The chance that Brian posts this if Brandon said message boards or talk radio instead of blog is zero point zero.
Those Rumormongering Athletic Directors
This from a Crain's Detroit interview with Dave Brandon got under my skin:
There was some chatter last year that the Ohio (State)-Michigan game could be moved in the future from its traditional spot in the schedule as the final game of the season.
Brandon dismissed such talk as gibberish.
"I think it's nonsense. I've never heard any talk of that," he said. "I don't think there's anything being contemplated as it relates to that. I think someone spewed something on a blog somewhere, and is usually the case by the time it gets told three times, people start to believe it. There's a pretty strong commitment on behalf of the conference that that game belongs as the last game of the season."
SAM WEBB: Would it be still be the tradition to keep that game [The Game] the last game of the season?
DAVID BRANDON: I think there's a distinct possibility that game will be a later game in the season, but not necessarily the last game of the season. …What you're really going to want is for that last game of the season to determine who's going to be the champion of that division and who is going to play for the Championship... Although I love playing OSU the last game of the year, I don't thinks it's necessarily a slam dunk.
That is all.
Brandon is an asshole CEO-type, and that's what asshole CEO-types do. Instead of complaining, we need to suck it up and get used to it.
I, for one, welcome our new corporate overloards. The cheesy bread will help us synergize our core competencies and leverage our roadmaps for the new paradigm.
Crain's Detroit - "There was some chatter last year that the Ohio (State) - Michigan game could be moved in the future from its traditional spot in the schedule as the final game of the season."
Is it just me or is it strange for a reporter at a professional publication to refer to OSU as "Ohio". I totally understand......and even appreciate it........for Brady Hoke. It just seems to me that a reporter should dimiss the games and get it right.
As I read the story, however, I looked at the "State" omission as a kind of winking verbal-only banter between the two, and the (correct) editorial addition was made in (parentheses). Interviewers get just a little (not much) more slack than straight-news reporters.
I don't understand why this blog keeps attacking Brandon over trivial things: mascots, uniforms, you name it. None of that stuff really matters as far as I'm concerned. Brandon cares deeply about winning, about doing it within NCAA rules, about having the best facilities, and about making sure the AD is financially self-sufficient. That's what really matters, so I'm happy he's our AD.
The vast majority of fans I know love the guy. I don't think he has a poor reputation among the fanbase at all. That's what makes this blog's stance more jarring. I can't help thinking that a lot of Brian's "righteous anger" is really just lingering frustration over his favorite coach getting fired a year ago.
You guys have seriously lost your minds. Everyone is happy Hoke is the coach. Everyone. Brian has said he is glad more than once. He has said he was a dick at first and that he was wrong. Let it go.
...Brian, as purveyor of the most read college football blog on the internets, would take exception to Brandon saying:
"someone spewed something on a blog somewhere"
...in such a denigrating fashion, WHILE lying about or forgetting what he had previously said himself...well then there's probably a lot of things you don't understand.
If Brandon hates being called for his own bullshit now, wait until he gets into politics. DB is used to being THE CEO, and being able to fire people for disagreeing with him. Now, he has to read blogs discussing his decisions, and he realizes he can't squash anyone's First Amendment rights because he isn't paying them for the privilege.
Worse yet, at least for him, he can't just make those who disagree with him in the blogosphere "disappear" by firing them.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Some of you guys are just . . . out there.
in a row it will be such a novelty that everyone will be more excited than annoyed.
Caught Brandon being Brandon, though. Wouldn't want him for a friend but you have to concede good things are happening.
Just because I think it'd be nice to respectfully contact Brandon- does anyone have the appropriate email for the AD? I don't want to just fill out a form on MGoBlue and have it never be read.
but the day it gets posted publicly is the day it becomes impossible to get a personal response from him, imo
A valid point, just make sure that it's "deployed" as necessary.
there ought to be people in better position than me to decide whether it's important that DB knows he got called out for lying. i'd guess somebody reporting to the branding/marketing guy has eyes on the media.
when did "shading the truth" become a euphemism for lying?
and, of course, none of the things that brandon does or says that exhibit integrity get under brian's skin. amirite?
i thought "shading the truth" was what people did when they avoid saying what's true without resorting to a bald-faced lie. but academia isn't really the land of euphemisms for dishonesty, so ok. anyway, if you want to defend lying, can't you do it without avoiding the word?
it might not be "such a big deal" to lie in this kind of context, but in the course of lying he also tries to shift blame to bloggers like brian. it's one thing to be the kind of slimeball that lies whenever it suits you, and another altogether to be the kind of slimeball that lies whenever it suits you while blaming whatever happened on somebody in a weaker position with more on the line. credibility matters to bloggers, even if it doesn't to people who spend their lives in the corporate world.
i'm not quite sure what to say to this. neither of those things actually means lying. if you can't tell the difference between something like dissembling (which means disguising or concealing something) and lying (which means intentionally deceiving by saying something you know to be false), and you're also going to reject the inference that anybody who lies whenever it's convenient is a slimeball, then yeah, there's not a lot for us to talk about when evaluating anybody. what you're doing is basically refusing to see the difference between plausibly moral behavior and stock examples of immoral behavior, and then, on top of that, refusing to conclude that consistently morally reprehensible behavior indicates a morally reprehensible actor. maybe you're just speaking some sort of corporatese that i don't understand. i'm not sure.
anyway, brian hasn't been anti-hoke since what, the first press conference? he doesn't like brandon, and he's not alone in that. one man is not the program. hell, if one man were the program, that man wouldn't be dave brandon.
Last year was 2011. Eighteen months ago was 2010. There also were rumors going around rather recently, which I think was what was being referenced.
Also, this fascination with picking on everything Brandon says is very different from the "let's all get behind the UM team" that used to be advised here.
What part of 2010 being over a year ago excludes it from "never"? There is no way to weasel around these words... he is either lying or delusional.
Brandon called out blogs. As the flagship sports blog of the interwebs, Brian's response is practical, reasonable, and fair. It is also objective, as it exclusively uses Brandon's own words to make a point.
While I sometimes disagree with Brian, the concern about DBrand appearing to be egomaniacal and fork-tongued seems fair to me. I assume you want your university to be represented by the best athletes, so why not the best administrators? Shouldn't a man's integrity be of concern when he represents the organization?
Q. Was there discussion last year of moving the Game?
A. No, there was never talk of that.
i.e., never talk last year. I'm sure he'd word it differently in a statement. But the context suggests that's what he meant. "I don't think there's anything being contemplated as it relates to that." i.e., talk regarding the present
And Brian is "objective" and "reasonable"? Okay, if you say so. Anyway, Brian has some good blogging skills and insights, but his views on Brandon don't strike me as those things you mentioned (as they didn't with Hoke, for that matter). Plenty of other blogs are out there too, some of which do report stuff as fact that's probably made up or might as well be. I think Brandon seems like a good AD. And no, I don't want UM to be represented by the "best athletes." I want amazing athletes who are also "Michigan Men," meaning that nebulous term in the most positive way.
Exactly. Why are we splitting hairs making a big deal out of a comment Brandon made that can be interpreted as a truthful statement or as some kind of skullduggery? Do you think Brandon really forgot that he acknowledged at one point that the Game might be moved? It was kind of a big deal. Again, blowing this up into a big deal doesn't seem like the work of someone supporting the home team...
What Brandon said ("I've never heard any talk of that") is ambiguous in the same way the science behind global warming is ambiguous. You're inventing the phrasing of the question then bastardizing the answer to create ambiguity and then concluding that since there's ambiguity as Michigan fans we should fall in line. Talk to a Penn State fan about where that approach can take you.
Brandon didn't have to say either thing. To say he did either for the good of the program, or because this is who he is is ridiculous.
Brandon stuck his foot in it on that one. Still, the reality is that it's all just blog fodder for the over- informed among us to knock around and wring totally try. The numbers we bring to the table aren't of consequence to Brandon and his larger mission.
There are two areas where the blog has a decidedly different editorial stance from the fan base at large which relies mostly on MSM for University of Michigan sports information: 1. Rich Rodriguez' job performance. 2. David Brandon, the person and his job performance.
Among a huge percentage of the masses, number 1 is considered awful and number 2 is generally popular to extremely popular. Both are cases where even if the blog is more correct, the practical application is the majority rules over whatever obscure facts exist to the contrary.
On here, our level of knowledge and opinions matter among the group. Out there, it's about the players first, the heavy hitter donor fans second, the casual fans third, and us way way down the list. It's not personal. It's numbers.
he creates alternate pasts
I feel a little uncomfortable about wanting to distance myself from the athletic director of the school I love.
There are times I want to see him leave yesterday, and volunteer to help him pack his corporate-speak dictionary into his domino's boxes, ad there are times I begin to think, well, maybe he gets it. Then things like this happen, and I realize that his head is pretty far up the chute, and soon he'll see the back of his teeth.
The good Dave Brandon was the one who shouldered the load during the Freep Witch Hunt. The bad Dave Brandon talks out of both sides of his mouth on The Game (by the way, I don't care at all when it's played, because the B1G Championship Game really will change the dynamic of the season and the Conference forever), and talks about wanting mascots and in-stadium advertising.
The bad Dave Brandon led a very disorganized coach search too late in the year. The good Dave Brandon hired Brady Hoke, when he probably could have hired a bigger name, but believed in the guy. The bad Dave Brandon gave Michigan players Killer Bee suits for the MSU game.
Everything he does either works out very well, or makes me want to eat my shorts. He is a very frustrating and annoying man.
you left out the part though about how he loves himself some publicity. i don't think he would ever turn down the opportunity to be on camera.
hell, i was watching the big 10 network story on zach novak and, low and behold, there is brandon taking about zach novak. not beilein, not stu douglass but dave brandon.
i wish he would follow the lead of great owners like illich and davidson and be great supporters of the program while not being out in the forefront.
We've been had.
File under: "WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!!!"
David Brandon is not a boy scout. Neither is Brady Hoke. Sometimes they deviate from the truth deliberately, sometimes--they just lose track of a past public statement.
Sometimes Brian's posts read like a search for absolute consistency in Brandon's every utterance.
Brian Cook is half blogger, half journalist, and he runs a great Blog. But he's not a boy scout either, and he's not perfectly consistent. None of is. Jesus, even Christ couldn't count on his disciples to put together a coherent narrative. Jesus was not a theologian on the hunt for the slightest deviation from an all-encompassing theology. Jesus apparently sought to save people's souls, not monitor every utterance.
Dave Brandon is definitely not a theologian, nor is he a journalist or a blogger. In his job, PR is King. Right? He was hired to lead and manage, which includes a large helping of PR. I'm not crazy about some of his marketing schemes. But PR and marketing aside, he's been a take-charge guy. He's pushed through facility improvements in basketball and football, put the hockey program on the front page, and scheduled our first night game in the Big House. We've got solid coaches and competitive, winning programs. I think he's already the most effective AD we've had since Don Canham, and that period includes Bo Schembechler's tenure.
So this chicken feed stuff about "did he contradict himself" pisses me off. Would it piss me off if Michigan and Ohio State didn't play annually on the last day of season? Yes it would. But I don't think Brandon will let that happen if he can help it. Is he a "corporate CEO type"? Yeah, I think he is. But if you could choose any other AD from the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, PAC 10, ACC, or Big East (including Notre Dame), who would be better? And how, exactly?
Yes, Brian, Brandon isn't a Boy Scout.
Yes, Brian, Brandon isn't fully consistent.
Yes, Brian, Brandon has made some bad decisions.
But all in all, I'm very glad he's the AD. Honestly, it took vision and cajones to bring on Hoke as coach. You can't praise Brandon for his so called "pimp hand" and then slam him when his hand doesn't stroke your . . . whatever.
Brian, you're definitely sounding like sour grapes on this one. This is starting to get like section 1 and the Freep. And, I daresay, both the mother of one Mr. Brian Cook and the current Mrs. Brian Cook might have a thing to say about consistency in promises kept.
Because you're the proprieter, and it's your blog, and it's your party, you can write what you want to. If I don't like it, I don't have to read. However, unlike a board post, the front page is kind of hard to ignore. It definitely is sounding like the refrain of a song . . .
It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.
...that, not only is Brandon "contradicting himself", he is doing it while blaming the problem on blogs (of which, Brian has a prominent one)?
Sort of like, if Section 1 was actually Brandin Hawthorne, then...you know what...I'd forgive him his venom towards the Freep. (not that I don't "forgive" him now, but you get my point)
It's not as if Brian is simply pointing out inconsistencies. I could see that being petty and lame, depending. No...in this case, he happens to be pointing out a pretty clear cut misdirection while being blamed for it. Seems reasonable to me.
Brandon lies constantly. That's my main problem with him. I think he's a pretty good AD, I don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.
I got halfway through the comments and got tired of listening to people bitch at eachother over whether or not Brian is a hypocrite or not, and I have no idea what post to respond to, so here it goes:
Dave Brandon went on the radio saying that there's a possibility The Game might be moved, then realized it wasn't a good idea because people on sites such as this one got pissed off at him. 18 months later he denies that he ever said that and blamed the whole thing on guys like Brian.
Brian Cook said, before Brady Hoke was hired, that there was no way he was a serious contender for the UM job. If you didn't realize this was speculation, you're a fucking idiot. Brian has no control over that; his opinion literally means nothing to the Athletic Department. When Hoke was hired, he maintained his position that it wasn't a good hire and that DB screwed the pooch on the coaching search. 10 months later, he admits he was wrong after seeing concrete evidence of what Hoke did.
What do these things have in common? This is a serious question.
Well summarized. The truth is that, even though this is a sports blog with, I daresay, one of the more well-educated and intellectually curious readerships that we have (/ Hubie Brown), there are still people, apparently, who cannot or will not distinguish between being wrong and lying.
Brian was wrong about Hoke (both whether he was going to be coach, and whether or not he would make a good coach).
Brandon was lying about the source of the discussion over changing the timing of The Game (NTTG).
Since these are not the same thing, it is therefore not hypocritical for Brian to call out Brandon. Petty? Possibly. Overblown? Perhaps. But hypocritical? No.
All Brandon had to say was: "yeah, there was some talk of that, but I never thought it was a good idea, and so we (the B1G ADs) decided to keep it at the end of the schedule." It still would have made him out to be the hero who "saved" the Game from moving.
Instead, he directly contradicted his previous statement about the topic. Instead of admitting that HE SAID HIMSELF it was a possibility, he scapegoated the blogs, a group of which Brian Cook is the most popular, prominent, and vocal. He blamed them for reporting a rumor to which he was the primary contributor.
The net effect, other than propping himself up, is to continue to de-legitimize the blogs as real sources of information of happenings around Michigan and Big Ten events. I don't know why they are so insistent on hating Cook et. al., especially when traditional media isn't even that friendly to the school, but apparently, for all Brandon talks about creating the future, he still does not understand modern internet journalism.
Expect another long meta post from Brian soon about how he is doing a much better job reporting and analyzing than anyone else, and that people should listen and trust him more.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA
I would have never guessed how fast many of the MGoBoard members (exemplified by Brian's critics in this thread) would have become unthinking BrandonHoke fanboys.
I've been struck lately at how quickly our friends at places like Eleven Warriors turned on a dime and embraced Urban Meyer, who was previously an object of ridicule for them on a par with Nick Saban, Les Miles and Lane Kiffin. Now, you can choose from nearly a dozen different Urban Meyer T-shirt designs. They love them some Urban Meyer.
And I actually took all of that as a curious mark of Ohio State's strength and determination to achieve success on the field, above all else. Just get the best guy. Just put the best team on the field. Just beat that team up north. Forget what what we said last year. It was, oddly, a sort of a credit to the Buckeyes. "There's no crying in football. Our side is always right; and our side is whoever we've got right now. All that matters, is beating the other."
Yay! My favorite MGoBlog syllogism, interestingly committed by both Section 1 and Butterfield in the same exchange:
P1. I disagree with [person X]
P2. You agree with [person X]
C. You are a sycophantic suckup of [person X] and I am a Galtian free thinker.
Fantastic! Love it!
My problem with this whole exchange has nothing to do with the people involved and everything to do with the logic used to make the case that Brian is out of line. If you think he shouldn't be dogging Brandon for a fairly small gaffe (IMO), fine. If you think he's think-skinned and, in the argot of the youth, "butthurt," fine. I have no quarrel with either of these points. I actually kind of agree with them.
But if your argument is that Brian is being hypocritical either because he totally whiffed on Hoke's hiring and subsequent success, or because he didn't sufficiently (for your taste) apologize for his blunders with Trent and Ringer (I confess I don't know the details of these, but I gather he reported something and then had to backtrack because it was wrong), then I say you are full of beans. It simply is not hypocritical to criticize someone for doing something that is not the same thing as things you have done (and perhaps not apologized for sufficiently).