CC: Sam and Ira Saying "Balance" Could Keep UM From Landing Harbaugh
So Sam and Ira were discussing ad nauseam Schlissel's comments abount the "Evolution" and "balancing Academics and Athletics" and what that means for UM Football. Being as connected to UM as Sam is, is there reason to believe that the "balance" will keep UM from paying a football coach like Harbaugh "Saban-like" money to come here? Is Sam saying-without-actually-saying that Harbaugh won't happen?
Other things said by Sam and Ira (paraphrased):
- Bringing a big-money coach doesn't show that you are balancing academics and athletics.
- We can succeed with coaches that won't cost as much.
- AD choice may take a year or two.
- Nuss could be interim coach, or if Hoke wins-out he stays.
- We could go after a Pat Fitzgerald-type coach for less pay and he will balance academics with football.
- Maybe UM is no longer interested in being a top-notch football school that annually competes for the B1G.
I personally think that a school like UM can pay a coach a lot of money and still be regarded as a top-notch university. Why not show balance by being the best at both?
Thoughts?
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
I absolutely agree and thats why people say we shouldn't have things that are "too big too fail", because we eventually lose ability to make the right decisions because of the economics
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
You're right that football has an impact on a number of local businesses, but it's tiny when compared to the economic impact of the academic side of the university.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
As an alumni grew up in Ann Arbor (PI-HI class 2000) who believes that UM in fact does occupy the same stratosphere as Stanford, your rather unlettered response is the reason that I would be willing to say fuck it, the system is broken and corrupt, lets get out of it if we are really serious about the proper place of sports at academic instititions.
November 3rd, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
to differ. Football is big at UM and in A2, but not bigger than academics in any meanful way.
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
Meanful should be a word. Michigan IS college football, and always will be. ND is also a fine school and has the second best CFB tradition behind Michigan. No way in hell either program will compromise excellence on the field, and the academics cop out fails in light of 100 years of Michigan and ND thriving on the field without compromising academics (cough, except last few years/scandals in ND cough).
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
While I hope that's not the route taken, your position is intellectually consistent and honest.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
I would actually be ok with a world where the NCAA football system as we know it is dissolved. Allow my imagination to run wild for a moment ...
The distant future looks a lot like the distant past. When a talented high school football player graduates, he can go to college to get his degree, or he can join a football club and make money doing it. It's a job, he's an adult. If he wants to make it in the NFL, he could theoretically try out immediately. But more than likely, he'll need time to mature and gain experience in a lower league club team before getting the attention of NFL franchises.
If he decided to go to college, there are absolutely no athletic scholarships. He goes to get his degree, and there is no financial incentive whatsoever to play football (or any other sport). These students are 100% students, and the school's athletic teams are truly, purely created from the men and women who choose to attend that school. To me, this sounds like the legendary days of football yore. The quality of football would never be as good as it is today, but the sense of identity to the men on the field would, in my opinion, be strengthened. Students would watch the games and cheer on their classmates; alumni would think "that could have been me out there battling for my school!"
Now, if a guy chooses to enroll in college and later decides he wants to go pro, he has to quit the college team. He can join a paying club team, and he can even stay in school if he wants.
What are the obstacles to making this world a reality? I wonder if/how the lower league of semi-pro clubs would be financially sustainable. Would it make money by itself? Would people watch it? Would it be supported by NFL franchises? Secondly, would a player ever go to college as a way to get attention for football? Would he maybe think "I could really demonstrate my skills in college in order to make a club team and eventually the NFL" Would college still just be a feeder system to the NFL through a 2-step, rather than direct, process?
All right, that's all I had. I just think it would be cool to regain that vintage sense of "true" students representing the schools competing on the field. I know the guys we have now really are students, so I don't want to take anything away from them. But people like J.T. Barrett remind us that not all student-athletes are made of the same student-to-athlete ratio.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^
"If he decided to go to college, there are absolutely no athletic scholarships. He goes to get his degree, and there is no financial incentive whatsoever to play football (or any other sport). These students are 100% students, and the school's athletic teams are truly, purely created from the men and women who choose to attend that school. To me, this sounds like the legendary days of football yore. The quality of football would never be as good as it is today, but the sense of identity to the men on the field would, in my opinion, be strengthened. Students would watch the games and cheer on their classmates; alumni would think "that could have been me out there battling for my school!"
It's called Division III. As a 3-year letterman in football for a DIII school, this sums up my experience.
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
I realize that Division III exists (after all, I too graduated from a Division III college), so perhaps it's a testament to the format that I wish it could be extended to all universities.
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
....not all student-athletes are made of the same student-to-athlete ratio."
Did you mean Cardale Jones?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1819804-textbook-uses-cardale-jones-…
Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come here to play school, classes are POINTLESS.
November 4th, 2014 at 9:00 AM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^
This is not going to happen on a large scale during a new coach's contract. If the world dramatically changes in 5 years, then you can reevaluate.
This idea is not going to drive an AD or coaching search.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:07 PM ^
Once you start cheating on the academic side to support big-money D1 athletics, where does it stop?
"Oh, we only cheat for athletes" isn't exactly an integrity-building statement.
(The answer to that problem may be to invoke the death penalty, but I can see where the academic side would be concerned. It's certainly a major embarrassment for UNC academics)
November 4th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
Who brings more recognition to the school? The star athlete or the star engineer?
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^
During the past several years we have been suffering through wild coaching and personnel changes as the Athletic Department and the football program in particular ty to find their way, but much moreso through new and uncharted territory in which a semi-pro culture is emerging in college football and basketball, one conditioned by economic shifts affecting the whole country. This trend is inevitable, and I cannot fathom how it would even be possible for present-day major universities and athletic departments to fully comprehend what is going on and move accordingly, unless - perhaps - they take the SEC road and place athletics above scholarship. At least it appears to me that this is the SEC road, some may disagree.
I think that there is more to SEC football success than simply the economics involved - certainly population shift has played a role. However it appears that many SEC schools and a few others around the country are willing to invest heavily in their football programs. It could be that some in those environments actually argue that this will help with the academic side as well. At the least, such an argument wouldn't surprise me.
However, Michigan is not about all that. Academically it has much more in common with the Stanfords, the Northwesterns, Ivy League and other private institutions than it does with a lot of state universities. I'd say that most of the Big Ten - including even Ohio State - fall into the same category and that they are facing the same challenges, or will. It is notable in this regard that even the OSU alumni fanbase is looking at that school's practices, and then over their shoulder at what's been happening in Ann Arbor, and wondering if they're next.
I also assume - be real we're all speculating a lot here - that there is going to be a big difference in the perspectives of Michigan alumni versus those of the non-alumni fanbase. From my perch, I don't want to see anything that would take away from the academic standing of the University. Even within that, I get concerned that athletics and business seem to be getting plenty, while areas such as Humanities are being left to founder.
However, with all that said, I hope that the Admin decides to pony up the $15-20M needed to replace the current coaching staff with a new regime. I hope that we can have our cake and eat it too, if only in the relative short run. The long run is territory that is unknown and completely alien to the culture that developed during the first 125 years or so of Michigan football.
November 3rd, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
God damned $95 or more per game so we can achieve "balance"
Cue the torches, pitchforks and 75k or less crowds.
Seriously.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^
Thanks for setting up this discussion. However it is a kick in the gut. How in the fuck can it take more than a few months to get an AD????
If that is the case, UM is so god damn political/beauracratic and all hope is lost.
I can't believe feelers have not been going out to AD people for the last 4 weeks, They have to have been. They already know who is available and who is on the short list. They have too, or Schlissel is incompetent?????
These fucking guys are not splitting atoms.
The whole balance thing makes sense and unfortunatley is real. Our donors are not paying for Harbaugh's $3.4 million dollar house and his annual property taxes.
This is a problem with the SEC and others. They blatantly compensate coaches and players for football success, with very little regard to academics.
The Big Ten and PAC 10 obviously are not pure in this area but try to keep their compensation/cheating a little more under the radar.
When Saban to TX was hot, A customer of mine who is a large LSU alum, met a TX alum and during their conversation TX confirmed $10MM in compensation to Saban if he came to TX ON TOP of his salary. TV appearances, mortgage, coaching clinics, etc... the alums would make sure the money was there. Take it for what it is worth. Second hand, but it makes a whole lot of sense.
As the incredible Hoke said above "Maybe UM is longer interested in being a top notch football school" We will see. It is not 1975 anymore.
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:41 PM ^
Our donors would happily pay for Harbaugh's $3.4MM house if he wins football games, that I promise you. There are lots and lots of wealthy UM alumni who want to see Michigan win. Those numbers you threw out for Texas seems a little crazy, but M has desire and ability to do just about anything any other team can do.
Just because Michigan isn't willing to blatantly cheat doesn't mean they aren't willing to throw crazy dollars to get the right coach.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
Or, you could say that UM is trying to achieve the highest academic standard, which justifies hiring the highest standard football coach.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
Northwestern? Because we're not Stanford, nor do we reside in the talent-rich state like Stanford does. F this. Pay a great coach to kick ass. Simple as that.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
...The highest standard coach would be Harbaugh. Relax and read carefully.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
If anything, Schlissel (and the new AD) should both be ecstatic with Jim Harbaugh as he was able to balance strict academic standards with on the field results at Stanford.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
Exactly. I'm tired of Sam's BS flip-flopping. He likes to take this contrarian, pro-UM approach and defend everything and everyone in the program--until it's clear the tide has turned and then he jumps ship and acts like he told people about this "possibility" all along.
For all his inside info, he gets played by insiders with an agenda and can be a blowhard contrarian.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
He's carrying water for those that feed him his access which feeds his career. It's a quid pro quo relationship. We usually see his recruiting/injury information/depth chart/etc. ("the quid") now we're seeing him push the agenda of the current coaching staff ("the quo"). Not saying he's being told to explicitly do this, but I'm sure he feels pressure to say things that can only be interpreted as "we better keep Hoke."
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
If the next coach is even mediocre, Schlissel knows the AD budget is going SOUTH fast. Money troubles can get a President fired faster than anything else. They will have to get Harbaugh or very publicly try to get him or they are they are doomed.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
Before the meltdown ensues. Balas and Borton called this hogwash. time table remains 9-12 months for Hackett and the president understands the importance of a strong program. IMO, the desperation of the fans / big money boosters will not make the JH story a money issue. If he is available, we will throw the most money possible at him and his staff. God help the president if he tries to low ball this.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
about Michigan losing many big money boosters, but I'm sure there are some...? I have to imagine that there would be a few to start donating to the university because of Dave being gone...I'm sure the guy had a polarizing effect on it. Anyone else heard about any big changes with boosters?
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
time table remains 9-12 months for Hackett
This is a thing? I didn't know this was a thing - Hackett will be here for 9-12 months, that is the prevailing thought? Then he'll have to hire the next FB coach and the next AD is going to have to live with that?
This is a horrible plan. Tell me I'm missing something.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
I think the prevailing thought (not necessarily insider information) is that Hackett will be involed with the AD, in some capacity, for a while. whether that is assisting the new AD or serving as the AD. I dont think hes just taking the reigns for 2 or 3 weeks. It is entirely possible that he fires Brady and is involved, in some capcity, with the CC.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^
We've already started the search for a new AD. There's no possible way a job search takes that long. It's possible that Hackett made a commitment on how long he was willing to serve as the interim AD. That would reflect a worst case scenario in replacing him, not the expectation.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
I think this interpretation best passes the sniff test. There's no way an interim AD is here for that long without seriously angering people who want a definitive end to this particular saga. I can't see someone who acted that definitively with DB would just suddenly choose to go back into his shell.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
If supposedly they've already reached out to other AD's to gauge their interest, I'm assuming most of these AD's interest would be dependant upon them hiring the new football coach, assuming Hoke is terminated by the interim AD.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
...former players have been told the transition could take 18-24 months.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^
Why/who is telling former players how long they think it might take to hire a new AD?
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^
I pesonally have no idea whether that's the case, fwiw.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
The people in charge of Michigan would have to be off their rockers to think that a search and transition should take nearly that long. What elite or nearly elite coach would want to come here not knowing who his boss is going to be? The players must have misinterpreted something in the translation OR we're in trouble with this search.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^
I thought it was Ira saying Hacket was mentioning this at public functions over the weekend. But the time line mentioned was 18-24 months. For those of you that want o hear it for yourslef I think it was between 9:00 and 10:00 if you check the pod cast.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
A slam dunk hire prior to the new AD coming on board would be a fine scenario. Of course, that's pretty much just Harbaugh.
Could also argue that hiring the football coach before the AD would give the new AD a few year buffer before he sees any pressure. If the axiom for ADs is that they are judged by their football and MBB hires, then coming into a situation where you have a stable basketball program and a football coach that is going to, at worst, get at least three years before you get to pick your guy. I could see an AD thinking that he has 5+ years of job security under that scenario.
I know pro sports GMs like to have their guy and even college ADs seem likelier to pull the trigger on firing a guy they didn't hire, but I'm not sure an AD feels all that strongly about walking into a situation where someone else has just made the coaching decision. Seems to me that the best scenario for an AD is walking into a department where there is no need to hire a coach.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^
AD's aren't typically tied to the success of a coach like a professional GM is, mainly because of the number of sports in the department. Brandon was fired more for his public relations and alum/fan problems than he was because the football team was losing.
And you are nuts if you think that Harbaugh, or Mullen, or Miles, or anyone worth the paycheck is going to come here if there isn't an AD in place beforehand. If the scuttlebutt out there was that no coach wanted to work for Brandon, why would they take this job with the possibility that the next AD could be just like him?
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
I disagree on the latter part. I think there are very, very few athletic director candidates that are going to keep a coach from coming to a particular school. An AD may be a pull, but the coach is generally taking the job because of what the job offers, not what his future boss offers. Michigan has history and resources. A coach looking to make the move to a Michigan-like program isn't going to say no because they don't know who the AD will be. It is a question mark, and maybe it pushes a guy deciding between us and Florida to Florida, but it won't keep a guy from even considering the option. Especially a guy like Harbaugh or Miles, for whom Michigan is more than just a job.
November 3rd, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^
I think your list of interested AD's would increase if you bring in Harbaugh first.
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
So if the timetable is 9 to 12 months does that mean Hackett is going to hire the new coach?
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
So does that mean we balance the size of our stadium and cut it back to say 70,000? I hope they are reading too much into those comments, if the Prez does this, he will naturally cut the attendence down to 70,000 or less as I for one will not renew at these prices. This will also cause us to close down a lot of the non-revenue varsity sports. Bo will be turning over in his grave soon.
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^