Its an important strategic question, but I doubt he feels any pressure (real or imagined) towards a successful athletics program. What keeps HIS job? Overall fundraising, research prestige, the health sciences school (UM's real crown jewel), and representing the University in a manner "befitting" a President leading a Top 40-50 (and rising fast) school.
He doesn't make football decisions, he has input into Department Chair and Athletic Director hires/fires. They, in turn, hire their staff to work amd run the respective scopes. Remember, Richt reports to Blake, not vice versa.
Frenk reports to the BOT and was clearly hired (away from prestigious Department Chair role at HARVARD) to propel UM into the Top 30-40 rankings (or higher). That is no easy task for sure...but it HAS ZERO CONNECTION to atheltics. ZERO.
Don't kid yourselves...Shalala HAD NOTHING to do with Miami's football descent anymore than she had to do with Miami's Basketball ascent. The AD runs that leg and it's fairly disconnected from the Academic, unless their is a scandal that forces the President to act.
The same can and should be said for Frenk.
It has already been documented that Shalala wouldn't allow donations to go towards athletics. Frenk has stated many times that he wants to win in athletics. Does it determine his job? No. However, it boosts the image of your school and brings in great income. It's not coincidence that the football team went down as soon as she was hired and finally took the right steps once she was gone. You think hiring coordinators for chump change like Shannon was a talent decision? She crippled this program but the witch is dead and it shows with the 4 million the new coach is receiving.
Ok...not starting a type argument...but I just can't help myself...
1) are you or any family a graduate (or attended) UM? (I am);
2) do you understand how University funding works (I do)?
First, as a matter of course, general donations to a University 99%...wait, I'd offer 99.99%, of the time go to waht is commonly known as the "general fund". This mechanism funds and supports basic operations and matainence to "keep the lights on, fund salaries, repair amd restore infrastructure, etc." and doesn't go DIRECTLY to any single department or program. Now with that said, those donations INDIRECTLY (or what we call in-kind) support everything a University does because of the multi-use nature of what operations and maintenance covers. For example, general donations do in-kind support football because it pays for the salaries of teachers, and keeps the calssrooms running, that the athletes use while in attendance (just like non-athletes).
Now, there are specified donations just as the name implies (i.e. I want my $$$ to go towards the salary fund, or cancer research fund, or FOOTBALL, or even the IPF, or the School of Engineering, etc..) and those monies are earmarked exclusivley in support of what was named (or at least BY LAW there are supposed to).
Any evidence she prohibited donations to the AD and/or football program? I suggest not a scrap of such exists. Was she a typical "above it all academic and US Govt technocrat (remember she was HHS Sec for President Clinton)". Absolutely! Did she consciously wreck the AD or football program? You are giving WAY, WAY to much credit to a boogey woman that doesnt exist.
