The John Bacon Q&A: College Football At A Crossroads Comment Count

Brian

Hey kids. John's answered your questions in an extensive post below. I know his points hit close to home as we approach the last time Michigan Stadium will host Notre Dame for the foreseeable future. The book is Fourth and Long, and it's available now.

See also: John fields questions from MVictors and talks with the PostGame. Also he was on Olbermann!

The Kraft Macaroni and Cheese noodle sits outside of the Big House on Friday, Aug. 30. Patrick Record | AnnArbor.com<br />
http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/23cb6642a822_BA5B/083…" width="564" height="377">

Is there a way of putting the genie back in the bottle, or have the aggressive, business-oriented strategies of highlighted in the book (and there are MANY instances therein) put Michigan on an irreversible, faulty trajectory?

[My question is in his estimation, where is that "tipping point" for Michigan, and what happens when we reach it?]

Great question, and one I’ve examined from as many angles as possible for this book. Really, for Michigan fans – and fans of college football generally – it is the central question.

Michigan happens to make a great case study, on two fronts: the loyalty of its fans, and the department’s profitably, both of which are virtually unequaled in college football.

First, the good news, from the book:

“Brandon’s style might not please everyone he deals with, but he delivers what he promises. Under Brandon, the department increased its operating surplus to $15.3 million in fiscal year 2012, 72 percent higher than the previous fiscal year. In 2012, the Michigan football team alone generated $61.6 million in profits, second only to the University of Texas, which has the considerable advantage of its exclusive twenty-year, $300 million TV deal with ESPN.

Brandon has delivered more than dollars, too. After hiring Brady Hoke in 2011, the Michigan football team beat Notre Dame on the last play of the Big House’s first night game, defeated Ohio State for the first time since 2003, and won a thrilling overtime game over eleventh-ranked Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, Michigan’s first BCS bowl victory since a young man named Tom Brady beat Alabama in the January 1, 2000, Orange Bowl.

In the 2011–12 school year, the hockey team earned a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament; the men’s basketball team won a share of its first Big Ten title since 1986; and the following fall, Michigan’s other twenty-nine sports combined to run a close second behind Stanford, and ahead of such perennial all-sport powers as Texas and UCLA, in the Directors’ Cup, which Michigan has never won.

If the Michigan athletic department had issued a 2012 annual report to its shareholders, it would have been the shiniest publication in college sports, packed with enough good news to make the competition envious. By those measures, its creator could be considered an all-American athletic director.

The Wolverines are not alone in spending millions, of course, engaged as they are in an arms race with the Buckeyes and the Southeastern Conference that shows no signs of slowing down. In Brandon’s speeches to alumni clubs, service groups, and the press, he has been unabashed in laying out a simple equation: if you want titles, this is what it takes.

But it can come with some unexpected prices.”

One of them, of course, was the initial decision to leave the Marching Band in Ann Arbor for the Alabama game in Dallas – about which former band director Scott Boerma was willing to clarify several misconceptions in our interviews.

But the bigger price might be the disaffection of thousands of loyal fans, some of whom have dropped their tickets. At Michigan, as of this writing, those numbers don’t seem to be too great, and the Big House still attracts over 100,000 passionate fans each game. But just down the road at Penn State, whose fans are every bit as rabid as Michigan’s, driving an average of four hours to see their team play in State College, you can see the effects of squeezing your supporters too hard.

The scoreboard scroller at Penn State’s third game, against Navy, announced the game’s attendance at ninety-eight thousand. As I write: “This would have brought heartbreak to the Michigan crowd, which had never dipped below one hundred thousand since 1975. But the Lions’ six-year streak had already been broken at the opening game of the 2011 season, months before Sandusky was arrested, thanks to the overpricing of tickets through a misguided and ill-timed seat-license plan called the “Step Program.” This had caused attendance to drop by about three thousand a game in 2010, when the program was introduced, again in 2011, and would again in 2012.”

My sources tell me the trend is likely to continue in 2013, and this brings us to a central issue for meccas like Beaver Stadium, the Horseshoe and the Big House: faith. From the book:

College football fandom depends on the same force that buoys our nation’s currency: faith. Since the United States left the gold standard, the US dollar has value only because billions of people around the world think it does. When a critical mass of people stop thinking that, our dollars will be worth no more than Confederate scrip—without the eBay memorabilia value.

College football isn’t nearly as important, of course, nor as serious. But the ecosystem works the same way. Going to a football game at Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State is great largely because over one hundred thousand people at each stadium think it is. If the sellouts stop and the empty seats increase, the fans start questioning why they’re paying such incredible fees for a “wow experience” that cannot attract a sellout.

One friend calculated that taking her husband and two kids to the games—without dinners or hotel rooms—costs about $500 per Saturday, more than a day at Disney World. And Mickey never loses or snows on you.

“Just because you can charge them more,” Bill Martin told me, “doesn’t mean you should. You’re not there to ring up the cash to the nth degree. It’s a nonprofit model!

“Look into how much is spent on marketing, then look at how effective it is,” he said. “Look at the increase in men’s basketball attendance this year,” he added. Michigan’s top-10 men’s team played twenty games at home, attracting capacity crowds of 12,693 for fifteen of those games, with only two under 10,000. “That would happen if you didn’t spend one penny on marketing. You don’t have to do marketing at Michigan. We have the fans. We have the support. We have a great reputation. All you have to do is win. If you win, they will come. You just need to make it as affordable as possible for your fans.”

For all these reasons, my friends—who developed what they thought were lifelong habits of attendance as kids—have found themselves in the last few years rarely going to the stadium anymore.

The straw man of the hour was Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon. Brandon talks a lot about “brand loyalty,” but that combines two words that, to a college football fan, aren’t related. College football fans are fiercely loyal, but their loyalty is to something they most definitely do not see as a brand, rather something much deeper. If Michigan football ever lost loyal fans like my friends in the living room, who were raised on Michigan football, could it win them back?

Clearly, Brandon was betting that the endless branding would keep them in the fold. And perhaps if not, other fans could replace them.”

Both those questions, I believe, will be answered in the near future. And they will be answered by you, the loyal fans, who will vote with your feet, and your credit card.

[After THE JUMP: is college football worth saving? Does Bill O'Brien want to strangle Tim Beckman? What does the U stand for?]

What's wrong with a world where college football becomes NFL lite? Some traditions are worth preserving - why is amateur/college football one of those?

147896042LH010_Michigan_v_A

If the “tipping point” question above is the central one for fans, this question might be the central question for the sport of college football itself.

When Bo Schembechler accepted Don Canham’s offer to coach the Wolverines in 1969, he was paid $21,000. At that rate, I’d imagine, most players on his team knew that, if they got their Michigan degree, they could do better financially than their coach, and probably hundreds of them have. Few at the time, if any, were arguing that the players were being exploited.

But even though the value of a scholarship has gone up considerably, it has not kept pace with the skyrocketing coaches’ salaries.

From the book:

“Head football coaches at Division I public universities now average more than $2 million a year, an increase of 750 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1984, which is about twenty times more than professors’ salaries increased over the same period. In 2012, the highest-paid state employee in twenty-seven states was a football coach, and in thirteen it was a basketball coach. The number of states whose highest-paid public employee was a university president? Four. The explosion in CEO pay, and the rationales that go with it, would be a fair comparison.”

In the face of this unprecedented influx of money, the contrast between the lifestyles of the players and the coaches and administrators becomes more glaring – and more galling. As you are probably already aware, this chasm has widened in the past three years, making for interesting contrasts among Bill Martin, Dave Brandon, and the players, but the details can be striking.

From the book:

“During the 2008 recession, Martin’s administration actually lowered ticket prices and gave free full-page ads in every football program to the Big Three automakers, who have generously supported the department for decades. It’s also why Martin insisted on being paid a dollar for each of his first two years as athletic director, then agreed to the going rate of about $300,000 per year thereafter.

Already a multimillionaire, Martin turned down the president’s offer to double his salary, and all bonuses. When he traveled to New York on university business, he and his staffers flew coach on Northwest Airlines, then took a cab in the city, or the subway, or, most often, simply walked.

Dave Brandon is estimated to be worth tens of millions, but he is now paid roughly three times what Bill Martin received. For the first time in Michigan’s history, the athletic director makes more than the president. When university business calls Brandon to New York, he often flies out on a donor’s private jet, then pays a limousine service to drive him to meetings around the city.

Back in Ann Arbor, for his first two years Denard Robinson borrowed his teammates’ beat-up cars—Thomas Rawls’s pickup truck was particularly popular among the players—before he bought a rusty clunker of his own, a Pontiac Grand Am, possibly a ’98, though he wasn’t sure. His protégé, Devin Gardner, picked up a little blue coupe, which had “wires hanging out from the engine over the front bumper, and half the back bumper missing,” teammate Elliott Mealer told me. “Devin couldn’t have resold that thing to a blind man. So, no. No one’s giving us cars.”

After a point, the contrasts start to matter.”

And at some point, the players might stand up en masse – really, the only way they have any power – and decide to, well, sit down. Before the Michigan State game, I ran into Michigan cross-country coach Ron Warhurst in the Pioneer parking lot. From the book:

He looked around at the thousands of people happily spending about $500 on that day’s game—and many of them much more. Two golf courses across Main Street were just as full. So was the stadium parking lot and dozens of residential blocks within a mile of the Big House.

“You look at all this, you look at how much money people spend, and how much those guys make,” he said, pointing a thumb at the Big House, “and you have to think, one of these times the players are going to run out of that tunnel, sit down on the benches, and refuse to play until they get paid.

“One of these days.”

William Friday, the former president of the University of North Carolina, told the writer Taylor Branch that if a certain team—not his own school’s—reached the NCAA basketball championship game a few years ago, “they were going to dress and go out on the floor, but refuse to play.” Because the team didn’t make it to the finals, we’ll never know if they would have followed through. But any team in the tournament could do it, jeopardizing the $1 billion March Madness generates in TV ads alone ,the highest ad revenue of any sporting event.

Just as Warhurst postulated, any football team could do the same—which demonstrates just how fragile the game’s foundation really is.

As the salaries of coaches and athletic directors escalate, while the players’ income remains stuck at zero, it’s not hard to imagine a point when the players finally say, “Enough.”

So, obviously, as the gap grows between the talent and the management, if you will, the long-held practice of not giving players a cut of the cash becomes harder and harder to defend. But I still believe there are compelling reasons not to, because once that line is crossed, a big element of what we love about college football – and why a study commissioned by Martin shows UM football fans have much less interest in professional sports – will be lost, and I believe lost forever.

From the book:

These hypotheticals would be largely academic if millions of fans did not prefer college football to the pros. Why do they?

College teams were organically and spontaneously created more than a century ago by the students, just for fun.

The NFL and all its teams since were created by league executives, lawyers, and chief marketing officers, just for profit.

Almost every Division I college football team predates the oldest NFL teams by three or four decades. Most schools built their current stadiums before most NFL teams built their first—or second, or third. College football is one of those few passions we have in common with our great-grandparents.

College teams play on college campuses, where students actually go to school. The students feel as connected to these campuses as they do to their homes—and this connection typically lasts for life. That also goes for the jocks, who live in the same dorms as the geeks; they take classes in the same buildings; and they eat at the same pizza and burger joints everyone else does. Just about anyone who went to college has a story about running into the big man on campus.

NFL players make millions and live in gated communities. You’re not likely to meet them, no matter how many years you pay to watch them play. Their teams play in big cities, and they don’t have homecoming games.

College teams never threaten to change their colors or move to Oklahoma City if you don’t build them a new stadium—at taxpayer expense. No, they play in the nation’s oldest, grandest stadiums, surrounded by lush green lawns, old trees, and two-story homes where students live. They have marching bands and fight songs and quirky customs that go back a century.

NFL teams play in sanitized, soulless domes—usually subsidized by the taxpayers—with loud scoreboards that tell you exactly what to yell and exactly when to yell it, all surrounded by vast oceans of asphalt.

Pro teams choose their players, but college players choose their teams— which leads to another major difference: universities, because they started long before their football teams, represent a particular set of values, priorities, and strengths that stamp the teams that wear their name. It was for this very reason the Big Ten presidents formed their conference. If these players were going to represent their schools, they reasoned, they should do so honorably.

In 1941, Michigan’s legendary Fielding Yost said at his retirement banquet, “My heart is so full at this moment and I am so overcome by the rush of memories that I fear I could say little more. But do let me reiterate . . . the Spirit of Michigan. It is based upon a deathless loyalty to Michigan and all her ways; an enthusiasm that makes it second nature for Michigan men to spread the gospel of their university to the world’s distant outposts; a conviction that nowhere is there a better university, in any way, than this Michigan of ours.”

When college teams compete, it isn’t just a game between two teams. We see it as a battle between two ways of life. Is there a single professional team that can claim anything like this?

This is why, when schools are caught violating NCAA rules, it bruises the identity of their fans. But when the New England Patriots were caught filming opponents’ hand signals, did their fans hang their heads in shame? No, it was just a passing nuisance.

Professional teams don’t stand for anything more than a can of pop. The players go on strike, the owners lock them out, and they repeat the cycle every five or ten years, as needed, for more money. Their fans respond in kind, often caring less about the actual teams in their state than the fantasy teams on their computers—or the point spreads in their paper, and the wallets in their back pockets.

College football fans actually care about college football, not just its parts. The two fan bases are not motivated by the same things.

Of the over 100 FBS Division I teams, not one has ever moved, gone on strike, or been locked out. Ever.

College athletes are more passionate playing for a scholarship than pro athletes are playing for millions. And we admire them more for this very reason. It’s the difference between citizen soldiers volunteering for the army and hired Hessians. Give us the doughboys, the G.I. Joes, and the grunts fighting for a cause.

And this is why we watch: not for perfection, but passion—the same reason over a million fans watch the Little League World Series every summer. This point is easily proven: the worst team in the NFL would crush the best team in college football, every year. Yet college football is the only sport in the world that draws more fans to its games than the big league teams it feeds. The attendance at Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State home games typically averages 50 percent more than that of the NFL teams in those states—and often doubles it. No minor league baseball or hockey team comes close to matching the attendance of their parent clubs.

This basic truth escapes both the proponents of paying players and the NCAA executives who try to squelch minor leagues from starting: college football is selling romance, not prowess. If ability were the only appeal, we’d move NFL games to Saturday and watch those games instead. But if you lose the romance of college football, you will lose the fans of college football.

It might be one thing to give the players a stipend so they can afford a new pair of jeans, a nice dinner, and a trip home once in a while – which actually was suggested to the NCAA four decades ago, and almost passed. But I do believe, if college football goes “pro,” it becomes just a minor league for the NFL. And no minor league, anywhere, can compete with the top levels of any sport. If that happens, the days of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State drawing twice as many fans as the nearest NFL counterparts might be over.

I’ll be presenting a more detailed version of the “Bacon Plan,” if you will, to solve this conundrum very soon, and will obviously let the readers of MGoBlog know when I do.

How does Bill O'Brien really feel about Tim Beckman?

Bill_O'Brien[1]tim-beckman-01[1]

Bill O’Brien, characteristically, was completely disciplined on the matter of Illinois head coach Tim Beckman sending assistants to State College to recruit his players the day after the sanctions hit. But his players were far more willing to tell me how they felt about Coach Beckman, one of the many private scenes the players gave me for this project.

From the book:

“Penn State’s first Big Ten opponent, Illinois, entered the game with the same 2-2 record as the Lions, with bad losses against Arizona State and Louisiana Tech. The Illini were led by first-year head coach Tim Beckman— the man who flew eight coaches out to State College in late July to scoop up as many transfers as he could get. Despite the effort, he got exactly one: freshman Ryan Nowicki, a scout team offensive lineman. Beckman did, however, manage to become the focal point of the Penn State players’ rage, which they intended to release in full when they visited Memorial Stadium on September 29.

“They were basically trying to break up our team,” said Jordan Hill, who actually drove around Penn State’s campus like a cowboy herding cattle when he heard Illinois’s coaches were afoot. “And really, not only our team, but our brotherhood.”

“I’ve never seen a locker room so intense, so on a mission,” [longtime equipment manager] Spider Caldwell said, grinning. “I almost felt sorry for Illinois. I knew what was coming. And our guys did not disappoint!”

[Senior linebacker Mike] Mauti led the charge, getting a sack, forcing a fumble, and making two interceptions. One of them he returned 99 yards before getting tack- led by their wide receiver on the 1-yard line.

Mauti—still overflowing with anger—stayed out for Penn State’s punt team and launched himself downfield on a 60-yard sprint. The Illini sent a receiver to block Mauti, who launched the poor guy into next week, then blew up the returner. “There’s no better feeling than that.”

Well, maybe one.

Before the game, Mauti promised himself he would find Coach Beckman and personally tell him to fuck off. When Mauti finally caught eyes with him, however, he opted for a bit more discretion, spitting on the ground in front of him. That, and Mauti’s sack, forced fumble, and two interceptions, he reasoned, “are the best fuck-yous available.”

What is a program's 'culture' and does it really have an impact on performance?

Great question, and one that I’ve been thinking about since the Rodriguez era. As Rodriguez himself said to his staff, minutes after being fired, “It was a bad fit from the start.”

As unpleasant as it surely was for all parties involved – including the fans -- I think everybody learned a lot about what it really takes for a coach and his staff to succeed at a big time college program, on all sides. AS I write, “Unlike their NFL counterparts, the best college coaches are not interchangeable parts. You don’t simply install one here or there, flick a switch, and watch them light up the college football world. Too often, schools embark on a blind date, with neither party knowing enough about the other before heading to the altar. Las Vegas weddings tend to end in Las Vegas divorces—just ask the people at Michigan. Both sides had better know what they’re getting into and be ready, willing, and able to bridge the gap between them.”

This idea was quickly confirmed by Brady Hoke at his first press conference, where the relatively unknown coach won over the faithful in a matter of minutes by demonstrating that he knew Michigan’s culture, he respected it, and he was there to protect it.

While Penn State was surely a unique case this past season, the need to know the college’s culture, and preserve it, is just as high at Northwestern and Ohio State.

“I don’t know what being Ohio State means,” Pat Fitzgerald told me. “I never played there. I’ve never coached there. But I do know what being Northwestern means. And we know how to find the kind of people who will appreciate it.”

As Brandon McCurry, a twenty-eight year old Buckeye fan, who now lives in Jacksonville, told me, “Urban Meyer’s been the best fit with his school since [Nick] Saban went to Alabama. He’s a Buckeye through and through, born and bred. Cooper couldn’t beat Michigan because he didn’t understand the culture.”

It doesn’t matter in the pros, but it matters in college. But I believe Michigan fans know that better than anyone.

What does the "U" stand for?

My middle name. ;-)

OTHER INTERESTING STUFF

There are many things, of course, you didn’t ask about – because you obviously can’t know what’s in the book – that I think you’ll find interesting reading, including:

-Michigan’s unequaled love for Brady Hoke, from the players to the fans.

-Michigan’s games against Alabama, Notre Dame, Illinois (with the alumni band) Homecoming (the alumni band), Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern (with the Mudbowl), Ohio State and South Carolina.

-Candid interviews with former Band Director Scott Boerma, Bill Martin, and former U-M president James Duderstadt, who told me, “Brandon always says he’s ‘building the brand.’ But of what? Dave Brandon. That’s the brand he’s building.”

-An eye-opening analysis of the athletic department’s budget, and where your money is going.

-And a lot of good insights from you, the fans, who I still believe are the most passionate, and sophisticated, in college football. Call it brown-nosing if you will, but I’ve had as much contact as anyone with you, and I stand by it.

Thanks, as always, for your smart questions.

See you at the tailgates.

-John U. Bacon

johnubacon.com

Comments

CRex

September 5th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

Reading of that makes me think that whenever a pollster calls, a good Wolverine should swear they'd vote Brandon for Senator/Governor/President/whatever just to bouy his poll numbers and he bails.  When Duderstadt is critical of you, that's a bad sign.

This should make the Presidential replacement interesting, since odds are the new President will have to stand up to Brandon, who has a power base in AA, early on.  

M-Wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^

That's a good sign. When he was here he was trying to "take back control of athletics" that had gotten "too big under Bo" and turn us back into an Ivy program. He wanted no one in athletics to be bigger than him. He went so far as to can Moeller behind Bo's back without consulting the regents and it ended up turning around and helping push him out, of which I'm sure he's still bitter.

CRex

September 5th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

While I do think that the Moeller thing was a bit shady, I do generally agree that we should strive to be Public Ivy and the AD should clearly be subdorinate to the President.  After all, if Bo at the height of his power was less ethical and more focused on winning, well look what that brought Penn State.  In a sense we were very lucky that Bo was so ethical and clean, overall history suggests you have at least as good of odds at getting a Yost (the whole racism thing), Paterno, Holtz (bails out before the sanctions), Saban (Ethics?  The fuck are those...), or Miles (and he's off the Bo family tree, yet heavily oversigns).  Obviously we all hope Hoke is of the same lineage as Bo, but I'd rather the academics have althetics by the throat and make it clear they will squeeze that trachea shut if anything shady goes on.  

ZooWolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^

I fundamentally agree with everything you're saying, and am very down on Brandon, but I think Duderstadt is opposed to football being anything close to what it is at Michigan. In a lot of ways, his criticism is absolutely correct, but I'm glad he's no longer president because I think he really would be working to reign it in at Michigan. As a result, I think there are a lot of ADs that Duderstadt would be unhappy with, including anyone who is expanding the importance of athletics on campus.

M-Wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^

And make student-athlete a real thing. The Dude wants student athletes to be at an Ivy League level, or more of a created from the student body almost IM level.  If you want your fellow MGoBloggers to fill Michigan Stadium that's fine, but I don't.  And I don't think that's in any way realistic with the money and promotions of the university involved.

jmblue

September 5th, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^

I'm curious about what you're getting at here.  The University has already gotten the athletic department to accept a financial deal that would be unthinkable at most schools, in which it pays out-of-state tuition for all athletes, regardless of where they're from.  There is also an unwritten agreement that the AD will contribute an annual donation to the general fund.  What further level of subordination would you want?

If you're suggesting that the marketing of the department is something that Mary Sue Coleman is up in arms about, I'm fairly certain that's not true at all.  Brandon was hired in large part because he was a marketing guy.  The University wants the AD to make as much money as it can so it can get its own cut.  The last thing it wants is for the AD to become run by a bunch of luddites.  

 

AtkinsDiet

September 5th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^

"He went so far as to can Moeller behind Bo's back without consulting the regents" Behind Bo's back? Bo was not the athletic director nor was he a regent. He had no official obligation to be in touch with him.

Bo was a great guy but he still operated in the professional world. He was not a God among men and the people who think he was are silly.

 

M-Wolverine

September 6th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^

But he was the most powerful guy at te University, and had really powerful friends. He may have had no "official" obligation to do so, but there was a reason he cowardly pushed it through while Bo was out of the country. Problem was, in his rush to take back power he forgot to consult the other power brokers at the University, the Regents. And he answers to them and they don't like finding out things when everyone else does. Particularly when a number of them are on Bo's side.

You can say all you want on how it should be, but in the professional world it's mostly playing politics. Dude made he power grab, and it came back to bite him in the ass, hard. (And he really wasn't all that beloved by anyone before that). He wasn't a white knight, he was playing the game too, and lost.

jmblue

September 5th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

While I find some of Brandon's marketing stuff to be annoying, he's a good AD overall.  He makes good hires and gives them the resources they need to succeed.  This has not been true for many of our ADs.  People who want to show him the door should be careful for what they wish for.

Anyhow, I'm not sure why you think Duderstadt is some kind of baromer.  Of all the presidents we've had in the last 30-40 years, he was by far the most hostile to athletics.  It's not remotely a surprise to me that he'd be critical of Brandon.  He pretty much doesn't want us to have a separate athletic department.

snarling wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^

Personally, I can live with the brand marketing when we get the results on the playing field that we're getting.

Honestly, some people need to get a grip.  Advertising here and there doesn't mean the death of collegiate sports.  I don't know if people realize that we are  one of the last schools - if not the last school - to not have advertising in our stadium.  And yet, somehow, college football has managed to survive.  

chitownblue2

September 5th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^

I don't begrudge his opinion that college football at large, and Michigan football in particular, are too commercial. It's a completely legitimate claim.

But I think it's disingenuous to act as if higher ticket prices and higher coaching salaries are occurring in a vacuum. I think he needs to weigh them against what they produce:

-Is he happy that Michigan recently offered two additional varsity sports, with money that came, largely, from these profits?

-Is he happy with the stadium renovation that came from these profits?

-Is he happy that Michigan offers more Varsity Sports than the vast majority of schools in the nation?

-Is he happy that Michigan's AD cuts the largest check to the schools general scholarship of any in the nation?

-Is he happy that through ice-skating, gymnastics, and swimming, the last 3 Olympic games have essentially been ads for the success of Michigan atlhetics?

I'm not saying he needs to answer "yes" to these, but I do think he needs to address them. As it is, I think his view is extremely limited to that of a football fan - and not necessarily one of the University's sports program, or even the University. He wants his seats cheaper, even if that cuts opportunity for non-revenue athletics.

Second, I think he needs to offer alternatives. What is the alternative to Michigan paying it's coaches millions of dollars? Fail to get good ones? Thus fail? How does that bring you closer to the Michigan of your memory?

Finally, I have a significant problem with people that bemoan the commercialization of college athletics, and the havoc it's wrought while collecting sizeable paychecks for their entire professional career based on the interest in college athletics CAUSED by the commercialization. I think it's odd that a guy who suggests, obliquely, that college athletes should get paid, puts Denard Robinson on the cover of a book about Rich Rodriguez.

MGoBender

September 5th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^

The answer to "our you happy that we added sports" may be "no."  That's something that many people don't recognize.  More is not always better and it needs to be acknowledged by Brandon instead of "Well, we raise ticket prices so we can have X."

Do we need "X"?  We (our school) cannot be everything to everyone.  We can't have everything.  This is a common concern for those of us in independent education.  Parents want their kids to have every elective, play every sport, be a part in every club.  But you cannot have everything.

Maybe Michigan didn't need lacrosse.  I don't know.  I know lacrosse is growing in Michigan and there was loud support for it, but it comes with a cost.

I do know that, even as an adament supporter of non-revenue sports, I do not want to see any new ones added for a very long time.

chitownblue2

September 5th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^

I didn't intend to answer for him, or suggest what the answer should be.

But if Bacon wants to ask the question "Is making all this money worth it?", he needs to address what the University is BUYING with that money. At least in this post, he doesn't.

Callahan

September 5th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^

But it's not about whether the university's ability to buy things with the money. That's an "ends justifies the means" argument. If something is unfair (if that's even Bacon's argument, that it's unfair that the players aren't being paid) the next step doesn't matter. I mean, if I rob banks, does it make it okay if I donate all the money to charity?

MGoNukeE

September 5th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^

However, "collusion" may be more appropriate, given that some student-athletes are not compensated to their market value when Michigan football profits in the $15 million range. Do the ends justify this while forcing said student-athletes to accept the results? 

And no, real-world comparisons don't apply, since undercompensated workers can still strike or market themselves to competitors.

NYWolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 6:17 PM ^

I think folks need to consider Brandon's legacy with less focus on the run-up to the present, and with a bit more of a wide-angle lens. This "brand" of Michigan that Brandon is ostensibly building begun with a tremendous focus on Michigan football and the big-revenue sports. The "brand" highlights tradition and reinvigorates our past heroes (see unretired numbers, etc.) in order to put a fresh coat of paint on our Block M.

With Brandon's tutelage (and arguably in spite of it), the athletic department has now provided our big revenue teams with top facilities that attract top talent. Michigan does win, and that is the most important element, but winning isn't everything in attracting top recruits...or top donors for that manner.

This past week, Stephen M. Ross donated $100M to the Michigan Athletic Department, which is run by Dave Brandon. The single most generous gift to an athletic department ever.

Mr. Ross is a savvy, sophisticated businessman, and I'm not certain he would make the donation to a Department headed by someone he had any reason to expect would squander the money. Dave Brandon expanded the brand while at the same time crystalizing the tradition in no uncertain terms. By doing so, there's now an extra $100 million dollars in the coffers.

I have a feeling that some of that money is headed to a trust to preserve many of the non-revenue sports for a long time, as well as the revenue sports.

Let's see how the AD utilizes Mr. Ross's donation before we draw total conclusions on whether Brandon is blowing up an over-inflated bubble. It's a huge component to the discussion of the brand he's building. If Brandon has built something that pays for itself in the long run, and ticket prices to the revenue sports re-adjust accordingly, how can you argue with that?

M-Wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

Were really excited when they said they were moving lacrosse up to varsity. Including a lot who write for the site. But how many also are complaining about it being all about money too?

You can say you don't want lacrosse, but there was a lot of beat down for that opinion. Or you can say it's a great thing. But you can't say you want it but it should be paid for with fairy dust and well wishes.

gbdub

September 5th, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^

If the choice is between Division 1, and an affordable ticket to M football so a reasonably average family (with the next generation of fans) can attend a game at the Big House, sorry lacrosse. Have fun as a club sport like fencing and rugby have to. Football reaches (and gives priceless experiences to) orders of magnitude more people.



And how big is the lacrosse budget anyway compared to DBs salary? You don't think we could have shaved a million or two off the Crisler and Big House renovations to fund a few non-revenue sports?



Point is, Brandon's game seems to be "make as much money as possible, ten find something to spend it on" rather than having an end goal of "here's where I want the department to be, what do we do to get there?" An AD in the latter mindset would not be grubbing for the comparative peanuts acquired from giant noodles, concourse ads, banned water bottles, and banned seat covers. All of those ideas smack of, well it will make a little cash lets see if we can get away with it.

chitownblue2

September 5th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^

Then Bacon should make that argument, instead of present the salaries and commercialization in a vacuum.

If he thinks that non-revenue sports aren't worth higher prices, he should say so. His argument doesn't present it as a choice - which it is.

gbdub

September 5th, 2013 at 7:07 PM ^

I guess my point is that the supposed justification for lavish spending on non-revenue sports is "It provides a wonderful opportunity for the student-athlete". And that's a fine, good argument.

But it ignores that affordable access for fans to the big-time sports is also a wonderful opportunity, and frankly one that affects a lot more people. And that's what I don't see from Brandon: a committment to the fan experience. He certainly gives lip service to it, and has done some very good things to give good fan experiences (such as UTL). But he's also overseen a push towards increased (unusually tacky) advertising and commercialization, a lack of which has been a unique feature of Michigan football for some time. He's also overseen nickel-and-dime policies such as banning water and seat cushions to make a quick buck at the expense of fan enjoyment. Those to me don't seem like the actions of someone with a serious vision other than "maximize revenue". No, Bacon doesn't articulate the "sorry lacrosse" argument, but the argument I really want to hear is Brandon's justification for "here's why Div 1 lacrosse is necessary, and why it justifies massive PSLs and giant noodles". I don't know if we'll ever hear that, and I don't know if Brandon even thinks that's a relevant question - isn't revenue always good?

Anyway I wish Bacon had taken up that argument as well. In fact in the original QA thread I had asked something to the effect of "What do AD's see as their endgame / goal in this push for increased revenue and commercialization?" and I wish Bacon had answered that. So I agree that the "populism" argument (Brandon's limo vs. Gardner's beater) is a bit weak. Bacon seems to be seeing the problems but leaving the issue of determining why that's bad (and what to do about it) as an exercise for the reader. I'll reserve judgement for the book though, where presumably things are developed farther than in this blog post.

chitownblue2

September 6th, 2013 at 9:19 AM ^

We're getting afield.

I'm not saying "Sorry Lacrosse", or "boo to the new stadium" or "I don't care about the check to the scholarship fund" are invalid arguments. I think they have validity - I disagree with them, but I can acknowledge them.

My problem is just Bacon's portrayal - he is complaining about the pursuit of money (and, the responses to my complaint have focused simplisticly on ticket prices, which we all know is not the entire story) without detailing what the money is actually buying. It's like showing someone a slaughterhouse, but pretending the steak doesn't exist. You can definitely argue that the steak doesn't justify the killing, and many do, but by not acknowledging it's existence, you're portraying needless, pointless, slaughter for the sake of needless pointless slaughter - which isn't reality.

MGoBender

September 5th, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^

I guess this is a reply to my post.

I very much am a supporter of non-rev sports.  I'm been to many, many times as many non-revenue sports events as football games - and I went to every football game during my 5 years as a student and several since.

The point I was making was: We are at a place where we are pricing out many families from attending football games (and basketball games).  If that's the extent to which we "need" money, we should not consider adding any new varsity sports for the time being.  (Or we should seriously slash administrative and coaching salaries, but unless the entire nation goes along with it...)

I'm certainly not saying cut any.  However, if we are sacrificing our Michigan values in a sole attempt to get closer to OSU's number of varsity teams, we are doing it wrong.

I love all of our teams.  I think we are at the saturation point however.  What would we even make varsity?  Men's crew is the only thing that would make sense. Then what women's sport balances it out?  I just think we've hit a point where we've made it infeasible to continue to add .  Not infeasible to continue supporting the great programs that we have, however.

Niels

September 5th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^

Former (club) player here for UM Lax:

1) John Paul raised a TON of donations from alumni and other donors to make it possible for Brandon to add lax, something Brandon said without hesitation to me and many others. as such this idea that this is about seat licenses, etc vs lax is indirect at best.

2) Can we start a thread simply entitled "what is the purpose a college athletic (ie NCAA) program?" 

 

 

MGoBender

September 5th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^

If I came off as "anti-lacrosse," that wasn't my intent.  Even though I didn't grow up with the sport, I've played it a bit recently and it really is a ton of fun and you cannot deny the growth.

It's simply the most recent addition, thus what I would be paying attention to in any discussion of the current UM budget.  Had it been 10 years ago, I'd be saying the same about soccer and that is a sport I grew up with.

However, even knowing all the money raised to push lacrosse to varsity (I was a student when that movement was underway, so I'm pretty aware of all of it), it's still a major recurring expense. 

 

Niels

September 5th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^

Former (club) player here for UM Lax:

1) John Paul raised a TON of donations from alumni and other donors to make it possible for Brandon to add lax, something Brandon said without hesitation to me and many others. as such this idea that this is about seat licenses, etc vs lax is indirect at best.

2) Can we start a thread simply entitled "what is the purpose a college athletic (ie NCAA) program?" 

 

 

Baldbill

September 5th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^

I think you make a lot of good points. You can't afford to have as many athletic programs as Michigan has without the money coming from somewhere...If Michigan attempted to get out of the arms race (salaries) they would simply find themselves with bad coaching and poor facilities.

M-Wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^

The person in the story who was getting screwed for years was Bo, being underpaid.  There wasn't the tv dollars and as high ticket prices as there are now, but Bo still got that 100,000 seat stadium to sell out. And it was taking in a lot more than $20k every week, even at those cheap prices.

Not to mention one increasing expense is the cost of tuition, which has gone up as fast or faster than salaries and such. Fixing that would be a far more important issue than athletics, but with as few easy answers.

triguy616

September 5th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^

While I somewhat agree with what you're saying about ticket prices, there's a very obvious bubble scenario he describes: Penn State. Penn State proved that you can push too far on ticket prices and really fuck up.

I believe John U. is saying, specifically about ticket pricing, is that Dave Brandon is echoing some of the choices that led to PSU failing to sell out games. It would be terrible if Michigan failed to put 100,000 people into the Big House every week of every game until I die. I think most M fans would agree.

His point is not "I want cheaper tickets". It's "I don't want the Big House to become Happy Valley".

chitownblue2

September 5th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^

Well, I think it's clear we're not Happy Valley. We don't have a horrifying sex scandal. We also just sold out at game against CMU.

But he also stokes notion of purity, etc. Which is fine. But again: if his opinion is that the movie isn't worth it, he needs to address what we're buying with it.

dnak438

September 5th, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^

the scandal, as Bacon pointed out:

But the Lions’ six-year streak had already been broken at the opening game of the 2011 season, months before Sandusky was arrested, thanks to the overpricing of tickets through a misguided and ill-timed seat-license plan called the “Step Program.” This had caused attendance to drop by about three thousand a game in 2010, when the program was introduced, again in 2011, and would again in 2012.

 

Bando Calrissian

September 5th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^

I think there's no danger as long as the home schedule is strong, or at least passable. It might be very different if more home schedules end up like what we have lined up next year. For me, that's the real test, no matter how good the team is anticipated to be. Losing ND off the schedule, and the upcoming MSU home/away shift, could be problematic.

We're already at a point where lesser games are being packaged with bigger games to sell tickets, and full-experience ticket/food packages are being assembled for games like Akron. That works in the short-term, but you want long-term season ticket holders. Or, at least, that's what the model used to be.

I don't think we'll ever see the kind of dramatic decline schools like PSU are seeing, but there's enough intangibles that we could be seeing a few games per season with noticeable gaps in the stands. 

snarling wolverine

September 5th, 2013 at 6:22 PM ^

We should note one thing: for a long time, Beaver Stadium held 90-95,000 seats.  It was around a decade ago that they expanded to 107,000.  Maybe they simply expanded too much.  Maybe their fanbase isn't quite as large as ours and can't be expected to fill 107K every week like ours can.  We are aided by our proximity to Metro Detroit, while they're in the middle of nowhere.