The message that must be sent to Dave Brandon
The man is a genius, but Lord I have rarely heard anyone get something so wrong as he does in the latest DetNews article. His reasoning:
"I do believe that one of the things people have lost track of in all of the noise is that if Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division, Michigan and Ohio State will never again play for the Big Ten championship -- we will never again play for the Rose Bowl. I think there's a lot of people that just haven't focused on that, and they need to understand that.
"And I have to tell you as a guy who was part of the program and who understands the magnitude of that game, to know that from this point forward we will never play Ohio State for a trip to the Rose Bowl again, never play them for the Big Ten championship again, that doesn't sound good to me.
It's so badly wrong it's got to be one of those things bureaucrats say when they want to distract people from the fact that the TV people are holding the leash. Assuming it's not, and that he really believes this stuff, which he might, anyone contacting Brandon in any way to plead for leaving the Game in November should keep the following in mind:
- Brandon's reasoning is based on the notion that Michigan and OSU might one day play in the title game. We all know this. Brandon should look at the folly of the ACC for a lesson: expecting that Miami and Florida State would reach the ACCCG, the game was set in Florida for years, and played in front of humiliatingly empty stadiums when Boston College played in the game more often than either Florida school combined. Conferences that make big scheduling decisions like that based on one of the 36 possible combinations for the title game end up with egg on their face.
- Michigan and Ohio State playing for the Rose Bowl was on life support when Penn State came into the conference and died with Nebraska and the advent of divisions. Is there any among us who'd prefer U-M/OSU for the Rose Bowl once every fifteen years over U-M/OSU in its rightful place every year and playing with the division on the line at least two years out of three?
- Lastly, who among us would care less about the BTCG if it were a UM-OSU rematch from a week ago? Anyone? Can anyone envision a scenario where the two schools have already wrapped up their divisions, year after year after year, before playing The Game?
August 26th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
I'm just not sure how much control he has in the final decision.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
But is he such a good little soldier that he can't express a hint of disagreement? Brandon would forever be held in the esteem of Michigan fans if he could somehow show that he isn't Delaney's bitch.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
doesn't mean shit, except to the extent a conference-wide decision would hurt Michigan. His client is Michigan. If he wanted to fight the change he would. It's his job.
He was given a choice-tradition or a chance at a slight increase in money? He chose the money. And he knows that the demand for The Game is inelastic-people aren't going to stop watching it because it moved. It will simply lose its prestige and Brandon is apparently OK with that.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
Dave Brandon does not need any messages sent to him. Everything that he does/says is very carefully calculated and that's why we like him so much.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^
What? We like him just because he thinks about what he's going to say? That should be a prerequisite for representing the University, not something we congratulate him for.
I liked Brandon, and I appreciate how he has represented the University, but I'm not giving him a pass if he sells us out on The Game without at least voicing disapproval about it.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Exactly - don't present it as if this is some brilliant move that will make things better.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
How do you know that he hasn't?
And there are PLENTY of people in postions of power who do not think before they speak, so I wouldn't necessarily take that quality for granted.
I'm jealous that you're drunk.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
Straight shooter, or liar, which is it?
(Anyone else sensing a board meltdown right around the corner?)
August 26th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
I think most people on this board are intelligent enough to know that life is lived in the grey. Not black and white.
So to ask me a question (albeit rhetorical) like that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
My initial response was to the mob-like notion that a "message must be sent" to Brandon in regards to how he has handled the situation. People have assumed a lot of things about what has gone on behind closed doors at this program for the past two years and we, as Michigan fans, have stood up for our team/people.
Do I think that Brandon's comments/opinion may be different if not for the current allegations and general cloud hanging over the program...absolutely.
His response is unpopular, but highly diplomatic.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
How many times does David Brandon have to tell you how he feels, explicitly, before you stop trying to defend him by saying "we don't know what's really going on?" How can something be unpopular, and diplomatic? To who? The Big Ten? He doesn't work for the Big Ten. He works for The University of Michigan. He seems to have forgotten that.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
The way that I view "being diplomatic" is maintaing a sense of tact and even-keel even though something may be unpopular.
Clearly you (as well as many others) feel very strongly about this. If I had my choice, I'd choose status quo, but I don't view it as the end of the world either.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
Though I think you can be tactful, and still be strong. Brandon doesn't have to go on a board post like rage publicly, but he could strongly get the point across that he is opposed to the idea, and is negotiating to "fix" it. He can keep the even keel by not running around acting like his head is cut off, but he doesn't have to like it. Which it seems he does.
And yes, I feel strongly about it. Because of all the stuff that's happened to the program...the bowl streak, the losing seasons....I feel this is more damaging. That was a big deal, and it was only 40 years of history. Now we're talking of trashing 75 years of history. And I might as well scream now, because if/when it happens, it won't help.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
It will be ugly.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
Brian's right: this fait accompli and this is just PR they're pushing to try and make a shit sandwich more palatable. I'm sorry, but no amount of Grey Poupon is going to make my taste buds dance for this turd. The fact that three intelligent people who are knowledgeable about the conference can sit in a room and come to this conclusion is staggering. Delany should get shit canned for this travesty, but he won't. As far as I'm concerned, this undoes all the good that he's done over the years.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
to know that from this point forward we will never play Ohio State for a trip to the Rose Bowl again, never play them for the Big Ten championship again, that doesn't sound good to me.
This is true. However, think of what IS at stake if they're in the same division:
- The rivalry literally has the power to remove a game from someone's schedule. With the exception of last year, when losing to OSU kept us from bowl eligibility, I don't know when the last time that was the case.
- The Game now has an even LARGER effect on the final rankings. Because you don't get to play in the championship game, you don't have a chance to bolster your image before the bowls.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
Oh, it's much worse than that. So, in order to have them play for the Rose Bowl a couple times a decade, we're going to split them up into separate divsions. This means:
- Instead of being for "just" the division crown, the winner just has a slightly better chance to make the conference championship game.
- In the years they do meet for a trip to the Rose Bowl, the results of The Game are rendered completely irrelevent by a game played in an antiseptic NFL stadium.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
A) If we are in seperate divisions, at least half of OUR division won't have to play tOSU. This is like us having the same win/loss as MSU, except we played non-conference foes Notre Dame and Oregon while they had snacky-time on Northern Michigan and Michigan Tech (what, they are playing everyone in the state now, right?). Why should half of our division get away with not playing tOSU while we play them? Put us in the same division so that The Game counts, winner take all style, for our half of the conference.
B) In the same division, playing our last game against tOSU likely means the winner has another week to showcase why they are likely playing for a national championship and the BCS should select them. Look at Florida and the handjob the CBS gave them in the SEC Championship Game in 2006. Gary Danielson still has a little Urban on the corner of his mouth from that. What fan wouldn't want The Game to be the last one played by their rival until bowl season? What fan wouldn't want to know that they whipped their rival to earn the right to play for the Big Twelven title?
C) Tradition is important. Every year I miss a saturday in white tail gun season because of The Game. My wife goes shopping with her mother and sisters and there are no kids in sight. Even the dogs go to a neighbor's house. Once a year, for a couple of hours, I will turn off my fire pager, turn off my cell phone, and I'm entranced by what happens in Ann Arbor or Columbus. I'm sorry if your house burns down, call the next township over. It only happens once a year. On the same day. For all the marbles. No matter what marbles they are.
D) David Brandon knows better than this. It hurts our image to give in to this and he is an image man. We are defined by our actions and The Game is one of those. Do the right thing and reattach your man-bag, Mr. Brandon. Picking your battles is a good idea, but sometimes you have to fight those battles. This is one of them. Sack up or go back to selling pizza.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
I liked him to start, but I will literally illogically blame every negetive thing to happen in any UM sport on him b/c of this. I realize thats not a mature way to go about things, but its the truth.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
That's where I am. Who'd a thunk his pimp hand would come down on Michigan football?
August 26th, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^
... SEC ingrates:
... but I will literally illogically blame every negetive thing to happen in any UM sport on him b/c of this...
Brandon is handling a challenging situation with directness and diplomacy. There are no easy answers in the new CFB world order.
I used to hope the AD would read this board from time to time. Because of posts like this I hope it's blocked by the proxy server at Schembechler Hall.
The guy gave up a seven figure salary and (possibly) nine figures in stock options to have this sort of crap throw at him, by (alleged) Michigan fans!
August 26th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
I realize its stupid and illogical (as I state in the post), but the truth is prior to this I would have been the first to make excuses for minor hicups. Like I said, I'm just being honest here. Can you honestly say that you have objective opinions about someone's actions that has done something to piss you off royally in the past?
Edit: also, as others have said, the decision pisses me off, as well as the way they are trying to feed it to us like its a good thing. If he came out and said "Well, we got fucked here by the conference and we're going to have to live with it". That would sit a lot better with me than the bullshit he's feeding us like we're some dumbass groupies that will automatically take on his opinion.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
You made it clear that you were giving an irrational feeling, that may have been a bit tongue in cheek.
People are just trying stick you for it because they can come to terms with how wrong their opinion is.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:38 PM ^
A challenging situation? No. Maybe a controversial one that'll potentially get some other people kinda PO'ed at him (Delaney)? Yes. I don't know about you but I'd be that guy that actually stands up for something despite the money (even though it's minimal for UM/OSU to be separated). So far I've had a lot of respect for Mr. Brandon. He's done pretty much everything right in my opinion and then some (scoreboards supposedly going in extremely soon, whether it's realistic is another manner but I'd be kinda pissed if he said that and didn't look at if it was actually a possibility). But this is the type of shit that no matter what you've done beforehand, you automatically go to the bottom of my shit list. I'm sorry but that's unacceptable to try to pull some bullshit out to cover your ass about the Rose Bowl. We both know that while it meant a good deal, it was more than that and you lose a hell of a lot more changing the game to mid-season than keeping it at the end of the season. This is where you build true respect, the respect that Bo had. When you stand up to your superiors, the media, the crowd and you speak against for something you believe in and know is right.
Also, yeah he did give up a pretty big salary for this job. But he's filthy rich, has enough money to buy anything he wants, probably is still making good cash on Domino's (among other investments), I guarantee he has a fair share of stock in them as well and for all we know this is more of a political move than anything. Do I think that's the reason? No. I think he wanted a change of pace and wanted to take things to the next level in his book. But money isn't an issue for him and should be a non factor.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
Brandon knows what it's like to play OSU at the end of the season with everything on the line.
Brandon does not, however, know what it's like to play OSU in the middle of the season, when the two teams aren't in the same division. It's never happened, so how could he? He is assuming (rather naïvely) that it'll be just the same "because it's UM and OSU." On this, I believe he is very wrong.
OSU was not always our archrival. Originally, it was the University of Chicago that we focused our season on. (It was after a win over Chicago, to clinch our first Big Ten title, that Louis Elbel was inspired to compose "The Victors.") OSU has become our archrival since the rivalry became an annual end-of-the-year game in 1935. It became the Game when it was the one that always ended the season, so we could point to it all season. Just as the date change caused it to be upgraded in importance, if it stops being played then, it can easily be downgraded.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
You're right. Marques Slocum knows more than all of us too about the rivalry because he actually played for Michigan...
August 27th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
And he's got a fuck lion, so come fuck wit' him.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
Brandon has this exactly right. He doesnt need any letters sent to him. I really wish the 'I hate change' crowd, perhaps the same folks who decried any change to the Big House, would give it a rest. Change to 'the game' was inevitable when we brought in Nebraska, when divisions became a foregone conclusion. Moving the game and putting UM/OSU in differnt divisions is the best compromise. Brandon once again has nailed it. Experience the change before you write it off. People will get used to it. It will maintain its luster, have some faith. As long as UM and OSU are both powerhouses, the game will be 'the game'. Decrying the change before it has happened seems a little insecure.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
I, and a lot of others, don't hate change. I hate THIS CHANGE.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
I've been a staunch supporter of virtually every change that has been made wrt the football program, but this shit is outrageous. Fucking outrageous.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^
Brandon has this right. I was hoping that we were going to end up in different divisions myself. Change is going to happen and keeping us in the same division just makes the game play second fiddle to the title game every year.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
Putting us in separate divisions now makes the MSU game more important that "the game."
Putting us in separate divisions now makes the ________ game more important than "the game." (fill in blank with any inter-division team)
Does nobody else see that?
What would you rather see?
a) Near 100% chance that every year "The Game" has a bearing on who plays for the Championship, Michigan/OSU v somebody else. (So 100% chance for a meaningful game every year).
b) 0% chance that the "The Game" determines who makes it to the Championship game. 20% chance they cross paths a second time and play for Championship. (So a 20% chance they actually play a meaningful game in a given year.)
It's not money driving this, it's 10 other whiney schools driving this. If Michigan and OSU are in the same division, the other four teams are basically screwed as far as chances of making it to the championship game go. Which isn't much different than the Big11 structure in place today.
Suddenly I want to turn into Texas and start bullying the other schools. What a giant mess this all is.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
Moving the date of the game is what will do all of that. Not putting us in different divisions. I actually was hoping that we could keep the game at the end of our schedule. I mean the chances that we will have a rematch one week later are not that high anyways and if and when it does happen it will mean that we will be both having great seasons similar to 2006.
August 26th, 2010 at 9:32 PM ^
The date change is the biggest kick in the teeth, but putting us in separate divisions will hurt the rivalry as well. We will no longer be competiting in the standings, keeping an eye on each others' games all season. That will be a bigger change than you think. Basically, the Big Ten is going to split into two six-team conferences that play a playoff in December. It will hardly be a unified conference.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
Being in separate divisions is the bigger kick in the teeth. The date change is brutal, but a meaningless cross-divisional game even if they kept it at the end of the year is where the real damage will be done to the rivalry over time.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
That we should allow the final game to be MSU, under any circumstance. If it can't be OSU, I think it should be Nebraska even though that virtually guarantees us the toughest schedule in the conference every year.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
I don't know this as fact, but I would assume that OSU and UM most likely have the largest and most lucrative (traveling, merchandise, etc) fan bases in the Big 10. Therefore, from a Big 10 financial perspective its not necessarily about getting a rematch of those two teams in the championship game (which they would love and make a killing on), but at least having one of them. In opposite divisions, they aren't mutually exclusive and thus have a better chance of at least one making it (don't have the time to crunch the actual stats on that, but would be interesting to know what the actual change in probability of at least of UM/OSU making it is). Basically, it decreases the probability of a dud championship game.
I'm completely against the change mind you. Money be damned.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
... keeping us in the same division just makes the game play second fiddle to the title game every year.
Yes, but putting us in separate divisions just makes the game play sixth fiddle to the title game every year...
August 26th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
conference championship is then second fiddle to the BCS bowl game that the winner will be going to which is how playoffs are supposed to work. I initially liked conference expansion because it meant it would be one step closer to a playoff system, but now I'm not so sure.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
This has to be you? Because, this sounds just as stupid and sackless as his article over on which shall hence remain unviewed by this fan. Accepting Change - when it's regressive in its changes ... well, that's cowardice in my book. Go Blue!
August 26th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
The blatant ignorance to history baffles me here. Remember the OU/Nebraska rivalry? Yeah me neither. This is literally the exact same situation and the powers that be seem perfectly happy to repeat it. It will not be the same, the game will not be The Game it will be a game, saying change is inevitable doesn't make it right.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
1 in 10 people didn't like the changes to the Stadium. But 1 in 10 actually like the idea of moving The Game.
Is this topic just bring out the contrarians, or just the stupid people?
August 26th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
Is this topic just bring out the contrarians, or just the stupid people?
That's a bit much dont you think?
My point is that its not when the game is played that makes it 'the game'. Timing has contributed, but its not essential. There is more history there, more to the rivalry than when it has been played. We need to have more faith. The game may need to be hyped up a bit more for a few years, but my guess is that it will eventually not be about when it is played at all, but about the other aspects. The timiing aspect will eventually be forgotten. And that's fine. Other aspects will make up for it. It's bigger than the timing. It's an institution. Let the institutional forces do their thing.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
I really wish the 'I hate change' crowd, perhaps the same folks who decried any change to the Big House, would give it a rest.Was a bit much? I didn't neg you for it, but it seems like you haven't even read Brian's Main Page Post. Or still just completely disagree with it, which I acknowledge as possible. Decisions like this make me lose what faith I have left. The Game shouldn't need to be hyped. The institutional forces, of The Game, are all the things around it. As Brian pointed out. I can't take "well, just take it, let it happen, and see how it works out." It may work for you. More power.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
...but it seems like you haven't even read Brian's Main Page Post. Or still just completely disagree with it, which I acknowledge as possible...As Brian pointed out. I can't take "well, just take it, let it happen, and see how it works out." It may work for you. More power.
Wow. So you make your arguments through Brian. I don't let Brian, or anyone else, think for me. This puts quite a new spin on your calling me stupid. Nevermind the whole institutional argument, I could not care less what 'you' think.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
As I quoted, the fact that you compare the huge number of people calling for the greatest of all Michigan traditions to stand to the small minority that didn't like the Stadium changes was, well, stupid. It's the worst kind of straw man.
And why should I go over and retype everything BRIAN JUST SAID. Or I or many others have typed time and time again. Just the fact that your points are all contrary to his, and he shows why you're wrong, pretty much does the job for me.
And it's funny that you've been around long enough to acquire that many points, and think I like to parrot Brian. I wish everyone else on here thought that about me too. I'd probably get in less beefs.
But feel free to quit when you're losing the argument. I wish you had before you started.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^
But feel free to quit when you're losing the argument. I wish you had before you started.
Losing the argument? That's the problem - you think its possible to lose an argument based on preference, based on opinoin, based on perspective of tradeoffs. Sorry, but its not.
And my not hanging around here continuing to debate with someone on the internets all day is due to having a life. Again, another very mature approach on your part. Its been a real pleasure.
August 27th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
But since you obviously do, to say it's all just a matter of opinion is silly. And that there aren't logical opinions and ones just based on feeling, with different values. There's been tons of evidence presented here on how it will degrade the rivalry. Just saying "It's just my opinion and I like it" doesn't really add tons of weight to your argument.
And I just think it's funny that you start being insulting, with bad correlations, and then feel all bad and superior when it's turned around on you. But you're on right now, so you must not have that much more life...
August 26th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
Wrong. The timing is essential. It's the biggest game on the schedule and (probably) always will be, which means that once you put it in October, what's left? Every loss is easier to take because there's still the chance of beating Ohio State. Every win is more fun because it makes us feel like there's a better chance of beating Ohio State. Say we beat OSU in October. You know what'll happen next: "well, it's nice we beat Ohio State, but the biggest game is Wisconsin, because that decides the division!" If anyone ever says that, and they will, then we just blew 100 years of tradition, and for what?
August 26th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
I simply dont agree, but I respect your rational explanation of the timiing issue. I agree that it is a factor, but there have to be tradeoffs. I think the UM/OSU game will still be the biggest game, even if there are games left to be played. The others will be important, but not as important. The rivalry dimension of 'the game' will never be lost. 'The game' will be important, but different reasons, and for reasons over and above why the subsequent games are important.
UM/OSU will never again regularly play in the last game of the season. Never. That is gone. And we see the resulting tradeoffs differently. I see the timing as a tradeoff worthwhile of not having UM and OSU in the same divisions and potentially meeting for a second time, yet not two weeks in a row, in the title game every once and a while. I don't want to never see them play for the Big Ten title again, or never play in the last game of the season again.