What our next AD needs to accomplish.

Submitted by ThadMattasagoblin on

1. He needs to get one of Jim Harbaugh, John Harbaugh, Les Miles, or Dan Mullen by any means necessary even if it means paying them 8 million dollars a year.

2. He needs to reduce student football pricing. A 12,000 person student section is way too small at a place like Michigan. Students don't tend to have a lot of money so it needs to be cheap for them to attend. As for the rest of the stadium, I would like for prices to be reduced as well but if we must have high prices to bring in a big name coach then so be it.

3. He needs to get rid of the endowment of the AD, head football coach, and offensive cordinator. It's embarrassing to do this at Michigan.

4. He needs to get rid of the advertising around the concourse of Michigan Stadium.

5. He needs to get rid of alternate uniforms for Michigan. You could possibly do one every 2-3 years but it's spitting on the face of our actual uniforms to replace them for our biggest games every year.

6. He needs to cut back on the piped in music. No one comes to the games to hear Special K and it is hurting the marching band.

7. He needs to continue to pay attention to nonrevenue sports and upgrade their facilities. This is the one thing I agree with Brandon on.

michgoblue

October 9th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

I hate the idea of the legacy numbers.  First, it doesn;t allow new players to carve out their onw legacy.  Second, because it is silly.  Third, because it really upset my then 6-year-old son.  We went to last year's opener, and after the game in which DG was fantastic, he asked if he could have a Devin jersey.  Obviously, what Michigan-obsessed father would say no, so we went to M-Den after the game and I bought him a #12.  He wore it proudly twice that week.  The following week, against ND, he was really upset when they changed Devin's # to 98.  He still wears the jersey, but does often ask why Devin had to change his number.

Blue Mike

October 9th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^

I've always said do the legends numbers thing for one game.  You want to honor Tom Harmon?  Have Devin in his number for one home game.  Show clips from his time at Michigan, have family members on site, etc.  Next week, Devin goes back to 12, and maybe throw the legends patch on his uniform so people can see that he was chosen to honor Ol' 98.

You get the best parts of the legends jersey without all of the stupid stuff.

An Angelo's Addict

October 9th, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^

we say our mantra is "the team, the team, the team" and yet these legend numbers are made to make certain players more special than the others. I know we have the #1 and #2 jersey stuff but I really dislike the legends jerseys for everything said above. Especially for what michgoblue said

603_GoBlue

October 9th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^

THIS. Im so fucking tired of having to explain why devin wears 98. "let me explain why he wears number 98. It has to do with tradition that if you cared about you would already know and if we didnt suck you might have some interest in but of course I dont mind sounding like a delusional michigan fan still living in the past."

On top of that its not the 30's or 40's. QBs dont wear 98, it looks stupid.

If you want to honor Tom Harmon have the jersey be worn for a UTL game. Harmon is not honored by having his number dragged through the mud by a bad team and an under-derseving QB

PurpleStuff

October 9th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^

Nobody goes into McDonald's and volunteers to write them a check because they have loved eating Big Macs in the past.  That happens all the time when it comes to Michigan athletics.

You can bring in loads of dough without screwing people every chance you get.  If people feel appreciated, the ones who have money are all too willing to open their checkbooks.  Churches do fine financially without charging people for communion wafers.

Dave Brandon doesn't understand that because he is a dumbass.

pearlw

October 9th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^

This is pretty funny..so your recommendation for paying for increased coaching salaries is to cut unnamed people on the staff that according to you "do-nothing". Given that you dont even know who these people are, how can you have any insight on whether their position is valuable or they do alot. Its always easy to point out where to cut when its all theoretical and no specifics are being given.

PurpleStuff

October 9th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

Dave Brandon added a bunch of new jobs, with a specific focus on marketing.  Michigan was doing fine from a marketing standpoint for generations without those employees.  People had heard of UM football.  They recognized the winged helmet.  They bought tickets every week.

Specifically, we don't need an army of people to market something everyone is aware of and happy to be a part of, especially when their marketing efforts do more harm than good.  Pissing off existing "customers" while finding no one who will replace them unless they get the "product" included with the purchase of a soft drink doesn't add value and apparently costs us a lot of money, hence it is a prime place for making sweeping cuts once DB is shown the door.

pearlw

October 9th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^

I'm well aware he increased hiring for marketing jobs. But I have to say I dont have enough knowledge of what those people do to just outright call for their jobs by saying they do nothing. I do see a significant increase in marketing and promotion of nonrevenue sports compared to the previous administration. I see an increase in marketing to alumni through constant visits of coaches across the country.  Yes - when there are unsold tickets, they are trying to be creative to sell them and sometimes it is extreme. Whether those positions are not needed in this current day, I dont think either of us knows that unless we see what they are doing day to day.

I think alot here are going to be very disappointed when there is a new AD and there are limited changes. The current level of revenue is needed to offset the expansion of nonrevenue facilities, increase in tuition, increase in coaching salaries, and yes the increase in non-coaching salaries. But the message you and I are replying to is saying to increase those expenses by paying $8mm to a football coach which also means paying a big buyout fee to the current AD and current coaching staff. I dont think cutting a few marketers is going to pay for that.

Wolverine 73

October 9th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^

Bo wasn't a big name when he was hired, but Canham made a brilliant choice.  We need a guy who produces an excellent and organized football product, who can identify coaching talent to assist him, and who runs a clean program.  It doesn't matter what his name is.  Agree re 2, 5 and 6.  3 and 4 don't bother me.

ThadMattasagoblin

October 9th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^

Not really spend more money and cut revenue. You could cut tons of dollars from the unnecessary athletic department office staff that work for him. I believe another poster said they've added about 10 million dollars annually in this since 2010. Also getting rid of flyovers and skywriting etc. would save a ton and I'd be ok with paying the same amount I am now if that meant we got Harbaugh not the shitshow we are watching now.

UMaD

October 9th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^

The savings you propose (cutting staff and flyovers) won't even cover paying Hoke and Brandon to not work for you.

The AD budget is published.  http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-m-athletic-department-budget-fy-2014/

There is a surplus, which you want to eliminate by cutting football ticket prices.  If you increase spending for the football coaching staff as dramatically as you propose you need to generate new revenues or make cuts to other programs.

 

Muttley

October 9th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^

as to their preference

 

A) Field a perennial competes for the B1G football title and occasional contender for the NC, or

B) Maintain powerhouse non-revenues sports

 

I bet most would pick A.

MIchigan has tried taking A for granted, in withheld DC funds for RR and with an old-boy-network hire in Hoke.  In terms of revenue, it got away with it.

Until now.  That football revenue stream is at serious risk.  Michigan needs to invest to protect it.

Football brought in $82 million in direct revenue on $23 million of operating costs.  It seems to me penny-wise and pound-foolish to focus on minimizing the $23 million while taking the $82 million for granted.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/03/wolverine_footbal…

 

 

UMaD

October 9th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^

You don't say. What would a poll of non-revenue sports fans say?  Probably my GF/pal/son/daughter/god-son matter to me.  So what?  This sounds like a veiled gripe at Title 9, which whatever.  That's an ancient argument at this point...

Michigan is not trying to take being good at football for granted, they just aren't good at it right now. It's not for a lack of effort or spending.

Nobody is trying to "minimize" FB expenses.  If they wanted to do that, they would keep Hoke around.

 

Tater

October 9th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^

I moved away from Ann Arbor in 1998 and have been to one game at the Big House since.  I remember how unique the atmosphere used to be at the stadium.  It was like a shrine.  Now, from what I am hearing, it sounds like an Arena Football League atmosphere.  

The University of Michigan doesn't need to resort to Arena Football League tactics to provide a great Saturday afternoon experience.  It never has.

laxalum

October 9th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^

Partly devil's advocate here and partly just asking questions...

Does Alabama charge less for student tickets?  If so, what are their student fees?  Michigan finally raised student fees last year to help pay for desperately needed new recreational facilities, but they are still far below the national average I believe.  A lot of schools charge huge student fees to cover part of the athletic budget and recreational sports, which is basically taxing every student for sports whether they attend games or use facilities or not.  Michigan does not do that.  They charge more for the students that want to attend instead.  (Not saying one is right or wrong - just different ways to fund the same things.)

Has Alabama attempted to endow coaching positions or the AD position?  Do you believe they would turn that down if offered?  I don't.  It's not an uncommon practice at schools that have that kind of donor support.  Many university positions and professorships are named.  Even some presidencies.

From everything I've read the families of the football legends have bought into the program.  Is there evidence out there that they haven't?  Desmond Howard, the Ford family, the Harmon family all seem supportive, and I would guess the rest are too.  I'm not in love with it and it doesn't bother me, but do we do damage to relationships with those important Michigan football families by removing the program?

How important are alternate uniforms to modern recruiting?  I don't know. By limiting those or removing them, do we handicap recruiting, especially at a time when we could use all the help we can get in attracting and keeping top talent committed.

I can't come up with any challenging questions about the piped in music.  I like the band whenever they aren't dancing.

Agree completely on the non-revenue sports. There's a balance though between how much we can cut and how much we can provide.  If I had a beef with naming the AD or HC positions, for example, but had to chose between that and providing the new lacrosse facility or an expanded academic center, I know what I'm choosing. (By the way, I am willing to offer up my user name as a naming opportunity.  The Stephen Ross laxalum has a nice ring to it.)

michgoblue

October 9th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^

I was being a bit snarky and facetious in my response.  I do think that it is unlikely that we will suddenly drop significant revenue all at once, and then shell out major money at the same time.  That said, my non-snark responses on each point:

1.  TOTALLY AGREE - the next hire is critical, and we will likely have to shell out big bucks to bring in a top guy.  I am 100% behind it, even if it means upping prices on premium seats (which would likely only impact those who could afford it).  That said, I don't think that $8 million is necessary.  Miles currently makes $4.5 million, with another $1 million in max incentives.  So, we could probably go to $6 million and reel in a huge name ($6 million would probably be a top 5 salary)

2.  Partially agree - I would be ok with a decrease in student ticket prices, and an offseting of this drop in revenue by an increase in premium seating. 

3.  Agree, but - As stated by several above, once the endowment is in place, it cannot easily be cancelled.  But, it does look ridiculuos so perhaps the new President and AD can work the the Harris family to deal with the endowment in some way other than by referring to our HC as the IRA Harris Head Coach.  This looks RIDICULOUS.  Name something else after them and move on.

4.  Disagree - the reality of our times is that advertising is necessary to pay for coaches, facilities, etc.  As long as it stays in the concourse and not in the stadium proper, I can live with it.  Don't love it, but we do need to compromise to modern times a bit and this seems relatively insignificant.

5.  AGREE, but - Not going to happen.  I hate the uniformzz, as do most in my (38 years old) generation.  But, the recruits and players love them.  I just read in an article that Butt is pumped to wear them this week, so if the players like em, I think that we are stuck with them.  That said, stick to the road games and leave the home unis alone!  And limit them - once per season, at most.

6.  TOTALLY AGREE - there is no financial cost to getting rid of (or substantially reducing) the piped in music.  It is not necessary and seems like an easy way to give in to fan preferences. 

7.  Totally agree - don't think that anyone disagrees here.

 

pearlw

October 9th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

Why is the endowed coaching position ridiculous? The university (and every other university) has endowed faculty/professors like that in every single academic department but when they do it was a football coach it is then unseemly. I find this completely bizarre that you and others try to make this argument. Its like you are arguing that it is OK to commercialize the academic institution but that isnt appropriate for the football team.

 

Muttley

October 9th, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^

"2. Partially agree - I would be ok with a decrease in student ticket prices, and an offsetting of this drop in revenue by an increase in premium seating."

At present, and as long as we have a crappy team, those two are unrelated.

Student attendance declining is an enormous problem for the future. If students develop a tradition of watching the game on TV over beers with friends, who is going to buy the $1,000+ season tickets down the road?

And sure, if there was an excess demand for premium seating, you could raise prices. How many UM fans in any seat at any price left the Utah or Minny game feeling good? More like destroyed.

michgoblue

October 9th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^

Let's assume for a minute that any change in pricing has to be revenue neutral.  (Remember that point 1, with which we all agree, is that we need to pony up millions for a shiny, new, hot coach).  If that is the assumption, and we want to cut the student ticket prices, then the only way to offset is to raise other ticket prices.  I would argue that the premium seats are the best way to do it because there is less of a chance that doing so will result in people not buying.  For example, since the renovations to the Big House, my wife and kids come to AA (from NY) for one game a year and get 4 tix in the Jack Roth Clubhouse section.  We buy on stubhub, and usually spend around $300 per ticket for a decent game.  So, $1,200.  Assuming that there is a price increase of even $100 (which would be huge!!) and that the seller passed the full amount on to me, I am looking at $1,200 vs. $1,600.  Once I have committed to paying over $1000 for tickets to see a football game (plus the cost of travel and hotel), the $400 isn't going to keep me out.  I expect that the others sitting in the Jack Roth Clubhouse or one of the other luxury sections are in the same boat.  So, raising prices isn;t going to hurt demand.

What will hurt demand is the craptastic product on the field these past two seasons.  But if that product stays the same, it won't matter if ticket prices are doubled or halved, people will eventually stop coming out as much.  The two issues - prices and quality - are almost unrelated.

 

You mention the crappy team

pearlw

October 9th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^

For #7..It depends how you define whether Alabama sufficiently supports nonrevenue team.

If your definition is do they even have a team...the answer is NO that Alabama does not have any of the following sports Michigan has: men's soccer, men's hockey, men's gymnastics, men's wrestling, men's lacrosse, women's field hockey, women's lacrosse, and women's water polo.

That is 8 sports I count that Michigan has a team while Alabama does not have a team. By the way, Michigan has a team in every single sport that Alabama has so it doesnt apply the other way.

Im not saying there is a wrong or a right way...but this is another area that Michigan football has to essentially support where Alabama doesnt have to.

Chunks the Hobo

October 9th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^

Someone in another thread brought up the idea that the AD needs to be a steward of Michigan's unique culture. More than anything, someone who gets that while being able to balance the books is what is needed. Brandon feels like a fox "building the brand" at the hen-house.

maize-blue

October 9th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^

I just hope that the new AD can run an effective coach search without interference. I agree with #1 in that they must do whatever it takes to get a "homerun" guy. The program is bogged down and everyone's been waiting since 2008 for good things to happen. I just don't see them going for a guy who is currently a coordinator. I think they will select a guy that is a current HC, is proven, who's name alone will make a splash and is above .500 winning percentage.

BlueHills

October 9th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^

The endowments of the head coach, AD, and OC are undoubtedly contractually mandated as part of the gift. So a new AD won't be able to get rid of them without exposing the university to litigation. That wouldn't be a good idea.

As to the rest of what you're suggesting, cool, but what makes you think we're getting a new AD?

rockediny

October 9th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^

About the money, who cares if there's advertising on the concourse of the stadium? Unless I don't know what that word means, it's outside the stadium right? Did that Absopure water station fuck up your entire Saturday? Also, who cares if the Head Coach title is prefixed by some rich family's name? It's literally free money and no one actually says the full name, it's just in the programs. Michigan fans can be so nitpicky about irrelevant things, it's mind-boggling.

ndscott50

October 9th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^

The new coach’s status as a Michigan Man or the opinions of program alumni who will overvalue someone they view as their guy should be irrelevant to the decision.

Once the coach is in place give him total control, along with the resources needed, to do what he thinks is necessary to make the football team successful.

Provide full support to the coach both publically and behind the scenes. If “supporters” and program alumni are not fully supportive, or worse are undermining the new coach, they need to be told to GTFO both privately and publically if necessary.

As for the other items just listen to all the stakeholders (including students, fans, alumni) and do your best to balance the need for revenue with the need to build and maintain strong support for the athletic department over the long term. That not an easy task but that why you get paid the big bucks.

LJ

October 9th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^

There's so much ire raised over the uniforms around here.  I don't love them either, but there's every indication that players and recruits do.  If it helps us get 1 recruit that helps us win 1 more game, I'm all for it.