John U Bacon on UM Football, Athletics
I'm surprised to see that this hasn't been posted, but Bacon has written a very thorough analysis of where things currently stand with respect to the AD and football program. It's a bit long, but worth the read:
October 24th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^
I generally like John U Bacon, but I swear that he just copies and pastes his single template story these days, making a few tweaks each time he publishes it.
October 24th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
He usually re-hashes what's happened with the whole Brandon 2014 saga so far, but I think he's doing that because his stories get published on yahoo sports now so he knows they'll get national play. Most people who stumble across the article probably aren't as in the know about every detail of what's happened so far. He's basically just adding to his story with every new publication, which is fine with me. What he's saying is still no less spot on.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
If I said John Bacon, do people confuse him with someone else?
October 24th, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 9:41 PM ^
October 25th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
John B. Candy?
October 25th, 2014 at 4:24 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 24th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
Yeah, it does feel redundant. I'm sure it helps new readers to catch up, but 90% of this article is stuff he's written before and feels almost reductive at this point because he seems to presume you are on his side going into the article.
October 24th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^
What do you do when your boss wants to sit in?
October 24th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
then in private, probably in your regular one on one you say - Boss your presence in the film review is distracting from what we need to do. I'm going to have to ask you to sit those out for a while. If Brandon is watching film with the coaches, then he's welcome there and not a problem, bet on it.
In case you're curious, over the years I've had to have similar conversations with more than one of my bosses and in a couple of cases more than once on different issues.
October 24th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
1000000000000000 points to you...um, if i had any to spare! Brandon does NOT i repeat NOT IN ANY WAY threaten Hoke or Mattison or whoever by being in the film room. And, although I iwould not and prefer he wouldn't participate in this activity, iI find it absurd, both in the reaction to it on this board and the idea--without a smidge of evidence to support same--that Hoke is both bothered by Brandon's viewing and unable/unwilling to prohibit the same. Maybe they all eat popcorn, maybe the more the merrier, maybe Hoke just doesn't give two stones about Brandon's proclivities as long as they don't interfere with his own. GD Time this was said for St. James' Sake.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^
And changed my mind at the first sentence of your last paragraph. I don't think there is a "chance there is a distraction" - I am sure there is. Whether the 3rd wheel is an egomaniacal, former football-playing AD or a hockey-playing writer, the point is the same.
+1.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 7:42 PM ^
I thought Bacon had access all three years. I think it was originally supposed to only be for 2008, but then was extended beyond that.
October 24th, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
Well like you I don't have a vote either. I'm not blaming you and don't mean to have it come out that way. I do agree there is no place for personal attacks but do believe there are legitimate gripes with both Brandon and Hoke. Anyway, my issue isn't with you and I apologize if you interpreted as such.
October 24th, 2014 at 11:00 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^
engaging in self-aggrandizement? Bacon has an agenda too.
October 24th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
In what way has Brandon publicized or emphasized (i.e. "agrandized") his presence in the Film Room??? It seem JUB and several on this blog have broacast his iinvolvment FAR more than Brandon has...oh, and that is his employee(s) he is spending time with watching, you know, a sport in HIS Athletic Department. Jeez...and Schissel (sp?) went to a football practice...was he giving Hoke a new play???? You can hate Brandon, and why would I care, but quit acting like a bunch of dicks all up in arms cuz a former Michigan player turned AD wants to watch some film with his hand-picked head coach.
October 25th, 2014 at 6:30 AM ^
Bacon was with Rodriguez as an embedded reporter writing a book which Rich Rod supposedly had the final editorial say on. Brandon is the AD, it's not his job to coach football. His job is to make sure things run well, that rules aren't being broken, and to suck up to rich donors to give the department more money. He's the boss with the power to hire or fire everyone in the room. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference in the power dynamics in the two situations. Now maybe Hoke invited Brandon or Hoke doesn't care, but the perception to an outsider, ie., a new head coach candidate, is that Brandon is overbearing and/or micromanaging. And if you want a top-tier head coach, who generally want a great deal of autonomy and also have healthy egos, that perception will make many of those candidates stay away from Michigan.
October 25th, 2014 at 7:43 AM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^
To an outside coach, an AD sitting in on film study may seem like a form meddling that would be a pain to deal with. And that may make him less likely to want to work with that AD. Whereas hearing that RR let a reporter watch film with him once doesn't have that impact. The new coach could very easily tell Bacon "no" with no problems resulting.
October 24th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 11:56 PM ^
Or, maybe it means the AD gets it and football rules??? Yeah, i would agree with you about the bad vibe if you had Brandon criticizing Hoke or players on post-game review, but he keeps his reactions to himself. Frankly, if i was the AD there would be a great deal more public criticism about this current regime and the sorry state of football affairs.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
For most jobs, the John Bacon as a guest in the room is not the same as having the manager's boss in the room. Even if the boss says nothing at all (and how likely is that) it sends a message to the manager's employees... or, I would think, to the coach's players. Whatever the boss does say outside of "Well carry on the good work guys, just wanted to say hi!" before taking his leave, will function as a dilution of the manager's authority. There's just no good reason I can see for having the AD hang out there.
Who knows how often he does it; maybe that's been exaggerated, none of us know. I just think that all the players should know about the AD is that he does his job and that the coaches are supported by him.
October 24th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
Let me rephrase that, I don't understand why a third party would have a problem with a supervisor sitting in on a meeting one of his subordinates is conducting. From the coaches perspective I can understand it, they don't want their methods to be critiqued, they would rather their voodoo remain secret, hand shakes and all.
I can understand it in some certain circumstances. Example, I won't sit in on my company's safety committee meetings. I'll have one of my junior subordinates conduct the meeting so there isn't an overbearing company presence, I want the employees to be completely candid.
On the other hand I often sit in on daily shift meetings and maintenance planning meetings as well as safety meetings. I want to both know what is going on and I want my managers knowing I care about what's going on. Do I involve myself in those meetings, no, but I do take notes and do folllow up. That isn't self-aggrandizement, that's doing my job.
October 24th, 2014 at 9:46 PM ^
I see what you are saying, TX, some of the effects depend on what kind of relationships are there, trusting, supportive, and so on.......and at some point when we try to draw analogies with our jobs, it may start to be, not relevant to what happens in the AD/HC situation.
I had a job once where my superior did not discourage employees from doing an end run around their manager and go right to him instead. Eventually it blew up in his face and the resultant dysfunction cost him his job.
This wouldn't be applicable in football, I'm guessing, absent some really weird stuff happening. Where it might get to be a problem in the coaching world is, for example, why did Shane Morris start that game? Coaches, outside pressure on AD putting pressure on HC? Or totally independent decision making from coaching staff? Who the !@$! knows??
If the AD is watching film and saying, "OH that's what went wrong with that play" and he enjoys that analysis he should be doing that from his own living room because it just plain should not matter what his opinion is of a play. Coaches aren't there to improve the AD's understanding, they are there to improve the players. Coaching should be 100% delegated to the people paid to do that job.
But this is all opinion based on speculation... what really happens.. we'll have to wait for a book some day.
BEAT STATE
October 24th, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
Honestly, If I were Dave I'd watch film with the coaches too. After watching the Borges debacle last year I'd want to know WTF was going through his head and if the problem was Hoke or Borges, and if you had confidence that we'd get better.
It wouldn't surprise me if the coaches watched our film and said "well we just didn't execute but we competed and showed some toughness". If I was choosing between making a coaching change or not, I'd sure want to know what I really thought of the current staff before making a move.
October 24th, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^
Dave "watching film with the coaches" is a major part of why the team sucks. David Brandon obviously has a lot of say as to the "direction" of playcalling. Brandon should have been happy with his AD job, but he wanted to be the de facto football coach.
The results speak for themselves.
October 24th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
You're saying that Brandon has completely taken over the job as OC? Because certainly Nussmeier would have the offense clicking along at least as good as last year's 42 points per game through the first seven games. Think Nussmeier will go public with what really happened to the offense that currently has his name on it?
October 24th, 2014 at 3:09 PM ^
As far as I know, there is no evidence of this whatsoever. We've heard that Brandon likes to sit in on film sessions, but I haven't seen a word about Brandon dictating anything with respect to playcalling or strategy.
I want Brandon fired. It's both dishonest and unhelpful, though, to mislead people about what he's done in order to encourage that firing. His true record offers more than enough reason for dismissal. When people start exaggerating, misleading, or extrapolating, it makes it seem like the bad stuff he's actually done might also be exaggerated.
October 24th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
He hired Brady, because of the MANBAWL feature he promised...
Dave is the old school one who wants nothing but power running.
Brady has ran more with Michigan, than any other team he previously coached. Even more than when he had Hillman at SDSU.
Brandon is the disease, the football team is the side-effect.
The side-effect of Dave's ego.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
Probably so and I do, too. When I'm trying to run a team meeting or where I need (for whatever reason) to lead a group, I find it's really hard to have my boss in the room. By definition, he outranks me, and the other participants know it. It diminishes my authority among my own team even if the acknowledgement is not a conscious one.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
If Brandon's in there saying, "Hey, I think we need to do more X or stop doing Y or try play Z," then that's (1) insane and (2) very different from him just sticking his head in to see what happens. Sticking his head in probably isn't good either, because it gets people nervous and changes the dynamics in the room, but it's completely different from him actually dictating what kind of offense or defense we're running.
There's no doubt that it's a little weird and that it might undermine or mess with our coaches' thinking. Still, that's a very different allegation from saying that Brandon is designing our offense.
October 24th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
You and I are in agreement. I might have misunderstood your first comment.
October 24th, 2014 at 5:45 PM ^
the relationship with your boss. I am lucky, have a great boss and I have no problems or change in dynamics if he sits in on one of my meetings.
October 24th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
Your boss isn't undermining your authority by merely being present. If he contradicts you in front of your subordinates, that's undermining your authority. If, on the other hand, he does as I do, and praises how you conducted your meeting while your subordinates are present it sends the message that he has confidence in you and that he's bolstering your authority.
I understand your lack of comfort but I think if you spoke to your supervisor about it, you would quickly learn that he's not there to undermine you, he's there to ensure your success.
October 24th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^
Well-stated.
Has anyone considered that as a former football player, being able to sit in on film is just enjoyable, brings back memories, he likes doing it , or it just lets him reminisce?
I think it would be pretty cool.
October 24th, 2014 at 6:36 PM ^
October 24th, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^