DetNews on Interim AD Jim Hackett

Submitted by Everyone Murders on

Lynn Henning has put up an ARTICLE on Jim Hackett and player-alums' reaction to his serving as interim AD.  It's rich in fluff, but helps to give a better picture of the man to whom Mark Schlissel has entrusted the Athletic Department for the near term.  And coming from Henning - who I like when he writes about the Tigers but can grate when he shows his MSU biases - it seemed to be a uniformly positive article.

The article focuses on Hackett having a good personal touch and being a man of the people.  (Some may find that in contrast with later statements that Hackett oversaw a 40-50% workforce reduction at Steelcase, but corporate America ... .)  Based on the article, Hackett does not seem to be imperious, but also seems to be willing to make hard decisions for the benefit of the stakeholders.  And former Michigan assistant coach Jerry Hanlon (remember his offensive lines?!?) had this to say:

"But number one, for me, is that he's a very cordial man. And he will listen. I don't know anyone they could have picked who would be better."

Someone who will listen sounds like a step in the right direction.

sLideshowBob

November 6th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^

not at all, I am a big fan of the way this atheletic department was handled under Brandon.  His approach was clearly effective and in no way should any alternative be considered.  Everybody here loves DB amirite?

 

fine /s

Mr Miggle

November 6th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^

I wonder who advised him to pick Hackett? In all the speculation about who he'll hire as the new AD, we haven't heard anything about who will be advising him, other than Hackett.

Everyone Murders

November 6th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^

So far there's nothing to indicate that he's anything other than interim, so I'm not concerned about his corporate background.  Moreover, there are many "corporate types" in business, and they're not all DB-style jackasses.  It may be selective memory on my part, but I don't recall many people touting DB's "personal touch" and listening ability when he got the hire.  (In fact, this here website was celebrating DB's "Pimp Hand" when he took over for Martin - even so far as creating a Pimp Hand t-shirt.)  And there's nothing so far that indicates that Hackett shares DB's apparent desire to be in the spotlight.  Hackett's a different breed of corporate cat.

For the long term I want to see Michigan hire someone with a successful background running a large athletic department with at least one marquee sport.  But it's difficult to source one of those on an interim basis, and Hackett seems to have a love for the school and the respect of his fellow player-alums.  Based on what we know, I think it is a great short-term hire. 

rob f

November 6th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^

with Hackett even more than I already was. A couple relatives have worked under Hackett at Steelcase for years, one of them in middle-management---they both think very highly of him. Just the antibrandon Michigan needs right now!

UMichMSW07

November 6th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^

reading the tea leaves... i suspect he will be around for longer than we think. may not be a bad thing if he can bring in a top flight HC like Harbaugh.

Elmer

November 6th, 2014 at 9:39 AM ^

If Hackett wouldn't have reduced the workforce at Steelcase, the company might not be here today.  The way he helped the dislocated workers find emploment shows that he is very much a "man of the people."

Not all cutbacks are done for greed, some need to be done for the health of a company.

LSAClassOf2000

November 6th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^

"Jim's got a collective perspective for shared ownership. He knows it's not his program, but their program. They (players, coaches, staffers, alumni, etc.) will be responsible for it and they'll do all the measuring.

At least for me, this is key because during most of Brandon's tenure, it really did feel as if I had paid for a tour of someone else's little world when I walked into Michigan Stadium and even in other places around the athletic campus. A return to this sort of mentality of shared heritage and ownership would be welcome. 

Sam1863

November 6th, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^

I read it, and agree: heavy on the fluff. And one of the fluffier bits was this:

"He's a gifted guy, he really is," (Bob) Thornbladh said of Brandon. "Some of it (rancor surrounding Brandon) didn't make a lot of sense to me. But the university exists for the students, and we need to embrace the students, and everything we do has to be for the students and for their development. We don't need to look to them as a revenue source. We need them in the stands as an important part of their experience. Those were Dave's values, and should not be obscured, and they are Jim Hackett's values."

Those might have been Brandon's values, but his actions (like escalating student ticket prices and $5 bottles of water) certainly didn't match.

MinWhisky

November 6th, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^

...  football HC position. 

Now, take a look at Canham's incoming resume and the key characteristic of his style.  He had no previous AD experience and brought a business / marketing ("corporate"?) mentality to the AD position.  So, maybe the "best" AD for today is the one who matches up "best"  with the current needs of the school and its athletic department.

True Blue Grit

November 6th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^

took over.  College sports were not marketed that much by the university athletic departments at that time.  Don C was really at the forefront of the movement and an innovator.  That's one thing that was needed at the time.  Of course, he hit the jackpot with the Bo hire and the winning teams was a big part of filling the stadium and creating big growth in the merchandising.  Today, I'd say we have more than enough marketing and merchandising.  Although those things are important, with the much bigger budgets and staffs of athletic departments today, the AD must be a superior administrator, relate well to ALL people, manage the media and PR, understand the finances, and know how to hire highly paid coaches. 

MinWhisky

November 6th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^

To reiterate what I said originally - "the 'best' AD for today is the one who matches up 'best'  with the current needs of the school and its athletic department." 

I don't know why many people on this board seem to insist that previous AD experience is necessary.  I do know that whoever decided to hire Don Canham was the real visionary and is the person(s) primarily responsible for all of the good things that followed.    

charblue.

November 6th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^

in a three-page story in Bo's Lasting Lessons, in which Bo describes an unscheduled meeting with Hackett, a backup linebacker and center, that interrupted a coaches' film session. He came to Bo's office  seeking clarification of his status on the team and his potential to start, and wanted to know directly from Bo where he stood in his assessment on the team.

This meeting for Bo was significant because it was a lasting lesson about making time for your players no matter the circumstance, even if meant leaving a game-planning session to see him.

Bo describes Hackett as one of his roster's hardest workers, a demo player, who never missed a meeting or practice during his time at Michigan. He then told Hacket because of his size and speed and with bigger, faster guys ahead of him and playing well, he wasn't likely to become a starter or get a lot of playing time, period.

He told him straight after Hackett looked him straight in the eyes for his response. After he got it , he left the room and walked straight up the State Street hilll and went back to class.

Years later,  Hackett would recount to Bo the memory of their meeting and how it shaped his style and approach with his 14,000 employees at his company.

If you saw Hackett during his appearance with the president you'd recognize immediately he's cut  from a different cloth than Dave Brandon.

 

Big_H

November 6th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^

I had this thought in my head the other day and I wanted to know what you guys think about it.

 

We see now that the game of football is changing all the time. Mostly now to the spread it out type offenses. Most teams in college run some sort of spread look. Why? Because it works, it makes sense tactically, easier to use when you can't get GIANT offensive lineman to ground the defense into pieces. EVEN the NFL has become very spread-like. You see the NFL has turned into a passing league, spreading WR's all over the field. Teams are always trying to find their Percy Harvin type player. Hell, Chip Kelly is now coaching in the NFL.. You don't need to be an football guru to understand the game of football is now more evolved than ever.

 

I have been saying if Michigan is supposed to be one of the Elite/Greatest programs then we need to learn how to adapt and evolve with the game to stay on top. Only makes sense right? We all love the Tradition Tradition Tradition!!!! But is tradition of running outdated offenses is what has been keeping us back. (not all the reason, but it was a lot of why we wanted Carr out and something fresh)

 

Well, we went hired the right guy in my opinion. Rich Rod. He was doing great at West Va. and he had a great track record. He was even competeing for a spot in the National Title when we got him. He was one of the best innovators of the spread. He was running what would be the future of most college/nfl offenses. Even though he wasn't a Michigan Man he was an excellent choice for what we needed to keep up with the fast changing game.

 

I'm not here to argue about how we should or should'nt have kept him. Or how he was lacking in some areas that could have been easily fixed. (pay top dollar for an excellent DC, ect). Whatever. It's long past done now. We now know that he is off at Arizona and doing well so far. He is still in the beginning of building his team.

 

We on the other hand, said Fuck you future, we need our good ol' past back. We need manball. We need tradition. We need a Michigan Man. Well, we got it. And, it went horribly wrong. Instead of slowly progressing year to year like Rich Rod, we have gotten worse each season. So, now we have the coach we needed doing good, and the one that was all the right things about to be fired.

 

Rich Rod would have got us where we needed to be with a little more time and SUPPORT from the alumni and fans. He would have also brought Michigan football into the modern era ways of playing. Spread football. He should have been the guy, but it didn't happen. He was exactly what we needed if we wanted to evolve with the rest of the sport, which is what I think Great and Elite programs do to stay on top. I do also believe if we would have hired Les Miles we could have stayed on top, but we went with the future and I don't think it was the wrong choice, exactly.

 

My question is, did we just fire the Athletic Director our program needs in the future? Say 5-6 years from now when college football goes full business. We know it's headed that way. We have people always talking about paying players, sponsorships, advertisments, ect. Brandon made some horrible decisions, yes, but very fixable ones. Ticket prices, fixable. In stadium advertising, fixable. Connection with students/fans, fixable.

 

He could be the guy we need in the near future. If he knew anything, it was how to raise money. I'm sure he could have found other ways then raising ticket prices. As of right now I am glad he is gone. I just hope it's not the same story as Rich Rod. That means we got rid of two key componets that would have helped the program stay on top in the New Age of the game and where it's headed business wise.

 

So I know this is kinda long and dragged out, but I wanted you to get where I'm coming from. I am not trying to stir up anything about Rich Rod or try to defend brandon. I understand why we got rid of both of them. I just want you to think about it. This really made me think when I saw so many ppl talking about how we should have kept RR. I know this post might bring me a lot of backlash, but remember I am just asking a question geared toward the future. Nothing more than a thought I wanted opinion on.

Thanks.

 

IBleedMaize_Blue

November 6th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^

Can we just be done with the Rich Rod talk. We always talk about the problem of living in the past and we need to just focus on the future. Rich Rod is gone. He's in the past. Some liked him, some didn't. Some think he should've been fired, some don't. Let's just move on. Just my 2 cents.

And to answer your question, No Brandon should not of been kept. Business or not, once you lose the alumni and fans it's over.

GoWings2008

November 6th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^

for the amount of thought and effort you put into that.  Very comprehensive.  But I disagree about him being someone we'd need later on down the road, for two reasons:

1.  Past behavior is the best predictor for future performance and the way DB shut out the fans and the students was unacceptable.  How much more room would we need to give him to see if he gets it right?  The stakes are just way too high.

2.  The damage done, IMHO, is not fixable.  He's run too far with things and the email volleys we've read recently was the last straw.  Sorry, Dave. 

BlueHills

November 6th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^

Here are my thoughts:

1. Football has always been changing as defenses learn ways to stop offenses, and as the rules change. I don't recall the earliest formations, but in my lifetime there has been the single wing, the T, the I, the wishbone, the spread and probably more I've forgotten.

2. The NFL has been a passing league since the 1950s.

3. College football isn't going all-business, it's been that since the days of Canham at the very least. The question isn't whether it does business, it's how it does business. There isn't one business style out there. Brandon was an arrogant man, and pissed a lot of people off. His successor will have to do business a different way.

4. I liked RichRod but it's time to let that go. 

5. I'm less concerned with what style of play the next coach wins with than I am with how good that coach is at implementing that style. We have seen successful teams run what folks around here call "manball." Some of them are the most successful teams around. We've also seen successful teams run spread. There are hybrids that have been successful. The question isn't what style we run, it's how well we run it. I think we need to be Switzerland, neurtral, on which style a coach brings, as long as the coach is successful.

sLideshowBob

November 6th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^

I think a key difference is that Rich Rod is first and foremost a football coach.  In a few years DB is not going to be an AD at say NC State so we will never gain any sort of hindsight.    Unlike coaching where at the end of the day wins are what matter, there are many elements to AD other than the bottom line.  Maybe DB could have been our guy but he just couldn't help himself from being a dick.  That is probably not the best way to raise money?

Big_H

November 6th, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^

Thanks for the answers guys. Like I said, it was just a question I was thinking about..nothing more than that. Didn't mean to stir up the RR talk again, even though I stated "I'm not trying to stir up anything about RR." Just had to use him as my comparison.

Now.. On with our day!