New Pres.

[flcanesfan]

I've been a canes fan for over 30 years, but if they hire another feminist liberal I'm going to have to re-evaluate my teams and look in a different direction.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

I must've really struck a nerve with you. I'm not going back to that nonsensical thread. If I'd have wanted to continue the conversation, I would have done so long ago.

Ah, right...a couple of 2 or 3 year old articles about the med school BS. In which, ironically, Shalala did not act like a typical liberal, but instead acted like a big-business republican and culled 900 unnecessary position from a behemoth that had grown inefficient, and which, ultimately, had little-to-no effect on UM's solid med school reputation.

Sure, you have no bias whatsoever.

You didn't strike a nerve, you make me laugh. Your lack of response is a way of saying "I have no response, because I made it up and have nothing to say."

Yes 2 or 3 year old articles about the mismanagement (fiscally) of the hospital/med-school. None of it is BS anyway, this is all very real. I'm sorry that it makes the people you work for look bad but it is true.

I have no bias, I don't. I want all aspects of UM to succeed. I notice how you can't say the same thing because it hurts those you support.

Of course I struck a nerve. You wouldn't keep harping on it if I hadn't. Like most adults, when I lose interest in something on the net, I drop it. I don't like spending my time typing missives that reach deaf ears.

And of course, you're being disingenuous when you claim to "want all aspects of UM to succeed." If that were true, you'd recognize that the Med School issue did nothing to derail its reputation or success. Nor did it do any damage to the reputation of UM at large. In fact, Shalala has overseen a precipitous rise in that reputation and in fundraising, which benefits "all aspects of UM."

No bias indeed.

Honestly, I'd love to know your criteria for a successful presidency. Who, in your opinion, has been a successful president at any university?

 

[CaneBucsFan]

Does anybody know the list of potential replacements for Shalala?

James Stavidis for one. Kimberley Yuracko has some fans.

At the very least, she was not one of the final 7 they were looking at. Stavridis was.

 

[Consigliere]

Of course I struck a nerve. You wouldn't keep harping on it if I hadn't. Like most adults, when I lose interest in something on the net, I drop it. I don't like spending my time typing missives that reach deaf ears.

And of course, you're being disingenuous when you claim to "want all aspects of UM to succeed." If that were true, you'd recognize that Med School issue did nothing to derail its reputation or success. Nor did it do any damage to the reputation of UM at large. In fact, Shalala has overseen a precipitous rise in that reputation and in fundraising, which benefits 'all aspects of UM."

No bias indeed.

It

You didn't. You can think you did. I'm just amazed that UM employs you in some fashion to spew their bullchit. I think UM would be better suited employing people to fix the problem but this is an interesting way to not address the issue. The bias is incredible.

You lost interest because you have no way to prove your argument.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

And we wait...and we wait...and we wait.

I actually do want UM to succeed, I don't care how it comes or who leads us.

I know the following:

That the hospital has put a financial strain on the university (see the articles).

I know the football program is in the toilet.

I know that both were caused by mismanagement and/or micromanaging by the President. Pick your poison.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Of course I struck a nerve. You wouldn't keep harping on it if I hadn't. Like most adults, when I lose interest in something on the net, I drop it. I don't like spending my time typing missives that reach deaf ears.

And of course, you're being disingenuous when you claim to "want all aspects of UM to succeed." If that were true, you'd recognize that Med School issue did nothing to derail its reputation or success. Nor did it do any damage to the reputation of UM at large. In fact, Shalala has overseen a precipitous rise in that reputation and in fundraising, which benefits 'all aspects of UM."

No bias indeed.

It

You didn't. You can think you did. I'm just amazed that UM employs you in some fashion to spew their bullchit. I think UM would be better suited employing people to fix the problem but this is an interesting way to not address the issue. The bias is incredible.


I actually do want UM to succeed, I don't care how it comes or who leads us.

I know the following:

That the hospital has put a financial strain on the university (see the articles).

I know the football program is in the toilet.

I know that both were caused by mismanagement and/or micromanaging by the President. Pick your poison.

So when you say you want "all aspects of UM" to succeed, you really mean certain segments of the med school and football team only. Got it.

Again, I'd love to know who you consider to be a good university president, so we have a gauge for comparison.

 

[Consigliere]

Of course I struck a nerve. You wouldn't keep harping on it if I hadn't. Like most adults, when I lose interest in something on the net, I drop it. I don't like spending my time typing missives that reach deaf ears.

And of course, you're being disingenuous when you claim to "want all aspects of UM to succeed." If that were true, you'd recognize that Med School issue did nothing to derail its reputation or success. Nor did it do any damage to the reputation of UM at large. In fact, Shalala has overseen a precipitous rise in that reputation and in fundraising, which benefits 'all aspects of UM."

No bias indeed.

It

You didn't. You can think you did. I'm just amazed that UM employs you in some fashion to spew their bullchit. I think UM would be better suited employing people to fix the problem but this is an interesting way to not address the issue. The bias is incredible.


I actually do want UM to succeed, I don't care how it comes or who leads us.

I know the following:

That the hospital has put a financial strain on the university (see the articles).

I know the football program is in the toilet.

I know that both were caused by mismanagement and/or micromanaging by the President. Pick your poison.

So when you say you want "all aspects of UM" to succeed, you really mean the med school and football team only. Got it.

Classic non-response by you.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

I want more than that (in reference to success).

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Consig: once again, please provide an example of who you consider to be a successful university president.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Consigliere]

Consig: once again, please provide an example of who you consider to be a successful university president.

Thanks in advance.

I didn't see that question. Why is this relevant?

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Consig: once again, please provide an example of who you consider to be a successful university president.

Thanks in advance.

I didn't see that question. Why is this relevant?

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

So...you don;t have any idea about what makes a successful president, and offer no comparison point of a successful president in action...but you know that a successful president would fire the football coach even if the BOT decides against it for fiscal reasons.

Perfect.

 

[Consigliere]

So...you don;t have any idea about what makes a successful president, and offer no comparison point of a successful president in action...but you know that a successful president would fire the football coach even if the BOT decides against it for fiscal reasons.

Perfect.

That doesn't answer that, I only asked a follow up question (why does it matter?). There are presidents I like and would not mind as our school president.

Hennessy or Nikias.

As for the bold part...

I know a successful president wouldn't micromanage the Athletic Department IF they had (a) no interest in running it and/or (b) were not qualified in doing so. I know that a successful president would hire a competent and passionate AD to have full autonomy to control the department because athletics are crucial to promoting a university and bringing in alumni (see our rise).

I also know that the BOT gets no benefit of the doubt because:

1.) They gave Golden an unnecessary extension,

2.) They continue to support Golden and Blake James even though our football program has regressed considerably since their arrival, and

3.) They've have no track record (other than 1 coach begging for a job) to stand on with success.

So I bring it back to your original bullchit.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

In one breath this idiot is raving about Shalala's fundraising and financial accomplishments, than turning around saying UM cant afford to fire Golden with his next.

Which one is it shill?

There's too much money, or not enough?

 

[Consigliere]

In one breath this idiot is raving about Shalala's fundraising and financial accomplishments, than turning around saying UM cant afford to fire Golden with his next.

Which one is it shill?

There's too much money, or not enough?

Oh no!

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

So...you don;t have any idea about what makes a successful president, and offer no comparison point of a successful president in action...but you know that a successful president would fire the football coach even if the BOT decides against it for fiscal reasons.

Perfect.

That doesn't answer that, I only asked a follow up question (why does it matter?). There are presidents I like and would not mind as our school president.

Hennessy or Nikias.

As for the bold part...

I know a successful president wouldn't micromanage the Athletic Department IF they had (a) no interest in running it and/or (b) were not qualified in doing so. I know that a successful president would hire a competent and passionate AD to have full autonomy to control the department because athletics are crucial to promoting a university and bringing in alumni (see our rise).

I also know that the BOT gets no benefit of the doubt because:

1.) They gave Golden an unnecessary extension,

2.) They continue to support Golden and Blake James even though our football program has regressed considerably since their arrival, and

3.) They've have no track record (other than 1 coach begging for a job) to stand on with success.

So I bring it back to your original bullchit.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

so, to get us back to the original point of this thread...you don't give them (the hiring committee/BOT) the benefit of the doubt in this hiring because they hired Shalala, whom you feel did a poor job of running the football program, and because she had some issues with the med school which ultimately caused no harm to the rep of the school or UM.

Ok.

 

[Consigliere]

so, to get us back to the original point of this thread...you don't give them (the hiring committee/BOT) the benefit of the doubt in this hiring because they hired Shalala, whom you feel did a poor job of running the football program, and because she had some issues with the med school which ultimately caused no harm to the rep of the school or UM.

Ok.

First, again you fail to own your lies. Here is the post again:

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

Let's get back to the OP of this thread because you have no rebuttal.

Second, the BOT has changed since that time:

Donna Shalala was hired June, 2001.

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/abou...esident/president_donna_e_shalalas_biography/

Stuart Miller has been on the board since 2002. Hilarie Bass and Richard D. Fain were elected (vice chairs) recently. They (Miller/Bass) didn't pick her. This BOT (NOW) gets no benefit of the doubt but you can support them. Leonard Abess was that dude in charge (97-11) and Leonard Miller (Stuart's daddy).

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/news...ames_new_board_of_trustees_chair_and_members/

Third, you keep saying some issues with the hospital. These are major issues. As for the reputation of the school, that is subjective.

Finally, so how much do you get paid from UM? $.12/word?

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

so, to get us back to the original point of this thread...you don't give them (the hiring committee/BOT) the benefit of the doubt in this hiring because they hired Shalala, whom you feel did a poor job of running the football program, and because she had some issues with the med school which ultimately caused no harm to the rep of the school or UM.

Ok.

First, again you fail to own your lies. Here is the post again:

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

Let's get back to the OP of this thread because you have no rebuttal.

Second, the BOT has changed since that time:

Donna Shalala was hired June, 2001.

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/abou...esident/president_donna_e_shalalas_biography/

Stuart Miller has been on the board since 2002. Hilarie Bass and Richard D. Fain were elected recently. They didn't pick her. This BOT (NOW) gets no benefit of the doubt but you can support them.

http://www.miami.edu/index.php/news...ames_new_board_of_trustees_chair_and_members/

Third, you keep saying some issues with the hospital. These are major issues. As for the reputation of the school, that is subjective.

Finally, so how much do you get paid from UM? $.12/word?

See, this is why debating with you is futile...you rarely respond with anything of substance and then you try to play "gotcha" when you don't even know what you're gettiong at.

Yes, I know that the BOT and search team are different for this presidential search than they were for the search that yeilded Shalala. I brought that up in a much earlier post, to point out your faulty logic in saying that "they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt."

In other words...you're upset about Shalala being the prez, obviously, and you're holding that against the BOT/search committee that no longer exists. You're saddling the new BOT/Search committee with no "benefit of doubt" when that specific body has never been responsible for a hire, neither of a president nor a football coach.

But, since you hate what Shalala's done to the football team and med school, you have no faith in "them" to make a decent hire.

About the only thing we have to go on with regard to the current search is that Stavridis is in the hunt, and appears to be the frontrunner. Seems like a solid potential choice to me. Do you disagree? What in the current search has led you to give the committee and current BOT "no benefit of doubt"?

 

[Consigliere]

See, this is why debating with you is futile...you rarely respond with anything of substance and then you try to play "gotcha" when you don't even know what you're gettiong at.

Yes, I know that the BOT and search team are different for this presidential search than they were for the search that yeilded Shalala. I brought that up in a much earlier post, to point out your faulty logic in saying that "they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt."

In other words...you're upset about Shalala being the prez, obviously, and you're holding that against the BOT/search committee that no longer exists. You're saddling the new BOT/Search committee with no "benefit of doubt" when that specific body has never been responsible for a hire, neither of a president nor a football coach.

But, since you hate what Shalala's done to the football team and med school, you have no faith in "them" to make a decent hire.

First, again you fail to own your lies. Here is the post again:

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

This is post is amazingly bad and still unanswered. I wonder why?

Second, the BOT is not the same BOT. Hence your line the benefit of the doubt in this hiring because they hired Shalala is stupid and pointless because they didn't hire them. Who cares anyway about people who no longer run the school?

Third, this BOT gets no benefit of the doubt because they've done nothing to deserve one. Here is a former BOT (http://sylvester.org/about/leadership/board-of-governors/30) who has nothing but displeasure for UM because of their mismanagement. You can consider the hospital a small issue but to each their own. You can consider the football program irrelevant, but that is because you support Shalala and we know the impact she has had on football.

You're saddling the new BOT/Search committee with no "benefit of doubt" when that specific body has never been responsible for a hire, neither of a president nor a football coach.

==> Stuart Miller and Richard Fain have rubber stamped and supported the following decisions:

1. Coker's Unnecessary Extension,
2. Randy Shannon Hiring,
3. Randy Shannon's Extension,
4. Al Golden's Extension, and
5. Blake James, Hocutt and the Einchorst

The most recent decision, to not terminate Al Golden (which they choose to extend), is further proof of incompetence. Why should I give them any benefit of the doubt whey they continue to employ the mentally challenged? They extended him, they choose to refuse to deal with him. I'm give them no benefit of the doubt because they don't deserve one, especially when it comes to football.

Finally, it is clear you work for Shalala. It is clear you love Shalala. How will you cope with the fact she is leaving? Who is going to pay you now? Will you attempt to answer this post?

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

money is, in fact, the reason they won't let him go right now. UM has very little of it, and apparently, according to their cost/benefit analysis, it's cheaper to keep him for next year.

 

[RBhurricane87]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPiaadMporw

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

OK, you got me. They suck at hiring for the football team, therefore their opinions with regard to hiring a prez are suspect. Flawless logic. Particularly since the search committee for hiring a football staff/athletic director is not even close to similar to that looking for a prez.

Again, at this point we know that Stavridis is the main candidate that people are talking about. We don't know who the other 3 finalists are, but based on Stavridis's resume, I'd assume that they're on par with him.

Do you find fault with him being a finalist? Do you find fault with the current search committee?

 

[We the Boss]

In one breath this idiot is raving about Shalala's fundraising and financial accomplishments, than turning around saying UM cant afford to fire Golden with his next.

Which one is it shill?

There's too much money, or not enough?

We can't afford to fire golden. Not from a monetary perspective, but spiritual. He embodies the core values of the U as an institution.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

In one breath this idiot is raving about Shalala's fundraising and financial accomplishments, than turning around saying UM cant afford to fire Golden with his next.

Which one is it shill?

There's too much money, or not enough?

Fundraising for academics is not the same as fundraising for athletics. She's done wonders for academics and facilities. Athletics, she's done some good--eg, getting us a steady paycheck in the ACC--but athletics in general is a money-loser for nearly every university.