Dave Brandon today at the Toledo Alumni Club
DB let people know right off the bat he was not answering certain questions…I’m sure you all can guess the type of questions off limits.
Normally 50-60 Alumni at the Toledo events, today there was 128 people.
DB sees the Big 10 at 14 teams in the next couple of years, with 16 teams being possible. Only big name teams that have a large market share / successful in sports and in academics. He did not name names, but mentioned only a few schools fit that profile.
Going to be adding mega scoreboards / TVs in both endzones in the near future. Once the FB team is back to standards, 115K will be seen in the Big House.
Meets with RR every Sunday after games, they do have a very good relationship and RR understands the expectations at Michigan. Football drives the athletic department.
Will be expanding the athletic department…adding both men’s and women’s Lacrosse to get up to 27 sports.
The new and improved Crisler Arena will be one of the best in the Big 10…thinks Crisler might be the worst in the Big 10 right now.
Football brings in 2/3 of the revenue…100+ each year. Winning brings in $$$...after the 97 season, enrollment was up over 20%.
Has been in Cincinnati, Cleveland, other places…not talking in Columbus this week.
I’m sure there was more, but that’s all that came to mind typing…I’ll add anything else I can think of later.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 PM ^
...engagement got the sense that he was leaning toward bringing RR back. Did you get that same feeling?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
Great to see this information come out of Brandon's tour de Ohio during Michigan week. Nice to see the University improving the Athletics infrastructure after it started sliding backward under Bill Martin's watch. The University is still great and Brandon is a good spokesperson.
Edit - Every week for me is Michigan Week living here in Columbus.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
When you say, "Nice to see the University improving the Athletics infrastructure after it started sliding backward under Bill Martin's watch," you mean except for the huge renovation project on Michigan Stadium, right?
Sorry, couldn't let it pass. You do get a +1 for being a Michigan fan in Columbus. Oh the humanity!
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
Athletics infrastructure slid backward on Bill Martin's watch? In addition to the stadium project, Martin spearheaded the renovations to Crisler Arena that were approved in September of 2009. Other new facilities and upgrades during Martin's tenure:
2001: Yost Arena renovated
2002: Women's Gymnastics Training Center opened
2002: Loken Men's Gymnastics Training Center - renovated 2009
2003: Ocker Field Hockey Field renovated
2007-2008: Wilpon Baseball and Softball Complex/Ray Fisher Stadium and Alumni Field
2008: M Soccer Complex built; Stadium opened 2010
2009: Al Glick Fieldhouse Indoor Football Practice Facility
2009: Bahna Wrestling Center
Also, although not practice facilties or sports venues, the Junge Champions Center and the Ross Academic Center were also built in 2005-2006. Martin did a hell of a lot with regard to keeping facilities up, considering how expensive they are to build or renovate, maintain and operate. He was instrumental in getting some of those large donors to pony up the dough to get the stuff built.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
I've read plenty of dumbass things on MGoBlog, but this ranks up there in the top three. Bill Martin oversaw the most fundamental and far-reaching expansion and overhaul of the UM athletic infrastructure since Yost was here, and if you had the tiniest fucking clue about what in hell you were flapping your gums about, you would know that. Read Michichick's handy summary if you care to educate yourself. Jesus.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
Martin inherited an athletic department that had done next to nothing in facility upgrades in about 20 years. He did a ton to get us caught up. Really, from Don Canham's second decade (1978-88) until Martin, we had a series of caretaker ADs who did little to plan for the long-term.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
and assume Brandon meant that the athletic facilities had seriously degraded until Bill Martin.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Godzillatron and the Spread 3.0 should go together well. I could see 115,000 packing in the Big House to see Rodriguez crush the Buckeyes with his newfound defense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
...with his newfound defense.
Did he find one recently?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^
He's going to plead insanity.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
Did anyone ask if those scoreboards will have advertising on them?
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
the screens will be shaped like the Arby's hat and the Hit of the Week will feature the victim paused with the thought bubble of "I'm thinking Arby's" before getting smashed. then "Smack That" by Akon will be played before Hell's Bells and the ensuing 2nd down.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^
"Hell's Bells" is a 3rd-down song.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
...of D-I men's and women's lacrosse. Love the Michigan Stadium expansion/Megatron discussion. Love that Crisler renovation/PDC build out will make us respectable again. Love the Big Ten expansion round two talk. In short, I love DB (hyperbolically speaking).
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
Did I miss a post here about how Lacrosse will be a varsity sport? This is great news!
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
Lets hope that means Coach John Paul will be staying put
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
I like the rest of his comments, but I hope Brandon doesn't really believe "great football = more enrollment" at Michigan. This isn't George Mason (to bring up one recent example of a lesser known school who makes a big run, e.g., Final Four, and then sees enrollment go up.
a) I'd love to see proof of that "enrollment up 20% after '97" comment; I don't think that would be physically possible
b) Even if "a" is true, Michigan (after a 3-9, then a 5-7 season) has had record enrollment the last few years (see link below). We couldn't fit more people on campus if we tried.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-sets-record-for-enrollment/
I am guessing many people on this blog first became interested in going to U of M b/c of football, but If we didn't go there, there would have been someone else to take our place. What is FAR more important to enrollment is the quality of the school in general, backed up by macroeconomic forces (e.g., economy is bad, people go to school). There are plenty of packed, great schools with a wide variety of levels of football success.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
...but he probably meant applications, not enrollment.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
I remember reading the same thing when the Fab Five were strutting around campus. Applications were way up.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^
that had never been West of the Hudson River.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
I can't buy a Michigan hat in the local lidz store, but there were six different tOSU hats to choose from ...
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
Mary Sue Coleman said recently that she'd actually like enrollment to drop slightly (it's at an all-time high right now).
November 24th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
You are right, DB said it was applications, not enrollment. I was wrong above.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
that even has a name:
from what happened at Boston College after Flutie won the Heisman. Athletic programs are advertisements for the school.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
I am aware of this. And as I mentioned, for schools which are under the radar (e.g., George Mason now, Boston College then), it certainly can have an effect.
However, it doesn't apply to Michigan. Pretty much any student who is looking for a good university already knows about Michigan (and other ~Top 50 schools).
To make a comparison, look at another "public Ivy", the University of Virginia. There football program has done nothing for years, and their bball program has declined from 1980s.
http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=10756
"January 19, 2010 — Through Monday, the University of Virginia had fielded a record 22,396 applications for admission into the class of 2014."
That had zero to do with athletics (though maybe the lax team is more important than I think). I could give other examples (Cal, UCLA), but you get the idea.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
the DB was just acknowledging reality. Sure, we ought to be famous for things greather than our athletics, but those winged helmets are our ambassadors to the rest of the country nonetheless.
The athletics program is a significant aspect of the national visibility of the university; no one is suggesting it is the only one, or even the most important one.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^
I appreciate you recognizing that is not the only, or most important, reason for applicantions increasing, but I would argue (based on data in my other answers) that for Michigan for the foreseeable future, it's not really important at all, and hasn't been for at least ten years.
I don't want my AD to put more pressure on the department than is already there - it is certainly true that if Michigan puts up more mediocre football seasons, luxury suite rentals and attendance would very likely go down, putting severe strain on the overall budget, which means no lax teams (amongst other issues); that would be terrible. However, it wouldn't affect the academic (i.e., applications and enrollments) side of things.
As far as them being ambassadors around the nations, that probably is true - but again, it doesn't meaningfully affect applications, which is what we're discussing. The fact the Virginia/Cal/Notre Dame/UCLA haven't been good at football for a long time hasn't affected their overall number and quality of students one iota - that's the point.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:19 AM ^
Not the only reason, but yes it mattered.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
As a Tennessean who didn't know a soul living in the Big 10 footprint, I can affirm that my application to Michigan was a direct derivative of that 1997 championship. Although I did not base my collegiate choices solely on the success of the football team, you'd be surprised what factors can sway an 18 year old male.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
i can say 100% my choice of law school applications was based explicitly on areas with successful sports programs.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
Did you end up at Michigan?
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^
The fact is applications DO go up when there's athletic excitement in the program. It did when the Fab Five were around. It did after 1997. It doesn't mean that schools, including Michigan, can't seem attractive without sports. Just that athletics are a major component in selection of a University. People chose a school like Michigan over a Harvard or a Northwestern often because of the added experience athletics brings to the college experience. If none of that extra stuff mattered we wouldn't be turning the dorms into 5 star hotels (at least from what they used to be...flop houses). Marketing matters.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
How do you explain Notre Dame? They have essentially belly flopped in football for close to two decades and not done much of anything in basketball. Guess what: record # of applications.
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/class-of-14-promises-diversity-1.1308414
Key quote: "This was the largest application class in history and at the same time it was the most academically talented and diverse class [we've seen]" said Assistant Provost of Admissions Daniel Saracino.
Maybe if Brian Kelly turns it around and the Irish go 12-0 next year, applications will go up even more. But every top notch school (ND, Michigan, etc) already has a much higher base of applications than in the 1990s. Michigan had 31,500 applications last year for 6500 spots. U of M (and ND) can't really go any higher in any meaningful way. It doesn't matter if Beilein recruits Fab Five, v 2.0.
I know there are plenty of people on this board for whom the success of the football team was a key factor in deciding where we went. But that's by far the minority. The numbers at all the schools I've listed prove that.
As I stated already, Brandon has a lot of pressure on the athletic department. He doesn't need to add any to it or overstate its importance. Michigan will have many, many more applicants than we know what do with, no matter what the football team does. Ask ND.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
Applications go up for many reasons, unbelievable athletics is one of them.
I believe it would happen again just like in 1997. And if we were going to have a record year anyway even if there was no national championship, then I would argue it would likely be 10% above that point.
It doesn't mean all those extra students will go to Michigan...perhaps the allure would fade before school starts, and I bet for most of those new applications, Michigan isn't even their first choice, just somewhere currently "cool" to consider. So don't think of it as being the "only" application for a student. Just one application and then some students may go to a cheaper school in their home state.
Nothing you have said suggests applications would go DOWN after a national championship, has it? If it doesn't go down, then it probably goes up. At best you are only pointing out that there are many reasons applications could go up. This is one of them. Academics is another. Michigan is pushing both.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
With major national exposure absolutely helps, I don't understand how anyone can fool themselves into thinking otherwise.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
I am embarrassed to say that I did not know who Bo was until I stepped foot in Ann Arbor freshman year, though that was a long time ago. I went to Michigan for the academics, the rest turned out to be icing on the cake, quite a bit of icing.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
I don't know what the split is but remember out-of-state students are more valuable than instate because the tuition is significantly higher. I suspect the football programs success does contribute to applications from out-of-state students.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
Fair enough, but that's not the way the world works anymore at big schools like Michigan and he shouldn't perpetuate the canard "If Michigan football isn't great, we won't have record applicants and/or as many great students."
We already have record applicants, along with those admissions (again, outside of the Fab Five or football national championships).
I don't mean to be a stickler, but while athletics is important (in a wide variety of ways), the AD shouldn't overstate its importance. Michigan has been and will be a very successful school, in terms of academics and number of students, regardless of the football team. Other factors (economy, population growth, quality of the school's programs) are much, much more important.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
I would prefer that my AD thinks it is true.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
Based on your other posts I'm not sure if your primary point is that Michigan is too well-known to get an applications boost from a national championship, or if you are saying all universities are getting record applicants so no school will get a boost from championships. Or maybe you're saying both. I'll agree that all universities are getting so many more applications that percentage increases due to athletics success will be less than they were in the 90s but that doesn't mean the "Flutie effect" doesn't exist.
I have definitely read that Michigan saw significantly increased applications after the 1997 season but could not find the article in my 30 second google search. However, here's an article published in "Research in Higher Education Journal" in March 2010 based on data from 1992-2006. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09330.pdf
Here's the moneyshot from the abstract (emphasis mine):
"This study finds that the average college ranking from U.S. News & World Report for the two years after winning a national championship in football or basketball is significantly improved compared to the two years before. Consistent with increased applications, acceptance rates are lower and SAT scores are higher."
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
its pretty clear that RR is coming back. In one of the interviews, re changing coaches he said that people wanted Bo run out of town because he couldnt win the Rose Bowl. He talked a lot about patience and that his measure is whether the program is going in the right direction.
He has publicly noted the extreme youth of the defense as a mitigating factor.
Brandon knows that revolving coaches rarely leads to a better situation and I am sure he has taken note of Notre Dames decade long return to glory.
You RR haters out there are going to have to wait at least another year i'm afraid. Brandon is not going to make a sacrifice to the fans.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
They're fan rorschach tests.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
is a 18 point underdog to its arch rival it speaks volumes as to the condition of the football program. If Brandon is finding progress in the program he inherited that is 1-17 against the better teams in the conference he wants to win, then he has his blinders on.
That said, I agree RR will be back and his record next year will be similar to his record this year. Beat W and E Michigan and a couple of weak conference teams but get mauled by the better teams.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
regarding lax?
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
I wish I had known about this. I was back in town (Toledo) today and would definitely have gone. Oh well, second-hand info is better than nothing. Thanks.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
What did he say about RRod's job security? Did he give any updates as to whether RRod would be fired after The Game?
jk