Why is da U never back?

MeatWrench

MeatWrench

Holder of all Moon records
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
7,185
We spend lots of time pouring over our own limitations but what’s their excuse? Without digging into details it seems they have always recruited well (for sure top 25).

They’ve had a handful of different coaches come through and seem to just get the same mediocre results. As a private school, what’s their excuse for not being good for so very long?
 
Coaching.

Miami has always been good at attracting good recruits. They have not had a system that generates success in 20 years.
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
Look at their history. They only win when they have boosters paying players. See Luther Campbell and Nevin Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Fair point but they still get good players and yet they never finish consistent with those ratings.

Recruiting service crapshoot?
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
Coaching.

Miami has always been good at attracting good recruits. They have not had a system that generates success in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Seems like a pretty attractive job except the ridiculous expectations give you such a short leash. But hell, just finish in the top 25 with your top 25 talent and you’ll buy more time.
 
I asked this in the game thread. Anyone know? Is Manny Diaz on the hot seat or whatever? What’s their view of him thus far?
 
MeatWrench said:
We spend lots of time pouring over our own limitations but what’s their excuse? Without digging into details it seems they have always recruited well (for sure top 25).

They’ve had a handful of different coaches come through and seem to just get the same mediocre results. As a private school, what’s their excuse for not being good for so very long?
Click to expand...

The open bagman approach is frowned upon. Da rappers be hidin' in the crappers.
 
I think they’re dumb and undisciplined, and don’t have the talent differential to overcome that like they did in the Big Least days.

JRjr
 
MeatWrench said:
We spend lots of time pouring over our own limitations but what’s their excuse? Without digging into details it seems they have always recruited well (for sure top 25).

They’ve had a handful of different coaches come through and seem to just get the same mediocre results. As a private school, what’s their excuse for not being good for so very long?
Click to expand...

They're a bunch of fake tough guys.
 
Wrong coaching choices.

Many has been the year when um had, I thought, as good a talent base as
ANYONE we played.

Coker obviously had his highs but don’t know if that was mainly due to inherited talent.

When we played um in the Gator Bowl in 2000 (?) with Butch Davis as the HC you could tell they were about to peak again.

Al Golden - horrible choice by Donna Shanana.

Actually thought richt might do well there. Should have perhaps hired Miles instead.
 
texstinger said:
Wrong coaching choices.

Many has been the year when um had, I thought, as good a talent base as
ANYONE we played.

Coker obviously had his highs but don’t know if that was mainly due to inherited talent.

When we played um in the Gator Bowl in 2000 (?) with Butch Davis as the HC you could tell they were about to peak again.

Al Golden - horrible choice by Donna Shanana.

Actually thought richt might do well there. Should have perhaps hired Miles instead.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s the common-ish denominator but if that’s the extent of it, it really shines a light on how few really special coaches there are and how easily your tenure can get submarined if you don’t produce. I don’t think Golden and Shannon are idiots as both have been gainfully employed and won some honors in their day.

Maybe just the CEO role of HC needing a special ‘it’ factor to attract the right coordinators. It’s still hard to justify their underperformance given the talent that we all seem to agree that they get. At some point it does come down to beating the guy across from you. That can make any jackass look like a genius playcaller. Is it more in poor prep/game plan then? I guess I’m curious about the indictment of it just being poor coaching hires and what that means at the ground level. I would think they could be pretty selective. Maybe this is all just a byproduct of the instant gratification that is expected nowadays. Everyone wants to be bammer or bust

Edit to add that richt retiring really backdoored them and speaks a bit ill of his character if im honest. He’s been around long enough to have known he didn’t have the legs to have a meaningful tenure there. Maybe just go caught up in the moment of an opportunity to leas his alma mater. It’s a helluva setback... that he dealt to his own ‘people’
 
Last edited:
Frankly, with all the teams that have revolving door HC's and the same results, you have to start wondering whether the HC is really the difference maker at all. At least enough to justify their salaries. It seems pretty clear that the only time a HC significantly changes the trajectory of a program, in recent years, is completely random lightning in a bottle. The only correlation that can be drawn is %change in spending relative to their conference.
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
Frankly, with all the teams that have revolving door HC's and the same results, you have to start wondering whether the HC is really the difference maker at all. At least enough to justify their salaries. It seems pretty clear that the only time a HC significantly changes the trajectory of a program, in recent years, is completely random lightning in a bottle. The only correlation that can be drawn is %change in spending relative to their conference.
Click to expand...

Yet the ‘this is the next guy guy’ spending frenzy continues.
 
I mentioned this in another thread, but they seem to have their own version of the "Michigan Man" syndrome. They hired Richt in large part because he played there, and have hired three of their own assistants to replace the outgoing coach (Coker, Shannon, Diaz).

Golden didn't work out so it's easy to criticize that hire as well, but I don't recall it looking that bad at the time. He had turned Temple from a laughingstock to a decent program.

It's also hilarious that Diaz is referring to them as a rebuild when he was the DC under the previous regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top