Of course I'm butthurt ... that faggy pole established that quite convincingly. Plus, wouldn't you be butthurt if you were a kewg who only became a Miami fan because you followed Dennis Erickson after he left for a better job?
There's always a lot to be butthurt about when you're a kewg. A LOT.
Notre Dame was in the National Title Game in the last 5-7 years and been in the hunt a few other years.
Texas always has the talent and resources ... when everything is working right with them they have as high of a ceiling as anybody.
Penn St has a very fertile recruiting ground and insane levels of support.
All 3 have had SIGNIFCANT periods of success throughout history ... their success is a question of not IF but WHEN ...
Miami had about a 20 year run from the early 80s through early 00s where they were at an elite level ... before that nothing and after that above average. I wouldn't claim that anybody that thinks Miami is a blue blood is insane ... but it's certainly very debatable.
You are grasping. These are the arguments offered by REALLY old men who don't really know what they're talking about, but want to convert their general impressions formed 3 decades earlier to axiomatic truth.
As I've said, and supported, "insane levels of support" means, really, nothing. Nobody gets more support than Michigan, and it doesn't translate. And nobody, not even USC or Texas, much less Penn State, has a better recruiting ground than Miami.
Miami's run may have begun relatively recently, but, as an intellectual matter, you've failed to make that relevant. Minnesota was a national power house once upon a time. The fact that a program won something in the 60s, 50s or earlier really has no bearing on anything. The game, society and demographics have changed.
Whenever it started, they've won 5, FIVE, titles, come within an eyelash of two more, played for an additional two more, knocked off some of the greatest teams in history, produced some of the greatest teams in history, produced unprecedented amounts of talent and been part of some of the biggest games in the sport's history. All of that, w/o "insane levels of support" and your other made up shit. Until you can write that off as not likely to return, you'll have to excuse me while I flush a turd that is more thought provoking than your post.
All that with four different coaches. I would think if there is such a thing as an "inevitable" program anywhere, it's Miami.
Penn State has won exactly two titles, both in the 80s, and disappears from dominance for extensive periods of time. Terrible example.
Your example of Texas, in particular, though, is horrible, and honestly, HH joking aside, rather pedestrian.
My money is that Miami would be a consistent national power before UW. And they could pass Texas quickly.
I'd agree that Miami's potential for a 20 year run is greater than UW's ...
Being able to sustain excellence over decades matters to me ... that's basically the primary measure that keeps Miami from being a blue blood IMO
So, like the other programs, Miami is always a coach away from being a bully again. It's really that simple. Stadiums, fuzzy concepts of "massive support" and all the rest is shit made up by old men thinking about the world they knew when they were young.
I couldn't agree with the bolded more ...
But unlike the other blue bloods that have had their own issues over time (Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma have had significant challenges at various point), the big question I have over Miami is whether they actually care enough to get the RIGHT coach in place. There's no question at Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma that they have the resources and desire to keep changing the leadership until they find the right guy. Does Miami? So far the evidence suggests not.
Notre Dame was in the National Title Game in the last 5-7 years and been in the hunt a few other years.
Texas always has the talent and resources ... when everything is working right with them they have as high of a ceiling as anybody.
Penn St has a very fertile recruiting ground and insane levels of support.
All 3 have had SIGNIFCANT periods of success throughout history ... their success is a question of not IF but WHEN ...
Miami had about a 20 year run from the early 80s through early 00s where they were at an elite level ... before that nothing and after that above average. I wouldn't claim that anybody that thinks Miami is a blue blood is insane ... but it's certainly very debatable.
You are grasping. These are the arguments offered by REALLY old men who don't really know what they're talking about, but want to convert their general impressions formed 3 decades earlier to axiomatic truth.
As I've said, and supported, "insane levels of support" means, really, nothing. Nobody gets more support than Michigan, and it doesn't translate. And nobody, not even USC or Texas, much less Penn State, has a better recruiting ground than Miami.
Miami's run may have begun relatively recently, but, as an intellectual matter, you've failed to make that relevant. Minnesota was a national power house once upon a time. The fact that a program won something in the 60s, 50s or earlier really has no bearing on anything. The game, society and demographics have changed.
Whenever it started, they've won 5, FIVE, titles, come within an eyelash of two more, played for an additional two more, knocked off some of the greatest teams in history, produced some of the greatest teams in history, produced unprecedented amounts of talent and been part of some of the biggest games in the sport's history. All of that, w/o "insane levels of support" and your other made up shit. Until you can write that off as not likely to return, you'll have to excuse me while I flush a turd that is more thought provoking than your post.
All that with four different coaches. I would think if there is such a thing as an "inevitable" program anywhere, it's Miami.
Penn State has won exactly two titles, both in the 80s, and disappears from dominance for extensive periods of time. Terrible example.
Your example of Texas, in particular, though, is horrible, and honestly, HH joking aside, rather pedestrian.
My money is that Miami would be a consistent national power before UW. And they could pass Texas quickly.
I'd agree that Miami's potential for a 20 year run is greater than UW's ...
Being able to sustain excellence over decades matters to me ... that's basically the primary measure that keeps Miami from being a blue blood IMO
So, like the other programs, Miami is always a coach away from being a bully again. It's really that simple. Stadiums, fuzzy concepts of "massive support" and all the rest is shit made up by old men thinking about the world they knew when they were young.
I couldn't agree with the bolded more ...
But unlike the other blue bloods that have had their own issues over time (Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma have had significant challenges at various point), the big question I have over Miami is whether they actually care enough to get the RIGHT coach in place. There's no question at Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma that they have the resources and desire to keep changing the leadership until they find the right guy. Does Miami? So far the evidence suggests not.
Sure they do. But like USC and, to a lesser extent, Alabama, and Washington and others, they're going to fuck it up at least as often as they get it right. The reason is simple. There's no way to tell who is really going to hit it out of the ballpark and who isn't. Who knew Chip Kelly was such a great and innovative coach? Sometimes the formula doesn't work. Sometimes you get lucky. Let's be honest here: USC got FUCKING lucky with Carroll, who was what, third, fourth choice? They wanted Mike Fucking Reilly for God's sake. That whole run, that whole thing with Bush, National Titles, Heismans, all that almost didn't happen.
I expected Harbaugh to be doing more at a place with greater emphasis and easier recruiting than he had to work with at Stanford, and so far that's not the case.
I wasn't high on Butch Davis when they brought him in, and he turned out to be a lights out recruiter, a good turn-around guy and an average game day coach. All in, he was pretty good. You would also think the one person to lead Temple to a winning season would flourish at Miami, and Golden was a bust.
I think you are missing the point of how I am defining which groups ...
Miami absolutely can be elite ... are they in a better/worse long term position to Clemson? I have neither as blue bloods.
It's really not that complicated.
You are loosely referring to a ill-defined idea of "resources", which I've soundly refuted it. Miami won when it had shit for a weight room and practice facilities and played in a rust bucket stadium that was rarely full. It has won under several coaches in the modern era: Schnelly, Johnson, Erickson and Davis/Coker, an accomplishment few if any schools can match.
Nebraska, on the other hand, has a budget, a stadium, a city full of dumb fucks with nothing better to do but go to Husker games and each cheese and a commitment to winning - all "resources" by your position. And they've won in the modern era under one guy. Michigan has in spades everything you could ever jam into the definition of resources, and yet ....
And let's look at Oklahoma. They won under Switzer, didn't do shit under Schnelly, Gibbs or Blake, and found the answer in Stoops.
Texas, before 2005, which, again, was 12 years ago, hadn't won a title since 1970. That's a very long time dude.
As to Miami/Clemson, I didn't ask that question, because I know the answer. Miami is in a much better position than Clemson because they have much better access to the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country, and they are a destination for many, many, many of those kids, as well as others in the southeastern and northeastern US . Dade County alone can feed and support 3 or more elite programs. Taking anything resembling the long view, that's a non-discussion.
Reminds me of the time in 5th grade my friend had stripped the clothes off my sister's my size Barbie and was screaming "where's the fucking pussy!!!!" as my mother walked into the house after getting off of work.
Reminds me of the time in 5th grade my friend had stripped the clothes off my sister's my size Barbie and was screaming "where's the fucking pussy!!!!" as my mother two ghey dads walked into the house after getting off of work.
Comments
There's always a lot to be butthurt about when you're a kewg. A LOT.
But unlike the other blue bloods that have had their own issues over time (Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma have had significant challenges at various point), the big question I have over Miami is whether they actually care enough to get the RIGHT coach in place. There's no question at Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma that they have the resources and desire to keep changing the leadership until they find the right guy. Does Miami? So far the evidence suggests not.
bloodedballs.I expected Harbaugh to be doing more at a place with greater emphasis and easier recruiting than he had to work with at Stanford, and so far that's not the case.
I wasn't high on Butch Davis when they brought him in, and he turned out to be a lights out recruiter, a good turn-around guy and an average game day coach. All in, he was pretty good. You would also think the one person to lead Temple to a winning season would flourish at Miami, and Golden was a bust.
I think you are missing the point of how I am defining which groups ...
Miami absolutely can be elite ... are they in a better/worse long term position to Clemson? I have neither as blue bloods.
You are loosely referring to a ill-defined idea of "resources", which I've soundly refuted it. Miami won when it had shit for a weight room and practice facilities and played in a rust bucket stadium that was rarely full. It has won under several coaches in the modern era: Schnelly, Johnson, Erickson and Davis/Coker, an accomplishment few if any schools can match.
Nebraska, on the other hand, has a budget, a stadium, a city full of dumb fucks with nothing better to do but go to Husker games and each cheese and a commitment to winning - all "resources" by your position. And they've won in the modern era under one guy. Michigan has in spades everything you could ever jam into the definition of resources, and yet ....
And let's look at Oklahoma. They won under Switzer, didn't do shit under Schnelly, Gibbs or Blake, and found the answer in Stoops.
Texas, before 2005, which, again, was 12 years ago, hadn't won a title since 1970. That's a very long time dude.
As to Miami/Clemson, I didn't ask that question, because I know the answer. Miami is in a much better position than Clemson because they have much better access to the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country, and they are a destination for many, many, many of those kids, as well as others in the southeastern and northeastern US . Dade County alone can feed and support 3 or more elite programs. Taking anything resembling the long view, that's a non-discussion.
Reminds me of the time in 5th grade my friend had stripped the clothes off my sister's my size Barbie and was screaming "where's the fucking pussy!!!!" as my mother walked into the house after getting off of work.