poor, poor miami. they don't have the advantages of the baylors, stanfords, dukes, and kansas states of the world. damn that administration holding the man down.
please.
they just haven't found the right coach. relatively cheap, come-out-of-nowhere types are just as likely to have success as any "big hire" type guys. look at the top 25 right now and note how many of those head coaches were relevant/proven more than 5 years ago.
miami has just happened to scrape the bottom of the shit barrel with coaches.
fuck it is 1:35 and i'm attempting a mak troll. speaking of scraping the bottom of shit barrel.
Well you're doing a pretty bad job of it. I didn't dispute any of that, did I?
In fact, the mere fact that you're comparing Miami to Stanford, Baylor, Kansas State and Duke (combined post-war MNCs: zero; combined record: 2133-2099) is pretty much exactly my point.
For Miami's budget and facilities, it has VASTLY outperformed similarly situated programs, even by your troll standards (e.g. Stanford's endowment is roughly 20x that of Miami, so I'm not sure why that's remotely comparable, but it supports my point anyway).
That you can't see any causation between Miami's lack of institutional support and its inability to field a top flight coaching staff is your problem. Obviously Miami has had coaching struggles for years, but that too is part and parcel of the program. We don't get Bobby Bowden or Bob Stoops at Miami, when we do get a Schnellenberger or a Jimmie Johnson or a Butch Davis, they high tail it to the pros. Every dynasty in the history of this program has been torn apart by coaches leaving for bigger and better offers. That's something major programs can avoid simply by dumping money on their staffs.
So what, exactly, is your point?
The guy whose perpetual also-ran program can't buy a title even with all of Nike's money is an authority on small budget athletics because....