I watched the first 30 minutes of it, all of which seemed designed to set up an excuse for their thuggish behavior. I'll watch the rest when finals are done this week, but I have a few things to say about it all.
I DID see the very end of the program where that nutty director had proclamations that Miami was the greatest college football dynasty of all time and a list of 'facts' that supported that contention.
I beg to differ.
Alabama's run from 1961-1979, which is basically the same 20-year period as Miami from 1983-2002 tells a different story.
During that time frame, Alabama won SIX national championships and were robbed of not one but TWO others (1966 and 1977). In addition to those years, Alabama also had a shot at winning it all in 1974 and - if we had beaten Texas and Nebraska beaten Clemson - 1981. The Tide also had a 57-game unbeaten streak.
Oh and one more thing - they played in a conference that year-in and year-out was usually the toughest in all of college ball. Don't forget - just prior to that period that Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss all won national titles, and Georgia won one in 1980.
Miami on the other hand won FIVE national titles, two of which were highly questionable. The FACT is Tide fans - like it or not - that AUBURN and NOT MIAMI should have won the 1983 national championship. Auburn played the toughest schedule in the nation that year. In fact, during the month of November, Auburn played AND BEAT three teams in the top ten in consecutive weeks (Florida, Maryland, Georgia). Miami played nobody and their one loss was to Florida, 28-3, the same Florida that Auburn beat by a TD. (One could argue that Miami was not even the best team in the state of Florida in 1983 so they couldn't possibly be the best in the nation).
Their 1989 title? Well, I guess you could argue that they beat Notre Dame head-to-head (an argument that got nowhere in 1993 when Notre Dame beat Florida State head-to-head). But the fact was that they also played a cupcake schedule in comparison to the Dome, who played nine bowl teams back when that still meant a little something.
Their titles in 1987, 1991, and 2001 were legitimate.
Oh....and they played every year prior to 1992 as an INDEPENDENT, meaning they got to pick and choose who they wanted to play when. Better yet, they won THREE of their national titles on their HOME FIELD. That's three to Alabama's zero (on the home field).
Furthermore, what would they have done in the SEC? I would argue that the SEC might have been more powerful in the 1980s than any other time precisely because nobody could win it all beyond Georgia. Well, consider this: from 1983-1992, Miami's overall record was 85-12.
Wanna know their record against the SEC?
6-4
Not all that impressive sounding now, is it?
1983
Florida, L, 28-3
1984
Auburn, W, 20-18
Florida, W, 32-20
1985
Florida, L, 35-23
Tennessee, L, 7-35
1986
Florida, W, 23-15 (an eight-point win against a .500 team)
1987
Florida, W, 31-4 (again, Florida a .500 team)
1988
LSU, W, 44-3
1989
Alabama, W, 33-25
1992
Alabama, L, 13-34
Note that in the three years they were at their peak (1987-89), they were 3-0 against three different SEC teams. But three years doth not a dynasty make. Their three-year record is no better than many other teams over 3 years including Alabama 1977-79, Nebraska 1994-1996, Florida State 1991-1993, or USC 2003-2005.
I take nothing away from Miami, they were a very good team. Unfortunately, those of us who remember that era so vividly will never regard them as anything more than a classic case of inmates running the asylum.
If you're good, you don't have to tell everybody about it; the scoreboard, polls, and public knowledge will validate it for you.
EDITED TO ADD
Oh, and Miami had a 58-game home winning streak. Great accomplishment.