Unverified Voracity Requires Purchase Of Coke
U-go's in the @umich Union is giving away 2 @umichfootball tickets if you buy 2 coke products (Photo: @ByAZuniga ) pic.twitter.com/iKeFD5rRhg
— The Michigan Daily (@michigandaily) September 22, 2014 COKEAGGEDDON. Well, it happened, and they quickly ran out of tickets, and the athletic department said that shouldn't have happened like a robot programmed to impersonate a human, and now it's over. The robot bit:
Coke is a great partner of ours and had purchased a limited block of tickets for the Minnesota game for a Coke retail activation aimed at Michigan students.
What I would give for an athletic department that responded to things like this without resorting to the nonsense phrase "retail activation." The program was "pulled immediately" after the Union had already run out, ie, not pulled. There's the silver lining: Michigan tickets are still worth more than two dollars.
As per usual when these things happen, the cover-up is worse than the crime. The pattern: Michigan does something stupid or embarrassing or annoying or all three. People laugh or complain about it. Michigan releases a mendacious statement that blames someone else for the screw up, wonders why everyone is making a big deal about it, and says it was never their intent for stupid/embarrassing/annoying thing to happen. Two months later, repeat the process.
The list is getting long: running out of water after banning outside bottles because terrorists, Allstate field goal nets, enormous macaroni sculpture, seat cushions, sky-writing over Spartan Stadium, telling people they got a discount on their hockey season tickets when really they moved a Michigan State game to Chicago, and Cokeaggeddon. Nobody apologized for "In The Big House," but they damn well should have.
I would prefer an athletic department that knew enough about how thing were going to look to a persnickety fanbase to not have issues like this on the regular. I would even more strongly prefer a department that didn't go "nuh-uh" when people called them on their crap.
Backhanded compliment battle royal. Man are people saying some things about Hoke these days that they mean to be nice but come off not so nice. Mark Dantonio:
Dantonio on turmoil in Ann Arbor: "I don't think there's a bad football coach out there. ...I have a lot of respect for Brady."
— Dan Murphy (@DanMurphyESPN) September 23, 2014 Dantonio followed that up by responding "I have empathy for people" when some reporter asked him if he had empathy for what's going on at Michigan. If our athletic department is going to be a robot can it be a Dantonio-style killer robot at least?
I HAVE EMPATHY FOR PEOPLE
SPECIFICALLY: YOURS
/hail of gunfire
And then Dennis Norfleet was getting his coach's back when this came out and got on the internet the wrong way:
"In life, he's a good coach," Norfleet on Hoke
— Max Cohen (@MaxACohen) September 23, 2014 I know he didn't mean it like that but it's hard not to read it like that, you know?
Shades of the late RR period. Old pissed-off alums are coming out of the woodwork to yell on the talk radio. Former Bo QB Michael Taylor is up:
"Michigan football is not going in the right direction," said Taylor, who played for UM from 1987-89. "The leadership is bad. There are many more issues on and off the field than I care to talk about. It's sad." …
"What we've become is a propaganda football team, telling people how great we are when we're mediocre," he said.
Taylor has had an axe to grind for a while, FWIW. Hard to disagree with the last bit even so.
While Taylor's naplam job was widely reported the News is the only outlet I've seen that noted anything about Jon Jansen's immediately subsequent appearance. Jansen is on some sort of former players' committee, and says this about Taylor's complaint that players are being told to buy tickets if they want anything more than two per season (as in two tickets, total):
"It may not be the answer they're looking for, but we have started the process of getting a policy together for how many tickets you can get, how you get them, sideline passes," Jansen said. "That's the biggest thing — guys want to be able to come back."
IIRC, Taylor's beef with Brandon started when he further restricted tickets for former lettermen. It's not about "getting a policy" together. There is a policy. As per usual it prefers nickel and diming everyone to creating long-term allies.
More bloviation. Get ready for two and a half months of HARBAUGH HARBAUGH HARBAUGH posts that don't have much of anything behind them. PFT takes the lead:
…the speculation has been ongoing regarding the future of 49ers coach (and former Michigan quarterback) Jim Harbaugh for a while. Mired in a contractual impasse that has been tabled until after the season, any college or program now knows that Harbaugh is in play for a jump to a new job come 2015. With the 49ers already mired in a disappointing, stressful year, that jump could be more likely.
This gets everyone hot and bothered while not having a single quote or even a single assertion that a hot source told him something. Throw it on the bloviation pile. And reinforce the floor under that pile. It's about to get stressed.
The cycle is intact. Football team is bad at football. People say football team is bad at football. People say maybe football team would be better at football if this coach who seems to have a lot of bad football teams was no longer the coach. Media incessantly hammers coach and players at every media opportunity about The Critics, leading to people Taking A Stand Against The Critics and articles describing that event. Dennis Norfleet just did so.
If anyone thinks the massive public criticism being hurled at Brady Hoke on a now daily basis doesn't make its way into the ears of Michigan's players from time to time, then Dennis Norfleet has a message for you.
It does.
And they're pretty pissed about it.
Okay. I don't expect this conversation to go any other way, because Hoke has his team behind him and they would run through the proverbial wall for him, etc. I just don't see why anyone should care. It's all talk. Weren't we all like "I'm done with talk, show me" this offseason? We have been shown some things. Now there is talk about how bad the team is, and if you are mad at people talking about how bad Michigan football is currently I don't know what to tell you.
This is just not realistic:
"Even if we lose. If we lose, if you're a Michigan fan you're supposed to be with us 100 percent to pick us up. We need our fans just as much as we need a win. So, yes, it hurts. It hurts a lot."
It is impossible to control the emotional impulses of large groups of people, and fans are in this for themselves. They like the players, they want the players to succeed, they generally refrain from harsh personal criticism of the players. They are there to feel something, however, and when the only thing they feel is certainty Michigan is not going to make up yet another double-digit deficit they're going to talk about replacing the coach. Because that is the logical thing to do if your goals for a football team involve having a nice time with it.
That's the fundamental disconnect between fans and players and we can stop talking like any of these people have to have the same motivations. Or not, I suppose, because journalists are in this for themselves.
We're confusing to computers. Michigan has outgained every opponent en route to a 2-2 record with two blowout losses. The play-based ranking systems are having a bit of a conniption fit as a result:
[gulp] UPDATED S&P+ RANKINGS. Yes, I'll be writing about Michigan soon. http://t.co/sUnYsKN9Y5 pic.twitter.com/8DyLCfYgHN
— Bill Connelly (@SBN_BillC) September 22, 2014 Computer rankings after four weeks are never accurate but drive systems do take a lot more data than the final score into account and should be a bit more reliable as a result. It's just that sometimes not taking the final score into account particularly heavily is… unwise. Connelly on that:
On a per-play basis (in a system that counts turnovers simply as non-successes until drive data is factored in after seven weeks), they are good enough to rank 19th in the country, just one spot behind a team that beat them by 31 points and 11 spots ahead of a team that beat them by 16. But in ways similar to 2011 Texas A&M and 2011 Notre Dame, they're figuring out ways to make their failures count double, and it seems they (and their fans) know the failures are coming before they happen.
Seven of the next eight conference games are winnable, and eight are losable. We'll see if Hoke can figure out how to turn promise into reality, or if, like Texas A&M in 2011, it will take a new coach and a new quarterback to translate decent stats into good results.
He notes three teams with similar profiles to Michigan to date: 2011 versions of Notre Dame and Texas A&M and 2012 Michigan State.
Connelly and Brian Fremeau combine their ratings for something called F+ that is considerably more skeptical but still insufficiently so from the human observer's viewpoint. F+ has Michigan 32nd. Connelly used that to metric to project the Big Ten race and came up with this amazing possibility:
| Record | West Winner | East Winner |
| 4-4 | 23.2% | 0.0% |
| 5-3 | 14.3% | 47.5% |
| 6-2 | 13.8% | 12.3% |
| 7-1 | 11.0% | 7.9% |
| 8-0 | 37.7% | 32.4% |
There is a one in four chance that your Big Ten West winner is .500 in the conference. I think we can all agree that this annus miserabilis will be totally worth it if that happens.
As far as Michigan goes, he ran a bunch of simulations with his numbers and came out with an approximately 60% chance Michigan goes 4-4 in the league and 20% chances they go 5-3 or 6-2. Again, early season computer numbers so take lightly—suffice it to say computers are not feeling real good about Hoke's job prospects.
The wounded. Minnesota's Mitch Leidner still questionable for Saturday, "all indications" that Michigan will get the Gopher backup who completed one pass against SJSU. Maxxxxxxxx Williams is also doubtful with something or other. Against that Michigan puts up Jarrod Wilson and Raymon Taylor, who dressed but did not play against Utah, Delano Hill, who left before halftime with a boo boo, and an obviously still gimpy Devin Funchess. Funchess FWIW:
"I got a little dinged up, I had to make sure everything was OK, and I just had to fight through it," Funchess said Tuesday. "I knew it was painful (that day), and it'll (probably) be painful the rest of the season.
"You're never going to go through a season and stay 100 percent (the whole way) ... I'm healthy enough to play."
Sort of. His effort on blocks is not so good.
Etc.: Hinton on Gardner. Hoke isn't going to name a QB starter after all.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^
Rockets red glare - bombs bursting in air - 'Murica!
September 24th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
But unfortunately they are symptomatic of the tone deafness of the AD and his gross misunderstanding of what most Michigan fans hold dear. If his big decisions were better, I suspect references to the noodle would be in a joking manner.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
The noodle was really stupid. It was a giant fiberglass noodle with a creepy tagline right in front of the largest physical symbol of Michigan. But worse was the reaction: "Oh, it's no big deal, we never intended for that to be there during game day" when you know damn well it would have stayed if no one complained loudly. Just like no one believed that the seat cushion thing was about security. It's the lying, the condescension, the cover up that bothers me. One item Brian forgot: the continual walk-back of "No Advertising at Michigan Stadium" until it now means only and precisely "No advertising of external companies during actual UofM football games inside the seating area at Michigan Stadium". That's not how you treat people you respect.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^
or, you know, product placement during the latest brutally bad halftime show.
brought to you by carl's jr.
or buffalo wild wings. weather channel. whatever.
September 24th, 2014 at 6:43 PM ^
It's like DB just can't resist the urge to try to sneak shit in on some lemonesque technicality and thinking nobody will notice. We notice, Dave, and we're not nearly as fucking stupid as you like to think we are (nor are you as smart as you think you are).
September 24th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
It wasn't the fireworks per se; a halftime celebration of the national anthem with fireworks is fine with most people.
But like so many things that Brandon's minions touch, they don't know when to leave well enough alone—it was the plan to set off fireworks after Michigan touchdowns that rubbed people the wrong way.
(Of course, as we know now, the latter plan wouldn't have consumed enough fireworks for your average trailer park fireworks display.)
September 24th, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
you're still wrong about this. There was no plan to fire off fireworks during the Miami game except for the halftime show. As I'm sure you remember the question was divided between the two games, Miami and PSU. The Regents knew full well that the request for the Miami game was solely for the National Anthem tribute while the PSU fanfare was the event scheduled for post scoring pyrotechnics. A few of the Regents purposely conflated the two events, even though the events had been explicity seperated, for the sole purpose of embarassing Dave Brandon.
I've no dog in the hunt, I really couldn't care less about who the AD is or isn't so long as they aren't a criminal, but I find it truly sad and depressing that people who find fault with Brandon do so using many of the same type of faults they attribute to Brandon.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
Sometimes, you recognize when someone wants to be given an inch for the sole purpose of later taking a mile. The fact that the two requests were "separated" really doesn't mean very much. Once the precedent had been set, this AD would have run with it far beyond what anyone thought was appropriate.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
Man, I thought last year was our 2012 MSU season. What with all the turnovers and one half of the team dragging the other around. <kicks things>
More fuel for my proclamation of the death of the Bo Dynasty.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
The Bo Dynasty really died in 1994 after consecutive 8-4 seasons and Moeller getting fired. Two more 8-4 seasons later confirmed it. 1997 is an aberration over the last 20 years and nowhere near the rule.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^
Agreed. Hasn't changed the thinking in the AD, though.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
In Hoke and Brandon's minds it is still 1980.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^
So, in many respects, 1997 certainly is an aberration. I'm a much bigger fan of Bo than Carr, but you need to give Carr credit for the job he did in '97. He knew how to motivate the players and keep them focused. They had all the talent in the world and deserve most of the credit, but he kept the ship steady that year and didn't let them veer from their goals.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
Yes, Lloyd was a good coach and kept things steady during his tenure but the rest of the conference caught up to UM during his reign and in the last six or seven years UM couldn't compete against the national heavyweights anymore. 1997 was great but it seemed to come out of nowhere and disappear just as fast. That is why I think the empire peaked with the back to back Rose Bowls in 92/93 and culminating in the Rose Bowl win after the 93 season.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
Is it really a dynasty when you've never won a national championship? And rarely contended for one? Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, Switzer, Osborn, Jimmy Johnson, Bobby Bowden, Urban Meyer, Saban....those guys have dynasties. Check the history and face reality.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
That's a bit premature. I'd say the death of the Carr dynasty is a bit more appropriate. In my estimation, Bo would've loved to coach players like Denard and Devin Gardner and would've had flexiblity to feature their skill sets. Bo ran the option for awhile, so he had no problem with a running QB at the helm. Heck, Jim Harbaugh was more like a Devin Gardner (with some scrambling ability) than the Brian Greise's, Tom Brady's, John Navarre's, and Chad Henne's of the Carr Era and the Elvis Grbac's and Todd Collins' of the Moeller years. The statuesque, drop back QB certainly came after Bo's time as coach and is certainly not his legacy. A solid run game was a key tenet of Bo's teams, but he didn't have an ideal QB type in mind, just one that put the team in the best position to win. Heck, take a look at Michael Taylor of recent newsmaking fame. He was much closer to a Denard style QB than a Tom Brady and he was leading the offense in Bo's final years as coach. If the team falls on its face the rest of the year and Jim Harbaugh or Les Miles come back to Michigan (unlikely with Brandon in charge), we'll see if the Bo dynasty is dead. If one of these two men can't win utilizing the lessons they learned from Bo, then you might be correct, but until that happens, you're way off. And FWIW, I'm not one of those Michigan fan's that thinks we need a Michigan Man in charge or someone who is a Bo (or Carr) disciple at the helm. I just want a coach that runs a relatively clean program (no football program is completely clean) and wins at the same time.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^
Grbac was the first of the Big White Quarterbacks that UM deployed for 20 years. Big arm, very tall, and practicallly immobie. The only exception seeming to be Drew Henson.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
Agree - Bo ran Leach and others with the option. I think the modern spread offenses are more like Bo's style.
Pocket pro formation was Carr's offense.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
Moeller's actually. His acsension was seen as "modernizing" the Michigan offense aka catching up with what the NFL started doing a decade prior.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:30 PM ^
I like your post...however Bo certainly was moving towards the Big Throwing QBs. Some could say Harbaugh was the first of that type, however they started throwing the ball more with Wangler and then Steve Smith (both who could run a bit too). Taylor/Brown were more running QB...however Bo recruited Grbac and Howard so he had those plans in mind towards the end of his career and set the table for it.
What was cool about Bo was he was never afraid to change his offensive style: Option, Pro Set, Split backs, even Wishbone at times. He doesnt get enough credit for his flexibility.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
He notes three teams with similar profiles to Michigan to date: 2011 versions of Notre Dame and Texas A&M and 2012 Michigan State.
Well since I don't bring much sunshine around here, let me offer that the following years version of all 3 of these teams were fantastic
- 2011 ND turned into 12-1 NC game appearing #3 2012 ND
- 2012 MSU turned into 13-1 Rose bowl winning #3 2013 MSU
- 2011 Texas A&M turned into 11-2 Cotton bowl winning #5 2012 Texas A&M
So just 1 more year folks and we are going to be in the top 5! Of course all 3 versions were led by coaches now considered as top 10-12 in the nation.
(pls note that Texas A&M had to change their coach to accomplish this)
September 24th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
I'd say it's encouraging that A&M still accomplished that with a coaching change since I think the realist in all of us sees a coaching change in our not so distant future.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
I would to an extent. The difference between this scenario and other scenarios discussed is that we know for a fact Hoke and co. can't coach a team full of their own recruits (assuming this season ends up an underwhelming 8-4 or worse).
Hoke would deserve full credit for bringing in the guys. He's a great recruiter.
September 24th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
I do think that the football insider stuff highlights the infuriating parts of the team so far but also the possibility for them to turn it around. I mean, they've kept every team they've played to well under their normal yardage, and at some point you aren't going to have a 2:12 TO ratio for the year. So presuming things turn around a bit offensively, it wouldn't surprise me if they pull a couple of games out of their butts because of it. I'm still not optimistic about long-term projections for the season, but that 2-2 record feels pretty misleading.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
I think its silly to say that at the very least about Notre Dame. Through seven drives, Notre Dame had 256 yards, 4 drives of 50+ yards and 28 points. The only reason that game looks good from a yardage perspective is that they basically stopped trying after going up 28-0.
As for Utah, we couldn't stop them either side of halftime, so take that for what its worth.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
Annus Miserabilis is the name of my death metal band.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
Anus Miserabilis is the name of mine.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
Having spent 15 years in advertising, I'm especially sensitive to the way Dave Brandon handles the program like the bad brand manager that he is. My God, there are models out there for him to follow if he is at all confused by the fact that this is not pizza, but football. Just the phrase "enormous macaroni sculpture" made me want to cry immediately after the two seconds of snickering subsided. Brands that offer something valuable to the consumer don't need a lot of bells and whistles, and they don't have to cajole people into buying their product. In the world of packaged goods marketing, the brands that don't have any real value die. Let's hope the regents or whoever is responsible for hiring the AD agree that Michigan football isn't Domino's Stuffed Crust Pizza, and shouldn't be treated as such.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^
Brandon constantly harps on the importance of the "Michigan Brand" and how important it is to build it. Then, he turns around and undermines it constantly through actions that devalue the brand (tickets for Coke, Macaroni sculpture, cookie-cutter game day experiences like rawk music, skywriting fiasco, etc.) A brand strategy should govern everything they do and form a framework for all marketing and PR related decisions. But, what we see are "throw it against the wall" actions that appear not well thought out.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
Because some marketing folks, who are good at....marketing.... think that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It gets me a little crazy. You still have to have a good product. As Wendy was describing if the product is good you don't need to do so much marketing... people will buy it.
September 25th, 2014 at 2:48 AM ^
September 24th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
There are many signs that this coaching staff is feeling the pressure.
For me, the F-bomb match Hoke had with Mattison after the sideline infraction was a revelation: Whoa, Hoke actually get's it! He understands what the stakes are here! He even yells F-bombs at an oldtime friend.
Hoke's decision to name a starting QB by a certain day this week (something he would never have done in the past), followed by this decision not to name a starting QB on that day, is further proof he's feeling the pressure.
Hoke's QB "decision" is an example of the downside to pressure-awareness: When you really feel the pressure, it's difficult to be decisive. Whether your an often-sacked QB, or a soon-to-be-sacked coach.
So sad to watch.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
I agree with most of your post except that I think Hoke knows with probably 95%+ certainty who's going to start but just isn't going to tell anyone about it.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
Fair enough. I agree, Hoke/Nuss have likely made the QB decision.
But I believe the indecision--the waffling--suggest a far more difficult problem: pressure. (And I wonder if problems of pressure/indecision can be solved without difficult chages being made.)
September 24th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^
FWIW, this morning Sam Webb emphatically stated that there's a "very, very strong" chance that Morris is the starter come Saturday.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:47 PM ^
BTW- what would announcing it now do anyway other than give Minnesota more time to focus on one QB?
September 24th, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
If that's the case, doesn't putting in a less mobile leftie open him up to vicious blindsides?
September 24th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
And that would be a concern for me. Hoke also wouldn't bring up any potential changes to the OL though. I wouldn't be surprised, seeing as it isn't an in-game switch, if you saw some movement along the OL if Morris is the starter.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
I immediately thought the same thing. Hoke's comment that he wouldn't discuss any potential OL changes this week seemed to coincide perfectly with the possibility Morris could start. Seems likely to me now. I think Gardner is hurt.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^
for most of the rest of the season doesn't matter to me. I think putting Morris in as the starter Saturday would be a good decision if for no other reason to send a message to Gardner and everyone on the team that poor play on the field has consequences. Sometimes, the time on the sidelines can help a player get things together faster. Also, Morris does need more experience during non-garbage time. That will be the only way to see whether he can do a better job than Devin. Worst case is if Shane starts to screw up pretty bad, they can always put Devin back in.
September 24th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
"Worst case is if Shane starts to screw up pretty bad..." they lose. There's zero evidence this team can come back and win from any kind of deficit. Whether on purpose or because of inexperience, they can't play fast, and they don't have the consistency to sustain drives with either QB.
So you go with the guy you think is going to give you the better TD/INT ratio, and if you're wrong, you lose. But it's unlikely you can change the guy in the middle of the game to good effect, you need to be right the first time.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
I never realized former players had to buy their way into the stadium. That is an idiotic way to alienate your corest-of-core supporters.
Assume 65 years of former classes still alive x 25 players per class x 10% of which go to any particular game = 160 people to accomodate. Add in guest for each = 320. You think they'd bend over backwards to get that done.
All to make an extra 320 x $75 x 7 home games = $170k per year.
Or, with Coke math: 320 x $2.50 x 7 = $5,600 per year.
I bet Dave Brandon never had to buy his own pizza.
September 24th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
Jesus man if we start giving tickets away to ex-players what are the coke drinkers suppose to do to get in?
And I'll bet Dave DID pay for his own pizza cause he's probably smart enough to not eat the crap he was selling and had to get one someplace else.
September 24th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
I've been job searching in Ann Arbor and when I see Domino's positions I cringe when reading them. Their corp-speak is awful and I HATE anybody who talks about their company, team, university, church, or public persona as "a brand". I can see why Brandon is running the AD the way he is because this is the norm at Domino's and it makes me not want to work there:
Here is an example: Domino's Pizza, which began in 1960 as a single store location in Ypsilanti, MI, has had a lot to celebrate lately: we're a reshaped, reenergized brand of honesty, transparency and accountability, not to mention - great food! In the rise to becoming a true technology leader, the brand is consistently one of the top five companies in online transactions. Further, 40% of our sales in the U.S. are taken through digital channels. The brand continues to 'deliver the dream' to local business owners, 90% of which started as delivery drivers and pizza makers in our stores. That's just the tip of the icebergor as we might say, one "slice" of the pie! If this sounds like a brand you'd like to be a part of, consider joining our team!
September 24th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
I love that the "great food" is an after thought to the corporate speak. Its as if a reference to the actual product was added at the very end of the drafting process because the robots who wrote it don't eat.
September 24th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
The money quote "we're a reshaped, reenergized brand of honesty, transparency and accountability" is for the ages. From my experiences with an older regime at the company, Domino's is a "brand of honesty" the same way that Bernie Madoff is a "brand of trusted investment advisor."
Please tell me that this quote came out under Brandon's watch. Please, please, please, please, pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaasssse.
September 24th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
It's not quite the same, but it reminds me of a quote from the secretary of a former president (don't want to say who to stay clear of politics) who said that the president "always seemed like a man who was trying very hard to appear to be a nice person."
Comments