Tad Foote and Julio Frenk

JZCane0825

All ACC
Premium
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
8,674
Under Tad Foote, who famously 'cared very little about sports', Miami won 4 of their 5 football national championships, 3 College World Series' and reinstated their basketball program. I am not a Julio Frenk fan by any means and personally think his tenure as Miami president has been extremely poor. That said, the narrative that a university president has to be involved or 'give a crap' about athletics has been completely overblown, as long as the president is granting autonomy to a competent AD. The big issue here is not that Frenk is differing authority to his AD but who he is differing authority to.
 
Advertisement
Under Tad Foote, who famously 'cared very little about sports', Miami won 4 of their 5 football national championships, 3 College World Series' and reinstated their basketball program. I am not a Julio Frenk fan by any means and personally think his tenure as Miami president has been extremely poor. That said, the narrative that a university president has to be involved or 'give a crap' about athletics has been completely overblown, as long as the president is granting autonomy to a competent AD. The big issue here is not that Frenk is differing authority to his AD but who he is differing authority to.
Yes and no. It is like any business. You hire people that are really good in their areas, enable them to succeed, and step in when it gets to the necessary point. We are well past that point. As essentially the CEO of the school, he needs to know enough about when to step in and realize something is not working. I don't need or want a president who is another cook in the AD's kitchen, but whether the academics like it or not, the athletic department of a university is one of its highest profile and certainly has its highest compensated employees.

Him not knowing at least enough to change leadership or get different voices in there is a reflection on him as a leader of this particular school. But when you hire a guy who came up in Mexico's government and then Harvard, it is not a real mystery why he is the way he is. Of course this is all to say it was another awful decision led by the Board.
 
People can rightfully attack my namesake for failing to maximize all the athletic success that came to fruition under/despite his watch (I include the 2001 championship) but Donna and Frenk still shouldn't be mentioned anywhere near him when speaking on any positive terms about any aspect of the university.

The academic transformation that Foote was responsible for compared to the stagnation (regression on some fronts) under Shalala and now Frenk is laughable.

At least with Foote when people cried that he was sacrificing athletics for academics there were tangible results.

Sadly, I thought Frenk was obviously going to be hands off from sports but able to be swayed if properly "educated" on the cost/benefit of big boy football (and basketball to a lesser extent). Instead he seems just hands off and aloof/apathetic.
 
The guy is a complete failure on both the academic and sports sides.

Foote at least knew what he was doing on the academic side.

He was competent. Frenk is not.

Foote had an AD that was elite. So he didn't need to take action.

Frenk has someone who's sorely unqualified steering the ship for athletics, yet doesn't see value in having an elite athletic department, in today's climate. Football can bring in millions that can be distributed throughout.

He can't be helped.
 
People take what was in that 30 for 30 like it's gospel. They said Tad Foote hated football, so that's what everybody believes.

I don't know anything about Tad Foote except for what you say... we won when he was president. And I know Billy Corbin or whatever his name is is basically a hack. And I know 30 for 30 is just entertainment, and every story needs a villain, and Tad Foote seems like a convenient villain... none of that means the way they portrayed him was accurate at all.
 
Under Tad Foote, who famously 'cared very little about sports', Miami won 4 of their 5 football national championships, 3 College World Series' and reinstated their basketball program. I am not a Julio Frenk fan by any means and personally think his tenure as Miami president has been extremely poor. That said, the narrative that a university president has to be involved or 'give a crap' about athletics has been completely overblown, as long as the president is granting autonomy to a competent AD. The big issue here is not that Frenk is differing authority to his AD but who he is differing authority to.

Completely different eras and Miami was able to overcome a lame-duck president by way of an era of football where the Canes were light years ahead of the competition.

UM was literally about to drop football before hiring Schnellenberger in 1979—Howard locking down local talent, the state's best and cherry-picking national blue chippers.

Sam Jankovich was the dice-rolling athletic director who landed on Jimmy Johnson—who went 29-25-3 at Oklahoma State, never better than 8-4 there and never beating Nebraska or Oklahoma. Johnson beat the odds and succeeded, again, by recruiting fast local talent while other conferences were still playing catch-up.

Jankovich knew Dennis Erickson from their Montana and Washington State University days and rolled the dice—Erickson with a quirky one-back-offense while knowing not to tinker with a flawless, aggressive defense. Things went south on Erickson's watch regaining pell grant fraud and what not and probation followed—and Butch Davis came in to save the day; Miami's third choice behind Sonny Lubick and Dave Wannstedt.

Paul Dee was Miami's AD at the time—Jankovich leaving for the New England Patriots, while Dave Maggard was hired in the short term, eventually bailing for the 1996 Olympics committee. Dee was Miami's general counsel who wound up falling into a lengthy athletic director roll, hiring Davis.

All this to say, it is a much different college football world and sport here in 2021—so to think that Miami could somehow thrive with an president who hates football, versus a football-first AD—that won't soon work again.

Foote showed up at UM in 1981, Jankovich in 1983—both trailing Schnelly, who arrived in 1979 and started building a program.

Football was gaining momentum by 1981 upon Foote's arrival and was a national champion by the time Jankovich got on board.

When you're already dealing with a first-time winner and budding powerhouse, a cash-strapped president will follow the athletic director's lead. Things only toppled over when Johnson's players had a renegade attitude and started dancing and over-celebrating, giving UM a bad image (in the eyes of Foote). Even then, Johnson's Canes won that battle—winning at title after the Fiesta Bowl debacle and sticking around one more year before handing the keys over to Dennis, where chaos ran amok and championship football dictated the terms; not a tight-*** president.

Hard to have any serious conversation about presidents, athletic directors or the board of trustees at Miami when the program has been in a 16-year funk—while ignoring what the sport has turned into money-wise, as well as the fact the 80's were a much different world for the sport, the culture and the world, as Miami was dominating everything.
 
Julio needs to be gone. It’s been said at this point already, but the academic ranking, although wildly subjective, has tanked a lot.

Isn’t he interim president of the med program as well or something, or did they hire someone new? Because that should be his actual position.

Dude is obsessed with making Miami a PC bubble, when it’s long been one of the most diverse and accepting campuses.

Forget football, he’s not a good president, period.
 
Advertisement
Can we make a pact to please stop talking about the 1980s and 1990s like they have any ounce of correlation to what goes on today? 1990 may as well be 1890 when talking about college football, honestly. Just stop comparing them for any reason, it's a complete waste of time.
I think you're largely correct if we're getting into specific details of management. I think on a very broad scale though there are historical lessons that carry permanent weight in relation to building momentum, maintaining momentum and killing momentum when looking at the relationship between a school's overall administration/leadership and that of the athletic department.
 
People take what was in that 30 for 30 like it's gospel. They said Tad Foote hated football, so that's what everybody believes.

I don't know anything about Tad Foote except for what you say... we won when he was president. And I know Billy Corbin or whatever his name is is basically a hack. And I know 30 for 30 is just entertainment, and every story needs a villain, and Tad Foote seems like a convenient villain... none of that means the way they portrayed him was accurate at all.
If you read Feldman or Mart,'s books, they explain that Foote was indifferent about it. He hated that the whole university was being cast in the light of the U swagger/thug impression.
 
You're joking right? This is what i mean about Cane fans living delusions of grandeur, as if we're still in the age of the Wishbone and the Pro Set.

Foote would be absolutely useless in this day and age.
 
People can rightfully attack my namesake for failing to maximize all the athletic success that came to fruition under/despite his watch (I include the 2001 championship) but Donna and Frenk still shouldn't be mentioned anywhere near him when speaking on any positive terms about any aspect of the university.

The academic transformation that Foote was responsible for compared to the stagnation (regression on some fronts) under Shalala and now Frenk is laughable.

At least with Foote when people cried that he was sacrificing athletics for academics there were tangible results.

Sadly, I thought Frenk was obviously going to be hands off from sports but able to be swayed if properly "educated" on the cost/benefit of big boy football (and basketball to a lesser extent). Instead he seems just hands off and aloof/apathetic.
Serious question I'm wondering. Are you related to Foote?
 
Advertisement
People take what was in that 30 for 30 like it's gospel. They said Tad Foote hated football, so that's what everybody believes.

I don't know anything about Tad Foote except for what you say... we won when he was president. And I know Billy Corbin or whatever his name is is basically a hack. And I know 30 for 30 is just entertainment, and every story needs a villain, and Tad Foote seems like a convenient villain... none of that means the way they portrayed him was accurate at all.


This is what you do every time the subject comes up. You use some vague and generalized criticisms about a documentary to arrive at the (incorrect) conclusion that Tad Foote was inaccurately characterized.

But you are wrong. I didn't need the 30-for-30 to confirm what I observed and experienced while I was at UM, and the passive-aggressive antagonism that Tad Foote had for UM athletics. But, sure, you're going to sit here and act like you don't know Billy Corben's name, and call him a hack, and do everything you can to slander the guy for simply reporting what EVERYONE observed and experienced, from students to athletes to coaches to employees.

I could cite VERY specific things, but I'm not even going to waste my time, as you will figure out a way to sneer AND mention that you went to Yale.

The reality is that Tad Foote has been characterized accurately. You can use the word "villain", but he very clearly opposed just about any policy or expenditure which would have helped the Athletic Department and the football team.
 
Nahh people were on here praising him like he walks on water..these kiss a$$ fans are dumb as ****.


Yep. Go back and search for posts that praised Beta Blake when the IPF was completed, and most of those same people praised Julio for his COVID-19 response.

Each of them (Blake and Julio) have a W-L record of 1-999.
 
You guys overvalue how much focus these Presidents have on sports specifically Football. Football is probably like 1% of what they think about. It starts with the AD. The AD is who you should be going after.
 
If you read Feldman or Mart,'s books, they explain that Foote was indifferent about it. He hated that the whole university was being cast in the light of the U swagger/thug impression.


He doesn't care, he's going to blame and slander ONE documentarian and ignore all of the contemporaneous written accounts (news articles, books, online articles) which detailed all of the things that Foote did to antagonize the Athletic Department, Sam, Howard, JJ, Dennis, and Butch.

I was there and I could cite specifics if I even believed that WrongSaidFred had a good-faith misunderstanding over Foote. He does not. This is not his first attempt to be a contrarian on this issue.

PS, I own those books, and a few others.
 
Back
Top