forums

So, is it still just "bad hires"

F

FullyERicht

Thunderdome
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
5,591
A lot of people used to say that UM (and Shalala specifically) weren't anti-football, that they had just made "bad hires". That all schools make bad hires.

They cited Bama, USC, Notre Dame. They claimed Miami was trying to win, but just didn't make the right choices, despite trying their best.

And yet we are now faced with a coach who is 6-6 in year four, who is clearly not fit for the job, whose staff is clearly unfit for the job. A staff that gave us the worst defense in the history of the program. But that coach remains, his staff completely intact.

So I ask again, do you really think Miami is a school that has just been burned by bad luck and poor coaching hires? Or do they just not care?
 
Advertisement
The hires weren't bad hires. It's keeping them around that is the issue. Golden was the favorite for the UCLA job before he pulled his name out of it. Shannon was a top coordinator. All of the recent hires were looked at as good hires. The issue is now keeping Golden because of the mythical cloud.
 
At best, they're apathetic ... At worst, this situation is intentional.

And neither is good for the football program. Competing in football requires resources and focus. Too many moving parts to "luck into" a situation like we did with Coach L.

UF is paying over $10MM in buyouts for Muschamp and McElwain ... Then paying McElwain $3.5MM per year. And more than likely, UF will also be paying the portion of the buyout McElwain is obligated to pay.

Golden's buyout isn't equal to those numbers. And given who we are likely to hire, we won't be paying north of $3MM in salary, either. **** ... Depending on how many guys turn us down, we may still be paying in the range of what Golden makes.

The school has the money to make a change. Deciding not to do it is a statement about the priority, or lack thereof, they put on the football program.
 
Bad hires, lack of support financially and infrastructurally to maximize success of these bad hires, and then refusal to correct mistakes.
 
GoldenShowers said:
A lot of people used to say that UM (and Shalala specifically) weren't anti-football, that they had just made "bad hires". That all schools make bad hires.

They cited Bama, USC, Notre Dame. They claimed Miami was trying to win, but just didn't make the right choices, despite trying their best.

And yet we are now faced with a coach who is 6-6 in year four, who is clearly not fit for the job, whose staff is clearly unfit for the job. A staff that gave us the worst defense in the history of the program. But that coach remains, his staff completely intact.

So I ask again, do you really think Miami is a school that has just been burned by bad luck and poor coaching hires? Or do they just not care?
Click to expand...


Just doesn't care, obviously.
 
GoldenShowers said:
A lot of people used to say that UM (and Shalala specifically) weren't anti-football, that they had just made "bad hires". That all schools make bad hires.

They cited Bama, USC, Notre Dame. They claimed Miami was trying to win, but just didn't make the right choices, despite trying their best.

And yet we are now faced with a coach who is 6-6 in year four, who is clearly not fit for the job, whose staff is clearly unfit for the job. A staff that gave us the worst defense in the history of the program. But that coach remains, his staff completely intact.

So I ask again, do you really think Miami is a school that has just been burned by bad luck and poor coaching hires? Or do they just not care?
Click to expand...

imo Shalala doesn't care her resume speaks for itself every since she took office we went down hill. She played a major part in having the orange bowl knocked down which has hurt in recruiting too. So imo the higher people are a piece of **** and cant wait for them to leave
 
Shalala cares about football, but she doesn't care about the teams success. She uses the team to prop her own image and enhance her political clout, using bull**** like APR and "lack of arrests" (the school covers a ton of trouble the kids get into up) to showcase the schools "reformed" image off.

People used to try and argue that her being so involved in the program, whether it be meeting recruits, interviewing coaches, appearing on the sidelines for interviews, inserting herself into our freaking commercial, was evidence she loved the team and cares about it's success more than anyone. Bull****. It was and always has been her way of micromanaging the **** out of the program in hopes of keeping it out of the spotlight. Football to her and her ilk is savage, uncivilized, and not conducive to a thriving University and it's community. She's clueless and has been atrocious for our fine University. Her vision for the school does not feature athletics in the slightest. And as her outright removing the program would have gotten her house burnt down by the local community, this is the next best option for her, complete irrelevance.


5 athletic directors, 3 failed coaches in 3 chances, extensions to all three of those failed coaches, loss of our stadium, Perry Clark, Frank Haith, extension of Jim Morris after the game has clearly passed him. The only successful hire under her involved Coach L phoning the school on his own volition.

Looking at that track record, you're telling me this is someone who prioritizes success or has any clue on how to attain it?
 
game_over.gif
 
Advertisement
The problem has always been trying to take the path of least resistance and doing it on the cheap.

- In the 90's is when the school should have been endeavoring to get its own stadium. Rutgers built a 41,500 seat stadium that opened in 1994 for $28 million (around $44 million today. Now it cost $260 million plus for a stadium(Baylor $266 mill, Minn $303 mill).....missed opportunity. Which cost the team the Orange bowl and the easy move for an extra $1.5 million to play in No-Life Stadium a terrible fit.

- 2005 they were paying Coker over $2 million when they fired him....10 years later they are only paying Golden around $2.1 million. Problem in now schools like Vandy, Cincy, Duke are spending more. They have all the ACC Guaranteed money now that they didn't have before, yet they are trying to get away with paying the same as 10 years ago while 40+ other schools have passed them.
 
In the end fellas, U get what you pay for. In our case, we're getting a whole lot LESS than what we paid for. FLY THE **** BANNER!!!
 
aelmiami said:
The hires weren't bad hires. It's keeping them around that is the issue. Golden was the favorite for the UCLA job before he pulled his name out of it. Shannon was a top coordinator. All of the recent hires were looked at as good hires. The issue is now keeping Golden because of the mythical cloud.
Click to expand...

You're right when you look at each hire independently in a vacuum. But that assessment changes when you look at the larger picture. Everything after Coker can easily be deemed a lazy cheap bad hire. They got a pass with Clappy as they could claim the priortization of continuity and player influence as the program was on a tremedous rise so they promoted within. Then what did they do after that method turned out to be a huge mistake? Turned around and went extremely cheap and lazy and promoted within again. Mistake #2. Then what did they do after that pretty much killed the program? They went the "up and comer" route that also happened to cheap. Mistake #3.

By the time they were replacing Radio we shouldn't have given them the benefit of the doubt in hiring an unproven coach. I'm as guilty as anyone in being so happy that Radio was gone that I fell for Alfred's meaningless buzzwords and faux command of the room. We all should have cast that aside and realized who was behind hiring the guy. We simply have nobody in place there that can be trusted to evaluate a coach. The Tomato King chose Alfred, the current AD is that in name alone and unless the new president is coming from a school where they had more than average influence in a successful athletic program then they'll be a meaningless factor. The rest of the BoT seemingly would rather sulk about Butch lying to them and Alfred sending their calls to voicemail one weekend than care about the current product so they're worthess as well. Our best case scenario is that we luck into someone competent or that an aging but excellent coach wants to end his career here and has access to his Wikipedia page and a fax machine.
 
Tad Footeball said:
aelmiami said:
The hires weren't bad hires. It's keeping them around that is the issue. Golden was the favorite for the UCLA job before he pulled his name out of it. Shannon was a top coordinator. All of the recent hires were looked at as good hires. The issue is now keeping Golden because of the mythical cloud.
Click to expand...

You're right when you look at each hire independently in a vacuum. But that assessment changes when you look at the larger picture. Everything after Coker can easily be deemed a lazy cheap bad hire. They got a pass with Clappy as they could claim the priortization of continuity and player influence as the program was on a tremedous rise so they promoted within. Then what did they do after that method turned out to be a huge mistake? Turned around and went extremely cheap and lazy and promoted within again. Mistake #2. Then what did they do after that pretty much killed the program? They went the "up and comer" route that also happened to cheap. Mistake #3.

By the time they were replacing Radio we shouldn't have given them the benefit of the doubt in hiring an unproven coach. I'm as guilty as anyone in being so happy that Radio was gone that I fell for Alfred's meaningless buzzwords and faux command of the room. We all should have cast that aside and realized who was behind hiring the guy. We simply have nobody in place there that can be trusted to evaluate a coach. The Tomato King chose Alfred, the current AD is that in name alone and unless the new president is coming from a school where they had more than average influence in a successful athletic program then they'll be a meaningless factor. The rest of the BoT seemingly would rather sulk about Butch lying to them and Alfred sending their calls to voicemail one weekend than care about the current product so they're worthess as well. Our best case scenario is that we luck into someone competent or that an aging but excellent coach wants to end his career here and has access to his Wikipedia page and a fax machine.
Click to expand...
Yea I mean hindsight the hires look bad. But at the time the hires weren't all too crazy. But at this point I'm convinced they'll never hire a coach worth a **** anymore because the past three have monumental failures as hcs.
 
I used to think it was just bad hires. Now, I think it's bad hires by really awful racist administrators and BOT who think they're smarter than the fans and can dupe them into continuing to support a **** product with slick marketing.

Never thought I'd see the day I felt this way with my deep connections to my alma mater, but FCK UM IN THE EYES! They've made me hate them. They've turned my crazy love into burning hatred.
 
Advertisement
Randy Shannon and Al Golden were not "football" hires. In other words, they were not hired because of their track record for success. They were hired because they are both strict disciplinarians that will put off field conduct above on field performance. They also try to follow the rules and not allow big money boosters to run rampant in recruiting.

Guys like Nick Saban and Jimbo Fisher will simply not do that. Frankly, no successful head coach in college football will.

Until Miami decides they want a football coach and not a babysitter....we will continue to be what we are.
 
canesman said:
Randy Shannon and Al Golden were not "football" hires. In other words, they were not hired because of their track record for success. They were hired because they are both strict disciplinarians that will put off field conduct above on field performance. They also try to follow the rules and not allow big money boosters to run rampant in recruiting.

Guys like Nick Saban and Jimbo Fisher will simply not do that. Frankly, no successful head coach in college football will.

Until Miami decides they want a football coach and not a babysitter....we will continue to be what we are.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it....spot on. When we decide we are a football school and not Harvard South (which we are not), then we will get to winning. Duke is a basketball program, but they're also a top tier academic institiution in the nation. They make sure they balance sports and academia. Why can't we do the same thing? Why can't we put football in it's perspective and academics in it's? Why do we have to have d-bags for our admin who know nothing about our history?
 
Back
Top