- Member for
- 3 years 26 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|12 hours 11 min ago||Numbers are definitely going||
Numbers are definitely going to be tight. The fact that so many of these guys plan to wait until after their season (or on signing day) works out well as Michigan should have better feel for attrition by then. I realize that guys always say that but then commit earlier.
|12 hours 46 min ago||I disagree with your numbers||
I disagree with your numbers on scholarship availability.
You state that Michigan has 8 commits and 4 scholarships remaining. I think the correct number is only 2 remaining. There are errors and judgement differences in the depth chart by class on this site.
The depth chart on this site shows 81 scholarships. I have it as 84. Differences are:
1) Scott Sypniewski is on full scholarship but the list does not have it that way.
2) It is missing Ty Isaac.
3) Judgement on Joe Kerridge/Graham Glasgow. Both of these guys came in as walkons, both started last year, and both were granted scholarships last year. The question is how to treat them this coming year. Given the facts in the previous sentence, they probably should be treated the same way as each other yet the depth chart on this site has only 1 scholarship between the two of them. I think that has to be 2.
Net result would be 84 scholarship allocated for next year. There are 9 scholarship seniors this year so that would mean there are 10 available for this recruiting class (9 seniors + 1 unallocated this year).
Therefore, I see there as only 2 scholarships remaining for this class before any attrition.
|15 hours 41 min ago||I think he would argue that||
I think he would argue that the extra marketing expense is to generate the increased revenue/donations that are needed. I see you are arguing that the extra marketing expense might not be needed but there is nothing really to prove this out as you point out.
In the end, you are coming back to the key issue...whether you support his vision/strategy for the entire athletic department which heavily consists of improving the facilities for all sports including the nonrevenue ones, This is my point exactly - this is where the debate should really lie. This is the cause of the need for increased revenue. By focusing on $4 water bottles and $10 increases in tickets, I believe people are focusing on the wrong side. These are just the means needed to support his vision. If you have a problem with him, argue against the vision/strategy of investing in the facility improvements. You cant criticize the revenue generation unless you explain what you want to change on the expense side also.
|17 hours 35 min ago||A very popular view here||
A very popular view here is:
A) Brandon is entirely focused on the REVENUE side - trying to maximize revenue out of the revenue sports...and then having to find ways to spend it on both nonrevenue and revenue facilities/sports.
Perhaps the reality is:
B) Brandon is entirely focused on the EXPENSE side - spending what is necessary on facilities/coaching to create his strategy and vision of where the athletic department needs to be in 5-10yrs in terms of facilities, coaching, student athlete support, and on the field performance...and then having to find ways to generate the revenue to support that vision.
Can you really distinguish between the two as the actions would look the same either way? Most here assume it is A) because they are getting affected more by the goal for more revenue which hits their wallet.
Perhaps the reality is B...then instead of complaining about him generating too much revenue, they should be arguing against his spending and his strategy and vision of improving the facilites in all of these nonrevenue sports.
|17 hours 51 min ago||I agree with the general line||
I agree with the general line of reasoning in your comment about the nonrevenue sports being the shareholders. In a way, I would clarify it by saying his actions are more in line with the student athletes of all the sports being his primary shareholders. He seems to be focused on improving the experience for all the athletes (whether revenue or nonrevenue) and that requires taking revenue from the high profile sports to pay for the experiences of the nonrevenue student athletes.
I take a bit of an issue with your comment about the focus on the bottom line and the $4 dollar waters. I understand your point but to not focus on the net total sounds a bit like just charge a certain price and see how the numbers shake out at the end of the year. This is a large budget he runs and slight errors can easily result in losses so a strong focus on the numbers is just a fact of life.
Perhaps the way he thinks about the AD is...he has designed a strategy and vision on where he wants the athletic department to be in say 10 years. That vision is largely a function of facilities, coaches, on the field performace, and support for athletes. All of these are expense side items. The result is he has to come up with a way to pay for those things and that is why the water costs $4. It may not be so much that he wants to maximize revenue but that he is trying to find a way to pay for that vision/strategy.
The distinction would be that he is totally focused on the expense side to create that vision...which results in him having to come up with ways to pay for it. This is opposed to a popular view that he is totally focused on maximizing revenues and then him having to find ways to spend the money.
|20 hours 32 min ago||This message board topic is||
This message board topic is annoying as an interesting discussion on Brandon was going on in Brian's front page mailbag from yesterday..and this will just split up the conversation.
|20 hours 34 min ago||I just dont understand||
I just dont understand comments like this about how he only values short term profits...if that was the case, why would he invest so much in new facilities for nonrevenue sports? When you make a comment like this, yiu are only focusing on the revenue side and are not looking at the expense side.
This is the key issue...he is squeezing more revenue out of revenue sports liike football and using money to improve experience for nonrevenue student athletes by making significant investments/improvements in those facilities. This issue gets magnified as the revenue increases are coming from high-touch areas for fans (like ticket prices for FB tickets) while the investment in nonrevenue comes in sports that affect a much lower number of fans.
|20 hours 43 min ago||"I agree with Brian that we||
You stated "I agree with Brian that we should care more about the long-term future of Michigan athletics "
I think you are incorrectly interpreting Brian's point...he essentially stated that we should care more about the LT future of Michigan FOOTBALL/BASKETBALL/HOCKEY and was very clear that he did not have the same concern over the future of Michigan ATHLETICS overall. I think that distinction gets to the heart of many of the issues here...the squeezing of revenue out of the revenue sports to pay for improvements/facilities in the nonrevenue sports.
|21 hours 30 min ago||Alabama finished 17th in the||
Alabama finished 17th in the director's cup this past season (which gives equal weight to all sports). Michigan finished 13th for reference.
|21 hours 32 min ago||If he was entirely bottom||
If he was entirely bottom line oriented, he would not be spending the money he is on nonrevenue sports. Spending money on nonrevenue sports helps the experiences of all student athletes but hardly helps the bottom line at all.
|21 hours 38 min ago||Nowhere near as bad in||
Nowhere near as bad in 2016...Wisconsin, Colorado, Central Florida. Part of the reason 2014 is bad is the high profile West teams (Wisc, Neb, Iowa) arent on the schedule also this year. Yes - th even years should always be a bit worse than the odd years but 2014 is an outlier.
|1 day 6 hours ago||I guess I read this as in||
I guess I read this as in line with my point as you are saying that you dont want more money spent on non-revenue sports...which is exactly what I said needed to be declared if you complain about too much revenue being generated.
It sounds like your distinction is where I said in original post "you dont want money spent on..." where my first sentence of this post says "you dont want MORE money spent on..."
I agree that there is some line where it doesnt make sense and you suggest we have passed this point. Your line states "Once you have good, well-paid coaches and gleaming facilities, what's left?". I guess my point is that we dont have the gleaming facilities yet on most of those nonrevenue sports and that is what the increased spending is set to build. When that is done, then I can see your point more than I do in the current state. Going over past quotes from Brandon, it looks like finishing the facilities will take past 2020. So I think it does sort of come down to stating which one of these facility upgrades you want to cancel.
For completeness, here are some of quotes I was referencing
“We’ve identified 16 projects that will fundamentally change our athletic campus to the betterment of every one of our 900-plus student athletes, our 31 coaches and our 41 teams,” Brandon said. “It affords us the ability to give them facilities to study in and prepare academically all the way to strength and conditioning to health and wellness, practice facilities and competition facilities.”
Brandon said he hopes to complete a few projects every year so that the full vision of this transformation could be seen well within the next decade. It seems as though next on the docket will be building practice and competition facilities for the men’s and women’s lacrosse team, as well as renovations and upgrades to the men’s and women’s track building. Brandon also mentioned creating “homes” for the men’s and women’s soccer program and upgrades to volleyball, wrestling, swimming and diving and rowing.
|1 day 7 hours ago||In this day and age of||
In this day and age of constant recruiting, I dont see how a football coach could have the time to worry about facilities improvements for the water polo team.
|1 day 7 hours ago||The extra revenue (whether it||
The extra revenue (whether it be from raising ticket prices or the donations) is needed to invest and improve the facilities for all sports.
Brian is saying Michigan is drowning in money because he is saying he could care less about supporting student athletes in other sports and investing in improved non-revenue facilities. If you do that (stop spending money to improve those other sports), then yes the AD would be awash in money and wouldnt need to raise prices.
Complaining about ticket prices isn't making a complete point until you say what you want to cut from the expense side. While I disagree with him, I appreciate that Brian is at least making the complete argument by saying that he does not want to increase the support of those other sports.
|1 day 8 hours ago||Whether it comes true or not,||
Whether it comes true or not, I agree with the possibility that the BTN and nonrevenue investment may look very prescient under some O'Bannon scenarios. I think part of the investment is done for this reason and part of it was that the previous administration didnt invest in these areas as it didnt raise the revenue to do much of this.
You are right that the post O'Bannon environment may result in dollars going directly to the athletes while now they already go indirectly to the athletes through the form of these improved facilities.
Regarding your question of if you are right then why keep Brandon around in the post O'Bannon environment. There is always a question if someone else's skill set would be better than his in a new environment. However, if what you said came true, then the best argument for keeping him around would be that you had someone who thought ahead and had the foresight to make decisions that put you in the right position when the environment changed and that is exactly what you want in a leader. This is in addition to the fact that they are in the process of the facility upgrade schedule so you may want to keep around the person who designed the strategy and schedule.
|1 day 8 hours ago||The home schedule is just a||
The home schedule is just a one year issue and alot of it is caused by the B1G making Michigan go on the road to MSU two years in a row. I know people will come back and say that Brandon should have made that happen...but he doesnt have veto power to blow up the league over it and Im VERY certain that he wanted to avoid it given all the grief this schedule has given him.
Next years nonconference games are Oregon St, BYU, UNLV combined with conference games of MSU, OSU, NW, Rutgers. I think its safe to say that the home schedule is not an issue next year and this would be much less of an issue if the MSU game didnt get swtched years.
|1 day 9 hours ago||Personally I think Dave||
Personally I think Dave Brandon's job is very secure at this point. He has run the AD at a huge profit the last couple years, record revenues and many huge donations, and has invested heavily in non-revenue facility upgrades. He has made plenty of good hires (Arico, Bakich) including what we have been told here are some great ones in past couple months (tennis, water polo). Overall on the field results across all sports have been OK (finished 13th nationally in director's cup this past academic year despite no help from football/hockey). Lets be realistic - the guy isnt going to be fired over charging what people perceive to be $50 too much for student tickets.
His emphasis on non-revenue sports and upgrading those facilities is not appreciated. The real story is they are raising revenue from football and using it to pay for other sports. If you like that, then he has done a good job. If you dont appreciate non-revenue sports at all, then you are going to complain about how much more you have to pay for football tickets and the revenue methods used to extract more money out of football.
Brian is perfect example by flat out saying above that he has no increased interest in minor sports whether they are supported or not. So of course Brian will have problem with this - he does not appreciate Brandon squeezing more revenue out of football (which alienates football fans) to get more money to improve the softball and volleyball facilities.
Brian effectively says he would have no more interest in softball whether they are supported and the facilities are good. The reality is that facilities and support are extremely important for every sport including the non-revenue ones. Those sports have huge difference in facilities across schools and the top softball players will want to go to the schools where it is actually supported.
So for those saying that Brandon is extracting too much revenue out of football...you need to explicitly state that you dont want money spent on these non-revenue sports. If Brandon's job is to improve the experience for all student-athletes (not just football), then I believe he is making progress toward that.
|2 days 5 hours ago||Taco Charlton tweet||
Taco tweeted this Saturday night after the news came out...
@TheSupremeTaco: And they went after him harder than me. #StillMotivatesMe
|2 days 6 hours ago||Harris was up against Osa||
Harris was up against Osa Masina in that video.
|3 days 10 hours ago||Agree with you 100% on Hoke's||
Agree with you 100% on Hoke's statement to Peppers. Any criticism of that statement reflected a desire to criticize Hoke regardless of what he said.
|3 days 15 hours ago||I think part of that is just||
I think part of that is just being cautious. If he sits there and says the offensive line is going to be great, he is going to be ridiculed by many citing last year's stats and you need to prove it on the field. The constant criticism regardless of what he says has made him more guarded. The criticism by Brian on Twitter yesterday of what he told Peppers shows that no matter what he says there will be critics blasting him so why bother saying anything.
|1 week 1 day ago||All of the sophomores||
All of the sophomores starting on the O line this year wont magically turn into seniors just because you are sick of hearing about it. Fact is the offense is very young.
|1 week 1 day ago||My message wasnt intended to||
My message wasnt intended to criticize Hoke...I was attributing it to the echo effects of the 2010/2011 classes. The small OL recruiting numbers in 2014/2015 are a result of that as there are limited OL scholarships to give since so manyy had to be taken in 2012/2013. The danger is this imbalance never ends. Redshirts allow you to spread the classes out more so the lumpiness should disappear over time. However, if you get unlucky with an injury and a transfer it is possible to quickly be back in same situation given each class only has 2 OL recruits due to no fault of Hoke's.
|1 week 1 day ago||It seems like that OL||
It seems like that OL imbalance may be around for awhile...with 2014/2015 classes likely only having Cole, JBB, Runyan, and Newsome. Any injuries or mistakes in those 2 classes could mean the same imbalance occurs a few yrs down the road like it happened with the 2010/2011 OL classes.
|1 week 1 day ago||Pretty lame response...I cant||
Pretty lame response...I cant stand responses like this. What is the point? You are either suggesting that any player that picks another school did so because of some illegal benefit OR you are trying to be humorous by repeating a joke that has been recycled 10,000 times.
They picked OSU..Its too bad as Michigan would have loved to get them but will move on at LB to Bilal, Thompson, and Masina.
|1 week 3 days ago||You should watch part 1||
You should watch part 1 then..the good offensive plays were all there.
|1 week 4 days ago||Yeah..you are right - they||
Yeah..you are right - they all say that but then it rarely often happens. I was just making the point that its extremely hard to make any case that Wheatley will be one of the next to commit based on the current information set (which obviously can change).
|1 week 4 days ago||Wheatley told Steve Lorenz||
Wheatley told Steve Lorenz last week that he will take all five official visits...so wont make a decision for awhile.
|1 week 5 days ago||It was retweeted by Steve||
It was retweeted by Steve Lorenz at 247sports. So if you are a Michigan fan and you have a twitter account then it would be pretty hard not to "happen upon" it.
|1 week 5 days ago||I would really like to hear||
I would really like to hear more about what is going on with Richardson and whether he may play much this year. He redshirted last year so will be sophomore eligibility in 2014..but he is rarely mentioned around here as a potential contributor. Yes - he was a bit small coming in but he has had a couple years now.