Rise of USF? Come on bogs. UCF has more wins in tje last two years than USF has in the last four (not counting this season). UCF partly fell apart because O'Leary was trying to be coach and AD.
As to Miami's facilities that was true (and is till true about their stadium) but they have made some major upgrades recently. This article covers the changes which include new locker rooms, nee turf practice field, new training table and dining hall, academic area, hydrotherapy area, etc. All in the last 4 years or so. Their facilities aren't as bad as you think they are.
Miami hopes new facilities produce "wow" factor - Sun Sentinel
Sorry if choppy but I am on my phone.
ETA: What rise of FAU? Have you looked at their record? I can't believe that you think USF and FAU ate better jobs than UCF.
Actually, I don't think any of those things. Those are things you introduced to the conversation. I was talking about a lack of appeal beneath the shinny veneer of some college football gigs currently hiring, or about to hire.
Now there are 5 Division 1 football programs based in Florida. There used to be two or three, (really.)
I agree that CF, USF, and FIA are not good football schools. The point is there are more places for the FL talent to stay closer to home. So it becomes diluted. And that isn't counting all of the poachers.
Miami is built on a steaming heap. No one wants to go there/live there. No regular students, no athletes. Miami is built in the kind of place in which people want to get out! No kind of fancy athletic facilities located fifty minutes from the stadium are going to change that.
And several schools on the list have dwindling enrollment, and dwindling revenues. And they have already overspent and fallen short of the mark. Add UCF to
that list! They are so overleveraged, and underwater that some smarter than I don't know how they will make athletic department payroll in the next couple of years. It ain't all about the ball programs; which is why I could give a sit whether a school has a good program or not. One huge trend over the next five to ten years is going to be big, top tier institutions that cannot afford to subsidize football revenue sharing from the academic side; (see every college and university in Louisiana, including LSU.)
86% of college teams don't break even, so they need to be subsidized. Many of the teams we are talking about will not be able to continue under the current system unless A) Shading financing is allowed; or, B) Everything is kept aboveboard, legitimate, and kept in the open while school teams convert to semi-pro, or professional sports franchises. Of course this will need to integrate with the NFL at a lower level like college does currently.
So my point is if you take an above average coach, with a brain in his head, (that works), leaving what he has built that is successful, is looking less appealing, than staying with something that he can grow and turn into a stable career. I bet if you look at the high paychecks at the programs that have paid them to get the Next Coming as head coach, you would find that that paycheck doesn't equal what that coach would get if he stayed and maintained some career continuity, and added more to his winning bottom line. See Kevin Sumlin.
Remember, the more schools with less money gamble and float out tremendous salaries, the more escapable the contracts will become for the school. So you are going to see an end to the ride the pine welfare made popular by Ty Willingham and Charlie Weis.
