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.

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

Didn't miss it at all. You obviously missed my point, though.

To reiterate for the potatoes like Consig, UM has never sunk the same amount of money into CFB as teams like Clemson and FSU and most other top-tier teams have. Not during Foote's years, not previous to Foote, and not after him with Shalala. In other words, it's not as though UM was sinking boatloads of effort and cash into the football program when we were in the BE, then we joined the ACC and decided to slack off because we were getting a steady paycheck. The move to the ACC did not change our MO; it simply allowed a once-ailing department to become self-sustaining.

 

[Tinman64]

so if we don't play at sunlife then where no stadium will be built plus we won't get out of our lease with the fins

 

[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.

Didn't miss it at all. You obviously missed my point, though.

To reiterate for the potatoes like Consig, UM has never sunk the same amount of money into CFB as teams like Clemson and FSU and most other top-tier teams have. Not during Foote's years, not previous to Foote, and not after him with Shalala. In other words, it's not as though UM was sinking boatloads of effort and cash into the football program when we were in the BE, then we joined the ACC and decided to slack off because we were getting a steady paycheck. The move to the ACC did not change our MO; it simply allowed a once-ailing department to become self-sustaining.

Wow, you really are a Potato.

None of this is relevant. The OP only points out that there should have been checks and balances (i.e. make sure the schools spend the money on XYZ). Only you could go on an irrelevant diatribe that leads to nowhere.

 

[Crazy4thecanes]

M

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.

There is absolutely no conflation going on. One does not exist without the other. Prior to the football program gaining national prominence - the U was just another small, private university with nowhere near wherewithal to achieve these other goals. No USNews&WR ranking, no UHealth, nada. None of it.

I also take issue with the assertion that somehow these events must happen simultaneously or at least in close proximity to each other in a calendar year or two to be true?? I think we've all seen firsthand how long a university can coast on and milk a brand. What do you have invested in arguing against the idea that it's football that put the place on the map?
Are you part of the administration? Sure sounds like it.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

M

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.

There is absolutely no conflation going on. One does not exist without the other. Prior to the football program gaining national prominence - the U was just another small, private university with nowhere near wherewithal to achieve these other goals. No USNews&WR ranking, no UHealth, nada. None of it.

I also take issue with the assertion that somehow these events must happen simultaneously or at least in close proximity to each other in a calendar year or two to be true?? I think we've all seen firsthand how long a university can coast on and milk a brand. What do you have invested in arguing against the idea that it's football that put the place on the map?
Are you part of the administration? Sure sounds like it.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I agree that UM football put UM on the map as a school. No argument from me; I agree totally.

The issue is whether UM football has to continue to be successful in order for UM to maintain its place on the map as a school. I don't think it does; I think that once a university gains a reputation for its academics, the success on the field becomes less important to the overall success of the university, and it's not as much of a driving factor in terms of student applications, alumni donations, etc, etc.

I don't feel that the success or failure of UHealth has anything to do with success or failure in football right now. The fundraising for UHealth is not dependent on UM succeeding on the field. The hiring of professors and clinicians is not tied to how they view Al Golden. Med students who are worth their salt aren't basing their decisions to apply to UM on whether we get to a BCS bowl game; an appearance in a BCS bowl game wouldn't raise our reputation such that it would create more med school applications. That ship has sailed; the success of UM football may have paved the way for it to happen, but it's not necessary to keep the ship moving forward.

 

[LuCane]

M

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.

There is absolutely no conflation going on. One does not exist without the other. Prior to the football program gaining national prominence - the U was just another small, private university with nowhere near wherewithal to achieve these other goals. No USNews&WR ranking, no UHealth, nada. None of it.

I also take issue with the assertion that somehow these events must happen simultaneously or at least in close proximity to each other in a calendar year or two to be true?? I think we've all seen firsthand how long a university can coast on and milk a brand. What do you have invested in arguing against the idea that it's football that put the place on the map?
Are you part of the administration? Sure sounds like it.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I agree that UM football put UM on the map as a school. No argument from me; I agree totally.

The issue is whether UM football has to continue to be successful in order for UM to maintain its place on the map as a school. I don't think it does; I think that once a university gains a reputation for its academics, the success on the field becomes less important to the overall success of the university, and it's not as much of a driving factor in terms of student applications, alumni donations, etc, etc.

I don't feel that the success or failure of UHealth has anything to do with success or failure in football right now. The fundraising for UHealth is not dependent on UM succeeding on the field. The hiring of professors and clinicians is not tied to how they view Al Golden. Med students who are worth their salt aren't basing their decisions to apply to UM on whether we get to a BCS bowl game; an appearance in a BCS bowl game wouldn't raise our reputation such that it would create more med school applications. That ship has sailed; the success of UM football may have paved the way for it to happen, but it's not necessary to keep the ship moving forward.

You like the word "conflate," huh?

Wherever you can find that I drew a conclusion that UHealth's continued failures, and they are real failures, are because of the football program, please show us. You're either missing the point or being intellectually dishonest. My comments were, as I said, about a straighforward root cause: top-level leadership missteps because of a certain style.

Football is but a singular symptom of the same reactionary decision-making that has afflicted other aspects and areas of the University. UHealth is one of those. Are you arguing about its problems? Do you know where it's headed and what is being discussed?

The only person mixing up the combination of the two issues (sorry, I mean conflating), seems to be you. Otherwise, you wouldn't have tried to represent my remarks as being causal between UHealth and Football.

 

[NJshoreCane]

I'd like to see it happen.

 

[daddacane]

Neuheisel is such an self promoting dushbag who I disagree with on most occasions except this one.

 

[NJshoreCane]

The TV visuals at Sun Life are due to ticket pricing.

If I were UM, I would price and sell tickets based on the visuals for the game.

The same folks paying for the games will be paying, plus you could probably get more to buy tickets if they were getting "more for their money".

And as demand increases, the pricing structure can change.

At worst, they'll make the same money ... But improve the environment. And if they can get more butts in seats, it should help concessions.

I guess I don't know enough about stadium operations to understand why Miami can't make the 35K that show up to games look like 50K on TV, instead of it looking like 20K ...

Good point. Maybe sell tix in the 100 section only for all games other than FSU and big night games.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

M

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.

There is absolutely no conflation going on. One does not exist without the other. Prior to the football program gaining national prominence - the U was just another small, private university with nowhere near wherewithal to achieve these other goals. No USNews&WR ranking, no UHealth, nada. None of it.

I also take issue with the assertion that somehow these events must happen simultaneously or at least in close proximity to each other in a calendar year or two to be true?? I think we've all seen firsthand how long a university can coast on and milk a brand. What do you have invested in arguing against the idea that it's football that put the place on the map?
Are you part of the administration? Sure sounds like it.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I agree that UM football put UM on the map as a school. No argument from me; I agree totally.

The issue is whether UM football has to continue to be successful in order for UM to maintain its place on the map as a school. I don't think it does; I think that once a university gains a reputation for its academics, the success on the field becomes less important to the overall success of the university, and it's not as much of a driving factor in terms of student applications, alumni donations, etc, etc.

I don't feel that the success or failure of UHealth has anything to do with success or failure in football right now. The fundraising for UHealth is not dependent on UM succeeding on the field. The hiring of professors and clinicians is not tied to how they view Al Golden. Med students who are worth their salt aren't basing their decisions to apply to UM on whether we get to a BCS bowl game; an appearance in a BCS bowl game wouldn't raise our reputation such that it would create more med school applications. That ship has sailed; the success of UM football may have paved the way for it to happen, but it's not necessary to keep the ship moving forward.

You like the word "conflate," huh?

Wherever you can find that I drew a conclusion that UHealth's continued failures, and they are real failures, are because of the football program, please show us. You're either missing the point or being intellectually dishonest. My comments were, as I said, are about a straighforward root cause: top-level leadership missteps.

Football is but a singular symptom of the same reactionary decision-making that has afflicted other aspects and areas of the University. UHealth is one of those. Are you arguing about its problems? Do you know where it's headed and what is being discussed?

The only person mixing up the combination of the two issues (sorry, I mean conflating), seems to be you. Otherwise, you wouldn't have tried to represent my remarks as being causal between UHealth and Football.

Since I used "conflate" only once, I'm not sure why you're insinuating that I'm overusing it. Perhaps you're misreading my post or mistaking me for someone else.

I've not suggested that you said the problems at UHealth are "because of" the football program. Rather, I'm pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other. If you agree with that, all the better.

Your example regarding the potential to use football success to draw attention to UM's desire to be on the "cutting edge of ___(health)" certainly seemed as though you were among the folks on the board who believe that UM football success contributes directly to the overall success of UM as an institution at present, and therefore UM should be sinking more money into football, in order to bolster the whole school. Which would imply a causal relationship. If I misunderstood your post, my bad. Either way, my point remains that there WAS a causal relationship between UM's rise to power in football and our improved reputation as a university in the past, but that it no longer does.

 

[NJshoreCane]

Tell that ****head that the stands were empty in 2001 as well

anyone that takes a nasty shot at the UM administration is a hero, not a ****head

We had a chance to own our own stadium at the site of the old orange bowl. The admin ****ed that up, just like they **** up everything. They're a bunch of clowns.

Pure BS and revisionist history.

The revisionist is you my friend. AT BEST Donna didn't want to be bothered with the task of staying there under the hilarious guise of not wanting to burden the tax payers of Miami-Dade with funding the renovations.

Miami leaving Orange Bowl, will play in Dolphin Stadium

From that article:

""A lot of people say moving to Dolphin Stadium, you won't get
the fan support," Miami coach Randy Shannon said. "But if you're
truly a University of Miami fan, you're going to come. Fans are
going to be there. We just have to give them a product."

Miami's last scheduled game at the Orange Bowl is Nov. 10
against Virginia."

****.

 

[Rellyrell]

I'm the last guy to defend us at SLS but it's kinda cute that Neuheisel seemingly forgets that UCLA plays at a stadium like 30 miles from their campus too. We, unfortunately, have bigger issues at play than just stadium proximity to Coral Gables.

[MENTION=9712]Tad Footeball[/MENTION]: that's true, bro...but UCLA's situation is totally different from ours. USC is literally 15 mins away from UCLA (w/o traffic, of course). Most of UCLA's fan base are on the outter skirts of LA, not far from the Rose Bowl...SC dominates inland, so UCLA having a stadium w/in a couple of miles from the campus would be a moot point, b/c that's SC country.

 

[LuCane]

M

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.

There is absolutely no conflation going on. One does not exist without the other. Prior to the football program gaining national prominence - the U was just another small, private university with nowhere near wherewithal to achieve these other goals. No USNews&WR ranking, no UHealth, nada. None of it.

I also take issue with the assertion that somehow these events must happen simultaneously or at least in close proximity to each other in a calendar year or two to be true?? I think we've all seen firsthand how long a university can coast on and milk a brand. What do you have invested in arguing against the idea that it's football that put the place on the map?
Are you part of the administration? Sure sounds like it.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I agree that UM football put UM on the map as a school. No argument from me; I agree totally.

The issue is whether UM football has to continue to be successful in order for UM to maintain its place on the map as a school. I don't think it does; I think that once a university gains a reputation for its academics, the success on the field becomes less important to the overall success of the university, and it's not as much of a driving factor in terms of student applications, alumni donations, etc, etc.

I don't feel that the success or failure of UHealth has anything to do with success or failure in football right now. The fundraising for UHealth is not dependent on UM succeeding on the field. The hiring of professors and clinicians is not tied to how they view Al Golden. Med students who are worth their salt aren't basing their decisions to apply to UM on whether we get to a BCS bowl game; an appearance in a BCS bowl game wouldn't raise our reputation such that it would create more med school applications. That ship has sailed; the success of UM football may have paved the way for it to happen, but it's not necessary to keep the ship moving forward.

You like the word "conflate," huh?

Wherever you can find that I drew a conclusion that UHealth's continued failures, and they are real failures, are because of the football program, please show us. You're either missing the point or being intellectually dishonest. My comments were, as I said, are about a straighforward root cause: top-level leadership missteps.

Football is but a singular symptom of the same reactionary decision-making that has afflicted other aspects and areas of the University. UHealth is one of those. Are you arguing about its problems? Do you know where it's headed and what is being discussed?

The only person mixing up the combination of the two issues (sorry, I mean conflating), seems to be you. Otherwise, you wouldn't have tried to represent my remarks as being causal between UHealth and Football.

Since I used "conflate" only once, I'm not sure why you're insinuating that I'm overusing it. Perhaps you're misreading my post or mistaking me for someone else.

I've not suggested that you said the problems at UHealth are "because of" the football program. Rather, I'm pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other. If you agree with that, all the better.

Your example regarding the potential to use football success to draw attention to UM's desire to be on the "cutting edge of ___(health)" certainly seemed as though you were among the folks on the board who believe that UM football success contributes directly to the overall success of UM as an institution at present, and therefore UM should be sinking more money into football, in order to bolster the whole school. Which would imply a causal relationship. If I misunderstood your post, my bad. Either way, my point remains that there WAS a causal relationship between UM's rise to power in football and our improved reputation as a university in the past, but that it no longer does.

You're right as it relates to "conflate." I mixed you up with another poster, so my apologies for that.

We're simply going to disagree that UHealth and football issues are totally unrelated. While one is not caused by the other, I believe (and also think I have examples of) their separate issues both stem from the same root cause.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

CaneinHeelCountry is taking a BEATING in this thread. LUcane got him LEAKIN