Former football coach as AD
I was just reading a story on Mike Bellotti transitioning from Oregon's head football coach to athletic director when he retires from coaching. What do you guys think of this? Personally, I like the Bill Martin model of having a businessman running the show. Bellotti knows more about football for sure, but can you imagine a lifetime football coach knowing as much as BM about how to keep the program in financial stability? Or how to raise cash for facilities? Did anyone here follow the program back when Bo was AD and can comment about that? I've heard that he wasn't stellar, but it was hard to say that given his excellent history as a coach.
BM doesn't get a lot of love from the fanbase, but I think he'll go down as a top AD once RR and Beilein get the programs turned around, and I hope we continue the model of having a competent businessman doing a job that seems to be more businesses than it is sports.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:05 AM ^
Oregon will soon find out that their personality devoid head coach will fly as well as Bo did running the Tigers. Kind of OT here but Oregon is a great example of how a "coach in waiting" hurts recruiting. When you can flaunt $30,000 lockers and endless Nike money in the face of a recruit, and someone like T. Boyd would rather be one of the dozen (and not a bakers dozen) Clemson hauled in this year.
February 14th, 2009 at 4:11 AM ^
Please keep in mind our athletic department is separate from the University, meaning a businessman like Bill Martin is needed to run it. That's not the case in most schools. Nike is in charge of Oregon's AD from a business perspective, Bellotti will just be running the athletics. Former coaches do make good AD's and the majority of AD's are former coaches.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
I may be entirely off-base, but I was always under the impression that the athletic department at U-M was part of the University, and the AD reports directly to the president.
I think the department was stand-alone regarding budget (since it generates a surplus), and thus self-financing/independent regarding funding. But independent from the University? Have things changed that much since I was there?
February 14th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
No, you're correct.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
Here's a quote from a football coach who became AD:
"A Michigan man is going to coach Michigan."
That decision worked out quite well.
I think athletic departments need a former coach to run the personnel/athletic decisions side and a businessman to run the business side.
From what I have seen, the best setup is where ex-coach makes most of the decisions and hires an assistant to crunch the numbers, solicit donations, promote, etc.
Most of all, though, the academic people need to stay far, far away from the athletic department.
If MSU had followed that model instead of letting the academic people meddle in the sports department, Nick Saban may still be there and we would probably be a tad bummed.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
The AD that let Saban walk was Ron Mason, who is an all-time great college hockey coachl
February 14th, 2009 at 11:50 PM ^
No, Mason became AD in 2002.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^
Bill Martin is one of the first ever businessmen to be the AD at Michigan. Don Canham (widely considered the best AD ever anywhere - by an enormous margin) was a track coach. Bo Schembechler was (obviously) the football coach, etc.
This "OMG we are soooooooo much smarter than Oregon" bullshit is ridiculous.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
I understand that BM is not a typical AD--part of the reason I like him. But I fully admit that I don't know anything about this; just saying what seems right. What makes coaches good AD's vs. Businessmen? What made Don Canham a good AD?
February 14th, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
While Bill Martin is a highly successful businessman, he's also had a lifetime of sports experience with US Sailing and later the USOC.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
One must remember Don Canham was a quite successful businessman before he became AD, even though he was the track and field coach. He had a best-selling series of track and field instructional materials and developed the technology to use loops of film to show proper technique to athletes. He wasn't just some bumpkin coach-- guy had serious business savvy going in.
He was also not well liked by a lot of people, especially at the conference level and even within the University, but that gets lost in the shuffle of "OMG marketing!"