Who's the Problem? A Fanbase Perspective
I decided to move this to diaries since I put a little bit of work into it and it was already buried on the sidebar by the time I updated with results.. This is based on a survey a number of board members filled out earlier today.
I’d like to preface this with a warning: this is not intended to divide the fan base or claim that alums have more of a right to cheer for the team than anyone else. I simply had a hypothesis and decided to test it. I did not perform statistical analysis to determine validity. Obvious caveats of sample size, measurement technique, sampling procedures, etc. apply, but here it is:
My hypothesis was that those officially connected to the University (alums, employees, etc) would be more concerned with long-term damage to the program (and greater University as a whole) more than win/loss record, and thus would consider ousting Brandon the more pressing issue.
Caveats: (1) For people who indicated both Hoke and Brandon in their responses, I counted one towards each. Obviously this isn’t the best way to do it, but it was easier on me, so deal with it. (2)Also, I collapsed alums and employees together. For the sake of testing my hypothesis, they are effectively the same.
First, some demographics: 62% of respondents were associated with the University (student/alumnus, employee, etc.). 38% had no association to the University.
Of those associated with the University, 24% placed the majority of blame on Hoke. 86% placed the majority of the blame on Brandon (see caveat (1)). 3% said Hoke should be fired first, while almost 100% (see caveat (1)) said Brandon should be dealt with first.
Now for the fans: 43% said Hoke is to blame, and 56% said Brandon is primarily at fault. 18% said Hoke should be fired first, while 82% said Brandon should be fired first.
All caveats applying, it seems like my hypothesis was, to some extent, supported. It seems like those associated with the University harbor more ill-will towards the AD than the fanbase as a whole, while the fanbase is more willing to consider Hoke the problem, placing less blame on Brandon.
Take from it what you will, but I thought it was an interesting idea to look at. Just take it with a grain of salt.
October 28th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^
Thanks for doing this. I do think the bigger story, at least to football and sports fans nationally, is how inept Michigan football is and that it's time for a new coach, and I wouldn't be surpised if any stories about the AD are presented in that context. The closer to the University of Michigan, the more Brandon's failures become the focus.
October 29th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
and the commentary. I think if you look at Brandon's record, he has been mostly successful. He has performed and done things first class in a way he thought would bring greater good to the department and university.
Unfortunately, he's done these things in a way that has upset too many constituencies at the school while his coaching choice on which he banked the department's revenue future has been a dimming enterprise and has had far too many embarrassing episodes as part of the downward spiral this year.
Those have both fueled attention to a laundry list of problems while widening the overall perception problem, especially the PR fiasco surrounding the Morris concussion incident. That entire foulup could have been so easily handled, first on the field but then immediately after the game. Instead it grew into a natiional controversy for no reason at all. And the response was pure corporate backbedaling, the kind you see when a troubled company is engaged in a hostile takeover, either because of product safety problems, disgruntled shareholders or a hawk looking to boost share price as part of an internal bidding war.
We have all this because Michigan's Athletic Department is being run by a guy who comes from this background and thinks in grandiose terms in managing its affairs. And it's why he has communication problems with both the department's consumers, and those more closely aligned with the university who are aware but not fully aware, according to Brandon himself, what his management function is as he sees it, even though those who are connected to the university and outsiders have a very good expectation what they want and will ulitmately accept in exchange for their overriding university support in athletics and academics. And not being treated as unaware and second class consumers is paramount to that belief, and why Brandon has to go.
That and because he and Hoke are part of his creation that has alienated the very people needed to sustain the program.
October 28th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^
Thank you for this. Unfortunately I missed the survey but I would love to know whether alumni, donors, or fans were included as tertiary options in the blame. Definitely not as much as Hoke or Brandon, but blame is almost never a singular item. In my opinion all parties involved share a part of the blame for where the program is at right now, including fans and wealthy donors.
Edit: spelling
October 29th, 2014 at 9:09 PM ^
I have a hard time blaming a fanbase that turned out 113,000-strong to see a 2-4 team.
If you're blaming the fans for RichRod's firing and Hoke's hiring, I think that's ridiculous. I was at the games when he was here - the fans overwhelmingly supported him until the very end when the wheels fell off. It's not reasonable to vilify fans for throwing in the towel when the team goes 6-18 in league play. And fans were not clamouring for us to hire Hoke after that, if that's what you're insinuating.
October 28th, 2014 at 11:18 PM ^
How do "fans" as that term is generally understood, "share" any "blame" for the current state of the program? I'm curious b/c I'm entirely across the country and all I do is hang my flag outside the house every saturday, watch every game, and occasionally post on this blog. How am I to "blame" for this mess? I'm an alum and bleed blue. I supported Rich Rod right up the day he was fired and supported Hoke until this season as he's shown he deserves no support. I obviously had nothing to do with the hiring or firing of any coach or the AD nor have I played any role whatsoever in any decsion made by either. I would guess most other "fans" feel the same. Please enlighten.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
I don't think this is directed at me, but I will take a shot.
I don't think that anyone is blaming individual fans. I did nothing wrong; you did nothing wrong. It is the culture that has existed around the program for a long time (predating Brandon) that some view as toxic.
Other fanbases often view us as a self-righteous, self-important, arrogant fan base. Now, I'm not saying that's the case, but I believe that is the "blame" most people place on the fanbase itself. It can make it very difficult for an outsider to come in and get the support of everyone, because no one can do everything right.
Who would want to come to a job where nothing they do is ever good enough? Again, not saying this is the case, but a possible perception of how the fanbase could be harming the program.
October 29th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
You didn't anwer it. He said the fans should share the blame for the state of the program and I asked how. In response you mentioned the biased observations of others and their opinions of UM fans but failed to connect the two ie, how opinions of others = state of the program.
You're referring to something different: the way "outsiders" view UM fans which, while an interesting discussion, doesn't address the point he made. Anytime someone says "U of M fans" they're talking about me individually. He didn't say SOME fans are to blame which is obviously true such as a "fan" that also works in the athletic department and is named Dave Brandon. That jackass fan deserves a considerable share of the blame.
No worries though. It's not your job to answer for another commenter's over-generalization.
October 28th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
proves that our fanbase as a whole alums/employees as well as not "connected" fans are overwhelming smart enough to understand that Brandon is the head of the snake and Hoke is just the rattle.
I remember NBC News used to have a piece called the "Fleecing of America" as a segment every night. It seems there could be one about the Ath. Dept at UM.
I am not surprised that Brandon is virtually everyone's target. His "Branding" of Michigan, however he wants to spin it, did not and does not sit well with the University or the fanbase.
As I read in one poster's response he received from a Regent that Michigan is family, not a brand. I completely agree and the family reunions are getting smaller and much less fun than they used to be.
Nothing will change until Brandon is gone. I long for the day when that announcement comes.
October 28th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^
AMazinBlue: I agree wholeheartedly. Not only do I "long for the day when that announcement comes," I click on to MGoBlog or CBS Sports at least ten times a day hoping to see a big headlne that says, "Michigan Fires David Brandon."
October 29th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
Can we get someone to create an algorithm that searches "Brandon," "Michigan" and "Fired" in the headlines of MgoBlog, MLive, etc and stick that into an alert for us.
October 29th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ^
Seems like a waste of time, for there is enough culpability to go around, and to play the "blame game" is merely an exercise in deflecting the animus that comes with seven years of losing. In reality, everyone who has had a hand in the program for the last eight or nine years can said to have played a role in the perfect shit storm that has become Michigan Football.
You can blame Bill Martin, Dave Brandon, Mary Sue Coleman, Lloyd Carr, Rich Rod., Brady Hoke, all who have served as Regents during this time period, all of the coaching and training staffs for the last two Head Coaches, the Alumni and wealthy donors for enabling, and even the fans who have willing plopped down their money for five dollar waters and unrealistic ticket prices to see one of the poorest coached teams that money can buy - to one degree or another.
The only one who gets a pass at this point is new President Schlissel, and I have some serious questions about him, and his plan, and timetable, for action. Remember that he was glad that he did not have a say over the fireworks Brandon wanted at the two home games, in other words, he was too wishy- washy to be decisive over a simple and unimportant matter like fireworks at a football game, so will he be decisive and strong enough to fire an A.D. and football coach, and do it in a timely enough manner to save this football program ? Or will he suffer from paralysis by analysis and wait too long, like Martin, and screw the whole thing up ?
Whether he likes it or not, how he handles this situation will ultimately determine both the length and quality of his time served here as President. So lets hope he gets it right, and he goes down as one of the great Presidents the University has ever had.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
I don't view this really as "finger pointing" as much as trying to gauge the blog's collective opinion of the situation. Trying to make some sense of some conflicting opinions.
I agree that the issue is a lot deeper than this "study" (I use the term very loosely) allows. This was a very cursory look. However, there is nothing we can do about MSC, Carr, RR, etc. The only real tangible issues that can actually be dealth with are Hoke and Brandon. I was just curious who people viewed as being the bigger problem.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:13 PM ^
Because although you are polling to assign blame for this mess, there is no way that any of us can fix the problem, and that is what we all want. You are spot on in saying that there is nothing we can do about what has already occurred, but there is also little we can do about the current situation, other than let our feelings be known, and act accordingly.
As far as the choices are concerned, put me down as holding both parties equally accountable, for if Hoke was good at his job, Brandon's antics would appear to be more in the Zaphod Beeblebrox realm of craziness, as opposed to the Scroogian reputation he now holds, and if Brandon was good at his job, he would have hired a great football coach rather than a yes man who is just happy to be here.
October 29th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
As a fan I am undeniably NOT to blame for the current state of the program. I somehow contributed because I plopped money down to fly across the country to go to homecoming? That logic doesn't pass the smell test.
Following that, it's also the fault of the UM Band members for playing during halftime, the concessionaires who sell food and drinks, and the landscaper who cuts grass outside the walls of the stadium.
Any "blame" that is assessed goes directly and solely to those who make the decisions that impact the performance on the field. You are correct in that it trickles down to each regent who voted one way or the other, but obviously there are varying degrees of culpability depending on how informed they were when they voted.
I refuse to have us fans labeled as blame takers in this whole tire fire. We are the innocent bystanders. Period.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:44 PM ^
But more like a family reunion where you go back and hang out with old friends, visit campus and old haunts, get solicited for donations, and basically tell old stories about "The Good Old Days". I don't blame anyone for going to Homecoming, and going to the football game, that is just part of the weekend, but if you bought the five dollar water, the eight dollar hot dogs, and gave to the athletic department, then you sir sent a message to dave Brandon that it was OK to do these things, and although it is a very low level of culability, it is culpability none the less.
Having never mentioned the Band, the vendors, or the landscapers, they are either there playing music to inspire, and entertain, or there trying to make a living, it is unlikely they can shoulder any blame, and by even bringing them up, you sir enter the realm of the absurd.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
October 29th, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 6:48 PM ^
But I see it as a red flag, and stated my reasons for thinking so. It was not so much that he did not get involved, but that he seemed relieved that he didn't HAVE to get involved, in other words, it was the way he worded his statement that sent up a red flag to me, and that is merely my personal opinion, and nothing else. I tried to come up with a better word than wishy-washy, but it was late, and I was tired, and wanted to get the post over with and go to bed.
As far as the Morris situation, this had become a multiple day, national story, and the President had no choice but to get involved, seeing that Brandon had gone and was hiding under his desk, no, I don't have proof that he was actually physically hiding under his desk, but he was for all intensive purposes, missing in action, and this put Schlissel in a position where he either had to act, or the entire University would look like a boat with no rudder, to his credit, he stepped up.
It is my hope that this red flag is really a red herring, but it is there none the less, and like I wrote before, it is how he handles this situation that will define whether or not his tenure at Michigan is remembered fondly, or looked upon in a negative way. Lets hope he gets it right.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:30 AM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 4:53 PM ^
and missteps and all-out screw ups if the team is winning? I really don't think so. This has been brewing for quite a while now and it's only exploding now as the team melts down. The poor team performance is a product of the disasterous way the Athletic Dept is being run.
October 29th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
It took me a couple re-readings of this inquiry to understand your thrust. If I understand correctly, you're categorizing UM football fans into two buckets: organics and inorganics, or put another way, stakeholders and just plain fans.
What confused me is how you referred to the latter group as "the fanbase", a term that I would not use. Actually, we're all "the fanbase", and most of us are stakeholders, regardless of your survey sample. If anything, I would refer to alums, students and employees as the Base and the rest as, I don't know, local sports fans I guess. For example, if you live in central or southern Illinois and you like baseball, you choose between the Cubs, White Sox or Cardinals. If you live in Michigan, like College Football and didn't go to a college with a football team, you choose between Wolverines, Spartans, or rarely, someone else. And you probably make that choice as a kid, before your dreams are spoiled and you find out (insert school of choice) won't accept you or is too expensive to go to.
Because I haven't lived in Michigan since I graduated 32 years ago, I don't have a lot of acquaintances who are this latter kind of Wolverine fan. In fact, I only have one of these, who falls neatly into the description above-- a guy who grew up a diehard Michigan fan, went to MSU as his second choice and has remained a diehard Michigan fan.
Finally understanding all of this, yes it makes perfect sense that the stakeholders are more concerned with maintaining a long term winning tradition and in the reputation of the U, and that Brandon is jeopardizing this. The others are right now questioning their own existence as Michigan fans, because they could easily give up on Michigan and throw their allegiance elsewhere.
I can't and have no desire to do that because Michigan is in my blood. And Brandon doesn't seem to care about me at all, and I deserve better.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
The wording was not ideal: I was a little rushed at the end trying to get it published before I left work (sorry, Lets_Go_Blue's boss).
The distinction is not as black-and-white as I made it out to be. There are varying levels of connection to the University beyond "associated" and "not directly associated." I grew up in NY and casually rooted for Michigan. Until I got accepted. The rest is history. That isn't saying that I have any deeper, or more important connection to the University than someone who grew up in Michigan and was unable to attend the University of Michigan. I just have a different connection, where the performance of the football team isn't the only thing (or even the primary thing) that matters to me.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
With "the performance of the football team isn't the only thing... that matters to me."
Which is why I always find it comical when people criticize MSC or now Schlissel for not being engaged or for being indifferent about the football team or AD. They're running an enormous, world class educational institution and the football team is a mere pinkie finger to that.
The president of the University of Alabama, on the other hand has to view the weal of her football program as her institution's financial lifeblood. Can't find it now, but there was the WSJ piece a couple years ago that looked at Universitys' % of ALL revenue derived from football -- for Michigan, it's insignificant, IIRC less than 5% -- for Alabama it's the majority of all University revenue.
October 29th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
the debate because it leads to a wider discussion of issues because there is no direct correlation to any of the most negative things that have both hurt because of a losing team when winning was expected and the consequences of certain events and coaching and AD problems resulting from them.
Losing is a losing proposition. And this fan base period just wants signs of a strong winning program on the rise after the missteps that have dogged this team since 2006, eight years ago the last time it was on top.
Brandon and Hoke promised to restore the Michigan image and winning tradition, instead mediocrity has followed
October 29th, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
If the problem is that the team is performing poorly then it is silly to think anyone other than Hoke is the main problem.
Because everyone is out for blood any small meaningless thing gets blown way out of proportion and used as reason to call for a firing.
I'm not in the save Brandon court, but I think the decision to retain or fire him should consider this:
- Any outrage over the noodle is silly. Nobody in their right minds should expect it to be a permanent fixture in the stadium.
- Snarky emails are a non-issue. Maybe they shouldn't have been sent, but Brandon is probably responding to angry/pushy emails with snark.
- The Shane Morris fiasco is Hoke's fault and not Brandon's.
- Brandon does not coach the football team.
- Ticket prices can be lowered. Ammenities can be provided or improved.
- Firing the AD because of the football team's performance is beyond a dumb idea.
October 29th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
I kind of agree in that there is a bit of a piling on effect when it comes to Brandon. However, I am 100% in favor of his dismissal if it helps lead to better HC candidates.
October 29th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
I have the same mindset. If the top candidates don't want to work for Brandon then its best to dismiss him. There is an issue, though, in that it may give the next coach a sense of power over the AD.
October 29th, 2014 at 10:20 PM ^
top tier coaches always have power over the AD. do you think saban doesnt have power over alabama's AD? that meyer doesnt have power over gene smith? if we get harbaugh (realizing we are very unlikely to do so) he will vastly out-rank the new AD in the university power structure. just sayin.
October 29th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
But Brandon isn't on the chopping block merely b/c of team performance nor are we piling on b/c of that alone. We're piling on based on his piling on of scandals, etc and mistreatment of UM's most devoted fanbase - the alums.
October 29th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
What scandals are we talking about?
Shane Morris was a Hoke problem, and the email incident is a non-issue. Am I missing something. Even the Coke issue was a Hoke problem because can we honestly expect that promotion to happen if the team was playing well?
I get that people are upset over the mistreatment, but that can be rectified by Brandon pretty easily.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^
Brandon has burned any and all goodwill that there between the AD and the season ticket holders. He has no sense for what is important to the people paying for tickets. And the waitlist is gone. All of the BS marketing is due to this fact.
Add in the PR scandals and his less than honest explanations, fabricating a story around Shane's concussion and releasing the press release under the cover of darkness, his inability to hire a high quality coach in 2010-2011, the general belief that a top flight coach won't work for him, and you have a really long list of reasons he needs to go. And the single most important job the Michigan AD has is to hire a football coach. His reputation (and history) indicates that he isn't capable of executing that very well.
The emails are of themselves not a fireable offense, but they are indicative of an executive who has no sense of his place in the organization and the constituencies he has been hired to represent.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:10 AM ^
November 1st, 2014 at 8:30 AM ^
Comments