It was more than a quarter, a play here or there it could’ve been VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. A dropped TD then later missing a wide open flat route that likely scores . They moved the ball really well in second half. Maybe I’m not acting smarter than others but more not eating my boogers thinking everything is fine. There’s a whole lot to improve. I remember the same thing happening here after the horrible finish at FSU last year then UL and Smu happened , I was “overreacting”. Seeing red flags the first three games and calling it out isn’t being super smart.
Btw just because you spend a lot of money on a team doesn’t mean it’s automatically good. Alit can go wrong especially when dealing with 18-22 year olds. Including chemistry and just choosing the wrong guys. Texas spends more than us every year and how many titles have they won recently ?
I think we're actually arguing two different things here. Your original point was that people were crazy for thinking losing Mesidor, Bain, Thomas, Scott, and the other starters wouldn't be a big deal.
Nobody said losing those players wasn't a big deal. The question is why you're treating Miami's roster turnover like it was some unique disadvantage when Wake had significant turnover too. Every team is replacing players now. Guys graduate, transfer, go to the NFL, and teams replace them through the portal.
And here's another thing: the people predicting Miami would win comfortably weren't just Miami fans sitting around making up ridiculous score predictions. The betting market opened Miami around a
19.5-point favorite, and the line moved to around
20.5–21 points by kickoff. The opening total was around
50.5–51.5, and it climbed to roughly
55.5–56.5. Miami's moneyline was around
-1,400 to -1,600 late.
So when people predicted Miami to handle Wake, they weren't pulling that expectation out of thin air. The independent betting market was expecting essentially the same thing. Now, did Miami cover? No. Miami won 33–20, so they didn't cover the closing spread. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
But that's also why your argument doesn't make sense to me.
Miami was up 31-7 in the third quarter. Wake absolutely made the game uncomfortable afterward, and there were plays that could have made it even closer. I'm not denying that. But you can't use the last 1.5 quarters to erase the first 2.5 quarters. And Miami had opportunities to make that comeback less likely. There were self-inflicted mistakes, including a roughing-the-passer penalty that extended a Wake drive in the first quarter and 3rd.
If your argument is, "Miami showed some red flags and has things to clean up," I'm with you.
But if your argument is, "Therefore everyone who predicted Miami to win comfortably was crazy," that's where I don't follow you.
And the money argument is another thing. I never said spending $50 million automatically makes a team good. Obviously it doesn't. Your Texas example doesn't prove otherwise. Money doesn't guarantee chemistry, coaching, development or results.
My point is that resources give Miami a greater ability to replace lost production. That's not a guarantee—it is a resource.
That's really the difference between our arguments.
You're saying, "I saw problems."
I'm saying, "Sure, but those problems don't automatically make the people who expected Miami to win comfortably idiots."
Both things can be true.
Miami needs to improve.
And people weren't crazy for expecting a team that was favored by roughly 20 points to beat Wake Forest comfortably.
