The real kicker is how you take one piece of data and use that without the other pieces of data. Foley in a vaccuum (which is your entire argument) looks great. Then you take a look at the check in the demographics of the state, the athletics and year round training in the state, the coaches he came into on a number of sports, and as well as the ecosystem of college athletics overall. The best case for your argument is Coach Mouse, who is the most successful coach in UF history without question. But he didn't find coach Mouse he was already working with UF athletes in the building, but he did make him head coach. Most of the success was with the changes that were already taking place before he came on board. Football is the flagship product at UF, there is no greater marketing tool for our athletic program than football, and the person who was the game changer there was already hired.
The person who changed the athletic department was hired in 1979 (Bill Carr), and changed how the Athletic Department raised money and was structured. It's strange how the uptake in athletics happens after the restructuring of the athletic department under Carr. The foundation was set and was already going when Foley stepped into the role (after being passed over in 1986). Foley lacked the visions of an AD like Carr, who saw the changes happening and the flaws in the current system (like only asking alumni for donations), and just stuck with the status quo. He does have Donovan and Meyer on his resume (regardless of the story you hear he was AD), But he also had Muschamp (especially his double extensions in one year) and Butters (including extension) on his resume as well (what extension of that size is negotiated in a week). There are over 300 AD's in NCAA environment, which saying there are a 100 other AD could take his job still puts him in the top third. But he isn't the messiah that you are making him out to be, because of the context of what he walked into. Now wipe off your chin, and move along.
