Student Government Website letter on why the boycott is a bad idea

Submitted by BoFan on

This is a very well written argument to NOT boycott the kickoff.  

https://csg.umich.edu/why-i’m-not-participating-protest-saturday-and-why-you-shouldn’t-either

A quote:

"This Saturday, on October 11th, our football team will play Penn State at home under the lights.  Families from the greater Ann Arbor area will come to campus to support our school, alumni from across the country will venture here, to their home, to show their continued support, and we, the students, will recognize and celebrate the unparalleled community we have here at Michigan.  Football games are a time-honored tradition, a tradition that stretches back over a century, one that thousands of people have enjoyed long before us, and one that thousands of Michigan fans will continue to follow long after we’ve left...."

The letter goes on to make three primary points.  The letter also does call out the Boycott OP on Mgoblog but makes it clear it is only "some" "posters" on Mgoblog that are calling for a boycott.  I'm sure many of you won't like that.  You are free to debate your points.  

Futher, it does not suggest that Mgoblog is calling for a boycott.

Now Mgoblog has allowed many posts calling for a boycott.  Since Mgblog is not calling for the boycott itself I have to assume they will allow this post that references an articulate opposing point of view just as they have allowed the boycott posts.  Further many of the points in the linked letter have not been made in any of the many posts on this board.  Based on these two points, I am assuming this is a legitimate and worthwhile post for the board.  

FreddieMercuryHayes

October 8th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

I understand why people do not want to boycott. I understand why people do. I personally just don't think anything will happen until money forces the hand of the university. And the only way to really do that in the end is to not buy things and not show up. It sucks that it sucks for the players, but at this point I'm thinking bigger picture, and honestly, I'm thinking of myself, and my own enjoyment and sense of place in the UM community. That said, I will be 600 miles away so I'm irrelevant to the boycott, but I will most likely not be watching the game. Really pulling for the in though; kids deserve a bowl game (and need extra practice as well).



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Njia

October 8th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

Well reasoned, but will this statement:

Trusting the team, its leaders, and those who help it develop – that is how we open doors to a brighter future.

Be remembered the next time the students want to protest an action they don't like by the Administration, politicians, business people, etc.?

On the contrary, it's the exact reverse of this statement that has fueled every protest by every student body over many decades.

Bottom line: nice words. Disingenuous.

Humen

October 8th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^

I couldn't agree more with your bottom line. The article too often attributes responsibility for good things to the athletic director and seems to miss the point that people are boycotting the AD, not the players. As comments from JMFR indicate, the players are cognizant of this stuff. 

Edit to add stuff:

" a community that refuses to support the people who’ve made so many weekend games so worthwhile. "

This quote exemplifies what is wrong with this article. It takes a "either you're with us all, including the AD, or you're against us all, including the players" stance. It's also a pretty obvious defense of the AD because it suggests remedies other than boycotting and, as quoted, gives the AD credit for making games worthwhile. 

bluecrush

October 8th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

If it is done properly, with some leadership, boycotting only the kickoff  IMO is a far superior way to send the message.  Large blocks of empty seats at kickoff with fans pouring in immediately after sends that message. Especially sense there has been a lot of pub leading up to game time.  The players will know what is happening. They don't live in a vacuum.  Seats filling immediately afterward will send the message to them that the fans are with them. 

There are many reasons people may not show up for the game and only one of them has to do with the athletic dept.  So the message is muted.  But it is shouted with the spectacle of fans waiting in the concourse until after the kickoff and streaming in.

The bigger bang for the boycott buck is only for the kickoff.

UMDWolve

October 8th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

None of us want to see a partial or total boycott.

Dave Brandon (and others) have created an atmosphere which makes it impossible for the football team to return to competitiveness.  We will not be seeing the next great Michigan coach leading the team to B1G championships and beyond as long as Dave Brandon is in charge.

Some factions advocate the boycotts, others advocate other means, while still others would gladly watch AA burn down if it meant the end of Dave Brandon's time at Michigan.

One thing is for absolute certain - if Dave Brandon chooses the next head coach for Michigan football, no one is going to remember the day that 10,000 or so students weren't in their seats for kickoff.  They'll be asking why Michigan stadium needs 100,000+ seats for the 40,000 fans who show up.

Real Tackles Wear 77

October 8th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

I'm glad he wrote this, and I agree with him. If you feel that protesting is how you need to get your message across that's your choice, but along with that comes the inevitable "collateral damage" of hurting the student-athletes. Every individual has to make their own personal calculation between that harmful impact and their own feelings of being disenfranchised by the AD. For me, supporting those athletes who sacrifice their bodies for the entertainment of others wins out despite my anger at many of Brandon's actions/policies. 

Jason80

October 8th, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^

UofM has an athletic department full of non revenue sports that few care about and less intend. Perhaps these students can give the football team a pep talk about surviving as a student athlete without the 110,000 in the stands at all moments that apparently our football team must be entitled.

Dave Brandon is the one responsible for making Michigan football in to a pro experience so he has to suffer the fire Millen treatment that is at times the response of pro fans.

Bosch

October 8th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^

...the students are talking about boycotting kick-off. KICK-OFF. They will filter into their seats shortly after and will cheer on the players as they do every other Saturday. The football players are well aware that this has nothing to do with them. It a symbolic gesture while only being a minor distraction to the game.

GoBlueinEugene

October 8th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^

It all comes down to whether you think the boycott can be accomplished without hurting the players or the team. If so, you're pro-boycott. Otherwise, you're anti-boycott. Pure opinion, not based on fact, that's why this debate won't go anywhere for either camp. 

maizenbluenc

October 8th, 2014 at 3:40 PM ^

I believe everyone has made their position known about tens times over.

I find the ongoing PR campaign to encourage attendance amusing. The fact that Dave Brandon needs to reach out to every athlete in the department, the student government, sell tickets via groupon, living social and two cokes, etc. is because David Brandon totally blew the football coaching change in 2011.

Personally - I don't believe Brandon is gone - this guerilla war stuff wouldn't be going on, and Schlissel would not have included this statement in his form reply:

 

We know that we must find the way to maintain the traditions we hold so dear while keeping our athletic program vibrant and competitive into the future. We are learning from our experiences and we are listening to alumni and fans. I feel that I owe it to our university community, our alumni, the many fans of our athletic teams, our student-athletes, and the dedicated leaders and staff of our Athletic Department to thoughtfully and deliberately consider the right way forward.

Meaning we'll let Dave Brandon mix dinasaur ball while ramming "modernization" with a fee attached down our throats until the department really goes into the red.

 

Drew_Silver

October 8th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^

fundamentally the community is broken - something needs to change that

  1. Football team wins out 
  2. Hoke gets fired
  3. Brandon gets fired

don't see w/out at least 2of3 happening the community gets un-broken (or fixed) 

stormhit

October 8th, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^

I don't know why you're so passive aggressive about this not being allowed. There's plenty of evidence that your attitude being totally insufferable isn't delete-worthy.

claire

October 8th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^

in any successful boycott is moral outrage. At this point, I can't say I've reached moral outrage. I've reached differing types of outrage but can I say I'm outraged morally? No, not yet. And with this group of student athletes it's unlikely that my outrage will attain that status.

BobbyRizigliana

October 8th, 2014 at 2:13 PM ^

The longer Brandon is employed, the less likely we are to get a high end coach (defined as few question marks coming in and an immediate boost to recruiting). Read that Wetzel article from a few weeks ago. NO WAY does this University have the guts or experience to move both an AD and coach and backfill within a few weeks. Who's going to do it? The ivy league new president with no athletics background? The clueless regents?

The need for the boycott is to get Brandon out ASAP. In his own words "when all of your eggs are in 1 basket (football), you'd better watch that basket" - a talk he gave at Ross in 2010. Brandon was not watching his basket when he hired Hoke. He gave us a coach unprepared for this big time football stage yet charged us all along prices that implied he hired a big time coach. Further, he gave us no transparency in how or who was evaluating the hire. And all along the way he has not been watching his basket.

The only hope for big time coach is to move the AD right now. This needs to happen and everyone needs to get behind making this happen since we do not have the people in place to make this decision.

GoWings2008

October 8th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

I think the boycott is a bad idea.  I have a story.... (Collective eye roll....)   When I graduated Air Force pilot training, we selected our follow on assignments via a teleconference between all the pilot training bases.  At the time, women were not allowed to fly combat aircraft, although that rule was changed just about a year later.  However, one woman finished at the top of her class from the base that was getting the first pick of assignments.  The phone call was considered an official formation, or "Game Day" if you will.  She knew the rules, but still announced that she wanted to choose a fighter aircraft.  The personnel center responded with the necessary, "Due to AF regulations, this person is not authorized to chose that aircraft. TELL HER TO PICK AGAIN."   See, I have no problem protesting the regulation before and after the formation/call/Game day.  What I couldn't stand the personal statement she made during the call.  Same here...protest all you want about DB and the way the Athletic Department is handling things, but fergodsakes go to the damn game. Protest the administration all you want, but don't let the players pay the price.

Blue in Yarmouth

October 8th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^

I don't mean any offense as I enjoy you as a poster, but I don't think you understand how protests work. If you dislike something enough to launch a protest, yuo don't do it while sitting in the basement of your house. You do it out in the open for all the world to see. That's how change comes about. It isn't doing anyone a damn bit of good typing on their keyboards or jumping up and down screaming in their basements. It's only when they let the higher ups know how disgruntled they are that things might change, and to do that it has to happen in a forum like this.  

GoWings2008

October 8th, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^

and I'm not against a protest, I feel that this type of protest has a higher price than the fanbase is expecting to pay.  And again, this is all my opinion and why I said up front of my other post that I'm not a grad, just a lifelong fan...and someone who spent his entire adult life in the military or closely associated with it, so my comfort factor with going too far out on a limb is limited.  However, as a former leader of airmen and one who was trusted with making command decisions, I am pretty well schooled on how to recognize the impacts of certain decisions.  I just think the idea of a boycott in this manner will backfire.  I like someone else's suggestion of boycotting the kickoff and then not spending any money on concessions.  THAT part will hit DB at his most beloved area...his wallet. 

ESNY

October 8th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

There is no way any boycott will impact the bottom line in any way this year. All (most?) tickets are bought and paid for.  No showing won't get the beloved announced attendance below 100k, nor will it cost any significant amount of revenue.  I have no idea why so many people have such a tough time grasping this. 

The only impact any boycott, either of a game, a kickoff or showing up wearing a brown bag will huge amounts of negative publicity, which is what the goal needs to be.  Leave en mass after the coin toss.  Put brown bags on your head.  Start a "FIRE", "BRANDON" or a "PAPA" "JOHNs" chant across the opposite sides of the field.  Just don't think anything you can do during this season willh hurt the bottom line.

GoWings2008

October 8th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^

and I definitely agree that the tickets/attendance wouldn't be affected; the concessions I suppose would only be impacted if the whole stadium was on the same page, but of course that is quite a stretch.   I do like you other options you mention, the Papa John's one is quite clever...but it sounds like, not putting words into your mouth, that you are not really for or against the boycott?  But it does sound like you have some good ideas on alternative types of protests...

ESNY

October 8th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

I'm fine with the concept of boycotting something this season, but I think a Maryland boycott is futile and won't accomplish anyhting.  Also, not to generalize too much, I just think alot of people have the wrong idea of what a boycott will accomplish (i.e., attendance numbers, $$$$, etc.)  I think a show of force that the students can assemble and get together en masse and prove how pissed off they are at Brandon and/or Hoke is definitely a powerful message and will resonate. 

Its for that reason that I personally think boycotting the Maryland game will accomplish nothing.  It will be a meh game against a meh opponent late in the season, a season in which we will have a brutally awful record.  Having 15k no shows would almost be expected under those circumstances at most schools.  so you risk the boycott being lost in the general malaise of a shitty season.