forums

Shalala is stepping down

String911 said:
Gatorhater said:
Ted's offspring, "President Shalala didn't really care about sports for the most part, but she certainly didn't hate it. It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing of the school, which is what all schools including the SEC, do. Alabama's academic ranking has risen nearly 34 spots since 2008. It's no coincidence."

In that very long post, probably written by Donna herself, this is the what matters. It explains why, under Donna, the football program has been allowed (nicest way I can say it) to come to its current horrible state. You also managed to condemn all Donna supposed success to mean offspring of the fantastic player created success of the program before Donna arrived. Bama's ranking rose with it's football ranking TOO. All that people like you attribute to Donna was, at least, made possible by the success of the football program and the fame that came with it. Twenty years from now when less and less students, relative to universities with high end football programs, want to attend THE U because it no longer know by that name, but rather that other UM, no not Maryland, the other other UM, remember DONNA FRIGGIN DID IT!

Sucking to $$ from the football program for other project was and is killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Your own words convict her of all she is accused. Imagine the $$$, free advertising, and "it" that could have come from a revamped OB right down the street the hospitals in which people like you take pride, IF Donna had found a way to use her super human talents to get and save the OB. USC face the same situation and saved the Coliseum. How can we be Harvard when we remain below USC? The simple fact is while she fiddled, Rome burned. I had my Doctorate from Miami before we became THE U. Let me tell you, it was better after Howard and JJ conquered the college football world than before and now. Football was the foundation of that Donna build on and she turned that foundation into sand. Her leaving completely give me a reason to vote for Clinton.
Click to expand...
Nobody "sucks money" from football for other projects. That simply isn't how Universities and athletic departments are run.
Click to expand...

"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" Not sure how you can interpret that any other way.
 
Advertisement
Gatorhater said:
"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" Not sure how you can interpret that any other way.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being difficult or just don't understand, but an athletic department brings notoriety to any university. Therefore, having a sports program that is in the news leads to an increase in applications which leads to a more selective admissions process. But under no circumstance does the university side take money from the athletic side. If anything it's the other way around. The athletic department is poverty-stricken compared to the budget of the university. It's like saying that Bill Gates is stealing from a janitor in order to make his mortgage payment.
 
I repeat...these diatribes on DS's impact on the University are a waste of time. There is no question she was great for the university as a "whole". The proof is there.

I will also repeat...the foolish attempts to include sports (mostly football and baseball) into that equation are also a waste of time. The proof is not there. The reason people will continue to bring her name up is because:

A. This is a HURRICANE SPORTS' BOARD and not a UNIVERSITY AT LARGE BOARD. We talk sports, so that is likely the focus.

B. Since 2004 we're 76-51 (43-38) 2-5 in CRAP BOWL GAMES. Zero BCS Games + Zero ACC Champs (we haven't even won the coastal). Then there is Jim Morris but let's not go there. People are slightly upset.

In summation, she is stepping down and it is over. It is a waste of time to continue. She doesn't need a public advocate, so move on.
 
AntwanJ306 said:
Gatorhater said:
"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" Not sure how you can interpret that any other way.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being difficult or just don't understand, but an athletic department brings notoriety to any university. Therefore, having a sports program that is in the news leads to an increase in applications which leads to a more selective admissions process. But under no circumstance does the university side take money from the athletic side. If anything it's the other way around. The athletic department is poverty-stricken compared to the budget of the university. It's like saying that Bill Gates is stealing from a janitor in order to make his mortgage payment.
Click to expand...

I am merely stating what was in the post. But you are wrong as to football. Yes the athletic department is poverty-stricken because of many limited or no revenue sports. Baseball use to make profit also. Ron actually operated separate at one point, just keeping baseball revenue and paying all baseball expenses from it. Did it because school kept baseball revenue and used part of it for "other" things. In the glory days and before BCS, our football program generated a ton of TV $$$$ because networks love THE U's ratings and were only allowed a couple games a week by ncaa. University frequently kept TV and bowl money for "other uses". Several coaches complained about it. Hey, I have nothing against other sports but nobody has ever walked up to me and said, "dang, THE U's swim team is fantastic!" -- even though we have in fact had some good swim teams.

If you want to defend Donna, it is very valid point to say it was going on before her. That is completely true. She did not invent this issue. Heck, one of the reasons we lost Howard was the way the administration handled his efforts for an on-campus stadium. He was told he would have to raise the money himself. As he gathers some large pledges from donors, the administration changed the rules on him and said the money had to come from "new" donors, not one who historically gave to THE U. Howard left not to long after that. Howard is a class act and never trashed THE U over it, but it happened--I was one of the those donors. Never gave them another dime since. The administration is now and has always been the pits--as far as football is concerned. I am sure there are many academic websites where everyone can proclaim the wonders of Donna and those like her, but this is about football and NOTHING changes the simple fact that under Donna, football has approached terminal. University President are virtual dictators also long as they raise money, which she is claimed to be tremendous at. She has been in charge and must take this blame. Not to mention she was also in charge during and INVOLVED in the second biggest scandal in ncaa history.

By the way, was your use of "notoriety" intended or just basic lack of understanding of definitions? Notoriety is being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed. Are you referring to the whole THUG U thing, or is that just your mindset that football is inherently bad? I would agree that our football program brought great FAME to THE U. Donna's little scandal (which only the HC of football team apparently could see) brought NOTORIETY to THE U.

Still, I didn't like Foote either and am anxious, meaning fearful, of her replacement, but still very happy to see her go. Hope springs eternal. Bye, Bye Donna!
 
Gatorhater said:
AntwanJ306 said:
Gatorhater said:
"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" Not sure how you can interpret that any other way.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being difficult or just don't understand, but an athletic department brings notoriety to any university. Therefore, having a sports program that is in the news leads to an increase in applications which leads to a more selective admissions process. But under no circumstance does the university side take money from the athletic side. If anything it's the other way around. The athletic department is poverty-stricken compared to the budget of the university. It's like saying that Bill Gates is stealing from a janitor in order to make his mortgage payment.
Click to expand...

I am merely stating what was in the post. But you are wrong as to football. Yes the athletic department is poverty-stricken because of many limited or no revenue sports. Baseball use to make profit also. Ron actually operated separate at one point, just keeping baseball revenue and paying all baseball expenses from it. Did it because school kept baseball revenue and used part of it for "other" things. In the glory days and before BCS, our football program generated a ton of TV $$$$ because networks love THE U's ratings and were only allowed a couple games a week by ncaa. University frequently kept TV and bowl money for "other uses". Several coaches complained about it. Hey, I have nothing against other sports but nobody has ever walked up to me and said, "dang, THE U's swim team is fantastic!" -- even though we have in fact had some good swim teams.

If you want to defend Donna, it is very valid point to say it was going on before her. That is completely true. She did not invent this issue. Heck, one of the reasons we lost Howard was the way the administration handled his efforts for an on-campus stadium. He was told he would have to raise the money himself. As he gathers some large pledges from donors, the administration changed the rules on him and said the money had to come from "new" donors, not one who historically gave to THE U. Howard left not to long after that. Howard is a class act and never trashed THE U over it, but it happened--I was one of the those donors. Never gave them another dime since. The administration is now and has always been the pits--as far as football is concerned. I am sure there are many academic websites where everyone can proclaim the wonders of Donna and those like her, but this is about football and NOTHING changes the simple fact that under Donna, football has approached terminal. University President are virtual dictators also long as they raise money, which she is claimed to be tremendous at. She has been in charge and must take this blame. Not to mention she was also in charge during and INVOLVED in the second biggest scandal in ncaa history.

By the way, was your use of "notoriety" intended or just basic lack of understanding of definitions? Notoriety is being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed. Are you referring to the whole THUG U thing, or is that just your mindset that football is inherently bad? I would agree that our football program brought great FAME to THE U. Donna's little scandal (which only the HC of football team apparently could see) brought NOTORIETY to THE U.

Still, I didn't like Foote either and am anxious, meaning fearful, of her replacement, but still very happy to see her go. Hope springs eternal. Bye, Bye Donna!
Click to expand...

The problem is that you can't separate football from the athletic department. The athletic department needs every penny in order to attempt to stay in the black. The admin isn't coming to get any of that money. It's great to get misty-eyed about what used to happen in the 80's with Fraser and bowl money, but it isn't what is happening today. And that's NOT what was stated in the post. It's what you interpreted it to mean, and you were wrong.
 
"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" You're right AntwanJ306, but I really think your issue is with Ted. He wrote that wonderful, well done piece on Donna; those were his words. I don't know the lady, just her deeds.

However, looking at it closer it does sound more like "that ***** is just out there to make money so we can have nice things we want." I was trying to paint a nice picture of Donna the pimp. She gets credit for the improvement in academics, then she must take to blame for football's demise also. Pimp built a nice fancy house, but the ***** died.
 
From an earlier post by TedHendricksOffspring:

"President Shalala didn't really care about sports for the most part, but she certainly didn't hate it. It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing of the school...."

Hi, THO,

I think college athletics have other purposes in addition to their function as fundraisers. Universities had football teams long before college football became a cash cow. Athletics are fun for both the students and the community. They contribute to the experience of campus life and strengthen the bond between the university and the surrounding community.

I am in no way objecting to your statement that sports serve as "a vehicle to make money," but I do disagree with the implication that that is their only function.
 
Last edited:
arcane, it's naive to think that college football is anything more than a $ making machine. this isn't 1914 where we play college football for civic pride. football and hoops is used to market the university. when Miami is mentioned casually lets be real the reaction isn't "ooh congrats on your 6th straight top 50 ranking in USNews!" it's "football sucks!"yeah, those people are ignorant but that's our reality.
 
Advertisement
canesstevealum08 said:
arcane, it's naive to think that college football is anything more than a $ making machine. this isn't 1914 where we play college football for civic pride. football and hoops is used to market the university. when Miami is mentioned casually lets be real the reaction isn't "ooh congrats on your 6th straight top 50 ranking in USNews!" it's "football sucks!"yeah, those people are ignorant but that's our reality.
Click to expand...

Are you objecting to my statement that

"Athletics are fun for both the students and the community. They contribute to the experience of campus life and strengthen the bond between the university and the surrounding community," or are you objecting to the contention that fun, for instance, matters.
 
Every time Donna faced a "money down", it resulted in a tackle for a loss, a broken play, an incompletion or a turnover.
 
Chicken_N_Roffles said:
avatar9_14.gif
Click to expand...

REPORTED.

JK. SMOOCHES. XOXOXOXOXOX
 
bomb said:
Miami82 said:
AntwanJ306 said:
Miami82 said:
AUcane said:
I can't get over the fact that people here are lauding Thaddeus Frigging Foote!1!! SMH
Click to expand...

Argue the results. Who hired Sam? I find it funny you guys **** and moan about Foote yet he had the same agenda that Shalala had regarding academics but made hires at the AD position that brought us 5 NC's. Think about that for a moment...
Click to expand...

Right, so he gets credit for hiring one guy, but all the mistakes and the effort to kill off the program......we'll forget about all that. Let's hire another guy JUST LIKE Tad Foote. Amazing.
Click to expand...

examples???
Click to expand...

Its a literal statement. If you followed the program instead of screaming as loud as you can you might know a little more about our history and the players. Which would make you seem more intelligent when you're yelling and calling people names.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know a good president or football coach if it punched you in the face.
 
Advertisement
Good grief. There actually are people that think the University takes athletic department funds and puts them toward research and infrastructure. Sigh.
 
Gatorhater said:
"It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing" You're right AntwanJ306, but I really think your issue is with Ted. He wrote that wonderful, well done piece on Donna; those were his words. I don't know the lady, just her deeds.

However, looking at it closer it does sound more like "that ***** is just out there to make money so we can have nice things we want." I was trying to paint a nice picture of Donna the pimp. She gets credit for the improvement in academics, then she must take to blame for football's demise also. Pimp built a nice fancy house, but the ***** died.
Click to expand...

My post was slightly misleading. Let me clarify.

Under no circumstances does the university take the funds of the athletic program and use it for academic purposes. What I mean by saying that it existed as a vehicle to make money and better the academic standing of the school is that college team sports has the primary purpose to be successful and high profile to the point where more prospective students of a higher caliber were to gain an affinity and affection for Miami, apply to the school, and thus better students would raise the academic ranking of the school, making it a prominent athletic and academic location.

As far as the money, the success of school athletics would attract wealthy individuals to watch the sport and then do their own research into the academic standing of the university, as most wealthy and successful people are active in that way. The most minor and haphazard of research would show that the school is stirring giant of prosperity and achievement that anybody with the available capital would and should invest in not just one, but a vast variety of subjects from the elite medical school to the outstanding marine science program.
 
Last edited:
String911 said:
Good grief. There actually are people that think the University takes athletic department funds and puts them toward research and infrastructure. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are people that think the University does too much in regards to research and infrastructure and not enough for the football team. Which is unfortunate.

Because coincidentally, investing in football for the "major" NCAA football programs is the best return on investment (barring Cold Fusion or some crappy sports drink) they could ask for.
 
arcane said:
From an earlier post by TedHendricksOffspring:

"President Shalala didn't really care about sports for the most part, but she certainly didn't hate it. It just existed as a vehicle to make money to better the academic standing of the school...."

Hi, THO,

I think college athletics have other purposes in addition to their function as fundraisers. Universities had football teams long before college football became a cash cow. Athletics are fun for both the students and the community. They contribute to the experience of campus life and strengthen the bond between the university and the surrounding community.

I am in no way objecting to your statement that sports serve as "a vehicle to make money," but I do disagree with the implication that that is their only function.
Click to expand...

I clearly made a mistake by making it sound like an absolute with the purpose of sports. My apologies.

College athletics of course are most than just fundraisers for their respective schools. They, in most cases, draw the community together and encourage a sense of unity. Miami is unique with its off campus stadium and open access to one of the most major metropolitan cities in the world, but I can tell you as a current student I still see a strong camaraderie amongst the students especially the younger ones towards all school sports and a real excitement for them. Part of that comes from many of them being out of state, but none the less, they truly love the University of Miami and its athletics.

I did not mean to imply that the sole purpose and function of college sports was to make the university was to make money, but rather that it is the primary function at least from a strictly administrative point of view.
 
Back
Top