Spending on a FBS student: $13,628
Spending on a FBS athlete: $91.936
Spending every night on the phone with your fictional girlfriend: priceless
Spending on a FBS student: $13,628
Spending on a FBS athlete: $91.936
Spending every night on the phone with your fictional girlfriend: priceless
The Bentley Historical Library tracks attendence, and they list the 1967 Navy game at 72,36, which was the third-highest attended game that year behind the MSU game (103,210) and the season opener against Duke (79,492). The Ohio game only drew 64,000. Michigan went 4-6 on the season.
I was part of that 72 odd thousand. Also, was part of the crowd the following year when UM beat Navy.
Do you recall if it was Band Day, when high school bands from across the state bussed to Ann Arbor to watch the game and play at halftime? Band Day was often the season attendance leader in the 60s, IIRC.
I was dressed up as a Cub Scout or Boy Scout those days; we were "ushers". Went to almost all the home games from 67 through 70. I do remember the band days but I couldn't associate them with a particular game.
These things I do seem to recall. For some reason I 1968 v Navy as a cold wet afternoon. No matter how hot the chocolate, your toes will remain frozen even when encased in rubber boots, a double layer of socks, and bread wrappers. When it is snowing, make your way under the press box. Hot dogs don't taste very good when soaked with rain water, but they're better than soggy popcorn. On a sunnier note, early fall days in the student section were....interesting.
Hmm, not really sure what your issue with the AIR report is. They show pretty clearly in the stacked bar graph that you copied above that the big schools do, in fact, generate enough money from sports to defray most any need for financial support from tuition/institutional dollars. I'm not seeing the dishonesty.
I don't understand this complaint, either:
I don't want to bother talking with these people since they are framing the "problem" of college sports spending without noting that colleges don't have shareholders to provide dividends to and that at the top schools money in is therefore destined to equal money out, and there is a lot of money in.
They state pretty clearly in the report on page 10 that money in doesn't, in fact, equal money out.
Even among the largest FBS programs, student fees and institutional subsidies typically provided between 4 percent and 14 percent of total athletic revenues (see Figure 3 on page 9). And without access to lucrative television contracts and large stadiums with sizable ticket sales revenue, the budgets at smaller FCS and DI-NF programs are heavily subsidized, although FCS programs are more likely to rely on institutional support, while DI-NF schools rely on student fees to fund much of their budget.
If colleges and universities are spending more and more money on sports, and some of that money is coming from student fees, that sounds like an important issue to highlight. Not sure what shareholders and dividends have to do with it.
Having read it, good, but, he cites many examples of things that were not checkable as if they correlate to the Teo story.
The standout Teo facts were: that a student by that name enrolled at Stanford, her death records.
Checking requires more work. It is always easier to take someone's word for it.
Adidas v Anyone Else:
As disappointed as I am with the aethetics of our recent Adidas uniforms (bumblebees, invisibles, etc. in football & outlet mall specials in basketball), I think the gripe is not with Adidas, but with the UofM representative who approves the designs.
Adidas has had some terrible designs (and we've worn several). Nike has also had terrible designs. Under Armour has had terrible designs. That's the way it is. Alabama hasn't worn a monstrosity. Oklahoma hasn't either. It's up to the school to say "no thanks".
As for tearing jerseys - is there a problem with the material, which hasn't ripped in any other game this year? Or was the problem with Minnesota's gropey defense? I don't know the answer, but let's place the blame where it belongs - on our school. The "Nike rulz" and/or Adidas suckz" battle ignores the both-sides-are-bad reality.
There have been teams playing grabby defense for years and I have never seen what happened with Michigan's uniforms against Minnesota happen before. There almost had to be something wrong with the uniforms themselves.
I agree with the both-sides-suck reality, but not with the point about the school being the final word, because it doesn't apply in this case. That's for design only. It's not the school's job to wear-test and yank at the sample jerseys to see if they come apart. It's the company's job to provide gear that works.
the Golden Gropers
Geriatric porn, too!
1. Be structurally sound / keep players covered.
2. Clearly differentiate between sides (for the clueless) and identify players
Really, this is a pretty minimal standard.
The Minnesota ripped jersey problem sounds like a quality control issue. Maybe a cruddy batch came out of the factory and didn't get caught. The fact that it hasn't happened much at all before this game indicates it's probably not a systemic thing. But it reflects poorly on the company's ability to either conduct QA/QC testing or on training 12 year olds to sew a seam effectively (I kid! I hope.). Not sure how the Michigan AD could be blamed for this, but it's something to file away for the contract review.
Michigan's unis have been ok at indicating "yeah, you're watching Michigan", even the "special" one-off ones, though not mucking (much) with the helmet design may be the main reason why. The bowl uniforms failed the player identification standard, though, as the numbers were not distinguishable. This is a basic error. Like you, I blame Michigan's approval procedure for this, but I don't think Adidas should get a pass for shoddy design. It's a basic failure that implies that the design people really don't understand the minimal requirements and have cut right to the marketing.
One thing about adidas and Michigan, which seems to be true in both basketball and football, is that they are for the most part "template" uniforms. So what Michigan gets, Wisconsin gets and Notre Dame gets and UCLA gets and Nebraska gets and et cetera. Usually. In fact, the uninspired, repetitive annual themes that adidas sells are one of the many annoying things about the company's handling of Michigan's account.
So I was wondering if anybody who has friends close to the other adidas schools has heard of those teams having similar problems? Has Michigan had problems with any of its other 2012-13 uniforms? The Maize ones? The White home uniforms? Or was it a problem uniquely related to the road-Blue jerseys?
Don't forget that the road football uniforms were fucked up in 2011 and guys had to switch back to the 2010 model in the middle of a game.
There is a pattern of suckitude here.
Bingo. It seems to be a popular opinion that David Brandon—or his underlings—have no power whatsoever to make final decisions on what Michigan's teams are going to wear, as though the contract mandates that Adidas tells UM what they're going to wear.
Anybody who's worked with Brandon at UM knows that he's not some shrinking violet who's reluctant to press for what he wants—the truth is the exact opposite. The number of UM employees who have more power and influence than Brandon can be counted on the fingers on one hand of a clumsy power-saw owner.
If he'd wanted to maintain our football uniforms' traditional approach, that's exactly what would have happened. The responsibility—and blame—rests ultimately with David Brandon, since the decisions are being made by people in his employ.
The big thing that no one is noting is that the average is computed by taking both the highs and the lows. The SEC may spend a lot of money on football which helps that number become astronomically high, but in general their are more sport teams per school in atleast the BIG PAC-12 and probably Big 12, with a big numer of teams where you don't have to spend a lot of money per athelete. All of those teams bring that average down a lot. If you have 100 football players that you spend $300,000 per player on a year and then have 5 teams with 20 players a piece that you only spend $5,000 per player on per year that brings your average to $152,500. Just looking at the average like that and then proclaiming the SEC spends so much more money on football is seriously misleading.
yes, michigan built a big stadium a long time ago but i think that the long line of successful presidents, coaches and ADs has ensured that the stadium is kept full and i also think that Michigan fan's appetite and appreciation for something special plays a part in that. historical accident makes it sound like i don't actually do any work to support this program.
I think he meant more along the helmets. I don't think that was meant to be become as iconic as it has. It's one thing that is instantly recognizable and has played a large part in the branding and recognition of the atheletic department as a whole since.
I don't think so. He speaks of "investments" that have given certain schools a financial competitive advantage over the years. That almost certainly is a reference to Michigan Stadium.
Not to mention that Michigan Stadium was no "historical accident." It took years of lobbying by Yost to convince the Regents to support building a stadium that would hold, at the time, twice the population of Ann Arbor (and had footings that could allow for even more expansion). Michigan Stadium was a very forward-thinking project for its time.
There is a huge, gaping hole in the academics vs. athletics thing. Namely that the lion's share of that "athletic spending" is on scholarships for the players. And most if not all universities account for those in such a way that the scholarship money that goes out of the AD is revenue for the university in the form of tuition. And since athletic departments (at the bigger schools where the problem supposedly lies, according to the people who flog the SEC) are usually separate entities that receive no money from the school itself, that's actual cash coming into the school. That makes it different from, say, the scholarship I'm using right now to get my MBA, which is essentially the school's own shuffled-around money.
On page 8 of the report, it says that only 10.6% of top FBS schools' athletic department budgets go toward "student aid." That hardly constitutes the lion's share. There's still a lot of AD money being spent on things other than scholarships. 34% goes to AD staff/coaches' compensation and 23% to facilities/equipment.
To your other point about ADs being separate entities that receive no money from the school itself: the main point of the AIR report directly contradicts that. The whole take-away from the report is that, particularly for smaller schools, student fees and institutional dollars are helping to prop up ADs.
Murray Sperber's Beer and Circus touches on this - even if most athletic departments aren't self-sufficient, universities are okay with spending a shit-ton on athletics, because they use sports as a vehicle to drive strong undergraduate enrollment numbers and interest from prospective students.
He calls it the "Flutie Factor"; after BC beat Miami on the Hail Mary and garnered national attention, the # of applicants to BC rose dramatically. Students want to go have fun in college - go to parties, tailgate, pregame, binge drink, etc. Obviously, a lot of that culture revolves around college sports; thus, universities use athletics as a marketing tool aimed at the regular student. So really, spending on academics vs. athletics "per student" turns into a real blurry line here.
And if you were to survey college students about what they'd rather spend X amount of money on - to renovate a campus library or renovate a sports arena - I daresay the majority would choose the latter.
Research shows the rise in donations and public perceptions as universities perform better on the field.
Plus, media exposure is huge. A 30-second commercial on Sunday night NFL costs $500k largely given the audience. Assume a UM game has 80% similar demographics, 1/2 the Nielsen rating, 2 hours of football and UM receiving 1/2 the coverage. Net, $24 million in advertising value.
While we joke and mock DB about his brand and wow comments, his approach is the best way to build an AD with incredible resources AND long-term stability.
Re: the jerseys ripping, are we sure that that was Adidas's fault? I don't think it's ever happened to us before, and don't know of any other team they outfit having that problem. When we suddenly have four guys' jerseys rip in one game, that makes me wonder a little what the equipment manager was doing the last time he washed them.
and yes they have. I've commented about how awful these jerseys are a couple times already but I just can't get over how a company of Adidas' stature can produce such a crappy product.
By a jealous former equipment manager.
Who would have thought that?
Her ... exposure is huge.
The B1G spends the most... $2,000 per academic student more than anyone else, and $6,000 more per academic student than the SEC.
Adidas uses the same manufacturers as every other major apparel company, there are reasons to dislike adidas, this isn't one of them
I wish the M QBs, RBs, and WRs had jerseys that tore away.
I was quite impressed by Smith's tear-away helmet in the Outback bowl.
I've gotten used to seeing guys take the right angle in recent seasons (thanks Kovacs!), but it's a good reminder that teams have cut M up with long runs after short passes for many, many years.
How about charting it?!
Have you forgotten Brian that it's all about the 'wow' factor?
Wow - I can't believe the Michigan football team is wearing a jersey where most of the people in the stands, the announcers and people watching on TV can't make out the numbers on the jersey.
Wow - I don't know if I've ever seen a basketball team have 4 of their jersey's get ripped in the same game.
Maybe the Addidas people had been watching some old Earl Campbell films where he's rumbling through a mess of tacklers and finally stumbles into the endzone with a quarter of his jersey ripped and just hanging on by a couple of threads.
Personally, I'll take ugly, tearaway uniforms if it's part of the deal with having a top 5 national team.
We've gone overboard with some of the uniform designs lately, I agree. But there is way too angst around here about that. The stat Brian referenced above (combined Big Ten record in football and basketball) matters a lot more.
Here's a cool stat: if you've had season tickets to Michigan football and basketball the past two years, you've seen Michigan go a combined 40-1 at home.
That one loss gets avenged with extra pain tomorrow.
"The level of incompetence they've shown over the last couple years is incompatible with a still-extant huge company."
Brian, meet ESPN, CNN, The Washington Post, the New York Times, and pretty much every traditional media company in the country. Every traditional media company in the country, meet Brian.
Dammit Adidas, you've had since 1940 to figure this out! Rabble rabble!
as football? And therefore it's not unusual for basketball jerseys to be ripped like Harmon's?
"But I'm open to keeping it as it is, based on what my colleagues might share."
And the other guy says
"I would certainly not be opposed to being in the same division as OSU if it was in the best interest of our conference."
But because one guy says "I kind of lean" and the other says "I would not be opposed" he obviously "gets it" more than the other. Right. At this point you're like te guy who sees racism behind every corner. You're just looking for reasons to be offended.
I think it more the notion that the proprietor of said words lacked any original thought in his statement; "..in the best interest of the conference.." are the words of interest and is sort of a sucker-ass response to a question about the two schools being in the same division. This in opposition to the idea one statement was better than the other at agreeing that they wouldn't mind being together.
If I could switch places with anyone in the world for a day, I would choose Justin Verlander.
Not enough to pull out the game, though.
The newsreel was interesting. For one thing, the newsreel style made this seem like it was out of the 40s, yet there was Mandich playing (and fumbling twice!) just two short years before the upset of Ohio State in 1969. The difference between this newsreel and 1969 TV is huge.
Second, I didn't realize that the ancient scoreboards with the round clock were still around in 1967.
Third, this realy drives home how big the turnaround was when Bo started coaching. As a birthday present when I was about 9 or 10, I went to Michigan Navy games (1970 and 1971 or so). These were predictable blowouts by a very good Michigan team against a completely outmatched Navy team. I grew up believing that this was just the way it always was. It is stunning to see Michigan lose to Navy in Michigan Stadium.
And fourth, Ron Johnson really was a great running back.
I saw this early in the day and didn't have time to watch the newsreel. I now have. I agree about how old it seems, yet at the same time it made me remember that in my youth we played Navy very often (70s, early 80s, not fact checking, relying on memory).
Also noticed that Warren Cipa (sp?) was a blocking fullback on a touchdown run. Wonder if he is an older relative of the Larry Cipa who was the QB when Larry Cipa was under center and a balanced line, it's Taylor deep and .... oh you know the rest.
It was cool to see a vintage Michigan game, at Michigan Stadium, on grass, in color. I don't think I've seen that combination before. Vintage historical games are usually on turf in color, or on grass in black and white. It actually looked pretty modern.