Student Government Website letter on why the boycott is a bad idea
This is a very well written argument to NOT boycott the kickoff.
https://csg.umich.edu/why-i’m-not-participating-protest-saturday-and-why-you-shouldn’t-either
A quote:
"This Saturday, on October 11th, our football team will play Penn State at home under the lights. Families from the greater Ann Arbor area will come to campus to support our school, alumni from across the country will venture here, to their home, to show their continued support, and we, the students, will recognize and celebrate the unparalleled community we have here at Michigan. Football games are a time-honored tradition, a tradition that stretches back over a century, one that thousands of people have enjoyed long before us, and one that thousands of Michigan fans will continue to follow long after we’ve left...."
The letter goes on to make three primary points. The letter also does call out the Boycott OP on Mgoblog but makes it clear it is only "some" "posters" on Mgoblog that are calling for a boycott. I'm sure many of you won't like that. You are free to debate your points.
Futher, it does not suggest that Mgoblog is calling for a boycott.
Now Mgoblog has allowed many posts calling for a boycott. Since Mgblog is not calling for the boycott itself I have to assume they will allow this post that references an articulate opposing point of view just as they have allowed the boycott posts. Further many of the points in the linked letter have not been made in any of the many posts on this board. Based on these two points, I am assuming this is a legitimate and worthwhile post for the board.
October 8th, 2014 at 5:24 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 8th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
I agree. Protesting shouldnt stop because its inconviniencing other people and forcing them to notice that there are issues going on, thats the point of the protest. DB and the athletic department dont want the boycott cause the empty stadium during a national broadcast for what is the "biggest" home game this season would reflect very poorly on the Athletic department and the state of the program. They don't want the annoucners to have that whole line of talking points available. Which means the protest is working.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^
Why should there be 100,000 people at a football game but not a softball game? Coach Hutch's players seem to be every bit the student athletes that the football players are. But nobody says we're failing to support them by not attending their games en masse.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^
Can the student athletes fly fighters?
October 8th, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
Only recently.
October 8th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
Charlie Blackwood?
October 8th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^
so I did NOT salute her.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
Time will tell if the football program or the boycott has the better coaching staff!!
FWIW, I will not be a part. I will be there as always ready for kickoff.
The reason I don't like the "fire everybody" meme is that it has Hail Mary written all over it. Its stated without any plans for the future, leaving it to someone who could possibly care less or have less skills than those who we like to BBQ in public. More or less its trying to luck into another situation that's better.
I dunno, I like plans. The way this all works if there are such plans they have to be done via back channels in secrecy that won't be apparent until much much later.
Don't get confused, I'm open to other hires. But there isn't much concensus. Its more like a bird shot pattern (see also, Hail Mary)
October 8th, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^
to do nothing except maybe complain on social media or send an email or letter.
Then DB stays in place, and Hoke gets a 5th year - which may be better than this year but we still see a lot of "little errors" while Hoke's contract is extended so it becomes even more expensive to fire him (e.g., ND is still paying Charlie).
October 8th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
The student body as a whole can make a resounding statement to the university, community and to the nation that students have a voice and that voice matters. Is there a bigger medium to do so? Paticularly if the media is well preped beforehand?
October 8th, 2014 at 7:12 PM ^
Ironic that the student government is against the students engaging in actions in a desperate attempt to be heard.
A puppet government?
October 8th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
The student body as a whole can make a resounding statement to the university, community and to the nation that students have a voice and that voice matters. Is there a bigger medium to do so? Paticularly if the media is well preped beforehand?
October 8th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
I have no problem with people boycotting the boycott so to speak but a couple of counter-arguments to this letter. They made 3 points as to why it's a bad idea.
Numbers 1 and 2 are basically the same thing. And what I think some people are missing is that no one is trying to harm the players by these actions (at least I hope not). If any players read this, that's not at all the intention. I said in another thread, I want Brandon and Hoke gone for the players. They are being held back by this administration and unfortunately, until action is taken this is probably the best way to show the incredible frustration people have with them.
Regarding number 3, trust the leaders? Really? Has no one been watching what has happened to this team and department? It says they use activism to implement new policies, that's what people are trying to do. This letter just doesn't seem to agree with the course of action.
Again, to reiterate, I think most people looking at a boycott do support the team. You may disagree with their plan/methods and there's nothing wrong with that. If they're like me, they want this team to have competent leadership and will show their frustration until changes are made.
My two cents.
October 8th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
poorly written and poorly thought out.
When he should be reaching the apex of his argument, he falls back on trusting these guys?
I'm sure he's sincere, but it all seemed like a badly conceived hostage letter.
His extensive references to our on field excellence make me feel like he hasn't been watching football since he arrived on campus.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
I mean, if you don't want to go then don't go. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. I just don't like the idea of a "principaled stand" like this when there are so many better avenues to get the point across...Fire Brandon chants, shirts, petitions, rallies, emails to president/regents, blowup into a national storyline...I mean, guys, I think they're getting the message loud and clear.
If you don't want to pay anymore money to athletics, then don't. But an organized boycott seems like something more likely to backlash than lead to real change. It makes the students look petulent in my mind, and it is further damaging the already tenuous relationship between students/alums and student-athletes that exists at the moment.
October 8th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
Other than getting the CC: Random Guy posts/repeats in check and doing some quality control, people have been free to post what they want.
Personally, I don't think the boycott is a good idea, and my reasoning isn't centered on supporting players. It's just that I don't think boycotting a kickoff will accomplish anything. I also think it could backfire if it's not widespread enough, especially after the press it seems to be getting in Ann Arbor.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
I think only boycotting the whole game as Brian suggested would really work. The plans for one now seem too disorganised...this boycott has to one-up the rally on the diag (or at least come close) for this to really get the greater fanbase's/public's attention. Although that was pretty grassroots as well so who knows.
Brian could just transform MGoBlog into Change.org specifically for sports fans haha
October 8th, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^
"BUT WHAT IF WE HURT THE PLAYERS' FEELINGS IF THEY LOOK UP IN THE FIRST 3 MINUTES OF THE GAME AND DON'T SEE ANY FANS, WHAT IF THEIR FEELINGS ARE HURT, WE CAN'T RISK HURTING THEIR FEELINGS."
Lol.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^
He states that it all starts with trusts. Many of the fans (especially the students) do not trust Brandon, and seem to not trust Hoke.
If the students do this, they are still going to be there to support the players.
It is a shame that Dave Brandon has run the athletic department this poorly that he has marginalized and isolated his most rabid fanbase, the students.
A lot of work went into developing the largest fanbase in college football and the biggest crowd watching a football game every Saturday. It took great missteps from the AD to reduce the trust and goodwill this quickly. Many are saying that it is just wins and losses, but the foundation was greatly thinned over the last few years to even allow the play on the field to drop the bottom out.
It's also not like this dissatisfaction is new. Brandon was aware of the dissastisfaction for the last few years, and he responded with more rock music, higher ticket prices, and more red tape to get into the stadium.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^
"Football games are a time-honored tradition?" David Brandon has obliterated tradition and replaced it with obnoxious, intrusive incompetence.
Support the firing of David Brandon at the beginning of the game and support the players for the rest of the game.
October 8th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
that was entirely lost on him.
Just furthers my conviction that politics is designed to weed out the best among us!
October 8th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^
The points made in that letter were hollow and entirely uncompelling, if not nonsense.
1. The mission and purpose of the boycott is to effect change in leadership of the athletic department and football team, not to disrespect, isolate or in any way harm the players. The purposes have been abundantly clear and unambiguous. This kind of "support our troops" argument distracts the issue and unfairly miscategorizes the purposes of the boycott. Saving feelings is impossible in life, the best you can do is know the true intent of your actions and be clear in communicating them. What others decide to feel is their choice. Arguing 'support our troops' is hollow, disingenuous or naive. I don't care which.
2. This point seems to be just a hollow echo of the first, support our troops. It adds the idea that in a time of turmoil and uncertainty, the best way to improve the situation and fix problems is to maintain status quo. Don't do anything to upset the team. Absurd and illogical, no point wasting breath on that argument.
3. Probably the weakest of the three, quite a feat. As leaders, innovators, inventors etc., we should put off taking actions or upsetting the balance or status quo, in favor of "trusting" and compliance. Name any innovator or inventor that found success in their endeavors because they eschewed upsetting the apple cart in favor of trusting the system and falling in line. Particularly within a clearly broken system, prioritizing 'trust' and obedience is the path to anything but leadership, innovation and invention.
I'm truly disappointed to see such a horrible argument from someone at an elite university.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
Good thing only 6-8% of the student body (normal election turnout) even care about CSG and their nonsense.
October 8th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
you pretty much nailed my thoughts on this effort.
"I'm truly disappointed to see such a horrible argument from someone at an elite university."
Yep. That was my take.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
A lot of the posts on the 'boycott' have been just as negged as they have been upvoted. No one is happy, but there isn't unanimous outcry to stop attending games altogether
October 8th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^
I have no idea what the composition of this student body is like today, but when I was on campus it was largely administrative-co-opted, resume building, Greek-life-heavy types. The tone of this (Brandon-request-sounding) letter suggests that is still true. If so, I am comfortable the the Daily is more representitive of the student body than this group.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:18 PM ^
"Trust our leaders".
Man, have students changed.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^
This article sucks. If the author doesn't want to boycott,/protest/whatever that's up to him. But don't tell ME, or anyone else, what I should and shouldn't do.
It's not a boycott if I don't want to spend hard-earned money on a sub-par product. "Tradition" isn't a reason for me to spend money on something that doesn't provide enjoyment (at the moment). "...So many weekend games so worthwhile" certainly doesn't explain this season, in case Bobby hasn't noticed.
It's our right as consumers (and current/former tuition-payers) to not pay for something when we don't want to. And if we want to walk to our seats after kick-off, we can do that too.
I've been a Michigan fan since birth, and I'll be one until death, but I'm just going to be a fan from afar for a little while, so I don't hurl myself off of a large building.
Bobby - is that cool with you?
October 8th, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
Whatever. I'm a man, I'm 30.
October 8th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
October 8th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
That's not my point. I'm saying that the letter shouldn't apply to anyone.
Don't discredit my opinion, man! That kind of stuff will get you on the fast-track to a high-paying job within the Brandon athletic department (at least for the next 2 months or so).
October 8th, 2014 at 2:47 PM ^
I think everyone is missing the overall point:
Students don't show up until 10 minutes after kickoff anyway.
October 8th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
A much better argument - one that now gives me pause - is that protesting will create a bunker menality among the regents, making them less likely to make a change. A poster said this would happen yesterday who at least claimed to be fairly familiar with the way they operate.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^
I am not really familiar with how this theory would work. Would the regents feel bad for Brandon and think they should keep him? It seems the best scenario for them would be to oust him and show that they have listened to the people. A bunker mentality would mean that the fans are against the regents, which doesn't seem to be the case. They only want to send a clear message to the regents what they want.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
The Regents would not want to create the perception that they will cave just because a bunch of people have a protest. It's a "slippery slope" mentality.
They will stop focusing on the actual issue and start focusing on how they want to "manage" these types of outbursts. Classic organizational behavior.
Any changes have to be "their idea", it can't be seen as having been forced on them.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
(though still not compelling to me) would be that these type of protests would have a chilling effect on attracting a new high quality AD because of the perception that they would be walking into a torch and ptichfork situation evey time the new AD didn't comply with student demands.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:47 PM ^
And that description has a ring of truth to me. And, fwiw, it's not because I don't want to protest. I very much want to protest.
October 8th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
and let the big money donors have their say behind the scenes while we are all good little citizens?
October 8th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^
What I said above is my summary of a post another person made yesterday. It has a ring of truth to it to me. And now I'm just trying to explain it.
I don't want it to be true, and I question whether it's true. But I believe it's worth thinking about.
October 8th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^
its not like Brandon's supporters aren't working the Regents and President hard behind the scenes--very hard. Will that turn off the Regents?
October 8th, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^
I read the letter, here's how I would respond:
There really are only two reasons why one should not participate in this protest. Either
1. You believe Dave Brandon is doing a swell job as AD.
or
2. You believe that waiting until after kickoff to enter the stadium will send the wrong message.
Point 1 is pretty easy. There aren't many people here who support Brandon at this point, his failures are well known, the only dispute is whether he is a bigger screwup than Brady Hoke.
Point 2 is a bit trickier, but I have yet to see anyone show me how fans making a point of arriving late to support their team will be misconstrued. The controversy surrounding Brandon is well known. And arriving late is particularly appropriate since many of the earlier changes to seating policy were meant to manipulate students into arriving earlier.
The players are big boys who can read the blogs and get the whole story. They know many of us have a serious beef with the AD. They know we want them to win -- and if they have any doubts about that should all be cleared up by the middle of the first quarter. (Just to clear up any ambiguity, fans might want to make a point of cheering loudly as they enter the stadium.)
In the end this whole letter is just an appeal to tradition and authority -- "This is what we've always done and we should trust the people in charge to make things better." But the tradition has been sold out and at least one of the bigger people in charge simply cannot be trusted.
If you are satisfied with how things are being handled, don't join in. If you aren't satisfied, don't let the administration guilt-trip you out of making your protest.
October 8th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
to buy season tickets, I would still go to the games. I would be frustrated by the coaches but the student athletes look like they're trying their best. I would show up just to support our student athletes. Plus, it is nice to get out and just enjoy a college football game!