OT- Shalala

[miamicanephins]

Interesting.

A doppelgänger is a look-alike or double of a living person, sometimes portrayed as a ghostly or paranormal phenomenon and usually seen as a omen of bad luck.

Later

I've been banned 6 times using other names because I've smashed posters just like you in a similar manner.

And they all ended the same too.

With the bloodied and beaten poster spending his time trying to figure out the identity of the person who just beat them.

It never changes.

LOL. You're a real tiger once the Viagra kicks in.

 

[miamicanephins]

It's a mighty strong coincidence that as soon as the University hired a new President, the athletic department all of the sudden had the money to not only buy out the remaining portion of Al Golden's contract but to also spend top dollar on a new head coach and assistant coaches.

It also followed the most lop-sided loss in program history and several planes flying with banners which didn't happen until after Shalala left.

But that's apparently too analytical for you.

What do you have against planes flying with banners...or balloons or pizza parties?

 

[jhtheking]

Interesting.

A doppelgänger is a look-alike or double of a living person, sometimes portrayed as a ghostly or paranormal phenomenon and usually seen as a omen of bad luck.

Later

I've been banned 6 times using other names because I've smashed posters just like you in a similar manner.

And they all ended the same too.

With the bloodied and beaten poster spending his time trying to figure out the identity of the person who just beat them.

It never changes.

Congratulations? That's more pathetic than heroic. Why do you care so much about Shalala? ******* pointless thread that is clearly absurdly important to you.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Interesting.

A doppelgänger is a look-alike or double of a living person, sometimes portrayed as a ghostly or paranormal phenomenon and usually seen as a omen of bad luck.

Later

I've been banned 6 times using other names because I've smashed posters just like you in a similar manner.

And they all ended the same too.

With the bloodied and beaten poster spending his time trying to figure out the identity of the person who just beat them.

It never changes.

Congratulations? That's more pathetic than heroic. Why do you care so much about Shalala? ****ing pointless thread that is clearly absurdly important to you.

Band 6 times and still can't take a hint. Yet WE are the stupid ones.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

In office June 1, 2001 – August 16, 2015, it's the one constant during the decline...

Correlation vs. Causation

She was also the only constant remaining from the last national championship.

Mean anything?

Not really.

Edward Tad Foote helped build the Miami football program, Donna Shalala almost destroyed it. May I ask your relation to her?

Uh...no.

Tad Foote was WELL-KNOWN for taking actions that DID NOT support the football team. Bernie Kosar threw a football at his head when he belatedly came out to a football practice.

Well both of you tell me what he did to not support that was so detrimental to the program. I'll tell you what he and his admin that he was responsible for did and what mattered the most. They didn't cave to pressure hiring a current staff member like many wanted and instead went on the outside and hired one of the GOAT, Jimmy Johnson. Shalala meanwhile caved and went with two unqualified assistants two times in a row.

Yeah Ole Tad did some silly stuff but what matters at the end of the day is hiring the right people. Being able to be impartial and see true potential.

First, don't act like you need to instruct me on anything. I was there. I know what Tad did and didn't do.

Second, the hiring of Jimmy Johnson had ABSOLUTELY FVCK-NOTHING to do with Tad Foote. That was a Sam Jankovich hire, pure and simple, as was Dennis Erickson.

And for people who easily forget, here's a video from 1984. Check out the "beautiful" first floor of the Whitten University Center, before it was gutted. Ping pong tables, Galaga, and they don't even show the old bowling alley.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqWm9CmNonc

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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.
..

Nobody ever said the "budget for the coaching staff" declined. All I said was that it significantly increased when they hired the new President.

The only people that know exactly what the deal was between Donna and the athletic department are Donna, Blake James and the members of the BOT. Everything else is just speculation.

All I'm saying is that the accusations against Donna are not that far fetched. It's a mighty strong coincidence that as soon as the University hired a new President, the athletic department all of the sudden had the money to not only buy out the remaining portion of Al Golden's contract but to also spend top dollar on a new head coach and assistant coaches.

The "budget" did not decline OR increase. The "budget" is simply whatever it takes to hire coaches at a competitive salary. And as for buyouts, let's not forget that Coker was the VERY FIRST HEAD COACH THAT MIAMI EVER FIRED. And since that time, we have paid buyouts to Coker, Shannon, and Golden. So let's not act as if Golden was some unique situation, but do I understand that we don't have a long and proud "SEC-like" tradition of firing coaches and paying buyouts whenever we want.

If you hire people who have never been college head coaches (Schnellenberger, Butch, Coker, Shannon), then you pay accordingly. If you hire people who have been head coaches at lesser schools (JJ, Erickson, Golden), then you pay more. And if you hire someone who has been the head coach at a comparable or better program (Richt), then you pay the most.

Each head coach, in his interview, talks about the assistant coaches he would like to bring into the program. Some hires may be laterals (from another school or the NFL), some may be retained from the prior coach at UM, and some may be from the high school ranks. You hire who you want to hire, there is no "budget" per se, there is no pushback based on dollars, unless maybe someone wants to hire the SuperCoaches (like when you hire a bunch of guys who have previously been head coaches).

People tend to forget, when late-stage Coker (who was being paid very well at the time) went out and hired Erickson's old OC, he gave him a ****-ton of money.

People also tend to overlook a relevant issue - when you have a first-time head coach (Butch, Coker, Shannon), sometimes those guys don't like to bring in heavy-hitting assistants at first, because they have to establish their position. Butch had Bill Miller as his DC before Miller was fired and replaced by Schiano, but that was after Butch had some success.

This is not a "budget" issue. You may object to UM hiring "up-and-coming" coaches, but we were successful with JJ and Erickson and Butch, and we were less successful with Shannon and Golden. UM has not told any head coaches "no, you can't hire this guy" solely for monetary reasons. In fact, Coker wanted to bring in his buddy-boy at OC that one year, and UM vetoed the hire and we ended up spending a LOT more to hire Erickson's old OC.

I get it. Some people would love for UM to go out and make an offer to Saban. But if we don't, if we followed our 30+ year trend of hiring young up-and-coming coaches (yeah, Coker was older, I understand), that doesn't mean we don't have the "budget" for coaches.

I'm glad that our BoT supported the hiring of Richt. But Richt is also an anomaly, at least as to how things have been done at UM for decades. But that's not a "budget" issue.

 

[DTP]

All I'm saying is that the accusations against Donna are not that far fetched.

I love it.

"The silly and tin-foil hat accusations made are not far-fetched!"

Ahh, the classic, I have no actual response so I'll just insult any opinion that doesn't agree with mine. That is all you're stating anyway. Just opinion. You've yet to counter any argument with facts. This is not a trial. There's no burden of proof. One side has one opinion and the other side has a different one. You can't dismiss one side for lack of factual evidence while proclaiming your side to be correct without a shred of factual evidence.

 

[Doppelganger]

Is it just a coincidence she ended up with a questionable operation like the Clinton Foundation?

I notice that a lot of people do this with rhetorical questions when they don't have a lot of solid information to back up their claims.

 

[Doppelganger]

Congratulations? That's more pathetic than heroic.

It's pathetic that some of the loser moderators on this forum go to such lengths to silence people.

 

[Doppelganger]

Why do you care so much about Shalala? ****ing pointless thread that is clearly absurdly important to you.

Why are you asking me this question? I'm not the one who's lying in order to smear somebody.

It's absurdly important to the droves of message board fanboys who go to such great lengths to bash her.

 

[Doppelganger]

Band 6 times and still can't take a hint. Yet WE are the stupid ones.

Nobody would waste their time banning you.

You are no threat to anyone.

 

[Doppelganger]

Ahh, the classic, I have no actual response so I'll just insult any opinion that doesn't agree with mine.

My response is the claim that Shalala purposefully destroyed the program because of a liberal agenda is indeed far-fetched.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Band 6 times and still can't take a hint. Yet WE are the stupid ones.

Nobody would waste their time banning you.

You are no threat to anyone.

You think you were band because you were a threat. I contend it's because you're an *******.

 

[Doppelganger]

Band 6 times and still can't take a hint. Yet WE are the stupid ones.

Nobody would waste their time banning you.

You are no threat to anyone.

You think you were band because you were a threat. I contend it's because you're an *******.

Wrong.

But I'd also say that nobody would waste their time calling you an ******* either.

 

[Gatorhater]

Oh Lord, Donna's family members are back out of the woods to defend that piece of crap. She intentional destroyed our program because it was way to manly for her political views and had set a dangerous example of young black men accomplishing something virtually on their own. Every other successful football programed owned its success to alum, donor, the institution or one great coach. THE U was a product of the players and they were mostly, but not all, black. Liberals hated that.

This is one of the stupidest posts on a forum full of stupid posts.

If Presidents are responsible for football success or failure then how does your theory account for her tenure at Wisconsin?

++SHALALA STARTED++
1988: 1-10
1989: 2-9
1990: 1-10
1991: 5-6
1992: 5-6
1993: 10-1-1 (Rose Bowl)

Is she responsible for it? Was she not a liberal back then? Did she not have disdain for young black men in the 1980's and 1990's?

This post perfectly embodies my view on this. Those people who hate Shalala hate her viscerally because she's a liberal. Period.

You miss the point. Never said she had disdain for young black men. Black men being successful because of establishment, especially government, institutions are just fine because there is an ownership and dependence factor that fits nicely into her world view. Doing it on their own flies in the face of ALL she believes. If you can't understand that, then you are blinded by lack of understanding of what liberalism is. As to WI, well they always sucked, are in a lilly white state that is the birth place of American liberalism. Nothing about that program was a threat to her world view. Any success would be the school's. TO compare them to what happened at THE U is silly.

Why was FSU never hated? Did they have less blacks than us? Did they act the fool less than us? Were the "clean" players? Did they not succeed? Did they not upset traditional powers? What was the difference? They were a rich state school with big donors and a single great coach. Never were the players themselves even thought of as the reason for their success. Nope it was Ole Bobby and the facilities. They was virtually canonized yet so much less than us. They almost beat us and that was close enough. I am sorry if you fail to see the difference.

 

[Doppelganger]

You miss the point.

No. I just submit that your point was really, really stupid.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Ahh, the classic, I have no actual response so I'll just insult any opinion that doesn't agree with mine.

My response is the claim that Shalala purposefully destroyed the program because of a liberal agenda is indeed far-fetched.

My claim is that she was at the helm of the ship from it's highest point in program history, to it's lowest. I care not whether it was done through intent or negligence, and her motives are obsolete.

You, on the other hand, seem to be of the opinion that this is merely coincidence, and that the President of the University from 2001 to 2015 bears no responsibility for the downfall of the football program that occurred during that exact same time frame. In 2001 we had the greatest football team to ever set foot on a field, and in 2015 we suffered our worst home loss in program history. I don't have to prove that your position is retarded when I have 15 straight years of steady decline that somehow magically began right after she arrived, and ended right after she left.

 

[Doppelganger]

Never said she had disdain for young black men. Black men being successful because of establishment, especially government, institutions are just fine because there is an ownership and dependence factor that fits nicely into her world view. Doing it on their own flies in the face of ALL she believes. If you can't understand that, then you are blinded by lack of understanding of what liberalism is. As to WI, well they always sucked, are in a lilly white state that is the birth place of American liberalism. Nothing about that program was a threat to her world view. Any success would be the school's. TO compare them to what happened at THE U is silly.

What's funny is that you just doubled-down on that previous stupidest post I'd ever seen.

You're that pseudo-intellectual who tries to make political arguments about everything. So now a football program losing games is because of the President's perceived wish for young black men to be dependent on the government.

That is so silly and ****amamie that I bet it took you all of this time to think of it.

 

[Gatorhater]

Oh Lord, Donna's family members are back out of the woods to defend that piece of crap. She intentional destroyed our program because it was way to manly for her political views and had set a dangerous example of young black men accomplishing something virtually on their own. Every other successful football programed owned its success to alum, donor, the institution or one great coach. THE U was a product of the players and they were mostly, but not all, black. Liberals hated that.

This is one of the stupidest posts on a forum full of stupid posts.

If Presidents are responsible for football success or failure then how does your theory account for her tenure at Wisconsin?

++SHALALA STARTED++
1988: 1-10
1989: 2-9
1990: 1-10
1991: 5-6
1992: 5-6
1993: 10-1-1 (Rose Bowl)

Is she responsible for it? Was she not a liberal back then? Did she not have disdain for young black men in the 1980's and 1990's?

This post perfectly embodies my view on this. Those people who hate Shalala hate her viscerally because she's a liberal. Period.

The Frenkinator ain't exactly a conservative. Results and perceived trajectory and basic optics with college athletics will trump fanbase biases based on pure political ideology. Lil Donna was 0 for 3 on those while here.

I think I agree with you. Had Donna gotten us 3 more NC's I would never have thought anything of her politics. I never knew Foote's politics nor cared one inch. I hated him because he as an *** and trashed mouth our kids. Back then I was a fairly big donor and met him many times. He was dis-likable on many levels without politics.

 

[Doppelganger]

Why was FSU never hated? Did they have less blacks than us? Did they act the fool less than us? Were the "clean" players? Did they not succeed? Did they not upset traditional powers? What was the difference? They were a rich state school with big donors and a single great coach. Never were the players themselves even thought of as the reason for their success. Nope it was Ole Bobby and the facilities. They was virtually canonized yet so much less than us. They almost beat us and that was close enough. I am sorry if you fail to see the difference.

Words fail me when in the face of such stupidity.

What the **** does race have to do with a President getting blame for wins and losses?

You seem obsessed with young black men.

I think you might need to seek help.