John U Bacon on UM Football, Athletics

Submitted by Michael on

I'm surprised to see that this hasn't been posted, but Bacon has written a very thorough analysis of where things currently stand with respect to the AD and football program. It's a bit long, but worth the read:

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/road-saturday/201410/michigan-wolverines-football-dave-brandon-brady-hoke-mark-schlissel-regent

UMForLife

October 25th, 2014 at 1:26 AM ^

It seems like you wouldn't mind if your boss sits with your employees on a Sunday, when you should be with him to prepare. Brandon played football, but he is not a coach. He was CEO at Domino's. But would he sit with the accountants and look at GL or should he be sitting with CFO and look at financial statements. I understand he played football and enjoys watching film. But on a game week, I think he should leave the coaches alone. How would he feel if the President shows up at everyone of his meetings with his staff. Better, how would he feel if the President meet with his staff without him every week. I have no proof that Brandon does that every week, but it seems like you are intent on proving something. I am not sure if you are supporting Brandon or opposing the bloggers.

Reader71

October 25th, 2014 at 1:37 AM ^

Im not trying to prove anything. I would love for someone like John Bacon to prove to us that Brandon is a meddlesome AD, because a lot of people are insisting on it. That's the crux of the matter. Where the discussion went off the rails is that I dont think the AD watching film is evidence of meddling. If he's in there watching for fun, or to evaluate the coaches, or whatever, I'm fine with it. But if someone could substantiate the innuendos that Brandon is trying to pull the strings, I'd be leading the charge to have him fired. Your analogy is close. I think, according to what Bacon has said, that this is more a case of my boss sitting in on a meeting between me and my underlings. Im fine with that, as long as he isn't undercutting me.

True Blue Grit

October 24th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^

with them and still know what's going on.  I don't think any coach worth having here would put up with their boss looking over their shoulder all the time by hanging out on the sidelines during games, showing up at practices all the time, watching film with them, etc.  And I wouldn't blame any coach for not liking it.  It's like your boss at work always looking over the wall at your cubicle to see if you're doing your job right.  I wouldn't like it.

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^

I wasn't drawing any equivalency, false or otherwise. I just don't see how he can state that being in the film room is detrimental, ipso facto, when he has done the same thing despite having less of a duty to have ever been in there. Is he saying that Brandon is usurping power from the coaches? No, he is just insinuating it. Come out and say it, if you have proof. My hunch is he has no proof, which makes the whole thing a chicken shit muckraking. If he can give us proof that Brandon is telling Hoke or the staff what to do, I will consider Bacon a hero in the mold of Woodward and Bernstein. Otherwise, this looks like bullshit.

gbdub

October 24th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^

It's not bullshit, it's Bacon saying exactly what he knows, nothing more and nothing less. That's what responsible journalists do. (Same thing with the Carr stuff you mentioned above - Bacon had relevant quotes from reasonably believable people, he reported those quotes. He stopped short of drawing hard conclusions mostly because Carr declined to provide his side of the story).

"I just don't see how he can state that being in the film room is detrimental, ipso facto, when he has done the same thing despite having less of a duty to have ever been in there."

1) If you don't see how a boss looking over your shoulder on a regular basis, or dealing with your subordinates without you present, isn't at best distracting and at worst undermining and a signal of mistrust, I don't know what to tell you. Having effectively your biographer, who you can dismiss at any time and whose work you get to review before publishing, present is totally different.

2) "despite having less of a duty to have ever been in there" Bacon's job, with RR's blessing, was to be present for and report on the inner workings of the team. It precisely was his duty to be there. Brandon making a regular appearance implies an unwillingness to delegate and/or a desire to play fanboy. But superiors shouldn't play fanboy to their employees. It would be one thing if he showed up now and then at practice (like Schlissel) but another to make it a habit.

 

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^

The bit about Bacon actually having a duty to be in there is a good one. Didn't think of it that way. +1. Although, if I'm a coach, he doesn't sit in on film. Meetings with the team, fine. But the film room, where the judgment is harshest and realest, not me. I disagree with Bacon giving, "just the fact, ma'am." He isn't, in this article or anywhere, just reporting that Brandon is watching film with the staff. He always cites it as a reason why other coaches won't work for him. The unwritten connection seems to be an implication that Brandon is trying to control the coaches. That's where my problem is. And I have a friend who played for 10 years or so in the NFL who has seen the owner sit in on film sessions. Is he being a fanboy? Yes. Can he do that when he signs the checks? Yes. Can the coach veto it? I dont know, but I imagine he could if he felt it was a distraction. This team stinks and will probably never win a Super Bowl, so maybe sitting in on film is a disaster. But I don't see a lot of harm in it unless the sitter does more than sit.

westwardwolverine

October 24th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

I could be wrong about this, but didn't Bacon also report that he spoke with other coaches in the Big Ten and asked them about their ADs watching film? And the coach(es?) all responded negatively to the idea? 

That could be where that comes from. But maybe I'm remembering wrong. 

 

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^

Sounds right. Coaches are alpha personalities. But Bo sat in on Lloyds meetings, just like Woody sat in on his. We all have bosses, and if those bosses aren't trying to do your job for you, what's the harm? Jerry Jones watched film with Jimmie Johnson, Barry Switzer, and Bill Parcells. Al Davis watched film with everyone, including future Michigan coach Jon Gruden. Is it ideal? Of course not. But if he's just watching, he's basically doing his job: evaluating the coaches. Now, if Brandon is meddling, I'll change my tune quickly. But Bacon refuses to prove it to me.

readyourguard

October 24th, 2014 at 7:28 PM ^

Mo and Jerry Hanlon sit in on film sessions with this staff. It is absolutely NOT the same as Brandon stirring in. Ex coaches bring another level of expertise. Bacon was allowed as a guest. Brandon does it to stroke his ego and because of his arrogance, doesn't recognize how inappropriate it is for him to be there. Does he sit in on film with Beilein and his staff?

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 8:19 PM ^

I doubt it. Brandon didn't play basketball. As for why Brandon sits in, I dont know. Maybe its an ego trip. Maybe he thinks he needs that to evaluate the coaches. Either way, I don't really care, unless he is trying to coach. In that case, I dont care what his reasons are, he would be wrong. But I don't think that happens, because the guy who keeps bringing up the film sessions wont come out and say it, even though I have to believe that he would if he had any proof.

westwardwolverine

October 24th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^

But if he doesn't sit in on Beilein and staff, then the points about him evaluating the football coaches don't make any sense. Why would he only evaluate the football coaches in this manner? What could he possibly be evaluating them on? Does he actually think he knows more about analyzing game film than Hoke, Nussmeier or Mattison? 

I'm leaning towards nostalgia or - given his personality and how he runs the department - he arrogantly believes he actually has some valuable insight to add to the film sessions. Either way, its more difficult to do your job if your boss is there when he really has no business being there. 

GoBLUinTX

October 24th, 2014 at 9:32 PM ^

This could be put to rest quite easily if JUB would provide some context, or better, other journalists would ask some direct questions.  I can only surmise that context and questions haven't followed because a) it is generally accepted by the journalism community that there is no there, there.  Or b) The Journalism community would rather the dark cloud of doubt continue to rain on Brandon.  

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 10:27 PM ^

Agreed. For the record, I am not saying that sitting in to evaluate coaches is a good idea. But I could see how an old player like Brandon might think he would better evaluate the staff if he saw them in action in the film room. I never said he was a good AD. My 'support' has basically amounted to disagreeing with mgoblog that everything he does is bad/evil. Like I was with Borges. And frankly, this season has made me feel vindicated w/r/t Gorgeous.

Reader71

October 24th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^

Maybe. I dont claim to know. I just don't think anyone else knows why he does it, either. We're all just projecting our suspicions on him.

For all I know, Brandon is secretly running the program. I think Bacon wants us to believe that, hence no good coaches would work for him. But I want proof. I think that's more reasonable than assuming.

As for why he only does it for football, the answer is pretty simple, no? He used to play it. It interests him more than other sports. He understands it more. That's not controversial. He is theoretically better able to judge football coaches because he has been coached. Theoretically, anyways.

westwardwolverine

October 24th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

I could be wrong about this, but didn't Bacon also report that he spoke with other coaches in the Big Ten and asked them about their ADs watching film? And the coach(es?) all responded negatively to the idea? 

That could be where that comes from. But maybe I'm remembering wrong. 

 

GoBLUinTX

October 24th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^

that he's asking questions in a way to illicit the response he wants to hear.  Here's what I don't understand, if it is generally understood to be this great sin, why does nobody just ask Brandon and Hoke direct questions?  Certainly not awkward questions that could potentially pit one against the other.  But general questions.  Does the AD sit in on film sessions?  If he does, is it a directive, or does he ask?  If he does sit in on a meeting, is he observing as a fan, or to offer insight?

You know, some direct evidence from the horses mouth instead of rumor mongering.

Roc Blue in the Lou

October 25th, 2014 at 12:11 AM ^

WTF he's got 110K plus watching live, a live television audience in the millions, and a horde of media, blogger, fans watching his every move with a microcsope stuffed up his backside and somehow Brandon watching film with Hoke makes him uneasy???  Give me a break.  If Hoke, Nuss and Mattison all want him out, thin i believe they have the balls to tell him...please stop the psuedo sympathy for these big boys with the machismo to tell Brandon whatever they want....as Hoke says, this is a Big Boy job.

LSAClassOf2000

October 24th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^

The most important issue at stake is not wins and losses, ticket prices or revenues, but the timeless values upon which the University of Michigan was built: Cooperation and compromise, transparency and truthfulness. The department has been notably lacking in all four.

This is the primary reason that I believe it would be difficult to keep Brandon even if he somehow managed to completely turn around the football situation somehow. At least in my mind, the athletic department is an extension of the university's mission in a way, and should reflect those values, something the current AD has considerable difficulty doing at the moment. The cultural change must be whole to be effective at this point, I would think. 

In reply to by ijohnb

Tony Soprano

October 24th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^

He named the guy, so the guy could refute it.  Why in the world would a succesful well-known writer make up a story and name the person it's about????

C'monnnnnn maaaannnnn.

imdwalrus

October 24th, 2014 at 9:22 PM ^

Sorry, but no. You pretty much have to be looking for some conspiracy or to assign Bacon malicious intent to think that's true. Journalists typically don't make a habit of completely misrepresenting their sources like that, especially when they name them and it'd be easy to verify. WD aside, Brandon has a history of being a snarky ass in other old, time-stamped posts people here dug up.

bronxblue

October 25th, 2014 at 9:06 AM ^

I'm sure Brandon said that, and Bacon recounted it.  If you think that reporters always include proper context, especially in an opinion piece, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Bacon doesn't like Brandon.  He isn't risking his "journalistic integrity" by leaving out the context of a quote anymore than he isn't mentioning his own known issues with Brandon cutting off access to the program after 3&out or that he himself was once allowed to sit in during LOTS of meetings with RR.  I like Bacon and think he's a good writer, but his word isn't gospel and his opinions and takes are not wholly altruistic.

bronxblue

October 25th, 2014 at 9:12 AM ^

No I'm not.  I'm presuming that Brandon didn't seriously say that ticket prices weren't his problem and that he figured rich parents would pay it.  I could be absolutely wrong, but considering how many people here were 100% certain Brandon told a fan to screw off without ANY corroborating evidence beyond a dubious screenshot of an email and dodgy explanations for not having any other information, I'm taking a measured look at stuff posted about Brandon by people with a known ax to grind.

People around here want Brandon fired and I agree he should be gone.  But everyone is looking for him to be an incompetent, socially-inept monster and thus seem willing to take anything said about him negatively as truth and anything contradicting that is biased or uninformed.  Believe what you want, but I'm not going to assume that is the situation.

bronxblue

October 24th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^

Considering what happened with WD and Brandon's email recently, I'm a bit dubious of a successful-ish businessman saying something like that outside of an obvious joking sense.  The fact Bacon didn't put much contact in this account is also a bit interesting.

Blue Mike

October 24th, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^

I can't imagine Brandon can keep his job, especially if season tickets and suites are going to drop next year.  If the best argument for keeping him is that is great at bringing in money, there is no more reason to keep him around.

But what the article really articulates is that Schlissel really needs to put an end to this one way or the other:  fire him or back him and lets move on.  I know he wants to be deliberate in dealing with this, but at some point he is just dragging his feet.  How much more information does he need?  

The longer this draws out, the worse it is going to end up for the University, no matter what way it ends.

LSI Wolverine

October 24th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^

Definitely a bit long, but surprisingly succinct in explaining all of the issues facing the department and the team. One thing I thought was interesting was the potential politics at play with regards to the board of regents election. I wonder if Schlissel is waiting til after the midterms before making a final decision. Yet another reason why political affiliation for the board is a stupid idea. Schlissel should be free to make the decision he believes to be correct without fear of blowback from the board.

ThadMattasagoblin

October 24th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^

I disagree with Bacon that the football team going through down years is good for the mission of the university and the academics. We can kick ass in both like Stanford. Accepting failure because the goal of the university is academics doesn't really make sense to me.

SAMgO

October 24th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^

He didn't say that the football team being down is good for the University's mission, he just said that the values that make Michigan great are the most important thing at stake.

Also, Stanford sucked for decades and looks like they're headed back in that direction, without the large and traiditionally supportive fanbase of Michigan.

BlueSpiceIn SEC.hell

October 24th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^

I am seriously asking,

For our generation, we had a significantly successful run with Bo et al.  It was a pretty easy program to support.

But in tougher times, meaning since 2006 - how supportive have we really been?  What does supportive mean? consider Carr's last season, RR's regime, and our current staff?  These are down times for our program  - have we really been supportive?

JudgeMart

October 24th, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^

I am the father of a current student so I guess I'm one of the "daddys" that Brandon is referring to.  But my daughter paid for her own tickets this year.