Football Bust Night: An Open Letter to the U-M Club of Greater Detroit
To: The Executive Committee of the University of Michigan Club of Greater Detroit
Dear Committee Members,
Tonight, the Club hosts the 91st Annual Football Bust. It is the continuation of a grand tradition. Not only is it the celebration of the team's successes; it is also the single largest annual gathering of the Club's members and friends.
The U-M Club of Greater Detroit is, almost by definition of its membership, more than a sports-booster organization; it is an extension of the University's alumni. Our university, whose seal since 1895 has borne the motto "Artes ~ Scientia ~ Veritas." Veritas; truth.
In the spirit of "Veritas," I'd ask that the Executive Committee take a moment today, to reflect on truth and the pursuit of truth with respect to the U-M Club of Greater Detroit. This past fall, the club scheduled its December 6 meeting at the Detroit Athletic Club, which was to feature John U. Bacon, author of Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football. But for reasons that the Club has not provided, Mr. Bacon's engagement was cancelled, and on November 21 it was announced, with no other explanation, that another speaker would address the December 6 lunch meeting.
Mr. Bacon's website announced only that his engagement had been cancelled. Mr. Bacon, I am assured, did not cancel his engagement. The U-M Club of Greater Detroit, as far as I know, cancelled it.
To date, Mr. Bacon's fall book tour has taken him to alumni gatherings across the country, from Chicago to San Diego to Austin, Texas and all points in between. He's drawn record-setting crowds of alumni wherever he's been, and his book appears not once but twice (hard copy and Kindle) on Amazon's list of top-selling football books.
Your action, in first scheduling and then canceling Mr. Bacon's appearance, defies understanding. Respectfully, I suggest that the onus is now on the U-M Club of Greater Detroit, to explain whether or not this is an instance in which "Veritas" has been sacrificed for other interests.
Officers and Governors of the University of Michigan Club of Greater Detroit:
|
President: Jeff Cohen 1st Vice President: Jared Buckley 2nd Vice President: Bill Wenzell Secretary: Rich Hale |
|||
| Board of Governors 2012 - 2015 | |||
|
To June 2012 Jeff Cohen Tony Finn Heidi Haite Mike Khomutin Edmond J. Olejniczak Dave Roberts Roger W. Smith Adam Valentine |
To June 2013 Jared Buckley Mia Chilman Mark Colosimo Ted Efros Jill Gordon Dana Mcallister Terry Mcewen Bill Wenzell |
To June 2014 Brodie Killian Susan Klotz Ray Pittman Tom Stroup Jason Wanecek Bill Wenzell |
To June 2015 Matt Delecki Lee Flake Rich Hale Dan Jokish Susan Orozco Marcy Tucker |
December 13th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
"The truth never hurts."
- Brady Hoke 10/17/11
December 13th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
This pre-supposes that the Rodriguez-slanted account of Bacon is the unadulterated "truth", and that listening to him speak is the only way of knowing the truth.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
offered all a chance to comment and contribute to his book, and many declined the offer. So if, say Lloyd Carr's reasoning as to why he offered to sign releases, or called Rich, etc., is not included, well that is his prerogative.
As for slanting. You can read that book and draw interpretations anyway you like. I've read half, and think John Bacon did an honorable job of not including stuff that wasn't corroborated, and making sure to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. This is not a paparazzi royal sensationalist tell all tale.
So, is the book told from the Rodriguez point of view: yes, sort of, though the image insn't particularly flattering if it is. However, "the other side" chose not to comment, so this is what we have.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
Well, virtually every Carr swipe taken is unattributed an uncorroborated. Of course, he doesn't make the claims, he lets Rodriguez mouthpieces like Dusty whats his face say "Oh, thats the guy at the end of the hall" as he nods at Carr's door. This isn't really a "claim", but it's there, and obvious.
He finishes the book with a paragraph about how awesome a guy Rich is (this may be true, obviously) - it's hard to claim there is no personal bias.
And I understand that Carr and Martin could have sat down - that doesn't mean the book is unbiased, it's that Carr and Martin refused to help make it unbiased.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
Do you really think doing an interview with Carr or anyone else would have removed all of the biases inherent in spending days with RR over a three year period?
<br>
<br>I do not mean this as a critisism to Bacon, because I liked the book, but it is hard to imagine how one could spend three years with a team and not be influenced by it. The book is what it is, a story about a football coach told largely from his perspective. That in itself doesn't make it good or bad, but it certainly doesn't make it unbiased. If you told the story of the civil war after spending a year with General Lee and his troops, do you think you'd get the same story as if you'd spent it with General Grant? Would that change if you then went and interviewed the opposing general?
December 14th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
if and why he offered to sign the releases, or if and why he first called Rich i fhe so quickly afterward decided he didn't like him, or why he didn't come out more publically supportive of at least the team in their darkest hour, or even if he did reach out privately to some of the former players and tell them to be quiet?
From what I have read so far in the book, each and every thing Lloyd Carr supposedly did or didn't do - I can come up with a reasonable expectation for what drove him to do it: loyalty to the long term interests of his players first, even at the expense of interim needs of the team, loyalty to his former staff driving him to be angry at, or unsupportive of Rich after the mis-handling of the former staff's firing (and in some cases re-hiring), he did come out with some tepid supporting statements, but never made an emphatic full statement because: a) he doesn't trust the press, b) University counsel advised AD staff not to speak on the practice gate matter, c) he didn't feel it was his place / that he should step aside.
Anyway ....
December 14th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
Ultimately, it really doesn't matter why Carr didn't participate; the bottom line is that since he didn't, we can't assume Bacon has all the answers as to what happened. Bacon may fervently believe that everything he wrote is true, but he could be mistaken. He obviously was not present for some of the key events described in the book, so he has to rely on others' (frequently RR's) observations.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
Open letters are fine, but if you want them to read it, you should email it to them, if you haven't already. I can't imagine their email addresses are inaccessible to Alumni Club members.
Also, John U. Bacon is not unknown to many members of the blog. Somebody who knows him can probably ask what happened, right?
December 13th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
indeed at this very moment, this blog is collecting questions to ask JUB.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
i suspect he's more likely to answer a question like that if asked in person by someone he knows personally. (that person can then evaluate whether or not the answer can be passed on to the blogosphere.)
December 15th, 2011 at 1:29 AM ^
December 15th, 2011 at 2:01 AM ^
December 15th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
I will admit that I don't understand the pathelogical loathing that some people have for RR, which apparently forces them to condemn anyone who doesn't also loath him to the status of someone who can only write a "man crush piece of shit book." Get some help.
The U-M Club can, of course, invite anyone whom they like to speak. If they didn't want to hear Bacon, then they need not invite him. However, they invited him, so they must have wanted to hear him speak. Then, apparently suddenly and without explanation, they cancelled his engagement and brought in another speaker.
Not inviting someone and uninviting someone are two different things. The first need not be explained. The second needs to be explained - it is obviously a comment on the author or the topic. It only needs to be explained to Bacon, though. The public isn't entitled to that explanation. So, if they explained things to Bacon, then Section 1's angst is unnecessary.
Whether they explained their withdrawn invitation to Bacon or not, you should get some help with that RR fixation, though. The world isn't full of good guys who hate him, and bad guys who "hate Michigan now because [their] boy didn't succeed here" and "secretly want us to lose so [they] can gloat about how Hoke and Brandon didn't get it done either." I, for instance, am interested in the truth. I'll never get it in full, but I will get more of it by having guys like Section 1 asking questions than I will from guys like you dismissing anything you disagree with as a "piece of shit." You don't care - we get it. Some of us do care. Live with it.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
"Not inviting someone and uninviting someone are two different things." This is the critical point. I also agree that they have no obligation to make any explanation to the public. They do, however, have an obligation to make an explanation to their members.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
in what Section 1 is doing in the OP. This is his/her form of activism. It is moral and ethical to challenge our political and social leaders.
"I may not agree with what you (Section 1) say, but I will defend to the death your (his) right to say it." --Voltare.
This certainly applies to Section 1 so lets give him/her some slack.
Comments