forums

The program is DEAD and never coming back

Advertisement
JD08 said:
Native American Crying GIF
Click to expand...
Did you know this guy was Italian!
 
nycane said:
ESPN destroyed college football.

We hired a first time HC. EVERY coach goes through bumps like this. its not Manny, its the people who hired him.
He took his dream job.
Click to expand...

Power schools diminished it, ESPN didn't kill it. Players used to stay close to home, now they can go anywhere and their family can tune in from wherever. Going away to school doesn't mean what it used to.

The final nail in the coffin though has been brought about by NIL crap. You think it's bad now, wait and see what happens in the next five years.
 
OldhamA said:
Those states are paying for those football programmes, not the fans in attendance.

You only have to look at LSU - their library was in ruins at the same time they opened brand new football training facilities. They only care about one thing - we're not on their level and we won't ever be. Football is a religion to them.
Click to expand...

lol, no they aren't.

Athletic money is for athletics. States pay very little into athletics aside from a minimal part of staff salary as they are state employees at that point.

Now if you want to argue that people (boosters} in Louisiana have their priorities out of whack, sure. They'll drop money into athletics, but not the general fund for school.
 
Advertisement
SayWhat said:
Power schools diminished it, ESPN didn't kill it. Players used to stay close to home, now they can go anywhere and their family can tune in from wherever. Going away to school doesn't mean what it used to.

The final nail in the coffin though has been brought about by NIL crap. You think it's bad now, wait and see what happens in the next five years.
Click to expand...
It’s all a generation of front runners who grew up watching cowards like Durant and lebron?
 
Advertisement
Hogan said:
College Football is dead altogether. ESPN literally put up a graphic showing how two teams are beating it up for the past five years.

Parity in this sport has disappeared altogether. Its Bama, Clemson and then, its everybody else. And the amount of movement is slim. Theres no hope for other teams to win a title when Alabama is at the top. Its a different sport and it sucks complete ***.
Click to expand...
They showed that graphic during the game and I just laughed because the sport was amazing because of how deep it was and how teams could come out of no where… instead you have a decade plus of the same **** schools
 
SayWhat said:
Athletic money is for athletics. States pay very little into athletics aside from a minimal part of staff salary as they are state employees at that point.

Now if you want to argue that people (boosters} in Louisiana have their priorities out of whack, sure. They'll drop money into athletics, but not the general fund for school.
Click to expand...

That's just simply false. It's so false that it's comical, and ridiculous.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/202...ll-an-expensive-luxury-for-many-universities/


1630874955621.png
 
apex_predator said:
My G, you know you're my guy, and I respect what you have to say, but this whole notion that there's never been parity in CFB, and the administration & HC deserve 100% of the blame for MIA being mired in mediocrity is just categorically false & ridiculous.

While you are partially correct when you say CFB has always been stratified, the issue is the hyper-stratification that we see today is unsustainable & undermines the integrity of the sport. Since it's inception the CFP playoffs have had the same 4 teams account for 20 of the 28 playoff spots, and only ND & LSU have either gotten multiple invites or won a NC.

It's very important for you & other fans to understand that without parity, there wouldn't even be a university of MIA football program.
Prior to the landmark supreme court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), the NCAA controlled how many times each school could appear on national TV. This resulted in only a few of the most powerful schools getting national TV exposure. Ironically, it was the big schools who sued the NCAA, as they wanted ALL of their games on TV. The biggest winner in this ruling wasn't OU, but the non-blue blood schools, who suddenly had the same access to national media exposure. In the wake of the decision and the resulting TV contracts, we were ushered into the most extreme era of parity and non-blue bloods winning titles in the history of the sport. It's not a coincidence, that MIA finally ascended to being a relevant national program, and achieved it's greatest success in its history during this era. But besides MIA, other non-blue blood programs also won NC's during this era. Programs like BYU, Colorado, and Washington respectively. That type of feat occurring in today's CFB landscape, is virtually impossible. The explosion in revenue that followed, ensured this era of parity in CFB was destined to be short lived, as it helped to fuel the current arms race in CFB. Unfortunately, that is a race this university will ALWAYS be ill-equipped to win.

We can talk about the questionable hiring decisions this program has made in the last 20 yrs, but the bottomline is when you are forced to operate behind these sort of budget constraints, making the "right" hire becomes infinitely more difficult. Shannon & Golden were 2 of the lowest paid HCs in P5. This program was literally the last program in P5 to get an indoor practice facility, though it needed it more than anyone. You love to bring up recruiting rankings, to underscore the pt this program has underachieved relative to it's talent, but as I've tried to explain to you numerous times, in this sport the biggest determining factor for success is not talent. It's resource allocation. That's why programs like Iowa, Wisconsin, Iowa St, Michigan St, & Baylor have all been nationally relevant, despite recruiting outside of the 30's. This program's recruiting base only becomes relevant if there's a coach who can properly evaluate & assess the talent. Otherwise, all we have is raw talent, that needs a lot of work. In the end, this program has been a middle of the road ACC program for the last 20 yrs, because it has SPENT like a middle of the road ACC program. Those are the realities, & facts, we need to start focusing on.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.
 
Advertisement
apex_predator said:
My G, you know you're my guy, and I respect what you have to say, but this whole notion that there's never been parity in CFB, and the administration & HC deserve 100% of the blame for MIA being mired in mediocrity is just categorically false & ridiculous.

While you are partially correct when you say CFB has always been stratified, the issue is the hyper-stratification that we see today is unsustainable & undermines the integrity of the sport. Since it's inception the CFP playoffs have had the same 4 teams account for 20 of the 28 playoff spots, and only ND & LSU have either gotten multiple invites or won a NC.

It's very important for you & other fans to understand that without parity, there wouldn't even be a university of MIA football program.
Prior to the landmark supreme court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), the NCAA controlled how many times each school could appear on national TV. This resulted in only a few of the most powerful schools getting national TV exposure. Ironically, it was the big schools who sued the NCAA, as they wanted ALL of their games on TV.
The biggest winner in this ruling wasn't OU, but the non-blue blood schools, who suddenly had the same access to national media exposure. In the wake of the decision and the resulting TV contracts, we were ushered into the most extreme era of parity and non-blue bloods winning titles in the history of the sport. It's not a coincidence, that MIA finally ascended to being a relevant national program, and achieved it's greatest success in its history during this era. But besides MIA, other non-blue blood programs also won NC's during this era. Programs like BYU, Colorado, and Washington respectively. That type of feat occurring in today's CFB landscape, is virtually impossible. The explosion in revenue that followed, ensured this era of parity in CFB was destined to be short lived, as it helped to fuel the arms race in CFB. Unfortunately, that is a race this university will ALWAYS be ill-equipped to win.

We can talk about the questionable hiring decisions this program has made in the last 20 yrs, but the bottomline is when you are forced to operate behind these sort of budget constraints, making the "right" hire becomes infinitely more difficult. Shannon & Golden were 2 of the lowest paid HCs in P5. This program was literally the last program in P5 to get an indoor practice facility, though it needed it more than anyone. You love to bring up recruiting rankings, to underscore the pt this program has underachieved relative to it's talent, but as I've tried to explain to you numerous times, in this sport the biggest determining factor for success is not talent. It's resource allocation. That's why programs like Iowa, Wisconsin, Iowa St. & Michigan St, & Baylor have all been nationally relevant, despite recruiting outside of the 30's. This program's recruiting base only becomes relevant if there's a coach who can properly evaluate & assess the talent. Otherwise, all we have is raw talent, that needs a lot of work. In the end, this program has been a middle of the road ACC program for the last 20 yrs, because it has SPENT like a middle of the road ACC program. Those are the realities, & facts, we need to start focusing on.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the response, however I have some questions for you?

1. You said I love to focus on recruiting rankings, however don’t we consult recruiting rankings to establish the talent that teams have? How else can we gage that?

2. Budget constraints; how do we know about our budget constraints? Do anyone know what we’re operating w/, b/c since we’re a private institution, you can’t find our operating budget.

But for chits & giggles, let’s just say we’re the brokest school in America (btw, we’re not), but just for argument sake:

-So after Shannon went 5-7, and 7-5 in 2 yrs, did our “budget constraint” cause us to extend him for another 4 yrs w/ a pay raise? Did a budget constraint force this admin to hire the same DC who’s players were swinging helmets on FIU players, and was apart of embarrassing period, in our history?

OK, F it…did the budget constraint cause this admin to completely gloss over the sub 500 record of a G5 coach to lead its program? Did the budget constraint force us to up Golden’s pay & give him a 4 yr extension after mediocrity, oh…and announced this “massive contract extension” (per the Orlando Sentinel) in the 4th qtr during the BC game while we were trailing 24-14??

Did our broke little school cause us to give Richt his biggest pay day & allow him to hire his son?

Did our financial constraints handcuff us, forcing us to shell out $7m to retain a DC that was apart of dysfunctional locker room to be it’s new HC?

Footnote: Both Golden & Shannon’s contract was on par w/ 75% of CFB D1 teams, FYI.

Now, back to the CFP & parity. The only thing the CFP did was highlight what was already around, the Have & The Have Nots. Why? B/c it’s only 4 teams that’s focused on. Yesteryear, National Championships were either subjective by The AP & Coaches, or a Computer (BCS). Prior to that, u had the “claimed & unclaimed” era. So yes, u would get an occasional GT, Colorado, or BYU to win the title b/c if they were the only undefeated team, why not? Then u had a time where Nat’l titles were split. But at the end of the day, the emphasis is on “occasional.” Since the invent of the BCS, we haven’t seen a G5 squad come close to sniffing a Nat’l title, period. Hence, why the proposal of the 12-team playoff.

BUT, since I like to humor ppl for chits and giggles, what if there was a Final 4 CFP back, let’s say in the 1980’s, what then?

Let’s see:
1980: UGA, FSU, OU, Pitt
1981: UGA, Bama, Clemson, Nebraska
1982: UGA, PSU, Nebraska, SMU
1983: Nebraska, UT, Miami, Auburn
1984: BYU, OU, UF, Washington
1985: PSU, Miami, OU, Iowa
1986: PSU, OU, Miami, Michigan
1987: Miami, OU, FSU, Syracuse
1988: ND, Miami, FSU, WVA
1989: Colorado, Miami, Michigan, ND

So if The 4 team CFP would’ve been in the 80’s:
-Miami would’ve been a participant in 6 of those 10 yrs
-Oklahoma 5 of those 10 yrs
-Nebraska, UGA, FSU, PSU 3 of those 10, and then u had the occasional one & dones like BYU, Syracuse, Washington, Iowa, Florida, Auburn. But who was the steady fixture for 10 yrs in the 80’s? Miami & OU. Who r the steady fixtures today? Bama & Clemsom. Have we seen some occasional new faces today, like then? Absolutely. UGA, Oregon, LSU, and Michigan State thus far.

What about the 1990’s? Where would the CFP be?

1990: Colorado, GT, Miami, Texas
1991: Miami, Washington, Michigan, UF
1992: Miami, Bama, FSU, Texas A&M
1993: FSU, Nebraska, ND, WVA
1994: Nebraska, Miami, PSU, Colorado
1995: Nebraska, UF, NW, OSU
1996; FSU, UF, ASU, OSU
1997: Nebraska, FSU, Michigan, UF
1998: UTK, FSU, OSU, Arizon
1999: FSU, Nebraska, VT, Wisconsin

Are you noticing a glaring trend? If the CFP was around in the 80’s & 90’s prior to the BCS, it was the same **** teams practically every year, Miami, OU in the 80’s, Miami, Nebraska, FSU in the 90’s. Were there some occasional party crashers yearly? Sure, but that’s why the BCS started taking Strength of Schedule into account (ding, ding, ding…which is y we don’t see G5 teams vying for the Nat’l Title anymore), b/c a lot of these teams were playing cupcake schedules, racking up wins.

The point of this exercise is to show u what’s happening today was no different than yesterday. The problem is yesterday, a team could go undefeated in a conference not worth a **** or be independent & be in consideration for a National Title b/c of how voting went. Today, there’s no subjugation to that method. So again, the problem isn’t the CFP or CFB.

Let’s do this; brother, take the CFP out of the equation & this Miami team STILL ain’t sniffing chit.

What if there was a 12 team playoff, would that help ease everyone’s thoughts?

Since I pinpoint our downfall in 2004, these r the results:
2004 - Nope
2005- #9 seed (we lost LSU in the 1st round)
2006 - Nope
2007 - Nope
2008 - Nope
2009 - Nope
2010 - Nope
2011 - Nope
2012 - Nope
2013 - Nope
2014 - Nope
2015 - Nope
2016 - Nope
2017 - # 11 seed (we lost to Wisconsin in the 1st round)
2018 - Nope
2019 - Nope
2020 - Nope

So however u wanna dice it, slice, whatever, this is the state of the program. Now, I appreciate u saying I’m ur guy and all that, as u disagreed w/ all my post on this subject matter, but u can have ur views, but I’ll let the facts shape mine.
 
Rellyrell said:
No, no it’s not, actually. Lol
Click to expand...

He pointed out that the ceiling of the program has been drastically lowered, taking out of the equation the mismanagement aspects of what the program has gone through.

You pointed out that we've sucked the majority of the last two decades...dwelling on the mismanagement aspects...not sure who was debating that.

In the end, I guess you are arguing that either:
A. Miami has the resources of Alabama but squanders them...which I think is a pretty asinine argument.
B. Miami doesn't need the resources of Alabama to win at the highest level...which is thinking that has yet to be proven correct...since no other team in the similar situation as Miami has been able to crack the top 4 in this 'post-arms race' era..closest you could find would be...Notre Dame, maybe?

Not really understanding what you are getting at, and since your post wasn't even a clear rebuttal of what he posted anyway...I can state that, yes, I thought his post is a good representation of the state of things.
 
Advertisement
When we get a proper coach and he proves that its not possible to win with the 13th best roster in the nation which you are able to accumulate while getting the dog dung dragged outa you on and off the field then we can talk. Before Pete Carroll won titles in the early to mid 2000s USC last title was in then 70s, same for Ohio St. Before Saban Bama last title was 92. You hire poorly, you get poor results. Diaz is learning on the job. Only good is they didn't give him an extension for no good reason. If he doesn't work out we need to either bring in a coach with high level experience or Bring Butch Back to stop the bleeding. K State did it with Snyder.
 
SevenNSeven said:
He pointed out that the ceiling of the program has been drastically lowered, taking out of the equation the mismanagement aspects of what the program has gone through.

You pointed out that we've sucked the majority of the last two decades...dwelling on the mismanagement aspects...not sure who was debating that.

In the end, I guess you are arguing that either:
A. Miami has the resources of Alabama but squanders them...which I think is a pretty asinine argument.
B. Miami doesn't need the resources of Alabama to win at the highest level...which is thinking that has yet to be proven correct...since no other team in the similar situation as Miami has been able to crack the top 4 in this 'post-arms race' era..closest you could find would be...Notre Dame, maybe?

Not really understanding what you are getting at, and since your post wasn't even a clear rebuttal of what he posted anyway...I can state that, yes, I thought his post is a good representation of the state of things.
Click to expand...

What??

Can we ALL STOP COMPARING US TO BAMA. Maybe that’s y it was difficult for u to understand the point I made b/c it had chit to do w/ Bama.

The point which was my ORIGINAL QP was the problem is not w/ the CFP, it’s our PERCEPTION of the CFP b/c we have sucked and not been remotely in contention. What I stated was that in the HISTORY of CFB, per decade, it has ALWAYS been the Haves & The Haves Not. The ONLY thing the CFP is doing is highlighting & magnifying this misconceived notion of parity. There has NEVER been parity.

The rebuttal to the reply to MY QP was that The BYU’s, Colorados, that were used as an example to show parity was based upon the voting format, which subsequently changed during the BCS era, but regardless, it was ALWAYS the same teams in contention.

Now back to this Bama rhetoric. Let me make this is as Loud & Clear as possible:
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA HAVE ALWAYS HAD MORE RESOURCES THAN THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. So clearly no one w/ a 1/4 of a brain would argue such a point. Do u know how long Miami has been a small, private institution? Since 1925! U know how long The University of Alabama has been a state institution? Since 1831!

Was the disparity of resources a hinderance to us from 1979 - 2004? As a matter of fact, our resources today are vast superior than yesterday. Regardless, that has chit to do w/ being a competent team in the ACC. That’s the point. Our brand is the strongest in the ACC, we’ve out-recruited every single Coastal sans 2 yrs since 2004, and yet we have fundamentally mismanaged & mishandled every roster yearly.

We’ve hired 4 coaches in a row that had no business being here. We hired a guy who’s never oversaw any major sports as our AD. This rhetoric of lack of resources & budget constraint is the weakest excuse to excuse the utter incompetence that’s plagued this program. We have been our own enemy. Not Bama, not CFB, not the CFP, but us. That’s the point.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top