Defending Dave Brandon
Downvotes be damned, here it comes anyway. Knowing full well what the opinion of this board is, and also being aware of how most fall at the feet of Brian Cook, I understand my position will likely be unpopular. Having said that, I feel very fortunate to have one of the best AD's in college sports at Michigan.
Dave Brandon is an AD who understands that his role is to make the university money, and he is one of the few who is honest enough to admit this. The results are in, and he is good at his job. Michigan is more profitable than ever, and I believe we can all see that the major revenue sports are in good hands, moving in a positive direction.
Speical jerseys..do I love them? No. However, I also understand that society is evolving, and kids today DO like special jerseys. What we may see as an insult to tradition, a younger generation (and especially the players) see it as something new and exciting. The point is, I will live with these type of things if it makes the university stronger as a whole, and Michigan continues to be one of the best and most profitable sports programs in the country. Brandon may not care what all the fans think, but he cares about Michigan, and I think Michigan is getting to the point where it will be stronger than ever before, due in part to his efforts.
I see all the Brandon snark on here and I realize it's trendy on this board to toe the line of grumbling and angst towards him, but I fall in the other category of being thankful we have an athletic director who is committed to making us stronger. Am I alone?
December 20th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^
In my opinion has done a good job overall. Has he made some mistakes, sure he has, but the way he has run the athletic department including the renovations and such has been great for the student athlete. And in the end, that is all we can hope for.
December 20th, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^
Oh boy, here we go . . .
December 20th, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^
Its threads like these that make me hate moderating.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^
Your constant reminders put me at ease and make me think that no matter how bad it gets I will always be able to count on you to be right by your computer or cell phone to police the chaotic ruins of the once great MGoBlog. However, you might be out of a job once the point system is reintroduced. The glory days shall soon return!
December 20th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^
You and I are on the same wavelength with respect to me being out of a job once the old system returns. The only difference is the way we envision it going down.
December 20th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^
I would say that you'd be missed but that doesn't appear to be true.
December 21st, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^
Don't succumb to the masses. Be your own man.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^
Id like the "special jersey" if they didnt suck. There all a little too off the wall.
here are some i like.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
Those Florida jerseys look sweet, and are exactly what alternate jerseys should be about. They embrace a theme (in this case gator scales) and apply it to the jersey (in this case new patterns on the numbers and helmet). Add in some cool but subtle work on the shoulders and that's a pretty cool jersey.
This is in pretty stark contrast to our plan of "move large blocks of color various places and hope it looks good."
December 20th, 2012 at 7:17 PM ^
hate to say it since everyone hates Nike, but their special uniforms are cool and modern. Adidas is going for a retro feel, which I think misses.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:01 PM ^
It seems the board reacts negatively to anything Brandon does if it is seen as a way to raise revenue. On the other hand, we love pretty much every thing he does that involves spending extra money: new practice facilities, Mattison, scoreboard, etc.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^
I think he has done a decent job. I don't mind the money grab, but sometimes he seems like a sanctimonious prick. He makes lots of decisions with little input from the football stakeholders (from my perspective). Crappy scheduling, move of the home game to Dallas, odd uniforms, screaming promotional efforts are on the downside. Reworking facilites, hires have been good.
I would give him B so far.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^
The athletic department at a major university is no longer seen as an adjunct to the main business of the school. The UofM AD is now a primary means to get people to attend, attract the best talent in all areas, build them facilities to match, and keep them donating so the cycle continues.
The OP notes that his job is to bring in money for the school. I would add that his job is to support the University's athletics program - which includes softball, tennis, swimming, etc. - and make money both directly and indirectly (making the case for the UofM as the best university in the world *to* the world i.e. marketing the U through our student-athletes). I would guess his bosses think he's done a fantastic job. Certainly lack of money should never be a reason for us to fail to attract recruits or coaches.
The things that Dave Brandon has done that have gathered the most flak from the blog, as far as I can tell, are
1. Jerseys.
2. Gameday experience (music, ticket prices, ads for U services).
The key to both of those in his mind is likely "Are we making more money?" If the jerseys don't sell, then he won't keep making them. As far as I can tell, they do sell, and sell well. Assuming that's not just because of novelty, we'll continue to see them as long as they do sell well. When they don't, we'll get a different variation. Put another way, you want this to stop? Hope for a New Coke moment.
2. The gameday experience is more difficult to judge on dollars - we're oversold, and empty seats on TV coverage likely don't offset that, but it doesn't look good. The main thing is that this should mean things can be changed - if the dollars are the same, then making the case on asthetics might stand a chance.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
One of the dumbest things people do when they make "controversial" arguments is preface their argument by insulting the intended audience. When you say, "being aware of how most fall at the feet of Brian Cook," you are explicitly suggesting that people who do not share your viewpoint (or do share his) arrive at that conclusion not by independent thought or choice but by mindlessly following whomever they like to follow.
It's one of the most insulting things you can say to someone, and is typically a sign that you are close-minded yourself (by refusing to believe that someone may reasonably disagree with you through their own rational thought). The fact that it is very common on today's interwebs does not make it any less idiotic.
I don't care about your arguments about Dave Brandon. My views are mixed. But, for your ridiculous opening, you earn my downvote.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:22 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^
Hey if you can't stand the place, gtfo.
I don't agree with every nitpicking thing Brian bitches about when it comes to DB. I roll my eyes sometimes. That doesn't take anything away from the experience and content on Mgoblog.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:30 PM ^
I had the same reaction.
What kind of ass starts with "hey, I know you all are a bunch of lemmings who just repeat whatever it is Brian says, but I'm really a smart guy who has his own opinions" ?
downvote: check.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^
It's one thing to vent through your keyboard, but if you're trying to actually persuade people you should have the self-discipline to erase what you started with and replace it with something less inflammatory before clicking the post button. If you give people the impression that you don't respect them, they will tune you out regardless of how strong your argument is.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:01 PM ^
Dave Brandon's job is not to make money for the University. It's to run the Athletic Dept.
Read the job posting from 2009.
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/documents/SpencerStuart.pdf
December 20th, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^
If you dont think his primary objective is to make the school money, you are naive.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:17 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^
You should probably cite a source if you're going to say something as extreme as that. Don't you think, random Internet guy?
December 20th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^
to the the University's needs-based financial aid fund for non-athletes from its annual surplus every year since 2003, so the idea that money doesn't cross Hill Street is simply not true.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:42 PM ^
I, for one, would be furious if Dave Brandon was encroaching on the real purpose of the university (to educate) in order to fundraise for his increasingly frivolous and ridiculous pet projects. I am sorry if some of you disagree, but there is no need for a $40 million indoor rowing facility. It is rowing for God's sake... not one person will apply to Michigan because we have a superior rowing team, not one (okay maybe a pittance) dollar will be donated because of rowing's success, and not one extra potential student will apply to the University because of the top-flight rowing team. Those tens of millions of dollars could be put towards a practical, useful purpose... not to simply "keep up with the Jones" in every miniscule detail of the athletic department. The current athletic arms race reminds me a lot of the Cold War fear: "If we don't get X, we'll fall behind and perpetually try to catch up," when in reality, getting X does absolutely nothing positive for the University.
~Herm
December 20th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^
The goal may not be "make money", and the university may be "non-profit", but across higher education in the US there is a trend (which everyone can decide for themselves if it is or is not disturbing) of an arms race/empire building for overall prestige.
I think this drives a lot of the
1. make more football money
2. find a way to spend football money, ex. - large amounts of funding going to non revenue sports
3. ... 4. Profit!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-stude…
Dave Brandon may have influence, but he does not control Jim Delany or the decision to do things like add Rutgers and Maryland to the Big 10.
Really I wonder if undergraduate education has its priorities in the right place when tuition keeps going up at the rate it does and so many grads aren't satisfied with their career prep.
I was a Ross grad w/ an econ minor, but this "Dirty Secret of Economics" article hit pretty close to home and made me think of a bunch of my friends who didn't have a passion for something, just wanted to be able to get a job after college.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/12/the-dir…
December 20th, 2012 at 4:46 PM ^
Bubbles are grrrrreat!!!!...until they burst.
December 21st, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
That last article/blog has a good overall point but a completely ridiculous premise. The author implies that economics majors are people who don't have the mathematical skills to be a business major... really? He/she adds, "economics attracts some students who are not strong academic performers (if they were, they were be in their first choice, business)." Maybe that is the case at some schools, but if you can't hack it in Ross, you sure as hell aren't going to survive as a Michigan economics major. I don't mean that to knock Ross in any way, but my point being that they're both quite difficult programs to get through--you don't switch to economics for something easy. Otherwise, I agree that many social science programs at universities aren't preparing students for anything job-related or practical, and very few are likely to become authorities (professors, journalists, etc.) on the topics, which is really all the programs teach you to do.
December 20th, 2012 at 7:36 PM ^
I rowed during my undergrad, so eff you. God forbid I was not on a money producing team. The lessons and values I learned from my coach and teammates were more valuable than some of the physics and molecular biology I received from my two majors.
December 20th, 2012 at 8:11 PM ^
Where did I state that the rowing team should be eliminated? I didn't. You allowed you blind hatred for someone speaking the truth about something you enjoy to blur your vision of reality. Everything I said is true. There is no need to spend that much money on a non-revenue producing sport, I don't care which one it is. The returns on the investment just don't exist. At some point this mentality of spending "because we can" is going to be a detriment. Surely that money could be put to a better academic use, like providing scholarships for God knows how many students. What if the University were to offer full rides for 888 students who would've otherwise gone to MIT/Harvard/Cal Tech? You can't tell me that wouldn't be better for the UNIVERSITY than a facility that will serve 50 students.
~Herm
December 21st, 2012 at 9:42 AM ^
Yes, there is a need to spend on olympic sports. The returns on Olympic sports come later down the road from the generation of new donors for the athletic and academic side of the University. Many of teammates have gone onto graduate school, professional school, and high paying careers and now pay forward the support we received from the University. I am a donor for both academic and athletic side of the Univesity following completing graduate school. Former student athletes have the highest giving rate of the student population. It would be foolish to not invest in the olympic sports to attract this nation's greatest athletes regardless of their chosen athletic pursuit.
Try stating your point to other universities such as UCLA, Stanford, Virginia, and Penn State that dominate on the olympic sport side of the Directors Cup.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^
actually it does. The Coliseum, which houses the gymnastics program, is on the opposite side of Hill.
December 20th, 2012 at 5:34 PM ^
I don't know who you are and of course no University fundraisers would ever go on the record, but... THIS. YES. THIS.
The football program was long a way to funnel donors into the academic mission of the university. They would start by making gifts to the athletic programs and would subsequently get better acquainted with the academic side and start to fund scholarships, professorships, etc. Now those donors are being sequestered, with no one else from the university allowed to talk with them. This eliminates most of the residual benefits to the actual university (we are a university, not an NFL team) from having an athletics program.
December 20th, 2012 at 5:36 PM ^
I don't know who you are and of course no University fundraisers would ever go on the record, but... THIS. YES. THIS.
The football program was long a way to funnel donors into the academic mission of the university. They would start by making gifts to the athletic programs and would subsequently get better acquainted with the academic side and start to fund scholarships, professorships, etc. Now those donors are being sequestered, with no one else from the university allowed to talk with them. This eliminates most of the residual benefits to the actual university (we are a university, not an NFL team) from having an athletics program.
December 20th, 2012 at 7:37 PM ^
The biggest expense of the Athletic Department is scholarships for ALL their athletes, ALL at an out of state rate, that they pay to the University. It's not like they just exist as students for free. So most of the athletic department money goes directly back to the University, and your whole point is basically inaccurate.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:17 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 5:02 PM ^
Is the last part of your post true? I would be furious if it is, and would have no trouble adopting Dave Brandon-hate as my day time job.
December 20th, 2012 at 7:13 PM ^
Of course, Dave Brandon can never have enough money. He'd rather take from the academic pursuits of the UNIVERSITY of Michigan to pay for his outlandish athletic facilities. Tuition continues to increase at an extraordinary rate, the athletic department continues to make money, and the academic side sees little if any benefits. Lest Dave Brandon forget, the UNIVERSITY can exist without his Department, but his Department would not exist if not for the University.
~Herm
December 20th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^
Clearly you, OP, didn't read the job description or my post or maybe you don't understand what naive means? Maybe you can't read? I don't know.
I never said that making money for the school wasn't Brandon's primary objective. It seems like it is and with little regard for class and tradition. But it sure as hell isn't in his job description.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^
...The University is seeking an individual with experience in the development and management of a significant, revenue-based budget; who exhibits documented creativity in exploring and developing revenue streasm; and who has a demonstrated ability to generate revenues through fundraising and other strategies consistent with the mission of the University.
So, Dave Brandon's job is, in part, to make money for the university.
Helps when you read your own documents.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
It helps when you actually understand what you're reading MoJo. Sad to see a nice hill dorm besmirched with such stupidity.
It just means that they needed someone who understands and has experience with a budget that is based on revenues and nothing else. The revenue steams that the AD needs to explore are about keep the athletic dept. budget in the black, or, at least, not in the red. Nothing at all about making money for the University.
December 20th, 2012 at 5:37 PM ^
I'll tell GE that the P&L of it's subsidiaries do not need to be consolidated onto it's parent Income statmement. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear your theory of accounting. The athletic department is a division of the university, not a stand alone enterprise; dolt.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^
There are very few places in the country where you can both make money and lose. His job is to make money through being successful and promoting the brand.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:01 PM ^
From the original post: "Dave Brandon is an AD who understands that his role is to make the university money, and he is one of the few who is honest enough to admit this. "
(1) When has he admitted this? Not that I necessarily dispute it, but I think I would like to see it in writing in a quote from Mr. Brandon himself.
(2) That may be a job given him by President Mary Sue Coleman, or the Board of Regents (although, again, I would like to see that in writing somewhere), but it is certainly not his role. One of his roles is to try to make enough money to support the athletic department, but I deny that his role is to make money for the university as a whole.
The University of Michigan Athletic Department is not a public corporation, so it has no obligation to make money for anybody. Its goal is to support itself, not to make a profit.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
...alone. While I may disagree with certain decisions made by 1000SSS, I do not share the overwhelmingly negative view of DAB espoused by the MGoBlog editorial board.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^
but I am compelled to "fall at the feet of Brian Cook" and downvote your courageous effort to stand up to the "snark" of us "trendy" folks with our "grumbling and angst."
I can see why you like DB -- you and he share the same knack for condescension and dismissiveness toward those who view things differently.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^
In retrospect, perhaps my statements were harsh, but when the overwhelming majority of the board makes disparaging comments towards DB, it isnt hard to come up with the conclusions I made.
December 20th, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^
You can't say "the guy who runs the site holds Opinion X, and the people who frequent the site hold Opinion X, therefore the people who visit the site get their opinion from the guy who runs the site."
By that logic, if (a) Brian doesn't like getting kicked in the balls, and he says so on this site, and (b) I don't like being kicked in the balls, then (c) I don't like getting kicked in the balls because Brian told me so.
Correlation. Causation. HOLY BALLS THEY ARE SO NOT THE SAME THING.