forums

DAILY DEBATE: What is the biggest reason for Miami’s struggles the past 20 years?

Boats
Hoes
Vegas
Admin not realizing how far back we’ve fallen. Dorms, facilities, staff support etc…
the school began revamping the program with cmr. And they’ve been spending since then and even more since Mario.
But the years from clappy to golden was when the real decline began. And it’s precisely when the cfb facilities arms race started. The sec went all in and we focused on being the “Harvard of the south”.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
caneingville said:
Serious question-do you still think we win in ‘01 if they hire Barry instead?
Click to expand...
Yes. Remember, we **** near lost a couple games in 2001 because of pitiful game prep by Coker. BC and VT should have never been close. Barry Alvarez wasn't going to come in and try to reinvent the wheel. Everyone knew our team was loaded and should have won it all in 2000.

A good comparison would be when we hired Jimmy Johnson. People were livid we didn't hire from within. JJ was going to have us running the wishbone. JJ could never beat OU or Nebraska. We all know how that turned out.

I'll go one step further. Not only do we win it in 2001. We probably win it in 2002 as well.
 
pacusmc said:
Boats
Hoes
Vegas
Admin not realizing how far back we’ve fallen. Dorms, facilities, staff support etc…
the school began revamping the program with cmr. And they’ve been spending since then and even more since Mario.
But the years from clappy to golden was when the real decline began. And it’s precisely when the cfb facilities arms race started. The sec went all in and we focused on being the “Harvard of the south”.
Click to expand...
The Harvard of the South stuff began before the 2000s though. They were saying it when I visited for my tour in 1995, and I believe Tad Foote first came up with that plan in the 80s.
 
ThomasM said:
Yes. Remember, we **** near lost a couple games in 2001 because of pitiful game prep by Coker. BC and VT should have never been close. Barry Alvarez wasn't going to come in and try to reinvent the wheel. Everyone knew our team was loaded and should have won it all in 2000.

A good comparison would be when we hired Jimmy Johnson. People were livid we didn't hire from within. JJ was going to have us running the wishbone. JJ could never beat OU or Nebraska. We all know how that turned out.

I'll go one step further. Not only do we win it in 2001. We probably win it in 2002 as well.
Click to expand...
Next question then - how long do you think Barry’s tenure is, how do you think it ends, and do you think we have the drop off that we did after he is gone?
 
Advertisement
1. Why have we sucked? Because of coaching and personnel
2. Why are caoching and personnel bad? Because we hired the wrong coaches.
3. Why did we hire the wrong coaches? Because we lacked the funds and drive for success that leads to good hires.
4. Why did we lack the funds and drive for success. Because we had an AD and school president(s) who didn't put in the effort and emphasis.
5. Why did we have an AD and school president who didn't put in the effort and emphasis? Because the BOT didn't make that a priority.

The five "why"s says it's the BOT's fault.
 
ST26 said:
Player Development is the biggest thing. We've consistently been in the top 3 in the acc for recruiting the last 20 years, and have had enough talent (on paper) to compete in ACC championships. Yet, we've only been there twice. Does it really take multiple top 5 classes just to make it to Charlotte?
Click to expand...
I'm getting old, but did the Canes go to the ACC Championship game one other time than 2017?
 
JD08 said:
1. Why have we sucked? Because of coaching and personnel
2. Why are caoching and personnel bad? Because we hired the wrong coaches.
3. Why did we hire the wrong coaches? Because we lacked the funds and drive for success that leads to good hires.
4. Why did we lack the funds and drive for success. Because we had an AD and school president(s) who didn't put in the effort and emphasis.
5. Why did we have an AD and school president who didn't put in the effort and emphasis? Because the BOT didn't make that a priority.

The five "why"s says it's the BOT's fault.
Click to expand...
Great points........the Admin was more interested in academia than sports. It was their view that the ROI could have been greater there than ROI on sports.

Now the tables are reversed....academia is now financing the hurry up to meet national standards and outplay competitors in a beauty contest of schools with facilities, atmosphere, staff, and NIL.

There is a concerted effort now ( with our new President and team) in trying to make Miami and the Gables the location of choice for recruiting and portal players...in everything.

The Football quest is on to out recruit, out NIL, and out facility others in grabbing prospects...
 
Advertisement
caneingville said:
Next question then - how long do you think Barry’s tenure is, how do you think it ends, and do you think we have the drop off that we did after he is gone?
Click to expand...
I would like to think he would have retired at some point and left the program in a better state than what Coker left behind. I don't think Barry would have coached more than 5-6 years here before retiring, or doing like he did at Wisconsin, becoming the AD.

The players might have thrown a fit, but they would have been better off in the long run with a better head coach.
 
We haven’t been able to be good at “coaching, talent and development” at the same time across the board…

OL has been trash but the DBs were good…

OL is good but DBs trash….

DL is good but LBs are suspect…

Receivers are decent to good and the QB can’t make the throws…

If it isn’t one thing it’s another. All of this comes down to a or a set of positions coaches recruiting and developing well when others aren’t… at the same time. And our weakest unit(s) seems to be a glaring issue as well…. Like borderline not serviceable.

Year after year we see coaches overcome team weaknesses and find a away while we’ve had 5 coaches who haven’t been able to overcome things for various reasons.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
A lot of the posts already made have a lot of validity.
From my perspective, it's 2 things: (1) the type of athlete we attracted, and (2) failing to keep up with the professionalization of college football.
(1) I was a freshman (NON-athlete!) in 1998. The guys who came in that year came under sanctions but were there to win a natty and to do it the hard way. These were the guys who worked out to the brink of death in the Miami summer heat and licked their fingers about it. After I graduated (2002), I think we were attracting front-runners. More guys who thought the logo and their high-school prowess would do it for them and maybe who didn't like the work it took to be on top. I don't mean everyone right away, but over the next 5 years, the percentage of players who were that way probably increased from 15% to 85%. Once we started making the palm trees and cool uniforms (and sorry, but the turnover chain) the main recruiting pitch, we were never going to attract the killers you need in order to be nationally competitive. I do think Mario has been erasing all that and has been able to attract killers because he is one himself. At least, this is my cope.
(2) I cannot say as much about, but we seem to be on the right track here, as well.
 
ThomasM said:
Yes. Remember, we **** near lost a couple games in 2001 because of pitiful game prep by Coker. BC and VT should have never been close. Barry Alvarez wasn't going to come in and try to reinvent the wheel. Everyone knew our team was loaded and should have won it all in 2000.

A good comparison would be when we hired Jimmy Johnson. People were livid we didn't hire from within. JJ was going to have us running the wishbone. JJ could never beat OU or Nebraska. We all know how that turned out.

I'll go one step further. Not only do we win it in 2001. We probably win it in 2002 as well.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you're making his point with that example. In 1984 (JJ's first year), the Canes didn't contend for a national title like they had in 1983. They lost 5 games.

I do agree with you though Barry would have won in 2001 - as long as the players stayed (and I think most would have since transfer rules weren't as relaxed then as they are now). If a bunch of them jumped ship, maybe then they don't win it all. But just a coaching change and with all that talent? My mother-in-law could have been HC and won the title that year. The same goes for 2002. How Coker let the Suckeyes even compete in that game let alone win it still ****es me off to this day.
 
Advertisement
1000004588.png
 
It’s been a mixture of both talent and coaching. Not to mention the egregious disservice the UNIVERSITY did in not investing in the program. The way other schools had began to do during that time.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top