Defending Dave Brandon

Submitted by cypress on

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?

MosherJordan

December 21st, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^

If BTN collapses, a lot of Michigan fans would pay for Michigan only streaming coverage. DB doesn't set B1G policy, so it's not a fair criticism anyway. Also, asset markets collapse, not markets for entertainment. People have claimed the collapse of pro sport prices for a long time, but it ain't happening. DB didn't create the moar money strategy. He was hired to execute it.

PurpleStuff

December 20th, 2012 at 5:53 PM ^

No one has a problem with more money, or using that money for new facilities and competitive salaries for coaches.  You make that money in the long term by building a brand that is special and that people feel connected to.  Michigan athletics had that before Dave Brandon walked in the door.  The winged helmet, "The Victors", the Big House, the long history of on-field success, the OSU rivalry, all of these things make Michigan athletics special.  Things that don't make "the brand" special: Neil Diamond, 7 Nation Army, "In the Big House", dancing curly fries, bumblebee uniforms, maybe playing OSU again a week later if/when both teams are really good, etc. 

These are the kinds of things that Brandon has added to the equation.  They do not bring any value as far as I can tell, and they reflect a pattern of bad business from his prior career.  Our AD's major achievement in the corporate world is turning the second largest pizza company in the country into the third largest pizza company in the country.  Would anyone be excited if we brought in the corporate wizard who has been running Burger King for the last decade to make sweet cash for the athletic department?  In that world, it seems there was a major disconnect between Domino's management and how to build a brand.  Papa John's grew exponentially because they offered, "Better ingredients, Better pizza."  In other quick service food sectors, Subway became a giant company by advising people to "Eat Fresh" and touting the health of their food compared with other fast food options.  Chipotle has become a similar success story touting flavor and freshness along with a dash of sustainability.

The Domino's answer: The Noid

Michigan football is a better product than Domino's pizza, so we are going to probably be fine either way, but cheap gimmicks and doing shit to be just like everybody else aren't a recipe for keeping any brand strong.  If the silly stuff and the aggressive money grubbing from the fans continue they will only serve to make Michigan seem less special to future fans, or "customers" as our fearless leader might call them.

Optimism Attache

December 20th, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^

Ok, his job is to make money. Got me! But let's remember that to most of us Michigan is a university first and a great sports program second. Can you run a very profitable athletic department while also maintaining high standards and preserving tradition well? Of course.

Dave may be in touch with what people want to pay for and giving it to them. He's probably using lots of smart people and good data. But I propose one of the data sources be dedicated alumni, big donors and non.

bluebyyou

December 20th, 2012 at 6:36 PM ^

I was a good way towards being a DB fan when I saw how he handled the NCAA investigation.  Compare him to Smith....nuff said about that.

His football hire is 19-6 as of today, we are playing in some of the best athletic facilities in the country (Martin gets thanks for the Big House) and soon probably the best when the "other" sports facilities are updated, our athletics are turning a profit and when the guy goes on 60 Minutes, he sounds like the consummate professional, which he is.

I feel we are lucky to have the guy. Yeah, there are a couple of minor things that we can bitch about, because that's the way we do things, but on balance, we could be doing a hell of a lot worse.

might and main

December 20th, 2012 at 7:06 PM ^

who dislike Brandon as just toeing the line of grumbling and angst.  I have a very strong, and completely original, dislike of Brandon.   He is an egomaniac, imho.  And I have zero respect for his M.O. in terms of when to hog the spotlight ... he's front and center when we beat ND or MSU, but when we lose to OSU, he's nowhere to be found.  That's just cowardly.  And he won't come on WTKA?  Again, cowardly. 

M-Wolverine

December 21st, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^

even though he's already been on WTKA?  I'm not sure that makes sense.  Not sure how not coming on every show every time they want him makes him a coward. He has been on WTKA. He probably won't be on the afternoon show, because no one cares about the afternoon show.  If he comes on, he'd come on in the morning with the station director and main on-air personality. He WAS on not to long ago. 

There a big difference between never came on WTKA and doesn't come every time he's called.

m83econ

December 20th, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^

Does the OP even read postings?  Most of the regulars on the board have disagreed with Brian Cook on some point - this is Mgoblog, not Mgoblind.   Sorry I upvoted before I read that line...

Slamdo

December 20th, 2012 at 8:33 PM ^

despite all the negativism directed towards the OP, some of which is deserved.  But credit Cypress for bringing the discussion to the m-community, as it has struck a nerve on multiple different levels.  I have enjoyed the thread, as much a running dialogue on the microcosm of the blogoshphere as it is on society at large.  We all live in a world where money talks.  We buy plane tickets where  those who pay more board first, sit in better seats, and drink before departure.  Fashionistas who desire designer clothes will pay a premium.  Country club memberships cost more than the public course down the street.  We take this for granted.  Something about a public university playing by the same capitalist rules doesn't sit well with some, and our AD is the point man for critique in the debate about fairness, greed, tradition, values, loyalty, and competitiveness.  Atlas Shrugged has nothing on this blog.  I have enjoyed the read and welcome MOAR debate.

Buck Killer

December 20th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

Talent is rising on the teams, and the most money behind Texas. People that hate Brandon are still young in business and vote how their professors told them to. Why isn't your economic professor a CFO? Because they couldn't cut it in the business world. Do you think they are doing it for "the kids". They couldn't cut it or they hate making more money. Either way they made a piss poor choice. Wake up!

NateVolk

December 21st, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

The players loved the EL jerseys last season don't forget. By all accounts, they went nuts when they came back from warm ups and saw them sitting in the lockers. We all need to embrace the idea that this game is for the players and future players. They are the lifeblood. They come first.

If you embrace that, the uniforms are a lot easier to accept or at least understand.

StephenRKass

December 21st, 2012 at 9:14 AM ^

I'm reflecting on what you said, and why it is I don't care that much, one way or the other, about uniform changes. The reality is that uniforms have always changed, and will continue to change. The colors, the fabric, the emblems, adding numbers, adding names, are all things that have changed over the years.

I actually think that changes in the uniforms may be brilliant, in a very hidden way. How, you ask? Uniform changes really can be an excellent diversionary tactic. While the fan base is worrying and obsessing and blogging and complaining about uniforms, real substantive change is happening. Politicians and others have used this strategy like forever. Let people fight about and get passionate about things like uniforms, or the use of "In the Big House" on game days. At the same time, things that really matter are changed quietly behind the scenes. Living in the Chicago area, I've seen former Mayor Daley (and many others) do this kind of thing all the time.

maineandblue

December 23rd, 2012 at 4:03 AM ^

That's just the thing. IMO, DB is making changes that go against tradition and are in poor taste and classless. Bumblebee shoulders and In the Big House is like putting pasta in a bread bowl (was that Dominos?), in that they're just stupid gimmicks designed to cater to...I don't even know who. I can expect that from Dominos, but expect better from my alma mater. 

maineandblue

December 23rd, 2012 at 4:04 AM ^

That's just the thing. IMO, DB is making changes that go against tradition and are in poor taste and classless. Bumblebee shoulders and In the Big House is like putting pasta in a bread bowl (was that Dominos?), in that they're just stupid gimmicks designed to cater to...I don't even know who. I can expect that from Dominos, but expect better from my alma mater. 

Now if we had subtle changes to the uniform like some of those that have been proposed and designed (like the sweet matte helmet) and Rilo Kiley instead of Seven Nation Army I could get behind that. 

maineandblue

December 23rd, 2012 at 4:05 AM ^

That's just the thing. IMO, DB is making changes that go against tradition and are in poor taste and classless. Bumblebee shoulders and In the Big House is like putting pasta in a bread bowl (was that Dominos?), in that they're just stupid gimmicks designed to cater to...I don't even know who. I can expect that from Dominos, but expect better from my alma mater. 

Now if we had subtle changes to the uniform like some of those that have been proposed and designed (like the sweet matte helmet) and Rilo Kiley instead of Seven Nation Army I could get behind that. 

maineandblue

December 23rd, 2012 at 4:06 AM ^

That's just the thing. IMO, DB is making changes that go against tradition and are in poor taste and classless. Bumblebee shoulders and In the Big House is like putting pasta in a bread bowl (was that Dominos?), in that they're just stupid gimmicks designed to cater to...I don't even know who. I can expect that from Dominos, but expect better from my alma mater. 

Now if we had subtle changes to the uniform like some of those that have been proposed and designed (like the sweet matte helmet) and Rilo Kiley instead of Seven Nation Army I could get behind that. 

STW P. Brabbs

December 21st, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^

First of all, as has been pointed out ad nauseum on the boards, we don't really have a very clear idea whether the current players actually like the jerseys or not.  They are very unlikely to say otherwise.

Secondly, the current players on the team are not the sum total of Michigan football.  Hence Team 133, etc.  If you polled all current and past players and asked them what to do with the jerseys, fine - I'd support whatever they came up with.  But I highly doubt that even the current players were allowed to give much input.  

Spare me the Empowering Our Nation's Youth argument. 

BlueHills

December 21st, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

Like anyone, Dave Brandon is good at some things, and not good at other things.

Part of good business is keeping customers happy, and let's face it, we alumni are a very significant customer base. It is primarily we who donate to the school, who support the athletic programs with dollars, and give to the school in other ways.

A substantial portion of the alumni are traditionalists, others aren't that picky about traditions. It's my thinking that Brandon made a few very significant mistakes dealing with alumni early on in his tenure:

1. His handling of firing Rich Rod, with the two meetings and the failure to be candid about his plans, was poorly done. I have no problem with Hoke, but you don't hang a Michigan coach out to dry in public the way he did, even if your plan is to fire him. And one should do it in a way that he can line up another job for the next season.

2. His comments about the mascot idea to the media, along with his stated preference for stadium ads, put a bad taste in a lot of the alumni base's mouths. Same with the business about the "wow" factor. "Wow" should be the product on the football field.

3. Given the fact that part of the alumni base was feeling uncomfortable with his showmanship ideas, he completely failed to accommodate them when he OK'd so many uniform changes. One of the cool things that people across the country like about Michigan is the traditional uniform. The "special" ones are for a lesser school. 

4. He's kind of a dick in terms of how he comes across.

AJ1

December 24th, 2012 at 8:33 AM ^

Michigan being among the most profitable brands in college athletics is not new, nor is it Dave Brandon’s creation.

Tom Goss was a dummy who ran the athletic department into the red, but it has been among the most profitable nationally every year since Bill Martin first showed up. It was top two with North Carolina as I recall back in the early 2000s. Don’t have the exact numbers, but I’d be willing to bet top five every year since Martin first took over.

Secondly, this notion that “the kids love the alternate jerseys” is often repeated, never supported.  Prove it.  Like define the schools that use the most alternates and the ones that use the least and compare their success in the recruiting rankings. I’d be willing to bet that it shows the kids do not like the alternates.

Finally, getting back to the money thing, the special jerseys don’t make Michigan much if anything. They are auctioned off for charity, which is nice. But the sale of alternate jerseys is not that high and is offset by the non-sale of other stuff … people leaving the store with an alternate likely would have left with something else had alternates not been available. Plus, I don’t even think Michigan’s merchandising deal with adidas works that way. I think it most a set amount and they just have more negotiating strength when the contract is up if the sales are high … could be wrong on that last point though.