Article on athletic department budget
http://michiganradio.org/post/pressure-builds-michigan-football-athleti…
I had problems with Bill Martin as well, but this quote by him really says it all: ''Just because you can charge them more, doesn't mean you should.''
Staff salaries, for example, have grown from $34 million to $49 million under Brandon, including a 62-percent increase in administrator compensation. The athletic department’s spending on “Marketing, promotions and ticketing,” and “Professional travel and conference dues,” have tripled to almost three million. But perhaps most surprising is the $2.6 million the department now spends on “Hosting, Food and Special Events,” an increase of almost 500-percent
In other words, the additional millions the fans are now being forced to pay are not going to the students on the field, but the suits in the building – including almost a million dollars a year for the Athletic Director himself, three times the salary of his predecessor.
Hey Brandon, why don't you take some of your salary and put it back into the football budget where it belongs. Last time I checked the amount we spend on the football program compared to osu, texas, and others was significantly less.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^
this is 0% surprising, unfortunately.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^
be what my donations are spent on.....
December 6th, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
It's hard for me to come up with any sort of opinion on the matter when I don't know exactly how the money is being used.
On the one hand people complain when Michigan doesn't spend enough money to bring in the best people to run the AD.
On the other hand people criticize the AD whenever they spend money or increase spending.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
I haven't really heard anyone complain about the AD bureaucracy not having enough top level-admins. And it seems to me most of the MGoBlog community would be thrilled if they stopped this crazy marketing campaign where were have to sit through fifteen ads about weddings in the Big House every game. And what's with all of the spending on food, hosting, and special events?
People complained that we didn't bring in top level coordinators for RR. That's about all I heard. And the massive increase in spending is not explained by Mattison's salary.
December 6th, 2013 at 9:00 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 6:09 PM ^
I guess the question is, what's the associated increase in revenue from these expenses? Everything needs to be looked at together. Are donations considerable up from the marketing and special events expenditures? 62% admin salary increase sounds alarming.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
even if donations have gone up, it won't last long if the product on the field doesn't improve.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
"If you care about Michigan athletics, it’s scary to think what will happen when the players inevitably fall short, and the fountain of fan money starts to dry up."
Well, again, we run into this rather fantastic problem that Michigan has regarding brand equity and the relative inelasticity of demand for its product. It is rather the reason that I don't understand - at least not at this juncture - how anyone who believes that their refusal to purchase Michigan tickets, merchandise, etc...is in any way hurting the bottom line in a significant manner.
Barring an extended period of mediocrity by Michigan standards, whatever the fans believe those are (mean peformance in the last 30 years is 9-3), then the seats will be full and the shirts will be difficult to find at the M-Den store near the south endzone pretty much regardless. We are fortunate in that respect, that performance does not portend attendance necessarily - for now - but the question as to when such a thing might happen is intriguing. I dare say we have a while.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:22 PM ^
It would be interesting to know what the season ticket waiting list has been over the last 15 years or so. Maybe we haven't felt the decline in attendance as much because there's always been someone else ready to jump on those seats. That list might be significantly decreasing. I can't imagine the demand is as much as it has been, especially with the increased in prices.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^
There's no waiting list anymore. Everyone who requested tickets this year got them.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^
I thought I heard that somewhere. Even if it hasn't shown up so much in the attendance so far, we're proabably starting to see a rapid decrease in demand.
December 6th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^
Excellent point, I remember being pissed about that. You start to realize there's such an unecessary financial burden placed on the fans when you hear about administrative salaries skyrocketing.
December 6th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 7:04 PM ^
I realize this is debated all the time, but it's hard to compare the '80s and '90s to the past decade. Winning 11 Big Ten Championships and 3 Rose Bowls in 18 years, including the first National Championship in 49 years, improved the aura surrounding Michigan football dramatically - not to mention the domination of OSU during that span as well.
But then came the turn of the millenium...
OSU has Michigan's daddy basically since 2001, and we haven't won a Big Ten Championship in 9 years. That's pretty much '50s and '60s levels of mediocrity. And in case anyone forgot, Michigan football was nothing in the years before Bo got here.
The AD seems to have forgotten that, or else maybe they believe that somehow it's different this time, and people will continue to flock to Michigan football indefinitely.
December 7th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
years with 1 win against Ohio in 10 and 3 wins against Spart in 10. Doesn't that count as an extended period of mediocrity?
For the fist time in years I actually thought about whether it was worth it to keep my season tickets and pay the PSL. I decided to ride it for another year or two, but its no longer a given in my mind that I will renew.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:13 PM ^
Just go buy a copy of his book, he managed to throw the entire title in there.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^
I very much dislike the fact that all of a sudden the AD feels like a business we have to be a part of. Obviously, we've all been paying for games for years but it just feels like it's all about the bottom line now instead of about Michigan and its fans. I feel like my fandom is just getting played by Dave Brandon as he sees how much money he can get from the fanbase until it reaches a tipping point.
College sports should be different. A lot of us are alums or lifelong fans and the people on the field aren't paid. Why does it feel like the guy in the middle is just trying to exploit both ends to maximize the amount of money they can collect? It feels uncool
December 6th, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^
and if anyone has a solution I'm down.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:24 PM ^
I'm not even close to being old enough to know what it was like when Canaham was AD, but to anyone who was, did Canham seem like he actually gave a shit about the average middle class family going to the game?
December 6th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
The question doesn't translate well across the years, but if forced to answer I would say yes, in comparison to where we are today.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:34 PM ^
Not trying to be sexist here, I know there are tons of female football fans out there but I'm pretty sure this is close to the truth when it comes to Canham's legacy.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:50 PM ^
...was just trying to fill the Stadium.
Our string of consecutive 100,000 attendance began in 1976, I think. That's eight years into Canham's reign.
Of course, Canham argued vociferously against Title IX, as did Bo. So there's that.
I think I might defend Brandon on his personal salary. I think that is mostly privately-endowed. Actually the whole freaking budget is privately endowed. What I mean in the case of Brandon's salary is that about 75% of it is a devoted endowment.
Anyway, we were just trying to get more than 80,000 people to come to the games for many years; well into the Ten-Year War.
There is a lot more expense, for sure. I'd seriously like to know what all of the AD's, together, are doing to ramp down the spending wars.
December 7th, 2013 at 2:42 AM ^
Section 1 is just bringing up Title IX again for no reason whatsoever, so there's that.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
I guess they charge more for the dancing curly fries.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^
The cash should go to lowering the expensive tuitions instead of enriching the board...
December 6th, 2013 at 8:03 PM ^
The millions generated would also have no impact whatsoever on tuition. If you want lower tuition ask those in the HIgher Education Industrial Complex to cut their salaries. The average professor at UM makes over $100,000 a year. Administrators make even more than that.
December 6th, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^
The average professor at UM makes over $100,000 a year.
The average UM lecturer is lucky to make half that. Please remember that actual professors are the vast minority of the people who stand in front of classrooms at a University.
One of my most influential teachers at UM was only considered a lecturer and made $53k.
December 7th, 2013 at 2:57 AM ^
My impression is that lecturers get about 10k per course. (Compare that to community colleges, where instructors are more likely to make 1-2k per course.)
December 7th, 2013 at 2:56 AM ^
Two things.
1. What the AD doesn't spend on itself goes back to the University. The on-paper separation of the funds is totally irrelevant to the question of what happens to money if the AD doesn't waste it.
2. Professor's salaries have virtually nothing to do with tuition increases, especially insofar as instructional positions are increasingly filled, at many universities with ever rising tuition, by non-tenure-track staff, who are paid far less, and graduate students, who are paid further lesserer. Both of the latter groups are paid minimum wage (or worse) at many institutions, and have no benefits besides. (Insofar as Michigan is different with respect to compensating non-TT instructional staff at a quasi-reasonable rate, it is thanks in large part to relatively unique features of the institution.) Non-instructional spending and cuts in state funding are more or less entirely responsible for tuition increases.
Bonus thing: $100,000 is a pretty modest salary for a job that requires 10+ years of training when you are talking about the most decorated employees of a world-class institution. What do lawyers at the 10th best firm in NYC make per year?
December 7th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^
How much has the budget gone up for sky writing?
December 6th, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
But I'm going to be that guy
I dont have the point to post this but I came across this about 5 minutes ago on Coaching Search.
"Michigan: Keep an eye on a developing situation at Michigan. A source tells me movement on the staff is likely, but not necessarily soon"
December 6th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
Wasn't this one of the places that was soundly debunked as being completely full of shit during the Hoke search?
December 6th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^
The article states that Brandon pushed aside faculty control. Where does he get the authority to do that? The athletic department can talk about its independence all its wants. It is still subject to the control of the university president and board of regents. As a result we can only assume that the president and the board of regents are OK with the athletic department’s large salary increases and spending spree. I guess they are getting something out of it or have fallen for the argument that you have to overpay to get top talent. (I am fine with overpaying for a few top football coaches but not OK with paying 200K for another vice president of annoying advertising during athletic events.)
My question is why is the university leadership OK with allowing Brandon and the Athletic department to apparently do whatever the hell they want? Why don’t they want a larger cut of the Athletic department surplus to go back into the universities general fund? I suppose the answer to that question may get way to political.
December 6th, 2013 at 8:06 PM ^
It's a flithy rich university that keeps gobbling up land around Ann Arbor and UMHS just purchased Alliance Health in Jackson. The university is becoming the Standard Oil of Michigan.
December 6th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^
... and the Michigan Athletic Department keeps paying tuition for all of the scholarship athletes, at those ever-increasing out-of-state rates.
Athletics at Michigan involves some pretty significant transfer payments -- from private support for athletics, to the Athletic Department, and then to the General Fund in tuition payments.
There should be no intent for any other transfer payments to the University's general fund. The day that the University wants to profit-share off of athletics is the day that I stop giving the Athletic Department my money. If I want to give cash to my school (LS&A) or to the Art Museum or the Grad Library or the Medical Center, I'll do that separately.
December 6th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^
Everyone keeps suggesting that the athletic department bubble is going to "burst" for Michigan at some point. As of now, it's pretty tough to say that Michigan has been hit hard at all by the increase in costs. Maybe demand is down a little, but you have to think that the added bonus of higher tickets, etc. makes up for it.
However, I think this is the year that will tell us how this will impact things. The home schedule is absolutely brutal next year. When Penn State may be your best home game of the year, you know the schedule is pretty bad. I would hate to see how it shakes out if the team comes out and looks like it did this season. Maybe next year will be unaffected, but you have to think that season tickets are going to get hit. There is literally nothing on that schedule that jumps out at you. Will be interesting to watch.
December 6th, 2013 at 9:04 PM ^
Totally agree with what you are saying. Especially regarding season tickets. I still plan to keep my seats, but a buddy of mine is dropping his (4 tickets). His stance is, why pay the hefty PSD when he can cherry pick the games he wants, and get instant download tickets the day before the game at reasonable prices. I think we may see more of this even if our product remains decent.
December 6th, 2013 at 8:54 PM ^
Check out this article, which talks about the issues they are facing in order to keep pace with the spending of their competition.
http://m.collegian.psu.edu/football/article_9d81cb30-3232-11e3-a9cd-001…
December 6th, 2013 at 9:10 PM ^
I guess it's the "suit" in me, but this article just made me laugh. Simply stating the athletic budget and salaries, et al. have increased is like saying the grass is green. It's a vacuum-based analysis. Instead, show me what the UM salaries are and what salaries at other peer-university athletic departments are. Give me comparative data to effectively benchmark UM. Without that information, I have zero capacity to measure and evaluate whether Brandon's financial and budgetary activities are appropriate because all I know is UM's is increasing. So what?
Moreover, did UM's budget need to increase?! Having been to several other campuses and viewing their athletic facilites I can definitively say that UM has nowhere near the best (yes...the footbal facilities were upgraded and look great. But - again - they are not the best...and - frankly - football is but one of several other sports whose infrastructure either was or has been crumbling for a long time.). Furthermore, what is the structure of the university's bond repayment for those football upgrades?! Does the AD need to increase the budget in order to pay off the bonds raised to finance the new stadium?
What's funny to me is that the most startling portion of the article is the one least discussed by the board's apparent "non-suit" population. I have far less concern about Brandon increasing the budget; I am much more concerned that he has removed the checks-and-balances of the faculty from his position. Although I am an absolute Brandon fan (the horror!), everyone needs to have a system of balances-and-counterbalances. That's just common sense; and, an AD without that system in place is concerning.
December 6th, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^
The problem to me is that there is no governor on spending at all of the major football programs.
There is enormous pressure to raise more money, and spend more money:
- To compete, with attractive facilities at other programs;
- To support non-revenue sports and particularly womens' sports under Title IX;
- To serve as a general branding and extraneous fundraising enterprise for the University's other needs. (Ex.; superfan Stephen Ross' pride in Michigan athletics helping to drive his donations to non-sports efforts.)
So my question is where does it all end. Who, and what is there, to encourage cost-cutting, cost-capping, and a more modest enterpise?
It is really much the same problem as faced by all of elite higher education? Costs keep going up at much higher rates than inflation. Why?
December 6th, 2013 at 10:00 PM ^
is only looking at 1 side of the equation.
Profit = Revenue - Expense. He's just looking at the Expense side, which is absurd on many levels.
December 6th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
I don't think I want the Athletic Department to turn a profit at all. I certainly don't want to contribute to a profit.
I'd like to see a cheaper product, not a more expensive one.
Naturally, if Ohio State keeps pouring money into its football program, Michigan will feel the need to do the same. I am very much interested in a competitive program, but not a more expensive program. If all that we are doing is keeping up with the Joneses, why not check into why the Joneses are spending so much? It might be nice; all of the elaborately beautiful Michigan Athletic Department properties. But I don't really want to support all of it. And I really don't want the federal government telling Michigan how to spend Athletic Department revenues.
December 6th, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^
Michigan just came off their best all around sports finish in decades...Finishing I believe #2 (maybe #3) in the Sears cup for overall athletic excellence..2 national championships MGYM and MSWIM, Final Four in BB and volleyball, National runnerup-BB, sweet 16 W soccer, WCWS, and many others to numerous to mention....I can live with that..IF and I mean IF the FB teams gets it act together...sadly they have been the biggest underperforming team at Michigan recently
December 6th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
Isn't a rising staff salary a solid thing? We want good coaches across the board and have them in most of our sports.
Do you even know what's in the marketing and travel buckets? Is it recruiting visits (both recruits to M and coaches to recruits houses), coaching clinics...?
I also don't think you understand how to read a budget. The line " But perhaps most surprising is the $2.6 million the department now spends on “Hosting, Food and Special Events,” an increase of almost 500-percent" simply means that expenses in that category have increased, but how does that compare to revenue generated from those activities?
Fans are not paying for the suites. The revenue from suites is increasing (presumably more than 2.6 million) and the number you see is just the expense side of the equation. If food is bundled into ticket/ box prices, then it may be very difficult to allocate directly.
Also, Brandon took a pay cut to come to Michigan. The current CEO of Domino's makes $6.4 million/ year and that is likely understated for his delayed pension and additional stock.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/j-doyle/
December 7th, 2013 at 3:54 AM ^
The increase in salary costs isn't coaching salaries--it's AD staff. In the period after the transition, the Dave Brandon Athletic Department let go or retired a significant portion of the previous staff, and replaced them with about twice the number of people. If you've been following things closely, that new $6 million building Athletics is building south of the railroad tracks on State Street is not just for laundry facilities, it's for office space for the increased number of AD staff they've brought on in the past few years. Most of those people are working in marketing and development.
So, sure, we want to pay competitive salaries for our coaches, and it appears we are. At the same time, this Athletic Department's budget is going far more towards staff that have no direct contact with student-athletes than coaches. That's the point.
How much money does Dave Brandon really need to run this department? And at what cost is he extracting it from the fanbase?
December 7th, 2013 at 8:51 AM ^