Uh, I THINK John U Bacon confirmed the Gregg Henson rumor on WTKA this morning.
I know nothing - NOTHING - about Gregg Henson's credibility. Nor do I know anything about Bacon's sources, although I do know that he wasn't on Brian's ad hoc "certified source" list in the Mailbag post from earlier this week. But during Bacon's regular segment on WTKA this morning, he slipped in a detail that didn't get a lot of hype and didn't seem to get mentioned in the Henson thread below.
Go listen for yourself. Download today's Bacon segment on the WTKA website. The whole thing is worth a listen, but the back third is what you REALLY need to hear.
At around 10:35, Webb discusses how various players have spoken out for or against Michigan in "many different facets." Webb asks if there are new factions emerging between players for and against the current football regieme, or if those factions never left and have always been there.
Bacon answers - this part is paraphrase - that there aren't any factions at all. Pretty much all former lettermen are against the Athletic Department, but NOT Brady Hoke. Bacon says it's not like Rich Rodriguez, were there were people for and against him. Bacon then says - quote - "If you want to find one group that is most uniformally opposed to the current direction of the department, it's the lettermen. I mean, they've got to be 95 to 99 percent negative right now."
Webb counters that Billy Taylor defended the department; Bacon defers gracefully and says "give the reverend his due." Bacon then says that many more would come out but "can't for political reasons."
But here's the kicker. Go to 14:00, right after Bacon's phone goes off. Bacon says that there are "two approaches," but not pro and con. The two approaches are "do you speak up or do you not speak up," meaning against the athletic department. Then Bacon says - again, quoting at 14:31 - "But they [the former players] don't get a vote. They're not on the board. They're not, you know, in the president's ear in the normal way. They are writing him a letter, obviously, and they - many - I think hundreds have signed it. What it does tell Schlissel is this. I can't imagine president schl taking action based solely on the lettermen's letter. But I can see him thinking if he decides to make a decision, 'Well, one problem I will not have is obstruction from the lettermen. They're not going to defend the current direction.'"
This does not confirm that the letter Henson presented is the actual letter. But if what Henson is saying is true as it pertains to Harbaugh...
Take for granted, take it with a grain of salt, or don't take it at all.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^
Yeah - I highly doubt Lloyd Carr is taking orders from Dave Brandon. There may be plenty they agree on, but when they don't, I can't see Lloyd Carr doing anything because Dave Brandon told him so.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^
There may be plenty they agree on? Maybe that was just a throwaway line, but Brandon and Carr strike me as polar opposites with respect to both their visions for Michigan football and their personalities.
September 26th, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
presonally know Lloyd Carr. But from what I know of him, I cannot believe he is a huge fan of Dave Brandon. He seems like the kind of guy who utterly can't stand marketing schmucks like Brandon.
September 26th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
I agree. If Carr had someone with business savvy alongside him, he could be a good AD, in my opinion (smart, protective and aware of tradition, popular among donors, genuinely concerned about student-athletes, willing to tell the business types to shove it every now and then, etc.).
September 26th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
Carr doesn't work for Brandon,. if that's what you're insinuating. In fact, he retired not long after Brandon took over.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
Leaving aside your other comments, I'm not surprised that Mr. Hart is not on the list of critics of David Brandon.
I don't think it is new information that there seems to be a sharp divide on such issues between University of Michigan football alumni from 1995-2007 and all of the other alumni. The divide was pretty obvious 4 years ago, and it remains there today.
The strongest supporters of Brady Hoke will be those with the closest ties to the 1995-2007 era, and obviously, since Mr. Brandon's and Mr. Hoke's fates are seemingly tied together, those alumni will also be Mr. Brandon's strongest supporters.
September 26th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
September 26th, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^
that despite your best efforts, it gets harder and harder to defend Brandon these days. Taking shots at Bacon doesn't help--particularly when he is so often right.
September 26th, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^
Again, everyone kinda gets that people don't like Dave Brandon, but ahs anyone asked the basketball team if they like Dave Brandon? How about the swim team, or the cross country runners, or the softball players? I know this is a shock to some, but Dave Brandon's job is to run the athletic department, not the football team. And based on every stupid post that gets on here about some 82nd-grade hack of a writer with a shitty radio show, you'd think the world was falling apart.
People don't like losing and Dave Brandon is the figurehead and an obvious target, but how about we just create a single stupid thread so that people can post all of this crap instead of these wink-wink, nod-nod conspiracy posts every 10 minutes.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
Football pays the bills and right now it's the public face of failure. Football is the flagship. It has got to get right. Everything else is secondary right now.
September 26th, 2014 at 8:16 PM ^
That is absolutely true, but that shouldn't mitigate the fact that the AD has to serve many masters, and while I'm sure the swim team doesn't count much to most fans, it still needs to be considered. UM would be in big trouble if they had a total football-centric AD.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
I defended Brandon for a long time, and this was partly why. There's a whole department that runs here, and I think things look good. The facilities are crisp, the teams are on solid footing, and the budget is good.
For now.
And that's a huge problem--this is not Stanford. Football is the engine that drives the train, and if football is unhealthy, the train isn't going anywhere.
And, while people are thrilled with how the basketball team is playing, hockey fans are unhappy with certain changes made at Yost, and I believe there's some leftover angst regarding how longstanding basketball ticketholders were treated. So it's not like everything is perfect there.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
ticket holders were treated. Obviously, us longtime football season ticket holders don't feel like we're getting much love from the athletic department either. This is at the core of my dissatisfaction with DB. He looks at loyal longtime benefactors and "customers" as just financial assets to be mined for revenues - not as real people who care about Michigan athletics. As such, he makes either very little or no effort to find out how people like us will feel or react before rolling out some promotion, program, or idea. I'm sure he listens to the few people of his own financial level who write the big donation checks. But, he could probably care less about the rest of us. Maybe he does think otherwise, but his actions don't communicate that.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^
The Michigan Athletic Department's #1 focus should be football as it's the cash cow.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 26th, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^
I totally agree that football runs the place here and it needs to be fixed, but I do think people are forgetting that every AD pisses off some section of the fanbase. Martin basically let Crisler go to seed and then toward the end initiated some changes that Brandon helped usher along, so there are positives and negatives to both.
I guess my point is that we focus so much on football and just expect the rest of the sports to figure themselves out and be good, but it takes effort and Brandon has done some good things in that regard (for example, getting Lacrose up from the club/varsity level).
September 26th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 26th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
Sorry, but your mention of softball conjured up this image of David Brandon insisting on watching softball game film with Carol Hutchins, the way he watches football game film with Brady Hoke.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
Football IS the Athletic Department. Basketball matters as does hockey. For the rest, most would rather the football team beat Ohio than for any of those teams to win a national championship. Hell, most would rather have the football team beat Indiana than those teams win a NC. Those teams produce very little (income, attention, applicants, donations) yet continue to eat at the football and basketball team's income. WIth the recent decisions coming down the line (pay-for-play), we could very easily see a shake up of college sports. Who is going to pay a women's field hockey player? The same as football player (Title IX)? Michigan could be stuck with a bunch of non(negative, actually)-revenue sports and their multi-million dollar facilities. The $150 million in yearly profits ain't going to last. There could be lean times ahead.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^
did. I don't remember reading that before, but if true, I'd have to think that the team probably didn't take that too well, so my complete and utter guess is that there are segments of other sports that also cannot stand DB.
September 26th, 2014 at 3:02 PM ^
Last, not first, is the position of honor, so the order doesn't bother me at all.
But he shouldn't have been up there in the first place. The lowliest staffer in the equipment room has more business on that ladder than the AD.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
Not that I would ever want a huge contingent of former players to be anti-ourcoach, but I hope that this doesn't mean that these guys will be pissed or indignant when Hoke gets fired.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^
They might. The former players tend to have very strong opinions of things, and we all love that when it goes along with what we want (ousting Brandon) but remember that was one of the big things hindering RR when he was here too, and that might not have been such a good thing.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
Hannibal,
Expanding on my point below a bit.
Maybe these guys know something that we don't know. Maybe in their interaction with Hoke & Co. and the current players they like what they see, but they feel that the feel -- to use a corporate analogy -- that the workers and middle management are being hampered constant meddling by an egomaniacle CEO. Maybe he's created an atmosphere that isn't condusive to sucess, despite all the good that Hoke & Co. are doing.
I dunno, obviously just speculation. Thoughts?
September 26th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^
While it's possible, I think that Hoke's pre-Michigan track record, hands-off style and indifferent demeanor make it unlikely that Brandon has any responsiblity for the on-field results. Borges, for example, must have been a Hoke choice from the beginning and brininging him to Ann Arbor from SDSU was a bad decision. I don't want to take a chance and give Hoke any more time under a new AD. I would hope that every former player who experienced the good times under Bo, Mo, and Llo would either:
A. Be so disgusted with the current state of the program that they would want everyone cleaned out. This is the level of disgust that there should have been with the program when Michigan lost to Appalachian State.
or
B. Reluctantly accept that there is no way that you can justify keeping Hoke around with the program in its current state and put their full support behind the next guy
Anyone who would hold a grudge against the next guy because he wanted Hoke to get another year would be a cancer.
September 26th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^
Anyone who would hold a grudge against the next guy because he wanted Hoke to get another year would be a cancer.
Unthinkable. Nothing like that has ever happened before.
September 26th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^
What is the former players, with their access and understanding of the effects of roster depletion and instability, actually understand why Hoke has been struggling recently.
What I find interesting, if not down right amazingly frustrating, is that so many anti-Hoke posters in here seem to just right off 2011 as a fluke, or throw out the "RR's guys" argument. As I have commented on repeatedly, the seeds of CFB "roster issues" are usually sown years in advance of the rotten fruit is harvested.
Hoke & Co. took a mishmash of Carr's last 2007 class, and RR's classes, and produced one of Michigan's best seasons. He did this with great coaching and by quickly developing players whom we had all written off as "also rans" into good/great players. When Hoke & Co. took over we heard story after story -- especially on the defensive side of the ball -- about how little coaching the players were getting under RR/GERG, and we watched as they improved week in and week out.
That, to my mind, was a glimpse of that Hoke & Co. can do. The fruit that was growning on the vines at that time was salvageable, and Hoke & Co. made us all a pretty tasty salad. Problem is, to anyone that really studied the roster and recruiting classes, the next few harvests were ALWAYS going to lacking. Add to that some untimely injuries and you have what we have now.
As I said, I think the former players -- more than anyone -- understand this and that is why they're not "disgusted" as you imply they should be. To me, if there is an new AD, I would hope that he is aware of these factors and makes an appropriate decision. I know you and others think it's an obvious one, but I am not so sure that this is the case.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 26th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
Personally, I think the most interesting aspect of the alleged petition and email(s) from the Lettermen, and what Bacon specifically stated about it, is that the faction is NOT anti-Hoke -- especially as compared to how anti-RR this faction was just a few years ago.
The massive amount of negative info swirling around about DB make me wonder what, if any, effect his presence is having on the preformance of the coaches and players? Probably seems a bit farfetched, but it's very telling (IMO) that this faction doesn't seem as upset about losing, which is far more attributable to Hoke & Co. than the meddling of an AD -- or is it?
This whole thing is getting to be a circus, and I just wish we could have some peace and quiet, but it's obvious that we're going to have a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
This all excalates in weeks after a loss. So every week that we win, the circus will be less, even if we just beat a team we're supposed to (unless it's an Akron type game where we almost lose to an awful team). But since they are all Big Ten games, as long as we win, that week won't be so bad.
September 26th, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
The negativity increases by factor as long as the losing streak continues.
I just don't understand the logic of scheduling a Utah. There is very little value for us in a win. Utah, despite excellent performance, has a mediocre reputation in the football world. We accepted all the risk in that engagement.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 26th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
I recall those rumors as well. As I said, the whole thing is circus like and Bradon remind me a great deal of Jerry Jones -- successful, but seemingly totally out of control within their oganizations and actively turning people off with their egotistical behavior.
At this point, I am not ruling anything out.
To me, the fact that BOTH Harbaugh and Miles (allegedly) expressed interest in the Michigan job, but neither were offered is very telling. Like Jones in Dallas, Bradon seems to be incapable of allowing another big personality in his organization. This knowledge, IMO, make the Hoke hire all the more understandable -- he's a good guy, but a guy that doesn't have a big personality that is going to overshadow Brandon's need to be The Man.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^
One of the points I've been pondering is what DB thinks he can contribute to the breakdown of game film. I'd think he would add nothing to the discussion and if anything be a disruptive presence.
What coach is going to feel free to speak his mind with the Big Boss in the room? In one of Bo's early books, he talked about the coaches nearly coming to blows with each other when he worked for Woody Hayes. He got "fired" by Woody (whether Woody really meant it or not) on a nearly weekly basis. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that would happen with the AD in the room.
Brandon was a back bencher on Bo's team in the early 70s, had no further career in or association with football, etc. I wish Brady was in a better position that he could just tell DB to GTFO.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^
I doubt he thinks he's contributing anything to the film work.
I can think of two possiblities, not mutually exclusive:
1. He tells himself it's a way of keeping his finger on the pulse of the program. (Which is OK as far as it goes. If my boss wants to sit it on a meeting with my staff once in a while, that's fine. If he thinks he should be there every single time, to hell with him.)
2. It's an upscale equivalent of going to fantasy baseball camp; he's using his position to live out a child's dream.
September 26th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
I think Njia aptly points out that its a distraction at the very least.
For all we know the egomaniac AD is actually telling the HC what to do, and the HC doesn't have the nerve to stand up to him. Farfetched, I know, but at this point not much about DB's actions would surprise me at this point.
I agree that your possibilities listed above are the most likely, but when people who have more access to the program than we do make statements comparing DB to Hitler (as asinine as that sounds to us) there has to be something out of the ordinary "bad boss" going on, no?
September 26th, 2014 at 9:29 PM ^
If our head coach is listening to our AD about how to coach or scheme for a game, then thats an even bigger indictment on Hoke. Sure maybe DB hanging around in film sessions is annoying or a bit distracting, but i don't think that is contributing anything to the shit show our offense has been against teams with pulses. And i doubt DB is the reason he refuses to change up his punt coverage.
September 26th, 2014 at 4:53 PM ^
1. Is it possible that even with a Brandon departure and potentially a new coach that the fans and alumni buy in to the program again to allow growth? I have to admit, despite all of RR's shortcomings fans still attended all the games and continued to support the team. This doesn't seem to be happening anymore. I haven't heard one positive comment from friends and family in the past year or so.
2. It is definitely #2. Brandon is a number 2.
September 26th, 2014 at 9:06 PM ^
This signifies to me a problem with Hoke. No self respecting coach at the D1 level would have the AD in there. They would let them know it isn't appropriate. Since Hoke doesn't it just shows he is weak and unable to command the respect and leadership role of his position. He may be a nice guy, but nice isn't everything.
September 26th, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^
Did you feel that way when DB was watching film with Rodriguez? Back then people on the blog had "unbreakable faith in the pimp hand of David Brandon" and I can't find even muted criticism of his Sunday film sessions.
I'm not sure the head coach is in a position to stop this.
September 26th, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
with RR. I don't think any coach should allow it. The coach can handle it in a professional manner. It truly demonstrates a micromanager/meddler personality.
September 26th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^
I certainly agree with that, but that's a problem with Brandon, not with Hoke.
I think it can easily be damaging, too. Dynamics are very different when the boss is in the room. Having him in the room every time you and your staff sit down to look at film?
Hoke and Rodriguez seem to have very different personalities and management styles but neither one ever found a way to stop this. Sometimes the boss is so crazy that your only two options are to resign or to put up with it.
September 28th, 2014 at 8:48 AM ^
is unfounded. He can't stand Belke meddling in his running the team in Frisco, what make anyone think he'll like that pompous ass Jerry Jones selecting the Cowboy's #1 draft pick for him?
This is why Brandon Must go first. Then a strong but non meddeling AD has to be hired. Someone who can bring James Joesph Harbaugh back to Michigan.
Then and only then can Michigan football be restored to greatnesss.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
"When you have to eat a frog, eat it quickly. And if you have to eat two, eat the big one first." -Mark Kombrink (St. Charles HS (IL), '88)
September 26th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^
Is one g not enough for this guy?
September 26th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^
I'll eat a lemon.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^
The piece Bacon refers to at the end of the podcast mentions the schedule as part of the reason for danger of an official end to the streak.
But how did Michigan get sucn ah unfavorable schedule in the first place? The original Henson piece says this:
" Apparently he has alienated nearly everybody in the department and some in the B1G offices."
Could this explain why Michigan was saddled with such an inexplicable schedule? Could the Big Ten office hate David Brandon so much that they ended a tradition of the OSU and MSU games being split between home and away every year?
I am guessing the arrogant "bull in a china shop" routine has pissed off a lot of people. Unfortunately, the Big Ten office are the wrong people to piss off. That alone should get him fired.
September 26th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 26th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
Good point Tate re: the schedule.
They said it was a random drawing, but in light of all the anti-DB info that is coming out, I think it's more likely that the B10 committee dealing with this said, "oh yeah Dave, GFYCS! How's your rebuild going to look when you've got to go back to E. Lansing AND Columbus next season?"
September 26th, 2014 at 5:19 PM ^
September 26th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^
"Pretty much all former lettermen are against the Athletic Department, but NOT Brady Hoke."
Anyone else notice the "not Brady Hoke" part?