Why did the budget for the coaching staff suddenly drastically increase when a new University President was hired? It could be 100% coincidence but considering the AD and BOT were the same, it only makes sense to question why it took a new President for it to happen.
That did not happen.
There are lots of things you could say, but the "budget for the coaching staff" did not decline.
And just to follow-up on that fake argument...first of all, if you hire a brand new head coach (Coker/Shannon) or hire a lesser school's head coach (Golden), that doesn't mean you pay equal or more than the last guy got.
Furthermore, most porsters are clueless as to who actually sets the budget, and that is the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, not the President.
As a UM alum, I have plenty of concerns about UM's Board of Trustees, from the makeup of the Board to the shocking lack of turnover (there are people on the Board who are Tad Foote appointees, and I'm talking about 1980s-era appointees).
I don't care about any UM President's politics (and most porsters are clueless about the fact that most of UM's Presidents have NOT been Republicans), but the reality is that the BoT makes most of the decisions, particularly the big ones.
But, hey, why should I spoil the fun for a bunch of porsters who don't know anything about how UM runs, but love to bash one particular person...oh, and look at 15-year time periods and attribute everything bad to the person at the top...