Al is not the problem, it's Dona Shalala.

Please stop with the nonsense. Donna is probably the most sports/football friendly president in Miami history.

And the results are terrible.

What does that tell you? Micromanaging maybe? Her political correctness & attempt to "clean up the image" has fvcked us in more ways than one (ironically enough the biggest scandal in UM history happened under her watch).

Actually, the biggest scandal happened under Tad Foote's watch.
 

Advertisement
Please stop with the nonsense. Donna is probably the most sports/football friendly president in Miami history.

And the results are terrible.

What does that tell you? Micromanaging maybe? Her political correctness & attempt to "clean up the image" has fvcked us in more ways than one (ironically enough the biggest scandal in UM history happened under her watch).

Actually, the biggest scandal happened under Tad Foote's watch.

Yep. The Pell grant scandal was a much, much bigger scandal because it was actually true (unlike 90% of the Shapiro BS) and involved actual crimes. If social media had been around when that scandal occurred, I shudder to think what the outcome may have been.
 
The move to the ACC meant UM no longer required a dominant big money making football program to pay for the rest of its athletics. Whether we play in a BCS game or Clemson does, we get paid.

When we were independent and in the Big East, the admin hated the football programs image. But they weren't stupid. You think it's coincidence the bball program returned after we started winning a million big five bowls???

The football program was ALWAYS something the admin wanted to de-emphasize. But they couldn't bc they needed to ***** it out to pay for women's basketball and the goddam swim teams. Now? We are perfectly stable even if we don't play in a single legit bowl game for a decade, and that means that where before the admin had to suck it up and let the U be the U, now they can spend nothing, hire babysitters with clean images as HC, and collect the checks that FSU provides us.

This was three decades in the making and they finally got their wish.
 
The move to the ACC meant UM no longer required a dominant big money making football program to pay for the rest of its athletics. Whether we play in a BCS game or Clemson does, we get paid.

When we were independent and in the Big East, the admin hated the football programs image. But they weren't stupid. You think it's coincidence the bball program returned after we started winning a million big five bowls???

The football program was ALWAYS something the admin wanted to de-emphasize. But they couldn't bc they needed to ***** it out to pay for women's basketball and the goddam swim teams. Now? We are perfectly stable even if we don't play in a single legit bowl game for a decade, and that means that where before the admin had to suck it up and let the U be the U, now they can spend nothing, hire babysitters with clean images as HC, and collect the checks that FSU provides us.

This was three decades in the making and they finally got their wish.

Thank you Mike Tranghese for weighing in. Oh baloney. There was no indicator that Miami football was going to implode after winning the Big East the 4th year in a row and then winning the Orange Bowl. Miami had to get out of the Big East. Regardless of what you think, Title IX requires you to support the non-rev women's sports program. You still have to be financially solvent and protect your downside in the lean years.
 
The move to the ACC meant UM no longer required a dominant big money making football program to pay for the rest of its athletics. Whether we play in a BCS game or Clemson does, we get paid.

When we were independent and in the Big East, the admin hated the football programs image. But they weren't stupid. You think it's coincidence the bball program returned after we started winning a million big five bowls???

The football program was ALWAYS something the admin wanted to de-emphasize. But they couldn't bc they needed to ***** it out to pay for women's basketball and the goddam swim teams. Now? We are perfectly stable even if we don't play in a single legit bowl game for a decade, and that means that where before the admin had to suck it up and let the U be the U, now they can spend nothing, hire babysitters with clean images as HC, and collect the checks that FSU provides us.

This was three decades in the making and they finally got their wish.

Pass me the tin foil hat!

If you truly believe that the move to the ACC was calculated to de-emphasize football, you're truly retarded. The BE was a fractured and failing league; UM and VT were its only bulwarks, and because of the revenue system, we were in danger of going broke if we didn't make a BCS game every year. Think about the financial disaster if we missed a BCS game for 2 years in a row; that could potentially be ~30-35 mil in lost revenue in just 2 years. When you're trying to make an athletic budget for 2, 3, or 5 years down the road, it's a genuine problem if you have no idea whether you'll be getting 17 mil or 1 mil from bowl revenue in any given year.

It's idiotic to turn that around and act as though that unsteady and urgent financial situation incentivized us to be good during the BE years and to go to more big-time bowls. And it's idiotic to make it seem as though joining the ACC has brought on some sort of complacency. If we were better on the field, we'd surely be getting a lot more revenue from ticket sales than we are now, and we'd be getting more donations from boosters. So there are still very good financial reasons to field the best football team we can.

We got lucky and made a string of good coaching choices, and the nation still hadn't yet stalked out So Fla as a primary recruiting area, so we had it mostly to ourselves; that's what made us good.
 
Advertisement
The move to the ACC was so we could be financially stable. The byproduct and added bonus for the admin is there is no longer any necessity for the football team to be elite anymore, as we now have our bases for women's "sports" covered regardless of how many titles we win.

Miami pays less for its football staff now than they did in 2001, and it's bc they don't need to invest in it anymore. It's smart business. No tin foil required. It just sucks bc before there was an urgency to be elite simply bc of finances. That urgency is gone.
 
Please stop with the nonsense. Donna is probably the most sports/football friendly president in Miami history.

And the results are terrible.

What does that tell you? Micromanaging maybe? Her political correctness & attempt to "clean up the image" has fvcked us in more ways than one (ironically enough the biggest scandal in UM history happened under her watch).

Leonard Hamilton left on Tad Foote's watch. Rick Pitino was all but coming to Miami. He wanted out of the Celtic job, but it was Freeman who leaked it. It was Hamilton who recommended his friend Perry Clark. Based on where Miami basketball was at the time, the Frank Haith hire made a lot of sense. The Larranaga hire was a very good one. This year will be bumpy because Jim had to replace all 5 starters. Next year they should be back in the tournament once Rodriguez and the kid from Texas are eligibile.

You're not going to fire Jim Morris. He's earned the right to leave on his own terms. Miami is at an extreme disadvantage in baseball due to the restrictions in scholarships as a private institution. Unless you set up an athletic endowment like at Stanford you're at an extreme disadvantage to be competitive and consistent. I'd say Jim retires in the next year or two. They've upgraded the stadium.

Football has been a disaster. Players, former players, Board of Trustees all wanted Larry. The mistake was hiring Randy and in Randy's defense he was set up for failure. Who elevates the coordinator who was part of a failed staff? It's not like Randy was the Head Coach in waiting. The Golden hire was a good hire at the time. After two failed coaches, the options were somewhat limited.

What Miami has really lacked until Blake James is consistency at Athletic Director. Look Paul Dee was General Counsel before he took over the Athletic Department. He navigated the university through the Pell Grant scandal. He did a lot of good for the university athletic department but some of his hiring decisions were questionable. Miami made a good hire in Kirby Hocutt but he split as soon as he had an opportunity to get back to Texas. That Howdy Doody looking guy was not so good. Blake James was a home run. He has time with the university and he was an AD at the University of Maine and he likes Miami. So he is here for the long haul.

one of the saner posts ever on here.
 
The move to the ACC was so we could be financially stable. The byproduct and added bonus for the admin is there is no longer any necessity for the football team to be elite anymore, as we now have our bases for women's "sports" covered regardless of how many titles we win.

Miami pays less for its football staff now than they did in 2001, and it's bc they don't need to invest in it anymore. It's smart business. No tin foil required. It just sucks bc before there was an urgency to be elite simply bc of finances. That urgency is gone.

A) I'd like to see the numbers. Since you seem to know what we paid Coker et al and what e're now paying Golden et al, please share.

B) Again, it's simply faulty reasoning to assume that because we're getting paid on a steady basis, there is no urgency to be good. Ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandise, and booster donations all take a big hit when we suck. We've missed out on millions each year because of our recent mediocrity. Do you really believe Shalala is cool with that?
 
DONNA SHALALA IS THE CURRENT ADMIN PUPPET MASTER VERSION OF THADIUS FOOTE......CK WITH JJ FOR CONFIRMATION....

YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE *STARS* NEXT TO YOUR NAME YOU LIKE BUT CHOIR BOYS NEED ONLY TO APPLY TO PLAY FOOTE-BALL AT THE U.......
 
Advertisement
Actually ticket sales are paltry either way. The difference between a winning program and a mediocre one doesn't cost them much compared to the free ride they are guaranteed by being in the ACC.

In 2009-2011 we averaged 50K fans. In our BEST YEARS we didn't average more than 70K, not even close. The 18 million in free TV money alone makes the "we need to be good for money still" concept nonsense.

Yes, there would be some extra monies brought in, but:
1) it's not that much relative to what we are already guaranteed
2) which means spending inordinately for staff isn't economically sound
3) which means they only would spend if they desperately wanted to win
4) which is not the priority of an admin that views the University as a school, not a football school

Donna and co don't want a mediocre football program. But they'd rather that than spend a lot of money effort and possible bad pub to guarantee a great one. How the **** can't people see this by now is beyond me. Again, we get paid the same bowl and TV money as FSU, average only 20% less fans per game, and yet they are paying their coach 4.5 million.

And yes FSU has more alum, but their alum per capita income is lower, and they are a state school that cannot on a whim in a ten year period almost triple the average tuition cost. Miami can, which means IF WE WANTED TO, we could raise money in any number of ways.

The "Miami is poor boo hoo" argument is NONSENSE.
 
Actually ticket sales are paltry either way. The difference between a winning program and a mediocre one doesn't cost them much compared to the free ride they are guaranteed by being in the ACC.

In 2009-2011 we averaged 50K fans. In our BEST YEARS we didn't average more than 70K, not even close. The 18 million in free TV money alone makes the "we need to be good for money still" concept nonsense.

Yes, there would be some extra monies brought in, but:
1) it's not that much relative to what we are already guaranteed
2) which means spending inordinately for staff isn't economically sound
3) which means they only would spend if they desperately wanted to win
4) which is not the priority of an admin that views the University as a school, not a football school

Donna and co don't want a mediocre football program. But they'd rather that than spend a lot of money effort and possible bad pub to guarantee a great one. How the **** can't people see this by now is beyond me. Again, we get paid the same bowl and TV money as FSU, average only 20% less fans per game, and yet they are paying their coach 4.5 million.

And yes FSU has more alum, but their alum per capita income is lower, and they are a state school that cannot on a whim in a ten year period almost triple the average tuition cost. Miami can, which means IF WE WANTED TO, we could raise money in any number of ways.

The "Miami is poor boo hoo" argument is NONSENSE.


Actually, you're wrong on ticket sales. When we're losing, we have to give away or significantly reduce the price of tickets. So while the # of tickets sold might be the same (or close to it) regardless of whether we're up or down, the $$ we're getting from those ticket sales is not. By a long shot.

Not to mention, tickets sold do not necessarily equate to butts in seats, as we all know. When we suck, we likely only get 35k in the stands, despite the fact that we may have sold (or given away) 50k tickets. When we're good, it's much more likely that the full 50k will actually show up to the game. Which means significantly more $$ from concessions, parking, merchandise, etc.
 
Last edited:
Looking back at the lack of vision of the University in the 60's, while not seeing the unique opportunity that CFB was going to financially explode in the future while overlooking the cost of the land south and west of the university was available for pennies, thus a stadium.
 
Giving away and tickets sold are two different things. And the average ticket price hasn't fluctuated enough to make such a major financial difference that it incentivized the school to invest in football. The university is not dumb.

They see it as such: if having a 8-9 win team equals 18 mil + guaranteed bowl money + x amount in venue sales, and having a 12-0 team with 18 mil + bowl revenue + (x + 20%x), why double the investment in football ( which is required to get to that 12-0 team ), when doubling the investment WONT DOUBLE THE INCOME?????

In addition they are guaranteed stability for the AD budget AND don't have to have the university paraded around as a football factory when they are desperately trying to improve their academic image.

It's math. And it adds up to what we see as the fall of our beloved team. Want to fix it? Donate specifically to football and forbid that money to go elsewhere or don't give. Don't buy tickets until we pay for an adequate staff, don't go to bowl games, and write and call making these actions known. It probably won't change much anyway, but Nothing else is going to have any impact whatsoever.
 
Advertisement
The move to the ACC was so we could be financially stable. The byproduct and added bonus for the admin is there is no longer any necessity for the football team to be elite anymore, as we now have our bases for women's "sports" covered regardless of how many titles we win.

Miami pays less for its football staff now than they did in 2001, and it's bc they don't need to invest in it anymore. It's smart business. No tin foil required. It just sucks bc before there was an urgency to be elite simply bc of finances. That urgency is gone.

I do not believe for one second that Miami pays less than they did in 2001. I'd like to see some proof to back up this claim.
 
Google is a very effective tool. After the extension Coker was one of the highest paid coaches in football. Al Golden is not. And yet our revenue streams are up. Curious.
 
Giving away and tickets sold are two different things. And the average ticket price hasn't fluctuated enough to make such a major financial difference that it incentivized the school to invest in football. The university is not dumb.

They see it as such: if having a 8-9 win team equals 18 mil + guaranteed bowl money + x amount in venue sales, and having a 12-0 team with 18 mil + bowl revenue + (x + 20%x), why double the investment in football ( which is required to get to that 12-0 team ), when doubling the investment WONT DOUBLE THE INCOME?????

In addition they are guaranteed stability for the AD budget AND don't have to have the university paraded around as a football factory when they are desperately trying to improve their academic image.

It's math. And it adds up to what we see as the fall of our beloved team. Want to fix it? Donate specifically to football and forbid that money to go elsewhere or don't give. Don't buy tickets until we pay for an adequate staff, don't go to bowl games, and write and call making these actions known. It probably won't change much anyway, but Nothing else is going to have any impact whatsoever.

Right. It's math, and your math is way off. And so is your perception of how to deal with the situation.

First off, there is no strict mathematical equation for having a 12-0 team, and being a UM fan, you should know that we've always done more with less $$. Ask Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, or Tennessee if paying big $$$ on staff gets you to 12-0. FSU isn't spending double the amount on Jimbo Fisher and staff that UM is on Golden and co.

Second, if you don't buy tickets, don't donate, don't go to bowl games, etc, that decreases the amount of money in the pot, thereby decreasing the likelihood that the admin will be able to pay more for staff, facilities, etc.
 
Advertisement
To put it in simple terms for those with their heads still in the sand:

In 1988 what was providing financial stability for the athletic department? The football team and the money it brought in due to its wild success.

In 2014 what provides financial stability for the athletic department? The ACC, it's bowl revenue sharing and TV contract.

So ask yourself, why did Tadd Foote and co if they hated UM football so much allow it to exist the way it did? MAYBE it was bc they NEEDED to be that team that went to the Cotton bowl and destroyed Texas bc it PAID FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.

Now ask yourself, what reason other than "they just want to", does Shalala and Co have to hire a big time coach to guarantee a return to dominance????
 
Google is a very effective tool. After the extension Coker was one of the highest paid coaches in football. Al Golden is not. And yet our revenue streams are up. Curious.


Are you serious? First off, we reportedly paid Coker ~2 mil at that time, which was one of the highest salaries at that time. We paid him on the basis of work done while at UM. Winning a championship and narrowly missing out on another in back to back years will get a man paid.

We're reportedly paying Golden north of 2 million at this time, which puts him ahead of guys like Mark Helfrich at Oregon, and on par with a guy like Gus Malzahn at Auburn.
 
Advertisement


Write your reply...
Back
Top