also conflating football finances with overall athletic department self-sustainabilty. Nobody is arguing that the move to the ACC was bad business sense. We're arguing that Shalala and the BoT had bad business sense beyond that as they were content the financial climate it created regarding athletics. If you can't see that we left tens of millions of dollars in potential additional revenues on the table by taking that stance regarding coaching, stadiums and facilities in the early to mid 2000's and allowing this program to decay then you're just refusing to admit what a cashcow a sustained and monetized elite college football program can be.

Cashcow for whom? There have been tons of studies on the issue; most of them are inconclusive at best, while some outright show that "sustained and monetized elite college football" benefits few other than the coaches, administrators, and teams themselves. Bigger stadiums and coaching contracts don't necessarily equate to long-term fiscal benefits for the university on the whole, nor does it do a helluva lot to improve the overall mission of the university.

I understand that football success can cause a rise in notoriety, which can then translate into more applications, and the university can be more selective, thus raising its academic profile. But those effects are not long-standing. That is to say, if you have a team that has historically done crappy, and then they do great, then yes, it can increase the profile of the school...as happened at UM. But that doesn't mean that, in order to maintain that higher academic profile, the football team needs to keep winning. It simply doesn't work that way, despite many on the board believing that it does.

Beyond that, I'm curious to know how much you think we "left on the table" with regard to the OB situation, and further, what could have been done about it, and when?

Rise in notoriety?? When Notre Shame has a 9+ win season applications double. That's free money.
Plus licensed goods sales, etc. = mo money
You're probably looking at this all wrong. A football game is in actuality -
A 4 hour commercial/promo for your university.
The mental midgets running our show just don't get it. They've done everything they can to kill the golden goose that catapulted the University into ANY and EVERY conversation. They just lack the realization that this is their brand. Not the student body, or UHealth, or anything else. It's THIS. Truthfully, they should all be out on their keisters. It's been a lengthy list of suspect choices that have led the program so far below its past heights.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

I was wondering how coaches felt about the Stadium issue and here is a coach voicing his opinion. Now, I know he can only speak for himself here but I have a gut feeling many coaches around the country feel the same way as tricky Rick does here.

They don't like the fact Miami does not have a fun SEC type of college atmosphere feel to it. And the fans who do show up, well.... ...just ask Rumph about that.


So for all of you clamoring for some big name coach keep this in mind when we don't get one. And this issue is one of many that keeps the big names away.

Butch Davis don't need a fancy stadium.

Nobody want's to hire Butch because he would win so much as the head coach that the sorority girls on campus would be beating down his door to enjoy his presence. That is probably why.

I agree with you there, friend.

 

[LuCane]

It's actually quite straightforward. A school that wants to be on the cutting edge of _____ (health) has the opportunity to convey that through the one brand (football) that has incredible reach, yet we have continuously avoided that alternative because we're worried about what might go wrong.

If you think about it, our football leadership is a direct reflection of university leadership.

It's no wonder UHealth is struggling to get anywhere near its vision.

 

[Consigliere]

The sad thing once we joined the ACC we was guranteed a check so Shalala and her bots used the money else where. We had to win in order to make money in the big east.

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Yes and Clemson and FSU spend money, we don't. Way to miss that.

 

[Consigliere]

I've said this for years. It's like communism. When you don't need to be excellent in order to get that paper, you fall off.

All members of power 5 conferences have the same deal. FSU and Clemson get the same guaranteed check we do.

Difference is, they CARE about winning.

So then it has nothing to do with some structural "communist" thing in which getting a steady paycheck regardless of performance means that you don't have the drive to perform well. It has more to do with the fact that the powers that be (BOT members, admin, university community, students, alumni, donors) have never really made football a priority, even back when we were winning.

Those are two distinct arguments.

It allows the lazy to be content with being lazy. Those who are not lazy will aim higher than a welfare check.

He really is a simple porster. Anything to miss the real and defend the incompetent and irrelevant.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

It's actually quite straightforward. A school that wants to be on the cutting edge of _____ (health) has the opportunity to convey that through the one brand (football) that has incredible reach, yet we have continuously avoided that alternative because we're worried about what might go wrong.

If you think about it, our football leadership is a direct reflection of university leadership.

It's no wonder UHealth is struggling to get anywhere near its vision.

Well, that's one way to conflate a couple of unrelated things.

Never mind the fact that UM rose to its highest national ranking in USN&WR in the midst of its worst stretch of CFB in 3 decades.

Obviously, the lack of overwhelming success of UHealth is because of football.