forums

The Demise of The U

Advertisement
cats-drugs.jpg
 
craval85 said:
3 of the 4 NFL coaches that you alluded to were hired when MIA was independent. Paul Dee hired Butch Davis, and also hired Randy Shannon. Before Davis left for the Browns MIA was prepared to make him a top 3 highest paid coach in CFB. While at the same time Randy Shannon when hired was one of the lowest paid coaches in P5, if not the lowest. So clearly we can see there was a culture shift within the university during that time as it pertained to spending on athletics. Simultaneously the CFB landscape during this time period also changed, and the gap between MIA and the other elite programs became even wider. This has essentially placed the university in a unique predicament where it no longer feels that championships are a worthwhile pursuit, and that the risks far outweigh the benefits. Furthermore conference affiliation, TV deals, & corporate sponsorships are only exacerbating that situation.

Finally..it is paramount to understand that budget constraints can make or break an AD or HC. I find it very hard to believe that either Cristobal or Orgeron would be able to replicate their success at a place like MIA.
Click to expand...
Shalalalalalalala
 
DMoney said:
All of our coaches have been different. Coker was well-traveled but ran a loose ship. Shannon was strict but knew nothing outside of Miami. Golden was the ascendant mid-major coach who didn’t fit Miami. Richt was the established SEC coach with a 1993 offense. Diaz was supposed to be the forward-thinker.

The only consistent thread is that none of them were offensive innovators. That would be my focus. We have more than enough money to catch someone on the way up. Mullen and Leach begged for the job.
Click to expand...
The only consistent thing is that they were terrible, lazy hires, incompetent choices made by incompetent people who knew nothing about what we needed or what the people we hired brought to the table.

Two were first time HCs who were hired off failed staphs - that’s insane amd inexplicable other than because our AD was incompetent and delusional, or was hiring for traits other than football success.

One was a failed SEC coach who had just gotten fired, was done with football, didn’t succeed with all the resources at UGA, proved he couldn’t be HC and OC play caller himself and yet wanted to go back to just that, wanted to hire his son to a staff position, and inexplicably was hired on the CEO coach theory even though he told us himself that was not a job he wanted. We hired him because he seemed credible, talked Jesus and had a UM connection, all because our AD is clearly trying to management football to avoid blame rather than engineer success.

Golden was not some ascendant mid major coach. That was the bs story he pitched like a used car salesman who tells you that vehicle ain’t got more than 2000 miles on it. It was a clearly bogus narrative that posters on this very site blew up before he ever started here, just by picking apart his record. (Temple’s success came from dropping down in comference and competition.) He also had a schematic approach that was a terrible fit at UM and an AD worth his salt should have known that. UM hired him because they were dumb, didn’t know how to peel below the surface, had no football instincts and no program knowledge. They went for the banana in the tailpipe because that is who they are and what they do, over and over and over.

We’ve had this exact same discussion, many times. It’s like that movie 50 First Dates, we just keep doing it all over, and you pretend we havent done this 10 times over.

I know you want to believe we have all we need to succeed other than a good coach. It’s a comforting narrative. But you are going out of your way to avoid asking tough questions here. Why do we hire so badly? Why did we once again hire a coordinator from a failed staff in a matter of hours without any search, without even a diagnosis of what went wrong, or what the program needed? Why do we keep going for ‘UM connections‘? What is the ‘CEO coach‘ theory and how does it apply to UM?

This AD and our institutional commitment to winning football is a clown show.
 
This AD and our institutional commitment to winning football is a clown show.

Exactly. I have been saying this very thing for years and nothing substantive will change until this is resolved. We simply refuse to address the root of the problem. Never ending circle jerk.
 
Advertisement
Ethnic,
I'm asking for specific answers, not vague references to "institutional commitment to winning."

"Who" is at fault? Paul Dee hired Coker. Kirby Hocutt hired Golden. Blake James hired Diaz. Shalala has been gone for four years. Who is the "admin?"

We agree that Blake should go. He subverted process and put his chips in with Manny, so he should fall with him. But what is the broader institutional issue you keep talking about? And why did it only appear in 2002? Tad Foote was not a champion of football, and we didn't spend. And if the culture really did change overnight, why has it lingered for 15 years despite the turnover in decision-makers? Is your theory that the Hecht Building is cursed, and that's why our program can't come back?

Ethnicsands said:
Two were first time HCs who were hired off failed staphs - that’s insane amd inexplicable other than because our AD was incompetent and delusional, or was hiring for traits other than football success.
Click to expand...

Was it "insane and inexplicable" when Clemson hired its WR coach off a failed staff? Did Clemson's "admin" suffer from some undefined "culture" disease? These blanket statements are silly.

One was a failed SEC coach who had just gotten fired, was done with football, didn’t succeed with all the resources at UGA, proved he couldn’t be HC and OC play caller himself and yet wanted to go back to just that, wanted to hire his son to a staff position, and inexplicably was hired on the CEO coach theory even though he told us himself that was not a job he wanted. We hired him because he seemed credible, talked Jesus and had a UM connection, all because our AD is clearly trying to management football to avoid blame rather than engineer success.
Click to expand...

The key there is that Richt was expensive. The folks complaining about budget don't realize that Richt was a bigger budget item than Jimmy, Erickson and Butch. We have underperformed our budget.

Golden was not some ascendant mid major coach.
Click to expand...

He was absolutely ascendant in 2011 and anyone denying that is trying to rewrite history. Me, you and 99% of the board were excited about getting someone without Miami ties on the upswing after the Shannon debacle.

But you are going out of your way to avoid asking tough questions here. Why do we hire so badly? Why did we once again hire a coordinator from a failed staff in a matter of hours without any search, without even a diagnosis of what went wrong, or what the program needed? Why do we keep going for ‘UM connections‘? What is the ‘CEO coach‘ theory and how does it apply to UM?
Click to expand...

I answered the first question several pages ago. But here you go:

Why do we hire so badly?

(1) Picking big-time football coaches is hard, as other powerhouses like USC and Tennessee have proven.
(2) We don't have the budget for a no-brainer pick like Saban, Meyer or Harbaugh.
(3) We have been too eager to pick the opposite of the previous failed regime.

Al Golden didn't have Miami connections and failed because he didn't understand Miami. Shannon had Miami connections but failed because he didn't know anything outside of Miami. Richt was a CEO. Diaz was not a CEO.

The only common thread is that we haven't hired an innovative offensive mind. With a fifteen-year sample size to review, I would say that is our biggest problem. The Miami dynasty began with offensive innovation and that is what's needed to reignite that dynasty.
 
Last edited:
DMoney said:
The Miami dynasty began with offensive innovation and that is what's needed to reignite that dynasty.
Click to expand...

Actually JJ did it with defense. Moved LB's to DE. Moved Safety's to LB. Emphasized speed. He also had stout DT's to support the middle to let the LB's run. Just about every game of the JJ era had the TV guys talking about the D's speed. He recruited speed on both sides of the ball and the staff coached the **** out of them.
 
Advertisement
Kids today don't realize college football is a different animal than hs.you can't get away with loa fing or not having the right mental toughness/atitude.we haven't had that staff to break these kids into the college way of doing things like the mindset,atitude you need.all of our glory teams will tell you it took all they had mentally and physically to get there the staff they had taught them how to get there.we haven't had that structure since butch left.when we do get a hc who does know we fans are gonna have to realize it will take him more than 2 seasons to get the right atitude installed here.with sanctions it took butch 5 years.now we fans have to understand for 19 years thanks to the administration we have had a 19 years + worth of self imposed sanctions.
 
swat1 said:
Actually JJ did it with defense. Moved LB's to DE. Moved Safety's to LB. Emphasized speed. He also had stout DT's to support the middle to let the LB's run. Just about every game of the JJ era had the TV guys talking about the D's speed. He recruited speed on both sides of the ball and the staff coached the **** out of them.
Click to expand...

Correct, but it all started with Schnelly.
 
So I'm not as well versed in UM history as many of you, but it seems to me that UM has never been dedicated to athletics, even during football's championship years. We had success due to the fact that UM is located in the richest talent pool in the country and the outside world didn't have the access that we did. We had a built-in advantage no one else had despite the administration.
Snelley and JJ took advantage of this and built this program.

Then what happened? The new president (I can't remember his name) comes in and JJ is like like uh oh (I'll never forget the look on his face during that press conference) and jumps ship (I know the Cowboys money was immense, but JJ ran outta here with the quickness). But we still had that built-in advantage and we road it until that advantage eroded to the point where the truth that had been there since the beginning was no longer covered up by the overwhelming talent and recruiting advantages UM innately had. Now we can truly see how the administration views athletics with the lack of investment; lazy hires; and ambivalence. The truth of the matter is the admin has NEVER placed an importance on athletics and our success was in spite of them.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
DMoney said:
Ethnic,
I'm asking for specific answers, not vague references to "institutional commitment to winning."

"Who" is at fault? Paul Dee hired Coker. Kirby Hocutt hired Golden. Blake James hired Diaz. Shalala has been gone for four years. Who is the "admin?"

We agree that Blake should go. He subverted process and put his chips in with Manny, so he should fall with him. But what is the broader institutional issue you keep talking about? And why did it only appear in 2002? Tad Foote was not a champion of football, and we didn't spend. And if the culture really did change overnight, why has it lingered for 15 years despite the turnover in decision-makers? Is your theory that the Hecht Building is cursed, and that's why our program can't come back?



Was it "insane and inexplicable" when Clemson hired its WR coach off a failed staff? Did Clemson's "admin" suffer from some undefined "culture" disease? These blanket statements are silly.



The key there is that Richt was expensive. The folks complaining about budget don't realize that Richt was a bigger budget item than Jimmy, Erickson and Butch. We have underperformed our budget.



He was absolutely ascendant in 2011 and anyone denying that is trying to rewrite history. Me, you and 99% of the board were excited about getting someone without Miami ties on the upswing after the Shannon debacle.



I answered the first question several pages ago. But here you go:

Why do we hire so badly?

(1) Picking big-time football coaches is hard, as other powerhouses like USC and Tennessee have proven.
(2) We don't have the budget for a no-brainer pick like Saban, Meyer or Harbaugh.
(3) We have been too eager to pick the opposite of the previous failed regime.

Al Golden didn't have Miami connections and failed because he didn't understand Miami. Shannon had Miami connections but failed because he didn't know anything outside of Miami. Richt was a CEO. Diaz was not a CEO.

The only common thread is that we haven't hired an innovative offensive mind. With a fifteen-year sample size to review, I would say that is our biggest problem. The Miami dynasty began with offensive innovation and that is what's needed to reignite that dynasty.
Click to expand...

These are the facts:

1.) It is widely known that president DS throughout her tenure siphoned funds away from athletics and towards other functions/operations of the university, including those donated by a ponzi-schemer. So not only did the MIA athletic dept. run lean during her tenure, CFB as a whole experienced an explosion in growth which increased popularity & resource allocation to unprecedented levels. It is naive to think these factors can be overcome by a simple AD or HC change. They cannot.

2.) Tad Foote presided as president during a time when MIA's football program was independent. This is relevant because it helps to understand why the university at the time adopted a "win at all costs mentality". This mentality not only resulted in NCs but also numerous NCAA violations/infractions. Which actually makes perfect sense, because in order for a small private school with significant budget constraints to compete on a national scale it also has to be willing to break rules in the process. Those days are long gone, and the current NCAA landscape is vastly different than it was back then.

3.) It's ridiculous to try to compare Richt's salary to his predecessors, because not only are the eras different, but his hiring came with the stipulation that the university also allow nepotism. His salary might seem high relative to Coker, Shannon, or Golden but when compared to other coaches around the country his compensation was avg. For example even Justin Fuente currently makes $4 mil/yr. Therefore I find it odd that you believe MIA has underperformed relative to it's budget. How does that make any sense when coaches like Coker, Shannon, & Golden were some of the lowest paid in the entire country?

4.) The widespread institutional/systemic failure that fans & mods like yourself need to accept, is that a small private school with barely a $1 billion endowment can no longer compete with public schools with unlimited resources/support in this current CFB landscape. This failure transcends bad luck relating to HC or AD hires, and is the product of an era that encourages uncontrolled wild, wild, west type of spending.
 
Last edited:
craval85 said:
These are the facts:

1.) It is widely known that president DS throughout her tenure was siphoning funds away from athletics and onto other functions/operations of the university, including those donated by a ponzi-schemer. So not only did the MIA athletic dept. run lean during her tenure, CFB as a whole experienced an explosion in growth which increased popularity & resource allocation to unprecedented levels. It is naive to think these factors can be overcome by a simple AD or HC change. They cannot.

2.) Tad Foote presided as president during a time when MIA's football program was independent. This is relevant because it helps to understand why the university at the time adopted a "win at all costs mentality". This mentality not only resulted in NCs but also numerous NCAA violations/infractions. Which actually makes perfect sense, because in order for a small private school with significant budget constraints to compete on a national scale it also has to be willing to break rules in the process. Those days are long gone, and the current NCAA landscape is vastly different than it was back then.

3.) It's ridiculous to try to compare Richt's salary to his predecessors, because not only are the eras different, but his hiring came with the stipulation that the university also allow nepotism. His salary might seem high relative to Coker, Shannon, or Golden but when compared to other coaches around the country his compensation was avg. For example even Justin Fuente currently makes $4 mil/yr. Therefore I find it odd that you believe MIA has underperformed relative to it's budget. How does that make any sense when coaches like Coker, Shannon, & Golden were some of the lowest paid in the entire country?

4.) The widespread institutional/systemic failure that fans & mods like yourself need to accept, is that a small private school with barely a $1 billion endowment can no longer compete with public schools with unlimited resources/support in this current CFB landscape. This failure transcends bad luck relating to HC or AD hires, and is the product of an era that encourages uncontrolled wild, wild, west type of spending.
Click to expand...

Larry Coker was one of the highest paid coaches in college football when he re-signed in 2005. Mark Richt was getting paid more here than he was at Georgia. We spend money when we want an established name. It just hasn’t worked.

And if our mid-90s probation was the result of a “win-at-all-costs mentality,” we must have had the same mentality when we went on probation in 2011.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top