Bacon's new book not kind to Michigan

I'm all for defending John Bacon. I took both of his classes at Michigan. But John Bacon is not a professor. His appointments at Michigan (and, to my knowledge, the other schools he has taught at) have always been as a lecturer, which is about as low on the totem pole as you can get. He is not on a tenure track. He does not have a PhD, nor am I aware that he even has his MA. His publications are not academic publications. They don't count towards anything in terms of the academy.

Teaching college classes does not equal professor.

John is an "instructor," isn't he?  Or is he a "lecturer"?  And, he has a similar position at Northwestern's Medill School.  Right?

I don't think John is a Prof; he's not tenured.  And therefore peculiarly vulnerable, if he couldn't defend his work.  Is he a U-M Ph.D. candidate?  What we know, for certain, is that he's one of the most popular teachers at Michigan, and one of the most popular speakers on the Michigan-alumni banquet circuit.

John U. Bacon has defended Three and Out in speeches and meetings across the country, and in ever major city in this state.  In interview after interview.  His detractors -- the real ones, not the anonymous message board posters -- have never once explained themselves.  As John himself wrote, "The Free Press, which buys its ink by the barrel [a tip of the cap to the old quote -- Twain's? -- "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."] has not spent one drop responding to my reporting on their story in Three and Out."

What a disappointment some of this Board's members have become.  Such fan-boyz.  Can't anyone wait to read a book before judging it?  You boyz can't even wait to judge this book by the cover!  You haven't seen the cover!

I'm tempted to say something very general, like This blog used to be so much smarter.  But the blog, and the front-page content is still pretty good.  Brian Cook hasn't lost his touch.  It's the Hokeamaniac fan boyz who have lost their grip.

Bacon has been a lecturer at the university - really low pay:

http://bit.ly/151KJQ6

in that advertising inside or outside the stadium will have any impact on the price of tickets.

Dave Brandon has done everything to maximize profits coming into the program. He will continue to try to charge what the market will bear for 110,000 tickets. Ticket prices will continue to rise until he sees demand drop to the point where the department struggles to sell the last few hundred tickets. We've seen this in the ticket prices, the PSD's and with the suites.

And conversely, if a new revenue source is developed (like advertising on the scoreboard), he is not going to discount ticket prices one cent to offset it.  That advertising has no impact on ticket prices - the are totally independent revenue streams.

But this is also unrelated to what other programs do, but since Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, etc. are selling a similar product, in a similar volume, to a similar audience, there is going to be a similar end result.

Yeah.  Rich people don't stay rich by not maximizing profit sources.  I'm fairly certain we'll see advertising in the stadium from seats that cost $200/game.  There is absolutely no reason for Brandon not to do so until the supply exceeds demand.

That's not "putting" the original attack on Bacon "another way," it's tacking towards a totally different criticism.

It was not stated anywhere in the book Llyod Carr's reasons for declining interviews with Bacon.

Your "Carr doesn't want to point fingers and such.." is exactly what you accuse Bacon of doing, filling in blanks with speculation.

Could you provide one or two examples of speculation of any substance from the book?

1.  Carr didn't talk with Bacon cuz he didn't want to point fingers.

2.  Bacon opted for the most controversial option.

3.  Bacon's approach was biased.

Each of your assertions are what rank speculation actually looks like.  Bacon sourced his book--your post, not so much.

You completely miss the point about what "hearsay evidence" is.  Rodriguez was at the meeting with Carr and Martin, and was present for what MSC told RR.  To say that Rodriquez (the wtiness) is just providing hearsay evidence is absurd.

And Bacon can't be the witness to anything except what he was present for.

In order to accuse Bacon of using hearsay evidence, you have to show that he is relying on a witness that is simply relaying something that witness heard from someone else.  To say otherwise isn't only disingenuous, it makes one wonder if you know what it really means.