Long Dave Brandon Interview in Detroit News
Many understand the travesty, but few know what actually happened. Could you take a few moments and describe how the events transpired? What the options were, how many rounds it took, and where the failure accured, this is the sausage making process that many of us actually do want to see and obviously DB isn't about to show us.
It would have been nice if an interviewer could have called him out for completely lying about student tickets:
It works for a lot of other places, not for us. This year, we went back to reserved seating for our students, and we didn’t have price increases for any of our tickets, and yet we see this big drop-off. We think it’s a combination of factors and a bit of an anomaly.
We’d gone seven years in a row without raising ticket prices, then did it two years in a row. So we’ve increased prices twice in 10 years. Is that out of control? Right now down in Columbus, you spend 14 dollars a ticket more than you pay at Michigan for a season ticket.
So, he's saying that student ticket prices were raised in 2012 and 2013 and before then they were stagnant for 7 years. Well, I was a student between 2006 and 2010. Looking at the tickets stubs I still have, it's pretty effing obvious that ticket prices were raised each year.
He also said that student tickets ebbed and flowed with the success of the team, but I don't remember there's being a student section crisis in 2009 after 3-8. I liked a lot of the interview - but Dave Brandon is still totally out-of-touch with students. He still thinks that Michigan having an alternate uniform is needed to sway a recruit (ahem Alabama). He still considers students second-class citizens. Maybe he's just too old. His attitude seems to very much be "Kids these days..." and it's just not the case.
But, I appreciated his take on most other things not involved with students.
I've actually seen it couched as a conspiracy many times on these boards the past few years. So when you say no one says it was a conspiracy I'd disagree. I'd lose count of the times I read Hollis demanded 2 home games in a row or he'd walk and take MSU to the west division, and DB buckled to that.
I read what he says I feel like he insults my intelligence by assuming I will believe a bunch of utter crap.
He wants to turn Michigan into Oregon.
Dude just doesn't get it. He will never get it. He thinks the answer is always to make something shinier, and louder, and that will keep us "competitive".
This is Michigan. We should be setting the standard, not following Oregon, Mr. Brandon.
That’s a schedule that’s gonna be wow.
What does that even mean? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
In an effort to try to solve a problem – they’re either arriving late, or some games we had 5,000-7,000 no-shows – we found out what other stadiums were doing, and they were all doing general admission. It was an incentive to get students there earlier, to get a better seat.
Crazy. Pills. This is Michigan. We should be "creating the future" here, not meekly following along with Minnesota.
SMH, man.
We're Michigan so we shouldn't look at what anyone else is doing successfully? I'd call that stupidity.
You say we need to be "creating the future" but don't want any changes because of tradition.
There are traditions that I don't want change and that I see as a core for Michigan. Brandon said the same in the article. While we sit here in our tradition, the world is changing with recruits that like alternate uniforms and other things. You can stick to tradition to the point of being irrelevant. It's not easy to walk the tightrope between the two. You will never make everyone happy. Don Canham was hailed as a innovator. I'm not sure he would hold up to the criticism out there these days.
This answer from DB seemed to be the most pointed in the "why DB doesn't get it". I do understand that he does get pressure from the 15-16-17 year olds to be like Oregon. His, and the coaches jobs, is to convince them, or sell them, why Michigan doesn't need to be Oregon, because this is Michigan. Bo got this. When he came to Michigan and the coaches offices weren't as nice as the newer Miami (ntm) offices, he told his coaches how Yost hung his hat on this nail and whatnot. Oregon doesn't have The Victors, the banner, the winged helmet. This is Michigan has been our slogan for the past three years forgodsakes.
Yost isn't better because of the fancy scoreboards. Yost was great because of the fans and the traditions they made. If he wants another Whiskey, he should promote the two kids in the dancing air man costumes to be the mascots, because those are both great and unique, and not something that is canned. That is what makes Michigan and college sports great. The fans being part of the tradition in both creation and continuance.
I was referring to the Fieldhouse in regards to hockey games, not the coach. And a winning tradition is huge at hockey games I agree. However, I don't agree that the scoreboards have made the game anymore exciting. What made me love going there as a student was the fans. I was laughing the whole time as a freshman when I first went, and continued going through my 5 years. Not once did I say, this experience needs a better scoreboard, or this experience needs fireworks or anything else. The atmosphere was great, because of ugly goalie chants, dancing band directors, announcer thankyou's, cowbells and the victors. Winning definetely is a big part, but to discount the rest means Michigan is no more special than any other college team, and I don't believe that.
... my bad on the Yost thing.
The experience part is something we just disagree on. If Michigan had a dominant program, you're not like all the rest. You are the best. There is something special about that, and being the best helps a ton in making the place, the uniforms, the chants more special.
I guess it's all about weights. I weigh winning and integrity much higher than most people on this board compared to the other elements that make up what Michigan means to me. Not to say other's don't value those, they just weigh them relatively less than me, and want other elements as well.
I think many do believe that winning and winning the right way are huge, but those are both part of the Michigan tradition and ethos. The Michigan Man was largely mocked after the whole RR thing, but Michigan fans hold winning the right way, the Michigan Man way, very high on their priorities. Those who say will be champions is the way the team has been run for decades, and championships means winning is a major part of the tradition.
Where we seem to differ is in the rest. I think there are many things that separate Mihcigan beyond just the most wins. Like I said, the tradition, the Big House, the Victors, the winged helmet with simple solid blue jersey and maize pants are all parts of what makes Michigan unique. Michigan doesn't need to strive to be Oregon, because Michigan is Michigan and I expect our AD to be able to sell that to kids.
I think Hoke understands this and would tell you uniform changes is probably one of the smallest points he uses when selling to recruits. When you hear his speach he knows what Michigan wants. Years: 135, Championships: 42, Beat: ohio
If we ran a poll where we asked people how much they would weigh different variables of the Michigan football total experience, how it would shake out.
For example, if I had to distribute 100 points across these four variables (and there are probably more than just four), this is how I would do it.
1) Winning: 30%
2) Graduating good human beings who represent the Michigan brand well in all their endeavors: 35%
3) Not cheating in the process: 20%
4) In game experience (music, cheers, halftime shows, uniforms, etc...) 10%
5) Others? Left over 5%
Like I said, I'm probably way low compared to most people on this blog for "in-game experience".
... that wins and wins right any day over a program that doesn't change uniforms. Easiest decision ever. Sure, some people want both. I, personally, am not one of them. A tradition of excellence is much, much harder to maintain, and therefore much more meaningful to me.
And if wining is all that matters, just be a bandwagon fan for whoever's hot now. After all, you get the most wins that way, and that's the most important thing!
I thought Brandon's most insightful point was followed by his most frustrating response. He said that the biggest competition for college football and basketball is flat-screen television sets, which I think is exactly right. His response to that is basically this (which comes a little later):
"Whoever is in this job, you have to stay current with the world changing around us, the world of entertainment. The easiest thing we could do is come up with a cookie-cutter approach for a football game."
To me, copying the gimmicks that you see from the rest of the sports and entertainment world is the cookie-cutter approach. I completely understand the need to differentiate and offer an experience superior to the awesome resolution, replays, TV angles, and climate control of living room television-watching. But in my mind what differentiate(d/s) Michigan football is the resistance to all of the stuff that everyone else does. Michigan Stadium can offer a unique, special sports experience rooted in history and dripping with charm. I think that plus winning is the formula. I'm fine with some experimentation and modernity, but what defines the Michigan Stadium experience should be its uniqueness and tradition.
Well said, turd. +1 to you
would be cool. I'm glad we atleast still have game stats. Game highlights would be great, and replays have been something that has been wanted for years. Seeing MSC in high definition isn't what I was expecting when the video boards were first announced.
Here are my problems with this.
1. You talk about how you need to be patient and give Hoke time because change doesn't happen over night. Where was that patience and understanding when Rich Rod was here? He may have had some of the worst records in UM history, but things were demonstratibly getting better. Why not let him get rid of his "D" coordinator like you let Hoke get rid of his "O" coordinator? - I label this hypocrisy.
2. You talk about how you want to get to Indianapolis. What is it with this organization and the liimited sight line. I get that getting to the playoff will involve getting to Indy, but there are games after that one. Ones that matter both to fans and dollars. Why set your goal for second place?
3. You talk about how we only lost by 11 points throughout last season. Congratulations. You lost. How about the fact that our record against our rivals is miserable? How about the fact that we beat Akron and Uconn by a combined 7 points. The thought that after the last 2 seasons you don't have any type of measurement by which to review your coach is extremely concerning.
4. You don't advertise in the stadium. Are you and I going to different games? You can't make it through 20 minutes of play without advertising for something. Perhaps your definition and my definition of advertising aren't the same. To me, when you put something on the loud speaker and screen telling me to buy something, that's called advertising You'd think a the career path you have would have taught you that.
5. I do not disagree with the alternate uniform argument. Football has changed massively in the last 20 years. Whether that's for the better or worse depends on the person and their perspective. I do know you don't win a NC without kids, and kids want what they want. We may not be able to currently pay them, but we can do the side items to ensure we appear relevant and worth coming to. We have the tradition, we have the academics, we have all the great things that make the programs history great. We need the kids to keep that moving forward. I highly doubt the majority of us will look back at the program in 20 years and even remember the alternate jersey's. So on this point, I applaud him for his stance and what he's doing.
6. I'm down on this years schedule. Not really for the conference schedule. I know some are beat up about it, but it is what it is. I don't put that on Brandon's shoulders. I do however put the non conference schedule on his shoulders. It's a joke. There's not a single game in there that is a win for us. We beat the teams, and no on bats an eye. We should have beat these teams. We lose and well, it's because Michigan sucks and isn't relevant. There is no win for Michigan in these games.
7. You're justifying the raise in ticket prices by saying Columbus pays more. I'm no marekting genius, but I gurantee you that the fact that they have averaged 1 loss per season for the last 2 years gives their tickets that value. We are 2 years in a row in a downward spiral in record and strength of schedule.
8. (going back to number 3 partly). You say you hold a coach responsible. Where is the evidence of that? I realize you can't come out and say "Hoke is on the hotseat", but when asked how you approach the fact that the team has gone downhill the last 2 years, don't answer that you don't put pressure on Hoke then 2 minutes later preach that you hold your coaches accountable. Say something like "We make decisions as are necessary on our staffing" You can expound on that without scaring off recruits and can appease the people who are starting to get fidgety without you looking like an idiot of a leader.
9. You say this season will be better and tout it like it's some kind of accomplishment. Have you looked at the schedule? If it's worse than last year, I think you have no choice but to fire Hoke.
I agree with the sentiment that if we are winning, we wouldn't hear a peep. But the what if game doesn't work. We aren't winning. We're going backward in our winning percentage at a time when we're playing what may be our weakest schedules. Rich Rod is to blame for some of this, but last season falls SQARELY on Hoke and Brandon. I'm not saying fire Hoke because he did get rid of Borges. I am saying this year will tell us a lot about the state of the organization. If Brandon's contract is up in 2018, then there may be pressure on him as much as their is on Hoke. Depending on how the cards play out, Brandon may be putting his career entirely on Hoke's shoulder. Baring a 3 win season this year, we'll see Brady for the duration of Brandon's tenure. In 2018 it's possible we will get a new AD and a new coach if things don't play out right.
I'm so sick of the "Hoke needs to be on the hot seat" stuff. He's in the middle of a massive rebuilding project. He's had one excellent season, one so-so season, and one shitty season. He's been an excellent representative of the university, he's recruiting really good players and kids, and he seems as clean as big-time college football coaches get. If one shitty season gets our coach on the hot seat - even when he's doing everything else right - we're in for a long era of wandering around looking for the perfect coach who will probably never come.
I also don't understand the group of people that says (1) we should have been patient with Rodriguez and therefore (2) we should not be patient with Hoke. That's such a frustrating, petty position.
Clark Griswolds out there than you can possibly imagine.
Brandon isn't solely responsible for setting this schedule. We announced Oklahoma for 2026 or whatever it was The nonconference schedules are set way in advance for the most part. The good teams likely weren't likely available by the time Brandon came on board. I think some of these games this year were added more recently but he can't be blamed for looking over the scraps and taking the best available.
For Brandonto show anything but support for Hoke is a kiss of death to the program. The rumors would have started immediately and intensified with any losses.
I disagree with most of the rest of what you said but I've already addressed the RR issue in other posts.
I'm pretty sure Appy St was scheduled under Brandon's watch.
Look I don't like this schedule but there's only so much a guy can do with what's available.
Delaware State FORFEITED A CONFERENCE GAME in order to play at the Big House. I'm sure it would've been possible to find someone willing to show up.
After what happened a few years ago, the Michigan AD doesn't schedule Appalachian State because it's the best program available that day. That's an active decision to schedule them. I'm sure there are many schools of similar profile that we could have scheduled.
The logic, I think, is that the game has a hook -- a way to sell a few more tickets. Finding nonconference games with a hook isn't necessarily a bad thing... e.g., I like the idea of service academy games, which have more appeal than, say, Bowling Green. I just really dislike this particular hook (Appalachian State). Complete tone deafness from our AD on that one.
I agree with everything you've said here, except you left out what may be the most important part of the "hook" in scheduling Appalachian State: it's less about selling tickets than it is that it gets the game onto a national telecast, and I don't think a MAC team or some other similar team does that. Now, that brings good and bad with it, as some of the critics of scheduling this game point out, it's only of national interest because it allows the commentators to bring up the Horror. I don't really have a problem with it, and I'm guessing in Brandon's calculation, national exposure and the benefits that brings outweighs the negatives.
You may be right, but if you are, let's stop and think about that for a second. If the game is about getting on national TV, that is every goddamn thing wrong with Brandon in a nutshell right there. Does he lust so strongly for eyeballs that it doesn't matter how negative the coverage may be? We're talking about the most embarrassing game in 130+ years of team history. Is national exposure that important that it can be nothing but three hours of bad publicity and it's still better than being on the BTN for a week? Can we really be that desperate for "national exposure"?
What would happen if, god forbid, we lose...
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/08/dave_brandon_says_tv_networks.html
That is an MLive article from 2012.
From the article: "'I'm kind of a marketing guy and I like setting up games that have a lot of interest,' Brandon said recently. 'We're going to play Appalachian State and I get a lot of advice on that game. The networks were fighting over who gets to televise that game.' [...] 'Everybody's got an opinion about that game. That's why I like that game, because everybody's got an opinion about it.'"
So it has everything to do with the Appalachian State re-match getting attention from people (it doesn't matter to Mr. Brandon whether that attention is positive or negative), and nothing at all to do with Appalachian State being the best opponent available. Also, apparently ESPN2 can beat all of the other networks in a "fight."
I don't think it's ever a good sign when an AD has to talk about a coach being 'safe'.
Secondly, Hoke can be DB's guy and everything... but if DB's not around because the new President doesn't like him... Hoke's job is most assuredly at risk. Just like when Martin hired Rich Rod and DB was put in place.
All of this becomes moot if we win this year, and again next year. If Hoke can put together 9+ win seasons (excluding record in the bowl games), I think he'll be here for the long haul. Ideally that number is 10+, but since we're on the brink of being Notre Dame (we are Notre Dame?) - I'll settle with 9.
First, the regents vote to turn down the fireworks and his response, "we can't always do what we want."
That's the thing—the regents wouldn't have turned it down if it was what "we" wanted. It wasn't. "We" didn't want it. He did. And if he doesn't understand that based both on them turning him down, as well as from the overwhelming applause and attention that it got, then he never will. All the more evidenced by his "surprise" at how much attention it got. Maybe instead of being surprised by the attention, he should ask why it got so much. The answer being: because he finally got told what we've been thinking all along—these gimmicks are superficial and trite.
Second, his belief that "flat-screen" televisions are his biggest competition, and the best way to combat that is with entertainment value.
Literally, not a single fan in the world is attending a game instead of watching it at home because they heard there might be a fly-over at half-time, or fireworks in between. Not one.
The reason people watch at home is because it's cheaper. If it didn't cost $250 to take you and one other person to the game, there would be full attendance every time.
Yes, as he pointed out, those bells and whistles add to the experience. But that doesn't make them the experience in and of themselves. And although Beyoncé was unique, and the parachuters were enjoyable, as someone who was in attendance at both games, when I look back on each of those nights, I think about the game that was played on the field. Truly, I have to be reminded of the other things. They aren't even close to a reason why I would decide to attend. They aren't primary, secondary, or even collateral to deciding factors when I purchase a ticket.
Finally, believing that adding BYU, UNLV, and Oregon State makes for a "wow" schedule is, well, laughable.
In what way does adding teams with little to no dominant football history, from all the way across the country, that aren't very competitive, and have no rivalry or historical ties to Michigan, make a fan base excited? The only "wow" I have right now is towards his utter delusions about Michigan fans' desires and this program's needs.
Literally, not a single fan in the world is attending a game instead of watching it at home because they heard there might be a fly-over at half-time, or fireworks in between. Not one.
The reason people watch at home is because it's cheaper. If it didn't cost $250 to take you and one other person to the game, there would be full attendance every time.
This is a great point. Nobody is going to buy tickets because of fireworks or Seven Nation Army.
I'm in a rare situation where I kinda do get to decide on whether I'll go to a game on a weekly basis (I know, lucky me and I do appreciate how lucky I am). I live in AA and am a recent alum. I don't have season tickets but I have enough friends around that do and often have an extra. Last year I went to 4 games, including the OSU and ND games. The games I chose not to go to were because I didn't think it was financially worth it to go (I always pay my friends full price if I use their ticket). I wasn't going to pay $60 to see a horrible MAC game and be annoyed by 7NA being blasted in my ear. Had there been been control of the RAWK and more emphasis on the Marching Band, then maybe. The biggest in-game environment issue I have is one that nobody brings up, however: The TV timeouts. They make attending games miserable at times. What used to be a few short timeouts are now frequent and long. And during them we get to hear the M marketing department tell us to get married in the stadium.
DB's right about one thing: At home I can switch to another game during TV timeouts. Why not do that at the game???
Wifi would greatly enhance my gameday experience for football and hockey.
The thread where everyone argues about the same stuff as always. Starting the week off on a good foot.