Womp. Christ.
Ohio State, LSU, Bama, USC (historically), Miami, Florida State, most of the SEC don't have money. Texas, ND, Stanford, Michigan and Northwestern have $$. I'm not seeing the importance of that variable.
Location. Many programs are in much better locations nearer to fertile recruiting grounds.
Tradition. That's the point of my poast. Only lasts so long. As evidenced by Michigan's drought.
That's a lot of ifs in your poast. My aunt and my uncle are different people. Nuff said on that.
He didnt' whip anybody. He was gifted a title on a bad call.
Really disappointed in your effert here. I've come to expect moar.
What the fuck universe are you living in? OSU, Bama, and LSU are all in the top 10 of AD revenue. FSU is top 15, and I’m sure USC would be too if they released their financials. Meanwhile no one would ever try to make the case that Miami is anywhere close to a blue blood - their success was brief and was 98% due to location. Money is and will forever be the #1 deciding factor in college football. To try to argue otherwise is mind-bogglingly stupid.
I was talking about overall university resources.
I'm also not sure what you mean by blue blood. If you want to compare entire histories, then no, other than producing some great players, Miami was not consistently good prior to the late 70s. Maybe it's selective application about when football was invented, or recency bias. But I think you're sweeping Miami aside with hyperbole when you say they aren't 'anywhere close to a blue blood." If you meant on a revenue basis, then sure, they are not a super rich program.
If you meant on an accomplishment basis, then I think you're stretching unless you are putting a lot of weight on program accomplishment from - I don't know - a long time ago. They've won 5, come within an eyelash of three others, and won every major bowl outside of the Fiesta. They've produced a slew of All Americans and other major award winners, they've littered the NFL with impact players like no program in the country over the last 25+ years, they've fielded some of the best teams the game has seen, been part of some of the most legendary games and rivalries and streaks, and have stamped themselves as a fixture in the sport. And they've added traditions that are uniquely known for, and often copied.
I can count on 1 finger the number of great Michigan teams I've seen the last 20 years. LSU was a middling program forever.
And how is the fact that "98%" of Miami's success is due to location a problem exactly. I would score that as a big advantage. Their location isn't changing anytime soon, nor is the demographic of that location. What's the point of that as a criticism?
Miami has been up and down since really arriving as a nationally-relevant program because of coaching. They had three very successful coaches leave for unique professional football opportunities, and each man eventually publicly admitted that they regretted leaving (including Jimmy Johnson). Each one of those coaches could have run Miami for a DJ-like tenure and kept them stable and winning for years. They didn't lose those guys because of money; they lost them because they were presented unique opportunities in their profession that they didn't think they could pass up. And still, with all those coaches, Miami still found a way to come back and win. 4 coaches winning 5 titles in 25 years. If that's what a poor program can do in Miami, then I'll take being poor, and you can focus on athletic department income statements and balance sheets.
Put it this way. If as you say USC has a healthy AD revenue number as compared to Miami's, which I assume they do, do you think that[/i] has made a huge difference between the programs? We all know they got lucky af with Carroll, who was like 5th on the list when they got to him. So $$ didn't make that happen. Miami has better facilities now than they ever have.
How specifically has Miami's relatively modest AD revenue kept them 'down' and the higher revenue of the blue bloods, like Texas, kept them 'up'? I don't see it.
Sure, Bama has revenue, but they also have tradition and location, the latter two draw players in. Nobody would ever argue Miami can't get top-drawer talent. The proof is there. I can see how Bamas tradition and location feed their success. I'm not sure I see the $$ part of it as clearly as you seem to.
So what the point of your post? Miami's a JC program because the Athletic Department revenue is pedestrian? That seems like a mind-bogglingly stupid argument.
