2 Notre Dame
DB is slacking...
Interesting that LSU is above Michigan. Would not have expected that. I would have guessed Michigan and ohio would be ahead of them. Simply more tradition.
LSU and Alabama both gained revenue and value from 2 extra confrence teams in bowl games and one more in a BCS game. Michigan would have been higher if Penn State and Ohio State had been in Bowl Games. I'd prefer Michigan ranked 5th, on a list of hypothetical team value, and watch OSU go undefeated and not be able to play for a National Title.
Michigan's a destination.
Texas is Texas and will always be no 1.
2-4 have won or been in national titles games in the past 5 years.
Its a testament to DB that he has us at no 5 despite all the negatives that we've endured in the past 5 years.
So I ask again, Dave Brandon haters, where you at?
Did you just end that sentence in a preposition?
I hate it when people say, "Where are you at?"
It's simply, "Where are you?"
Or, alternatively, simply "Where you at?"
The obvious answer to my critique usually goes as such:
Okay, fine. "Where you at, asshole?"
How about 'what it is?', instead of 'what's up?'. One of my favorites
A lot of people hate Dave Brandon because Michigan is number five on the list.
now thats just unreasonable. We havent been good on the field and DB can only do so much.
all those statements you are making are only valid if these values have changed over the last decade or so.
would it really surprise you if, 10 years ago, texas was 1, nd was 2, alabama was 3, and michigan was 5?
yes, yes it would. saban isnt at bama 10 years ago and they are devoid of 3 BCS titles. I would expect michigan at 3 or 4.
Alabama has a rich and storied history long before Nick Saban stepped on the scene.
You don't say?
Well that rich and storied history didn't happen in the 90s so I doubt their 2003 value would be higher than Michigan's value.
and his 1992 National Title would like a word with you.
They are one of the bluebloods of college football. Stop being ridiculous. If not higher, they would be equal or around the same ballpark. Alabama and Auburn are all they have down there.
1992 title vs 1997 title. 2 Hesiman winners in the 90s vs zero for Alabama.
11 years removed from a title vs 6 years removed. CFB is becoming what have you done for me lately. They are one of the bluebloods, yes, but my point was that we would've been ranked higher in value in 2003.
You give DB credit and say "DB haters, where you at" because we are number 5 and implying he has helped to get us that high. Someone asks you if it would surprise you if UM was number 5 ten years ago, which would mean DB isn't the cause of us being where we are and has done nothing to improve our position over the time he's been here.
Your response is about Alabama not being as good 10 years ago so UM is probably HIGHER on that list a decade ago (number 3 or 4 you say). Thus you now believe DB has helped cause us to FALL one or two spots since he's been here...I'm not sure I'm following your rationale as to why DB haters should feel silly? You're arguing against yourself here.
"Hate" DB because he is unable to ruthlessly squeeze every drop of profit out of the UM football program...
double negative. Are you trying to say they hate DB for sqeezing out every penny?
If so, I disagree. Its the mark of a good businessman to know what he has in his product and he did what was necessary to maximize profits to update infastructure.
As a consumer, vote with your wallet if you are displeased.
but maybe if you have to post more than three times on the same topic you might just want to think real hard about that fourth post... or maybe just don't make it.
just thinking out loud.
Where am I at? Busy applauding the fans who are the ones who pay the astronomically high prices arbitraily set by DB to be fans of our great academic and athletic insitution.
DB has almost nothing to do with the value of our team. We would be top 5-10 regardless.
Thats the value of our team. DB is ruthless but he is calculated. He knows what he can and can't get out of our fan base.
An AD has nothing to do with the value of our biggest revenue generating sport at our school? Might want to rethink that.
Sure we're 5-10 regardless, but my argument is that DB has put us at 5. The best we can do in our situation.
You are an enthusiastic supporter of Dave Brandon and his performance as AD--as measured by the net financial gains the Department has enjoyed thus far. DB's plan of aggressively monetizing every possible facet of the Department has proven he's a winner.
People dislike Brandon because he has clearly prioritized wringing profits out of the fanbase--and doing so in ways that reverse some of the formerly "fan-friendly" policies that helped grow & maintain a massive fanbase.
One dimension relates to ticket policies and how they reflect priorities. The GA student ticket policy, overall net cost of season tickets (incl. licenses, seat cushions, "dynamic pricing"), and student basketball tickets are examples.
The other major aspect is his refusal to make minor expenditures/compromises that might negligibly lower the AD's profit margin--but should certainly be incurred no matter what, as a means of preserving the atmosphere/tradition of Michigan athletics. Refusing to pay for MMB to go to JerryWorld because he knew he could extort donations & refusing to send the band on other roadtrips are good examples here.
The problem is the CEO mindset he refuses to abandon. He will not make a revenue neutral (or negative) decision for any reason whatsoever--even if it is better for the long term health of the school (as measured by loyalty, viewing, merchandising, other support, giving, and goodwill).
And to the extent he's done facility upgrades (NOT football or baseball), great. Keeping up with other schools falls under "not sucking at your job," not "let's throw a parade."
Really? I was beginning to think my point wasn't getting across.
I can't make excuses for some of his most glaring mistakes, not sending the MMB to games and not having the band at the Arizona game. These mistakes stick in the minds of those on this board because we have unrivaled passion when it comes to all things Michigan. To the great majority of fans that are not on this board, these are issues that they would not even be aware of or issues that they forget about in a months time.
We all want to be the best on the field and off of it. You say that he has made no decisions for the long term health of the school? Where do you think all this money is going? Into his pocket? Have you seen the renovation plans he has inherited from his predcessor and those he put into play himself?
Sure they have been oversights on his part, the fans have not liked his policies and he has alienated some of the alumni. He has also not used the money wisely in one instance, the huge screen next to the stadium that has some controversy. But the rest has gone into investing in the program. What good is fan loyalty and happiness if the athletes are not happy? If the athletes do not get the top of the line facilities we lose a critical aspect of our recruting pitch. Without good athletes and succesful athletic programs we bleed fans faster than some financial policies.
DB is smart enough to reign the cost of tickets when he is heading towards a wall. For example, student tickets will not go up next year.
As for the GA policies, we were one of the few schools not to have them in the first place. Without a doubt students were unhappy. But give it five years and GA becomes the status quo and there will be barely any opposition. Assigned seats were flawed too. I cannot speak to the dynamic pricing and the seat cushions.
DB has prioritized revenue and profits for the right reasons. Like I said above, if you don't like it, vote with your wallet.
So, your defense is "DB had made a bunch of critical mistakes that have irritated passionate fans, frustrated students, and alienated alumni--but look! Money!" Well then.
I never said he made "no decisions for the long term health" of the school. I said he will not consider making decisions that, although not directly "revenue generating," benefit the long term health of the institution by preserving a sense of tradition and reverence for those traditions.
Saying that noxious policy changes that actively frustrate fans and have made it economically unviable for some to support their team in person will "eventually be accepted" doesn't really do much to save DB here. The point is, his policies have actively driven fans away (anectdotal evidence, but this is an instance in which anectdotes are significant) or made them at least seriously rethink their financial support for Michigan Athletics.
This is bad for the long term health of the institution. Full stop. Not debatable. Driving away longtime fans and setting higher barriers to entry for new fans is bad for the institution.
And of course we should spend on facilities...which is what I said. Programs attempting to remain "elite" should obviously spend to, at a minimum, keep pace with other elite institutions--if not outclass them entirely. But you also don't need to leave a real bad taste in everyone's mouth in order to do so--the renovations are funded in large part by gifts. (see: http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Athletics-FY2013... at pg. 11.) But this is also "doing the job," not "being an exceptional visionary."
Ah you have a fantastic gift of summarization. Kudos.
You have brought this up twice now. What traditions do you want to see upheld and not cast aside?
I never said that the financial policies would need to be accepted. I said the GA for the students will be accepted.
You say he is pricing out some individuals who cannot make it to game. I forsee that these policy changes will not last forever. Do you think that after all of this money is used to improve infastructure that they will still keep charging extra? I don't. If they do, then it is time for a change. Either way, prices will come down. At that point when it becomes economically feasible for the aforementioned individual to come watch a game, do you think that person does it? I say yes. Some people will obviously not due to the lasting disgust they have for the previous policies and DB.
MY ENTIRE POINT. All of it. Is that DB is a good AD. Not an exceptional one, because that would mean not alienating fans and making less mistakes. No one, save a few sane individuals, thinks that DB should even be considered as a good AD.
He watches film with coaches? blah blah over stepping his bounds
Constructing buildings? His name is going to be on them.
No MMB at Jerry World? He must be extorting millions from fans.
"Do you think that after all of this money is used to improve infastructure that they will still keep charging extra? "
Yes. Once the bar goes up, it will never go down unless there is a mass mutiny from the fans. He will find reasons to keep prices up and new uses for the winfall revenues. It will never go down unless fans mutiny en mase and even then, it is not 100% for sure that prices would come back down because the tv revenues are growing to be a much larger percentage of over all profits for AD's all over the country. Ticket prices will not drive this bus for long.
I am... and my per game average ticket prices have gone up 8% or more each of the last four seasons. And there is no doubt in my mind they would be going up next season if we would have had a highly succesful season this year OR if our home schedule wasn't so craptastic.
Our average football ticket prices are third in the country behind only Notre Dame and Ohio State. Think about this for a minute. We have the largest attendence, yet our average prices are well above programs that haven't been miserable over the past half a decade.
DB is pricing out the backbone of the Michigan fan base. For what reason? To have us in the top 5 for AD revenues? To have his name on every shiny new building on the athletic campus? New facilities do help with recruiting. Some of our facilities desperately need upgrading.... but is it really necessary to start new costly construction projects while others are still ongoing or while large notes are still being repaid?
DB's short term successes are undeniable. It's the long term ramifications that worry me.
Would you suggest updating or constructing a building every 10 years? So by the 22nd century we will eventually have all new buildings for our sports? You have to multitask and with that you need money. And yes, he gets his name on every single building you are right.
Reading this blog I didn't think there was anyone of the opinion that DB was a success.
"We have the largest attendence, yet our average prices are well above programs that haven't been miserable over the past half a decade."
Thats what he sees. He sees that we have such a strong core of fans that are willing to support the team and is using them to the SCHOOL's advantage.
FTR, one could provide as much evidence that M is in this top 5 because of DB as in spite of DB.
I don't think there is any reason to believe the current AD has much control over this one way or the other.
..... so I'm going to end my short participation in it and leave you with one question to ponder.
Do you believe that Dave Brandon will lower ticket prices if/when demand for tickets declines?
Yes. He is wired as CEO. Wouldn't be very CEO like if he didn't pay attention to the demand for his product.
If you think they're going to lower ticket prices at some abstract point in the future when we're "done with investment," you're absolutely insane. CEO's are not automated supply & demand curves.
A "CEO mindset" is a lot more likely to be focusing on year-over-year bottom line & revenue growth. If you think a former CEO is going to elect to reduce his revenue stream now that "we're updated," this conversation is even more pointless than I originally thought.
See: airline fees (on everything). During periods of lower fuel prices, did airlines nix baggage fees because they weren't needed anymore? How about the fuel surcharges?
I will eat numerous hats if DB decides to lower prices (not just leave the same) for football tickets, barring a catastrophic 9 loss season.
Ah yes, let us now discuss the numerous similarities between the airline industry and CFB. Maybe all these ticket price increases are actually a result of the increase in the price of footballs. God knows we need them lots of them to play the game.
Why would he choose to keep the same revenue stream? Are we going to invent new sports to create new stadiums for? Because that would be awesome.
OR let me guess. He is going to pocket the profit? Yes, that must be it!!
You might want to read the question that I answered. Bosch asked if DB would decrease prices if/when DEMAND went down. You really think that he is that blind to the market that he would keep charging the same prices if there comes a time (and I never, ever hope it comes) that we dip below 100,000 for attedance?
Since you brought up an airline analogy let me phrase it this way: if the demand for airlines went down, the prices for airline tickets would go down.
Enough said. Bye now.
"Abandon ship, abandon ship"
Good night and good luck.
He'll never lower ticket prices. He'll just offer more tickets to current season ticket holders willing to pay for them. The rest will be sold at the face value price (or higher). After that you will see more packages and deals offered by the athletic department giving the fan the perception of more bang for their buck, but they will still get more than $65 per ticket (season ticket price). I understand that more and more fans enjoy the at home HD experience these days, but our alumni base is growing, football games have a great family atmosphere (bringing more kids into the stadium) and the AD is working its butt off to improve the stadium experience.
"Where do you think all this money is going? Into his pocket?"
A large chunk of it is....have you seen his salary? Have you seen the budget for the AD growing massivley since he took over? He created a number of new positions in the AD and is paying them above average wages for roles that aren't proven to be necessary. This is not Domino's Pizza where you need an army of marketers to convince people to buy your shitty product. Michigan Football, by and large, sells itself.
that Michigan being #5 has very very little to do with DB. Anyone who says otherwise is (a) smoking something or (b) DB's mother.
Don't you criticize my son!!1!1
Was this before or after Campbell's decommittment?
We will always be in or near the top 5. There's not much that sells better nationally at a collegiate level than the winged helmet to people. Its a hard piece for the eye not to catch. Dave Brandon is doing well, always venturing out for new oppurtunities for the program, cant ask for much more.
Alternate unis? Dynamic pricing? General admission? Rawk music and in-game ads?
I dearly hope Michigan will always be in the top 5 on this list but you act like it's some law of nature. It's not. Programs can rise but they can also fall. You know who else had a glorious first half of the 20th century? Minnesota. 6 National championships and 16 Big 10 championships by 1941.
Michigan football is what it is today because of one Bo Schembechler. Dave Brandon talks the talk but has not yet walked the walk.
I'm surprised Kalis is getting all the love and not Magnuson. I felt Magnuson was the better of the two this year. Hell, when Bosch was thrown in to the starting lineup, they pulled Kalis, not Magnuson.
Everytime I watched Michigan, I was underwhelmed by Kalis.
An interesting and somewhat related discussion had a link in the article - Forbes also looked at the most cost efficient teams in FBS play (HERE). They took football expenses at each school over the last couple years and then essentially came up with cost per win numbers. The top few are pretty interesting really.
The best school is Cincinnati - $1,463,280 per win against expenses of $40.2 million over the studied period. The next best is Kansas State actually - $1529,494 per win over $40.6 million in expenses. After that, Stanford, Baylor and Oregon. The most inefficient school by their measure was Kansas at $8,008,689 per win against expenses of $48.1 million.
We only played six home games and, I suspect, the revenue from the Alabama game didn't come close to making up for the game having been played at a neutral site.
Very surprised a team like LSU is in the top 5, let alone ahead of Michigan. I would have expected a team like USC instead of them on the list. Always thought of LSU as kind of a niche southern team.
USC isn't that big of a money maker. They don't fill their stadium (that they don't even own), have a smaller and more regional alumni/fan base and they sell far less apparel than the schools on that list. I have a bunch of friends and family (in-laws) who went to USC, and I bought more apparel from MDen this year than they all have combined. I wouldn't expect SC to be up with the top teams in that regard.
From a pure profit standpoint, Michigan is #2 ($56 million) to Texas ($89 million), so DB is delivering from a bottom line perspective. Fitting for a former CEO and no doubt how he's presenting it throughout the university.
in LSU's spot, but otherwise what I expected when I clicked.
If only that meant more winning because, quite frankly, that is all that matters.
I think the last time we were ranked #5 in football was September 1st, 2007.
I don't think I like being ranked #5 anymore.
I only remember one game that year. I'm pretty sure it was when we beat the Urban Meyer and Tim Tebow led Gators. I think we went 1-0. Yeah, that sounds right.
This list just exacerbates my frustration... Year after year we are Top 5 in value (i've seen Michigan as low as 2 in the past 5 years), and we are no where near that on the field...
Ugh. One day.
So, why does the fifth most valuable team in college football have one shared National Championship since 1948?
I don't want to sound impatient, but I went to my first game in 1960 and have watched Michigan have one glorious year: 1997. The rest have been fraught with disappointment. In that time, I watched Florida State and Miami develop from perennial tomato cans into multiple National Champions.
I am 61; with reasonable luck I should be able to live another 20 years or so. Is it too much to ask to see one more National Championship for the Wolverines in that time period?
This is Michigan! We win without cheating and that's good enough for me dammit! You will take your 9-3 with a bowl loss and like it!
Fans that are in denial that we've underachieved for a long time
I actually laughed out loud.
and unacceptables, your complaining... they've been invaluable and are already turning the program. what would we do without you, pisser of excellence?
Maybe you should start a petition.
If you have been disappointed in every season since 1997, I suggest you find another pastime. If you'll be miserable every year you don't see a national title, you'll get a lot of misery out of any team.
If you don't think Michigan has underachieved since 1948 and since our last national title in 1997 then I don't know what to tell you.
Judging from that sob story, I take it your not a Lion's fan or you would have went full-Emo on us.
Michigan spends more on football scholarships than any other public school on our list.
It has long been my understanding that the Michigan Athletic Department pays out-of-state tuition to the University's general fund for every full-scholarship athlete. Regardless of domicile-in-fact. Is that correct? If so, why? Why pay out-of-state rates for Cam Gordon, Devin Gardner, Desmond Morgan, RJS, Norfleet, Taylor, Lewis, Ross, Hollowell, Rawls, Morris, Shallman, Dawson, etc., etc.?
The only thing I've been able to find is this article (and even then it's just in the comments)
I literally cannot think of a single reason why that makes sense unless there's something related to tax laws and non profit entities that I don't understand. If they do that for all the athletes, I have to imagine that costs the AD tons of money. I'm sure it makes sense otherwise they wouldn't do it but I do wonder why it makes sense to do that.
When was the first sustainable surplus to donate back into the general fund? It might not make sense when the AD is kicking back eight figures, but perhaps it did when the surplus wasn't an expected thing and OOS tuition approximately equaled the amount of the surplus.
Also if we're talking much further back than 10-15 years or so, that could have just been an "might as well do it as a gesture" thing before tuition started to really spiral.
... That I am not sure what is actually being done in these cases. Which is why I stated my presumption (shared by some of the AA.com readers); and then asking, "Is this really true?"
But if this was something that got started in, say, the 1980's it makes more sense than today, either because of tuition inflation not being what it is or because the surplus was presumably exponentially smaller.
The last time Michigan was ranked 5th (or better) in an actual football poll?
Preseason 2007 :(
I wish I had thought of that.
Haha just saw that!
Odds are we have a record of 11-1 and we just won the B1G. In the future we will be waiting for our first playoff game. I hope this is where we are in a couple years.
I was surprised LSU at number 4 as well.
The problem being there are probably 20+ fanbases that feel they are entitled to be top 5.
Man if only ND joined the BIG we'd be #1 on this list.. Oh wait..
You probably would be. You'd probably be playing in a better bowl than the Pinstripe Bowl against Rutgers, probably the least deserving bowl qualifier.
I'm interested in why you think you'd make less money in the Big Ten? Seriously.
Let's talk about how bad Anchorman 2 is.