forums

Who were other candidates?

tsimonitis

tsimonitis

Senior
Premium
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
5,467
I wasn't around Grassy etc, at the time but when Butch left in '00 who were some of the other candidates? I would think that UM could have basically hired anyone in the country. It must have been the #1 job in CFB.

How much was Dee actually swayed by the "player support" of Coker? Is this exaggerated, over blown? Shouldn't he have told the players to kick rocks? The program is more important than any 1 class of players?

Just want to hear some opinions/stories from those that were "around" back then.
 
Advertisement
They went after Barry Alvarez, then Dave Wannstedt. The player support stuff sounded like fluff but the story is players begged Dee to promote from within for continuitys sake.
 
I was on campus at the time and word around campus was that Dorsey and Reed lobbied for Coker. That's fairly compelling.
 
AlexCane said:
I was on campus at the time and word around campus was that Dorsey and Reed lobbied for Coker. That's fairly compelling.
Click to expand...

As an adult, tasked to do an assigned job, would you bow to the wishes of two 20 year old kids? That's insane.
 
Advertisement
I don't blame Dee for hiring Coker nearly as much as I blame him for extending him.
 
Shogungts said:
I don't blame Dee for hiring Coker nearly as much as I blame him for extending him.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you hire a HC without HC experience at that time. UM was coming off a season where they should hav eplayed for the MNC and had a loaded roster. UM had to be the most desirable job in the country. Why not hire the slam dunk, big name? Was the admin unwilling to spend the money?
 
Keeping Coker may have been the correct move. We were a terrible call away from back to back ships. Extending him and then hiring Shannon however.
 
the hire was fine for a 2 year stint.... should have been intern coach
 
Advertisement
He had to be extended after 2 years, he had the best team in America for those 2 years, hands down

Joecane said:
Keeping Coker may have been the correct move. We were a terrible call away from back to back ships. Extending him and then hiring Shannon however.
Click to expand...
 
UM's fall is more than just the hire of Coker. To name a few of the things going on: Move to the ACC, Leaving the Orange bowl, Rise of SEC, Urban Liar at Florida, Fight against FIU and crackdown on how and who we recruit, etc. Coker did win us a title as a head coach and that is the only thing that matters in college football.
 
kendallcanes said:
UM's fall is more than just the hire of Coker. To name a few of the things going on:
Click to expand...

Move to the ACC - I will give you that the level of competition went up, but when he took over, we could handle almost any team in the country and by the time he left, we were losing to mediocre teams in the ACC.

Leaving the Orange bowl - I am not sure how this has anything to do with being a good coach or not, but that happened during Shannon's tenure anyway

Rise of SEC - doesn't explain our downward trend in our own conference

Urban Liar at Florida - again, doesn't explain our performance in our own conference (and if you are going to say recruiting, Coker was still getting good recruiting classes and then failing with them)

Fight against FIU - a coach with better control of his team doesn't allow that to happen

crackdown on how and who we recruit - a result of not having better control of his team


Again, I dont blame Dee as much for original hiring of him, but after it there were signs of trouble, to reward him with the contract he received (instead of a shorter, cheaper, and/or smaller buyout) was a huge mistake to me.

*Edit - I reread your first sentence about it not just being Coker, but I think my response still stands in that if good coaches had been hired in the first place (or at least after the first few years of Coker), we would not be in the situation we are now as almost everything you listed either wouldnt have happened or would have been overcome with a good (or even decent) coach.
 
Last edited:
tsimonitis said:
He had to be extended after 2 years, he had the best team in America for those 2 years, hands down

Joecane said:
Keeping Coker may have been the correct move. We were a terrible call away from back to back ships. Extending him and then hiring Shannon however.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Who was going to come and steal him from us? He still had 3 years left on his contract when they extended him, I could understand if it was only 1 year, but he was already 4 years in, had progressively lost more games each year and had 3 years left. There were already boosters looking for him to be fired and instead he was given an extension that was absolutely uncalled for.

Researching this information I came across this (check out the bolded part):

Questions spinning about Coker's position at Miami
Despite his winning record (44-7), the three-years remaining on his contract, and the rumors of a five-year contract extension (that has yet to be signed according to the Palm Beach Post), Miami coach Larry Coker can't relax - not after the struggles UM faced last season and the loss this week to Florida State.

With the spectre of former Miami Hurricanes football coaches Butch Davis and Dennis Erickson looking for jobs, the 'Canes fans are slowly starting to up the pressure on Larry Coker.

As I pointed out this week, Coker has progressively lost more games year after year (12-0, 12-1, 11-2 and 9-3) since taking over at Miami.

Greg Stoda of the Palm Beach Post points out that it's not just the diminishing returns Coker has produced as of late, but also wonders if Coker is up to the challange of winning in a much improved ACC.

Miami is 5-4 in its new environment, and the 'Canes have lost to North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech and Florida State in their past six ACC games. The most recent disconcerting development presented itself Monday night to the Hurricanes when they had a six-game winning streak against Florida State broken in an ugly 10-7 loss at Doak Campbell Stadium.
...

Four of the Hurricanes' five ACC victories, for example, have been by margins of 24, 14, 10 and 45 points. The other one — in last season's opener — was by six in overtime against Florida State. But the four ACC losses suffered by Miami have been by margins of three, seven (in overtime), six and three points.

How a team performs in close games is a lot more revealing than how many opponents it routs.

5-4 in the ACC. 5-4. Miami has won less than 60% of it's ACC games. How long will the Miami fans tolerate that kind of number? We're just one game into the season, but...5-4 in the ACC? Can Coker put the chip back on the 'Canes shoulder and regain the swagger? Or is this a Miami team that's headed for another letdown with Clemson just ahead?

Coker needs to get Miami to the ACC title game and --for his own good-- I think he better just presume the UM boosters simply won't accept another three-loss season - or, as Coker's trend suggests, a further slide to a four-loss season.

http://www.fanblogs.com/miami/005644.php

Now that is from a fanblog, but it shows that over 6 seasons ago people were already asking the question about how long Miami would deal with mediocrity in the ACC and sadly, nothing changed until about a year and a half ago.
 
Advertisement
Joecane said:
Keeping Coker may have been the correct move. We were a terrible call away from back to back ships. Extending him and then hiring Shannon however.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You never, ever, ever let the players become the GM. You're a basketball fan. Look at LeBron in Cleveland and Dwight in Orlando. Even if Reed and whoever else it was claiming they would leave, you don't do it. We were set up to go on arguably the greatest run in college football history. Whether guys like Reed wanted to stick around for it or not. It would take a Dannyboy type of tard to **** up the 2001 season. And Coker managed to **** it all up by the 2002 season, with a team that probably more talented.
 
Advertisement
Back to the original question....my understanding is that they half heartedly went after a couple of candidates, but were unwilling or unable to pay a competitive salary. The line about listening to what the players wanted was just an easy cover to hide the reality.
 
When you're really good and have been for years, then it appears that whoever you hire should be able to continue the run.

Football players after all, are "JUST" student athletes, and academics is why all students attend the U.

So the admin saw a way to save time, save effort, and definitely save some bucks.

They took the lazy, cheap way out.

Twice!
 
UMFarArcher said:
When you're really good and have been for years, then it appears that whoever you hire should be able to continue the run.

Football players after all, are "JUST" student athletes, and academics is why all students attend the U.

So the admin saw a way to save time, save effort, and definitely save some bucks.

They took the lazy, cheap way out.

Twice!
Click to expand...

and that set us back a whole DECADE. A DECADE.
 
SpikeUM said:
Back to the original question....my understanding is that they half heartedly went after a couple of candidates, but were unwilling or unable to pay a competitive salary. The line about listening to what the players wanted was just an easy cover to hide the reality.
Click to expand...

I doubt that seriously. It's a myth that UM is "unwilling or unable to pay a competitive salary," and it's been proven untrue on several occasions.

People seem to forget that Butch didn't actually split until January 30th, just a few days before signing day. Not too many high-profile coaches are willing to split their gigs at or after NSD.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top