Listened to a Podcast with Brad Tejada..

[TheOriginalCane]

You think the kind of people who join this university's board of trustees are zooming in between christmas and Jan. 4 to discuss assistant corch topics with a football coach?

I doubt it. But I guess you never know.

Again, you go really insane with your extreme misinterpretations.

Not every Trustee joins every single meeting. But, yes, there is always a "year-end report" that is given.

And nobody said that the SOLE PURPOSE of the meeting was to discuss assistant coaches.

Just a question, how do you think it works at the other 130 colleges that are firing and hiring coaches RIGHT NOW? And approving contracts? Do you think 130 other universities are just giving their Trustees a two week vacation for the holidays, with NO DISCUSSION of new business?

Alright, maybe Tennessee. But there are legit reasons for that this year.

Stop exaggerating things and acting like you are some kind of voice of reason, just because you (mistakenly) think every university Board of Trustees in the United States can't possibly be bothered over the holidays.

 

[Ethnicsands]

I don’t think boards of trustees are involved in hiring and firing assistant corches almost anywhere. You have a head coach, an AD, a general counsel and a president. Unless they’re breaking the budget, I wouldn’t expect trustee discussion on assistant coaches in a real time manner. And if they want a year end report, I’d expect it to go from the AD to the President then to the Trustees, and to be discussed in an organized fashion after submission, not on some hasty zoom meeting around New Year’s. That’s how a functional organization would work, anyhow. If they need to make emergency decisions, sure, they’re available. But firing a cornerbacks corch isn’t that sort of matter.

 

[HitStick2620]

My neighbor's aunt's son's cousin's neighbor delivered a pizza with pineapple on it to Mandy. But you didn't hear it from me

Would not surprise me at all if manny’s beta *** likes pineapple on pizza

 

[Number1CanesFan]

to summarize, he said the Board met with Manny just after the bowl loss to see where Manny stood re: the defensive staff. Manny seemed set to run it back, with the exception of Rumph and of course Banda's expected departure. He added that Ed Reed and Banda didn't see eye-to-eye on some things.
According to Brad the trustees weren't exactly thrilled with Manny's plans and allowed time to "re-group" before again meeting with Diaz Mon. January 4. In that meeting trustees expressed concern regarding a repeat scenario of Golden-D'Nofrio in terms of the Diaz-Baker working relationship. Apparently finances for new staff members were then discussed, and Manny was given the backing to field a competitive crew on the defensive side of the ball. The board is confident in terms of the provision available for these hires to the point of saying the Diaz will fix the problem(s) coaching-wise on the defensive side of the ball - and if he doesn't we'll make sure it's fixed. That didn't come off to me as a threat to Diaz's job status, but assurance that quality hires would be made, and unqualified current staff members would be moved/removed. MY GUESS: Reid's evaluations may play a factor here.
So Manny has been given the resources to build his staff, according to Brad, with the inference being however that Blake Baker will NOT be defensive coordinator, or if retaining the title, being nothing more than a glorified position coach.

I personally find it interesting that the moment trustees leaned on Manny (if true)to break status quo, the topic of $ came up. Let's face it, Diaz hired Baker as D-Coordinator from La.Tech, so one would imagine the salary is moderate, possibly not even moderate as far as D-Coordinator salaries run. Patke was given a promotion/raise when Richt left, but guessing again a moderate salary for a position coach. Lord knows whatever Rumph got was too much. I always hear UM people saying there's plenty of money for coaches, BUT when looking at that side of the ball with Baker, Banda, Patke, and Rumph - these all would appear to be bargain-basement hires, coaches hired from HS ball, or lower-profile college positions. I'm troubled that though there's "plenty of money" for quality hires, that money somehow isn't always used. On offense? Yes. To overpay Manny? Yes. For the defensive staff? Remains to be seen.

Thanks for the info. At least the board isn't wasting money by overpaying coaches. The exception being Rumph and perhaps Diaz because he had no head coaching experience, but his salarly is higher than a G5 and middle P5.

Good to know they want and are willing to pay for good coaches and don't want the Dorito situation repeated. Since the board brought it up, it gives Diaz an out to demote or better yet fire his buddy Blake Baker.

 

[CaneDog66]

I could see that the BOT, or pieces of it, namely those that have a vested interest in the football program, could in theory meet and hold Manny accountable for the defensive woes this season. And that the meeting could/should include Flake as well. It’s not as if we just were blown out in the bowl game; we have the UNC home game where I’m sure most of those BOT members as well as big boosters were not very happy after the game. After the 62-26 debacle and then going down 21-0 to the Pokies who with any commitment to the football program wouldn’t meet to “discuss” changes that need to occur. I’m sure Manny might have even presented his thoughts in said meeting only to be told otherwise what needs to happen. It’s not far fetched - we all know we’d attend such a meeting if we were on the BOT. Or called for one even to review the state of the program.

 

[PIPO]

to summarize, he said the Board met with Manny just after the bowl loss to see where Manny stood re: the defensive staff. Manny seemed set to run it back, with the exception of Rumph and of course Banda's expected departure. He added that Ed Reed and Banda didn't see eye-to-eye on some things.
According to Brad the trustees weren't exactly thrilled with Manny's plans and allowed time to "re-group" before again meeting with Diaz Mon. January 4. In that meeting trustees expressed concern regarding a repeat scenario of Golden-D'Nofrio in terms of the Diaz-Baker working relationship. Apparently finances for new staff members were then discussed, and Manny was given the backing to field a competitive crew on the defensive side of the ball. The board is confident in terms of the provision available for these hires to the point of saying the Diaz will fix the problem(s) coaching-wise on the defensive side of the ball - and if he doesn't we'll make sure it's fixed. That didn't come off to me as a threat to Diaz's job status, but assurance that quality hires would be made, and unqualified current staff members would be moved/removed. MY GUESS: Reid's evaluations may play a factor here.
So Manny has been given the resources to build his staff, according to Brad, with the inference being however that Blake Baker will NOT be defensive coordinator, or if retaining the title, being nothing more than a glorified position coach.

I personally find it interesting that the moment trustees leaned on Manny (if true)to break status quo, the topic of $ came up. Let's face it, Diaz hired Baker as D-Coordinator from La.Tech, so one would imagine the salary is moderate, possibly not even moderate as far as D-Coordinator salaries run. Patke was given a promotion/raise when Richt left, but guessing again a moderate salary for a position coach. Lord knows whatever Rumph got was too much. I always hear UM people saying there's plenty of money for coaches, BUT when looking at that side of the ball with Baker, Banda, Patke, and Rumph - these all would appear to be bargain-basement hires, coaches hired from HS ball, or lower-profile college positions. I'm troubled that though there's "plenty of money" for quality hires, that money somehow isn't always used. On offense? Yes. To overpay Manny? Yes. For the defensive staff? Remains to be seen.