What's up Faulkner?
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
What's up Faulkner?
Posts like this are ridiculous - OP took time out of his day to share some info he thought the board would find useful, and b/c you don't like the grammar or length, you feel compelled to sign in and make a truly useless post filled with jackassery? Seriously, what is the point of even saying that?
You're better than that.
Honestly, I don't think it's that much to ask that if someone wants to post something that long and expect people to read it, that it be at least readable. This is Michigan, after all.
If one's mind is so rigid as to require perfect grammar and spelling to comprehend a written statement, I would think that is more a negative reflection of the reader than the writer.
I admit to being one of those "rigid" guys. It just hurts my eyes to see improper spelling most of all. However, I realize this is the Internet and people are typing quickly. Typos will happen.
I do agree with your point. I don't think it's necessary to make disparaging remarks, especially with a tone of condescension. If you don't like, don't read.
thanks for the share!
I think Brandon has done a great job at using the start up mentality and also holding on to the traditions that make the university great. More than ever institutions need to be adaptable to change while staying true to your core pricipals. The pseudo catfishing of student athletes is a great example like it or not. People can bitch and moan about unis, UTL, expansion all they want but time doesn't stand still for any of us. Embrace it or get left behind.
The man is exactly what Michigan needed. We all complain about the jerseys and the ticket prices, but the fact of the matter is that since his tenure began, this athletic department has rocketed up the directors cup rankings, has improved beyond belief in the two major sports, and is on track to go from awful 5 years ago, to one of the top few athletic complexes in the country.
If it's the cost of getting in line with the elite of the country (where we all think Michigan belongs), I'll gladly accept the $20 extra per ticket and some misguided stripes / pipes on jerseys. Keep it up Dave.
I guess part of being a great leader is making sure people believe in what you've already decided to do.
Before there were any night games in Michigan Stadium, there had been plenty of people wanting one. So it's not like it was a stroke of genius for Michigan to engage Notre Dame in a night game. And now the we've had one, there are a lot of people, myself included, who remain lukewarm to the whole idea, and would like as few night games as possible.
Weddings in the football stadium, with wedding parties coming out of the tunnel, sound like the cheesiest thing imaginable. I understand that Brandon is monetizing the brand platform. I just wish that more people would speak up about the insane upward spiral of the cost of these sports and question why the fuck Michigan needs to fly a lot of little-known money-gobbling womens' sports around the country, all fueled by football revenue.
As long as Brandon is quoting Bo, I wish he'd quote Bo on having correctly predicted the latent insanity of what Title IX would do to college athletics.
I don't think you need to worry about it. Brandon hasn't given any indication I'm aware of that there will be any more than one per year, if that.
If your baseline is zero per year, I guess you're going to be less than pleased, though.
Agree with you on the impact of Title IX, and it gives me a bit of sympathy for ADs in Brandon's position. I just wish that alternate jerseys weren't part of his checklist.
A. I'm not so much of a curmudgeon as to suggest that night games must never, ever happen. We've got lights in the Stadium; might as well use them on a warm mid-September night. And the lights are good. Architecturally, and for later-season games; it's good.
B. Yeah, one night game every four years would be about good by me. That's the schedule I think I'd like. And only in the period from about September 1 to about October 14.
C. I was really going after Brandon's pronouncement that by simply pulling off the UTL game, that he had somehow turned the tide on the "night games" debate. There was plenty of push for night games pre-Brandon; and there is plenty of pushback against night games now. Hell, people in Ohio... oh never mind.
D. I need to check myself sometimes on my hatred of Title IX. It isn't Dave Brandon's fault and there's nothing he can do about it. It just pisses me off, and I wish he wasn't so p.c. about it.
Thanks for your post Don. You're a good influence on me.
So you want the Athletic Director - who is either the second or third most public figure at one of the most liberal public universities in the country - to be less politically correct? That will never, ever happen. The last non-PC AD retired over twenty years ago. That door is closed and will not open again, ever. Its probably to move on to the depression phase; acceptance will come soon enough.
Would you mind posting the Bo quote? With reference, if possible? I'm sure to treasure this.
I just Googled "Bo Schembechler" & "Title IX" and came up with these quick pages:
The Story of Title IX: The Law that Changed the Future of Girls in America by Karen Blumenthal
...and, OMFG! Section 1 refers you to Michael Rosenberg's truly excellent book (which I panned on Amazon despite its excellence, as an act of literary vandalism and revenge on Rosenberg):
War As They Knew It by Michael Rosenberg as we knew him.
Schembechler's warnings about Title IX weren't just some neanderthal personal pet peeve. Bo was on his way to becoming the president of the national collegiate coaches' association. He was very good friends with the recently departed Darrell Royal (much beloved) and together with Tom Osborne and some others they lobbied against college football's inclusion in the Title IX regulatory scheme. Bo was a point man, because they wanted Bo to lean on President Gerry Ford with their Michigan connection.
It would be nice, if somebody like John U. Bacon could dig up Bo's testimony (I do think he testified before a Congressional Committee). Because I think that pretty much everything Bo warned about came true with Title IX; exorbitant pressure on football, to support non-revenue sports. Distorted attention on football because of the money. Ruination of some mens' non-revenue sports like wrestling or gymnastics to balance budgets for women. Et cetera, et cetera.
If Bo were alive today he would agree with the rest of us the Title IX was a success.
Anyway, from that great football school, the University of Chicago, and their law school just south of the Midway (from whence Monsters of... come from) here's their brilliant prof, Richard Epstein with the answer to your bold play sir...
Bo had about 30 years to recant his position on Title IX and I don't recall him ever doing so. Nor do I recall Don Canham doing so.
Take any debate and there are expert opinions on both sides. For every chicago law school prof there is an equal and opposite opinion backed up by statistics. But everyone knows that statistics can be manipulated to support any point of view. But the general consensus is that Title IX was a huge success: "The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%. (Linda Jean Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta, Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal National Study Twenty-Nine Year Update 1977-2006 (2006)).). If you choose to pursue arguements based on anecdotes, hasty generalizations, and delusional diatribe, go ahead.
The phrase is "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." (Att. Mark Twain.) I don't care all that much, but it is just such an embarrassment to a Michigan board when you write stuff like that.
And wow; there are more female scholarship athletes. How about that? What a coincidence; considering that there are now hundreds of millions of dollars in Title IX-mandated funds for such scholarships, in many cases skimmed off the proceeds from football. Which makes it more important to feed the football cash cow. And who'd a thunk it? That in offering women scholarships to Micihigan -- to get a degree and row, or whack a field hockey ball, or hit a softball, or kick a soccer ball -- that many women would, uh, accept such scholarships. A truly amazing coincidence. Damn statistics.
So you have a problem with Women athletes and scholarships?
I have no "problem with women athletes and scholarships." My issues with Title IX were pretty well summarized by Professor Epstein. Thirty years after Schembechler, Canham and company warned the nation of many of those same issues.
Can you open a new account as "Just Hoke Fan"?
you're an asshole
And your little dog too.
but my father, who is probably the same person as you despite sitting in section 2, also enjoys that quote
First, he argues that societal trends may have contributed just as much if not more than Title IX. That ignored the large amount of scholarship dollars previously unavailable and now legally mandated. Sure colleges might have started giving scholarships to women oars out of the desire to do right ... but to ignore the legally required monetary aspect is just silly.
The second point is just untrue: "In the area of athletics, there are ways to increase female participation without having to kill off male participation in sports: namely, devoting more resources to these activities. ". This is specifically what Title IX requires - that resources be allocated in rough proportion to the student body! It absolutely doesn't require killing off men's sports ... unless you don't have the resources in first place, in which case spending things don't have on football was a bad idea to start with.
I'm surprised you haven't changed your name to RichRodHomer. Or perhaps you're his "Son."
So you have no facts and data so instead you continue to rely on belittlement and hasty generalizations while relying on a self righteous superority complex.
I met Bo. He was incredible. Clearly I'm a fan.
In this instance I thought that our soccer game on his brand new practice field would piss him off. He couldn't have been more generous, nice, and accomodating. Here we were using his new practice field, paid for by football revenues, for a soccer game. And that's how he would now view the success of Title IX.
Are you kidding? Conference realignment, the facilities arms race, the sleazy recruiting and all the unpleasant aspects of big time football and basketball can be laid at Title IX's feet. Bo wasn't worried about women playing soccer on his fields, he was worried about his players having to earn millions of dollars so that others could play sports. While Title IX has done a lot of good, in its current form it is causing a great deal of trouble.
At the heart of the matter is that we love Mochigan football. We will pay for it, and the UofM will take our money. The same is true for college football to a grater or lesser degree around the country, and so realignment etc. was inevitable once that exploitation was possible. It is just as true to say that the breakup of Ma Bell is at fault, which gave size to the current cable distribution mode.
As far as Title IX goes it is indisputable that it achieved its aim: it has resulted in tremendous increases in women's collegiate athletic participation, and indirectly in increasing the percentage of women attending college at all. Those, IMO, are noble and worthwhile goals, particularly for public institutions funded with society's resources. I would regretfully agree with those who said that if college football had to be restricted to get there it was a price worth paying.
I would however dispute that college football at big-time schools has actually been restricted in any meaningful way. Tittle IX isn't holding us back, it's not holding back Alabama or Oregon. It might be holding back schools with limited resources to spend on student-athletes but, again, I agree with the argument that those schools should spend those limited resources in a way proportional to their, y'know, student athletes, rather than dumping it all into football.
What I said (and Prof. Epstein said much more) is that I don't like the way our Athletic Department is growing, with no end in sight, and that there is so much pressure on football and basketball (mens, of course) to support an ever-growing budget and that budget needs to get spread around to a lot of sports I never even heard of.
And I understand very well, that our hegemonic Athletic Department has to keep up with the Joneses, in the persons of Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. I don't like the fact that there's a financial arms race among all of them.
I don't want any more PSD increases. If it means a smaller, more modest athletic department, I'd probably like that. And no, I don't want any unilateral disarmament on our part, vis a vis our rivals. I'd like to see the entire level of financial competition brought down.
... and that Title IX has little to do with it. Put another way we're not growing the money pile to feed Title IX - we're growing it because money can be exchanged for goods and services, and more money can be exchanged for more and better goods and services. Title IX is ancillary - in the alternate universe where it wasn't passed, I think we'd have gold-plated barcaloungers and endangered-species steaks grilled over moon rocks for the football team, with all the same financial arms race issues as before.
I much prefer this world to that.
The point was only about allocating money from one sport for the good of other sports. Bo was not against that. He was much more benevolent and not that greedy as some might suggest.
" I just wish that more people would speak up about the insane upward spiral of the cost of these sports and question why the fuck Michigan needs to fly a lot of little-known money-gobbling womens' sports around the country, all fueled by football revenue."
Students like me enjoy attending womens events, and furthermore, understand that above all, UM is for equality.
I think we're all very tired of these negative comments. To put a positive spin on this. Thank God you're not our AD: We'd still have old facilities, uncompetitive teams (women's even more so), cheap coaches...and no doubt we'd still have Rich Rod.
Bill Martin was responsible for what I'd say are about 80-90% of the facilities upgrades that are now visible. The South Athletic Campus (Ford Tennis Center, Wrestling, Soccer, etc.); Glick Fieldhouse; the Stadium renovation; the Wilpon baseball complex; the planning (but not the execution, admittedly) of the Crisler Center renovation and the Davidson Player Development Center; it is hard to even keep track of everything. I think there might be a half dozen other things to add to the Pre-Brandon List.
And hey, just because I am a fair-minded guy I'll remind you about something I have expressed many times on this Board... That I think the most interesting interview in Ann Arbor would be to sit with David Brandon and a tape recorder and ask him about one thing: You alluded to a List that you have for reviewing coaching candidates after you discharged Rich Rodriguez. And you said that Brady Hoke essentially aced that questionnaire. So tell us all about your List; how you made it, how Brady Hoke aced it and if you don't want to talk about others you might have interviewed, at least tell us how they didn't fare as well...
I actually don't hate Dave Brandon at all. I think he is kind of fascinating. I have seen him speak on many occasions, as have others on this Board. He's good; damn good, every time I have seen him. I just have a lot of questions. And as with most of the University's administration, a lot of it goes to a lot of the determined political correctness that saddles University operations.
I won't get into it now but Bill Martin was oversaw the biggest decline in M sports in the last 50 years. The board finally decided that his time was up.
Okay, don't get into it now.
Thanks for letting me know what the board decided. Did the board decide it before Martin had decided to retire four years later than he originally thought?
I can tell you this; if it is your opinion that the success or failure of Bill Martin will be determined for all posterity by the success or failure of Rich Rodriguez, that notion would put you squarely in the same company as the world-famous sportswriter Drew Sharp.
Bill Martin had many failures. But your attempt to suggest something I never said and to inflame the matter by a very thin and failed attempt to link this to someone clearly despised by the blog shows everyone how weak, spineless, and desperate your arguments are.
"You alluded to a List that you have for reviewing coaching candidates after you discharged Rich Rodriguez. And you said that Brady Hoke essentially aced that questionnaire. So tell us all about your List; how you made it, how Brady Hoke aced it and if you don't want to talk about others you might have interviewed, at least tell us how they didn't fare as well..."
You need to move on my friend. Your man failed. He is a great x and o's guy but there were gaps. I'm sorry that's just the way it is. It's time to accept it and move on. Brady is loved by the alumni and the athletes. That's just the way it is. Dave Brandon does not have to answer to anyone. The results speak for themselves.
The question has nothing to do with Rodriguez's firing. It's a straight-up question about why Hoke was picked. It has nothing to do with Rodriguez. It's whatcha call post-Rodriguez.
I just think it is an interesting subject; the Hoke hire fooled a lot of people, including Brian Cook. I know I didn't see it coming.
And it is a subject about which Brandon would have good reason to be proud; a seemingly successful, wise pick, and one which could not have been easy. Or at least if it was easy, it would be interesting to know why it was easy.
I'm sorry that you think Dear Leader has no need to answer questions (like, even the ones where he looks really good) and must simply be obeyed and adored.
I think you've got a reading comprehension problem.
I like a lot of what he has done. Many may have wanted night games. But he got it done. Like in his first week. I hope for many more. Has been debated on here before with the" get off my lawn-down in front people", but the UTL games are great for numerous reasons. There is a reason the super bowl is at night and not noon.
DB is clearly the right man for the job. He understands that, like any business organization, to be competitive we need to optimize the financials. Only then can we have the money which buys the best facilities, the best coaches, and the best support team. And that team also gets us the players needed to compete at the highest level. He also understands that great organizations require a leader that understands how great cultures are critical for success.
great exsum, thanks for sharing.
Excellent summary. I wish I'd know he was going to be in Toledo. I live five minutes from the medical campus. Thanks.
if the urge to downvote for the suggestion that spewing buzzwords is somehow impressive or noteworthy were not so strong
really enjoyed this re-cap. I would love to hear even more of the "business" portion of his speech, specifically his time as CEO, etc. I realize that some on the blog may not enjoy it, but I'd love to hear it.
Brandon is saying the right things, but walking the walk is another thing entirely
Now, looking at the facts, he has brought change to an organization that has prioritized convention and approval, by most accounts, to an extreme. I certainly don't like all of his initiatives, but given the context I can respect his accomplishments. Putting an agenda of change into action amidst a stagnant culture is a mighty challenge, indeed. So, to label his presentation as mere "buzzwords" or "jargon" is not accurate or fair.
Also, nice to see that they weren't catfishing our players. What to do with the guy who started tweeting all this nonsense?
Very informative post overall. Thanks for sharing
Here are a couple articles from the Toledo Blade on the event.