The U Administration's commitment to Miami football...

This is a really simple argument. What measurable success have we seen on the field in over a decade? The process is broken and it's systemic. It starts at the top. She inherited a great program and whatever her process is - it's failed for over a decade.

That is incorrect, she got 30 million for athletics.

What are the the results on the field. That's how I and most fans determine success. Apparently our on field performance isn't relative to your success criteria.
 
Advertisement
$30 Million Dollars

532.gif
 
This is a really simple argument. What measurable success have we seen on the field in over a decade? The process is broken and it's systemic. It starts at the top. She inherited a great program and whatever her process is - it's failed for over a decade.

That is incorrect, she got 30 million for athletics.

What are the the results on the field. That's how I and most fans determine success. Apparently our on field performance isn't relative to your success criteria.

I was being sarcastic.
 
LOLOL at the person who said Duke has more alumni. We are about same size and have existed since 1925. Dead Duke alumni from before 1925 aren't contributing to the campaign from 6 feet under.

This team won a billion big bowl games in a short time and put none of the earnings back into the program.

We have been more successful in football, a bigger money maker, than Duke is at basketball. There is no excuse for us to be spending 1/8th as much as they are on athletics.
 
LOLOL at the person who said Duke has more alumni. We are about same size and have existed since 1925. Dead Duke alumni from before 1925 aren't contributing to the campaign from 6 feet under.

This team won a billion big bowl games in a short time and put none of the earnings back into the program.

We have been more successful in football, a bigger money maker, than Duke is at basketball. There is no excuse for us to be spending 1/8th as much as they are on athletics.
He said more alumni with deep pockets, not more alumni. It doesn't matter how many you have if no one is making enough to make significant donations. I would definitely agree Duke has more rich alums.
The only thing any of you are actually mad about as far as money for the football program is that we don't have a stadium and have no plans to get one.
 
Advertisement
This is a really simple argument. What measurable success have we seen on the field in over a decade? The process is broken and it's systemic. It starts at the top. She inherited a great program and whatever her process is - it's failed for over a decade.

That is incorrect, she got 30 million for athletics.

What are the the results on the field. That's how I and most fans determine success. Apparently our on field performance isn't relative to your success criteria.

I was being sarcastic.

lol sorry I caught that after I posted
 
LOLOL at the person who said Duke has more alumni. We are about same size and have existed since 1925. Dead Duke alumni from before 1925 aren't contributing to the campaign from 6 feet under.

This team won a billion big bowl games in a short time and put none of the earnings back into the program.

We have been more successful in football, a bigger money maker, than Duke is at basketball. There is no excuse for us to be spending 1/8th as much as they are on athletics.
He said more alumni with deep pockets, not more alumni. It doesn't matter how many you have if no one is making enough to make significant donations. I would definitely agree Duke has more rich alums.
The only thing any of you are actually mad about as far as money for the football program is that we don't have a stadium and have no plans to get one.

We've got the doorman, right? The doorman's got deep pockets.
 
Assuming UM had the money for an indoor practice facility, where would they put it? There is not a lot of open land on the UM campus.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top