The state of the athletic department vs program vs football team
[ED: Normally, the judgement on diaries is left to others, but I think this might merit that status for length / presentation reasons if nothing else - LSA]
So I work in Columbus in the O.R. and unsurprisingly, most of the people here went to OSU. This week I was in an OR with the guy who is the blue jackets team doc and played college ball (not sure where, not exactly sure whether it was BB or FB, could have been either). I was asked what the shelf life of the football coach was and my response was that the AD was going to be fired and replaced before the FBHC was fired and replaced. The overwhelming response was that if the football team was winning, the AD wouldn't have been a problem,
My response was that there's a distinct difference between the health of the department, the program and the current team which it seemed people were unwilling to differentiate and I think the former players and some members here are already losing the distinction as well.
The Athletic Director was fired, in part, for being an ASS. He was terrible at crisis management and damage control. He was instrumental in "Concussiongate" and was unable to recognize the issue with "Cokegate." Add into these the additional issues of "Emailgate" as well as the rumors of "Interfering with the coaching-gate" and "Watching film with the coordinators-gate." And we begin to see the issues which sealed the fate of the AD. The fact that the football team is a disaster is not as much a reflection of the AD as it is of the coaching staff. The Athletic Department as a whole was being viewed in a very negative light and it was due to the inability of the AD to manage the issues which occurred.
This brings me to the program. This is the other half of why the AD needed to go. Since Brandon took over, revenue has increased, but not significantly more than other top programs' per http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-qb-not-major-problem-revenue-increases-oregons-thing. However, student participation at the football games has plummeted and the wait list for season tickets has disappeared. It was anticipated that the game this past weekend, even though it was a homecoming, would be the first game in decades which did not have 100k+ in attendance. These are not the causes of the deteriorating health of the program, but the symptoms of the health of the program, which is a responsibility of the AD, not the coach, per se.
Finally we get to the health of the team. This is not something that should be specifically related to the atletic director unless there is some documented issue with dysfunction withing the football team itself or the coaching staff. We don't get to hear enough about the inner workings of the team and staff to know if these are going on, but we do get to see the results of the team management on the fielf. And its performance speaks for itself. It's a mess. The coach is obviously failing. He's had nothing but a significant rise in the amount of talent on the team, except for the possiblity of OL due to questions about OL youth and the slow development of OL in particular, yet basically all position groups continue to underperform related to their recruiting rankings. Yes, caveat re:STARZZ, but it has also been shown that high recruiting rankings and offer sheets from top tier programs correlate the best with success. Hoke has gotten many highly recruited players which have had offers from many other programs, but the results are not evident based on the results from the field. This should be criteria solely for judging the coach and the performance the past 3 years are what should be the nail in the coffin for Hoke.
The only thing that there is a crossover between the AD and the state of the football team is that there has been much chatter that non of the highly attractive coaches would come and coach at Michigan if Dave Brandon had still been the AD. His inability to hire the best coach for the job because none of them would accept the job from him is the only thing that should have tied his tenure to the production by the football team,
In short, the AD got canned for being an ass who is hated by many, the coach is going to be fired because he's obviously made some bad decisions. I'm not going to say Hoke couldn't fix the team, but he doesn't deserve a chance to do so. If he's hamstrung the team though retaining friends who could not handle the job in the first place, he is culpable and does not deserve the chance to put it right as he's already used 4 years to make this team unable to compete.
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
Can you give me the cliff notes version of your post? And what's the best way to get rid of a hangover? :P
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
AD was fired for being an ass, HC will be fired for not doing the job.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
I'm dyyyyiiiiiing here!
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
The football program, as Reggie Jackson might say, is "the straw that stirs the drink." If the product on the field was good, David Brandon would have enough power and clout to get away with alienating everyone and chronically fleecing those who support the program.
The simultaneous blessing and curse here is that David Brandon's incompetence mainfested itself in a terrible product on the field. If Brandon was competent, he wouldn't have forced Hoke to play Shane Morris. Morris wouldn't have subsequently taken a beating like the one Ali gave to Chuck Wepner. "Concussiongate" would never have happened.
Those who detest what Brandon has done would have not had enough power to unseat him if the program was winning. Everyone, from fans like me to students to the media, would have been seen as "whiners."
Tell your friends in Columbus to enjoy "The Game" this year, because Michigan is going to find a way to be "back" soon, maybe as early as next season.
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
Agreeded, this is more of a diary, loved the content though
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:52 AM ^
But does it say anything new? Isn't it preaching to the choir at this point?
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
Hackett sees it your way. Hopefully he has arrived at the same conclusion that Hoke must go regardless if he wins out. He is not the right man for the job.
My concern is if Hackett or the new AD cannot get the coach they want they may keep Hoke. MY view is anyone would be better than Hoke.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
the steps necessary to navigate a new course for his ship of state, and that required relieving the AD of his post, not because he wasn't doing the job per se, but because he had become a focal point beyond the futility of the football program.
Hackett's job is to assess the football program and its management and determine whether it needs a new coach, which most here would agree is necessary. A new AD will not fire the current head coach. You wouldn't ask the new AD to make that decision. So, it will be Hackett's job. And it could be done based on the record alone against Michigan's rivals.
The fact is, the football program's fortunes play a major role in fundraising at Michigan. There is just no denyig it on whatever side of the fence you reside. The president is not specifically concerned with whether Michigan wins every game, but he recognizes the importance of the program to the welfare of the campus and university as a whole.
And so he picked an outsider with a key connection to the program in the past and with a strong business background and a moderate personality to help him make an assessment of the football program's leadership and help him manage its future. That means Hackett will decide Hoke's status going forward. Stability in leadership is what they seek.
We all knew that Brandon had to leave before the Hoke question is answered. We all know how this is likely to play out. But one move was required, the other is simply neeeded at this point for all concerned.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
Anyone better than Hoke? I think he has demonstrated he is in over his head and I am 100% in favor if replacing him...*IF* a proven winner is waiting in the wings. But if you can't get a top-flight successor, I don't think you change just for the sake of changing. If no one named Harbaugh, Miles, Mullen, <insert any other big name here> is coming, I'd rather keep Hoke, make multiple changes at the position coach level, and see what 2015 brings in terms of on-field results and, if those results are poor, hopefully better luck with the potential successor pool. I don't want to fire Hoke and then bring in someone who is basically another Hoke, except with the added negative of starting all over, once again.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
There is literally probably a list a page long of guys that I'm sure we could get to come here that are better than Hoke. And for your hypothetical if someone ''top flight'' wouldn't come this year why would they come after next year?
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
I don't feel I can speak to your first point with any certainty. As to the second, I am hypothesizing a situation where a guy who would take the job just isn't available this year (bad timing ala Miles 2007), but perhaps is a year from now.
I am by no means advocating keeping Hoke, I am just saying I can envision unfortunate scenarios where those with whom the decision rests determine it to be the "least worst option" for the long-term health of the program. Forgive me if I am maybe still a little gun-shy after the embarrassments of November-December 2007 and December 2010-January 2011. I will be thrilled if the new leadership proves to be far more deft, and I am hopeful they will. I just don't know they will.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
Can we please stop adding gate to the end of every controversy? Watergate had nothing to do with water. I much prefer Brandghazi if we must have a cutesy name to refer to these issues.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
But for me, the highlight is the cognitive dissonance between your assertion that the AD was fired because he's an ass, and the board clamoring for a coach in part because he is an ass.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
Cognitive dissonance doesn't apply here. It's not a question of two of the same kind of asses, and our different opinions about them needing to be reconciled.
They're two different kinds of asses. Thus, no dissonance.
That will come later, but only if ass #2 doesn't win.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
Stole RR's momentum going into 2011 for his own gain. That alone will persist in my mind that Hoke's position, whether fair or unfair, left Hoke as a "system Quarterback" (or Coach in this case). So, if the natural course of a football game goes bad we will default to "insert your talking point" afterwards. Brandon coddled Hoke's house money currency years ago and if Hoke wins out he will arrive to an oppurtunity with a negative cash flow. Whatever happens after that impasse honestly makes me nervous.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
If it was just football performance and none of the other issues, he would be picking the next coach.
All of the issues are related, they are not mutually exclusive as some would have you think. Yes the fans would not be happy, but he wouldn't be out if it was only football. Those trying to sell the football aspect only are either out of touch with the reality or have an agenda due to their relationship with Brandon.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
have a good point. If the football team was winning no one would care that Brandon watched film. There would be no "Cokegate" because attendance wound not be a problem. He would have had fewer complaining emailers to insult. He didn't get fired because the team was losing. Their losing exposed a lot of the problems with his job performance. If the team was doing very well all along, he'd still be our unpopular AD. Only caveat would be if Schlissel thought the handling of Morris' concussion ws enough to cost him his job. I wouldn't completely rule that out.
November 2nd, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
Athletic Perfomance is also one of his job responsibilities, that is why he had the authority to hire and fire a coach. I don't think we should pretend that athletic team perfomance doesn't fall on him as well. He determined that Hoke should be the next coach. I do not understand what his criteria was for passing over Harbaugh and Miles, but he chose to gamble on his career with Hoke and he lost.
Maybe he thought if I get it wrong, I will get another shot at it and that might have been the case if he did not alienate the alumi, students and fanbase. Also, the previous hiring process was not transparent.
The football team performance is not THE issue that forced him to resign. It was one of several issues.
Conversely, if football performance was the only issue and people felt like the hiring process would not be driven by his personal agenda he would not be out and would likely hire the next coach.
November 2nd, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
The AD was fired for turning Michigan football into a brand and treating the fans and alums like they were replaceable. The performance of Michigan athletics also dipped during his tenure. And on top of all that he was a classless asshole.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
I mean if you say he wouldn't have lost his his job if the team were winning, it begs the question about the biggest coaching hire he made while AD and why he decided not to pursue other Michigan-connected coaches with larger profiles and better winning percentages over a longer period, therefore helping to both secure the program and his future in the process. Then, maybe, he doesn't have to spend late-night hours answering angry emails from frustrated fans and getting himself in trouble.
Maybe then, he doesn't issue a press release about a player's health status while undermining his coach's status report and suggesting they were at odds with each other over their separate reporting or he just doesn't value his judgment to include him in this consulation.
To me, this was a bigger breach of respect and trust on a public level opening the door to an unneccessary level of national backlash and scrutiny than ever should have occurred in the aftermath of the Morris concussion incident. The fact is, Brandon could fix problems that he helped create with professional aplomb and blameless corporate style, but he couldn't bridge a gap in personal relations that required direct communication. And that's a problem. As long as a buffer was available, he was fine. As long as money was available to fix a problem or distract an audience, he was fine. When it required direct accountability, he had issues.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
Although this has been discussed either in whole or in part in numerous threads over the last month or so really, this is a slightly more detiled version of the sentiment which probably could get bumped to the diary section for the moment (if other mods / admins disagree, no big deal - returning it to thread status takes mere seconds). It does, after all, recount this as being a part of a conversation with someone, which I don't think the threads really did per se, although I am curious to know what the other person's response to all this was.
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
The wait list is important because of the things listed above result in scarcity, which drives demand for a product. If it is scarce, it becomes exclusive and has value. As stated when there is enough demand to create a waiting list (see Apple product launches) it creates more demand for the product.
I think Brandon went for the equilibrium price and did not recognize how the fluid nature of performance on the field would effect the demand without having the waiting list. Sure you maximize your profits temporarily, but you are dealing with a dynamic system not a product like a cell phone.
The reason the waiting list was important is because it provided a safety factor for fluctuations in the on field product that kept season ticket holders loyal due to the threat of losing their tickets. That added safety factor would allow for a couple of down seasons without much impact on support for the program, but when you provide a poor product and inflate the price you have created a steep drop off in demand that can no longer be absorbed.
Driving the price down in itself wont fix the issue at this point. The primary fix is to correct the onfield product and generate excitement for the program again. The best way to fix the product is to do whatever it takes to bring in Jim Harbaugh.
The downturn is still in its infancy. If the current coaching staff remains in place, this will be a prolonged slide in demand because the judgment has already been made by the fans. A prolonged slip in demand will make it much harder to recover.
If you can change the tide now with a decisive move you can recover from a temporary dip.
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
The drastic reduction in student ticket demand from I think 21,000 to 14,000 this year made a big hit on the wait list, in fact looks like it was exhausted. Club Seats were a tough sell as well. To me, that is the real issue. Student tickets dropping by a huge amount. Cost, bad team, bad schedule, who knows. With the lower cost of student tickets next year and a great home slate, we may have a problem that corrects itself, to some degree. Club Seats are still a hard sell with the high donations required. If students don't come back next year, who gets the blame?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
Obviously none of us have all of the facts and have to speculate to fill in the gaps, but I suspect that Brandon was fired for a very important reason.
Dave Brandon failed to realize that the Athletic Department is not an independent entity, and that the best interests of the Athletic Department is not necessarily the best interests of the University of Michigan.
Part of this is the "corporate" approach/attitude that he brought to the department. The problem there is by generating every little extra bit of cash by:
- ticket price increases
- banning water containers from the stadium, then trying to over-charge bottled water
- banning seat cushings, then charging for stadium-supplied cushions
- advertising noodles
- no band to the Alabama game
- getting donors to give to the athletic department rather than the University academic units or general fund
- etc. (I know I have forgotten things)
These are all short-term gains at the expense of all the goodwill that the university has spent years to build up. Remember also that all of these current students are the future donors to the university. The time and fun they have while at the University of Michigan is going to affect the amount they ultimately donate in the future, long after they have graduated.
Making sporting events more expensive and less fun (and yeah, giving it a money-grubbing attmosphere makes it less fun) is going to affect their attitude towards the school in the future. This is a university that is current trying to add BILLIONS to its endowment. A few million a year more generated by the athletic department by doing the short-sighted dumb stuff above is not only dwarfed by the current fundraising, it is prabably greatly counter-productive.
In short, politically, Brandon:
- Alienated a large portion of the student body with his pricing policies in conjuction with his more restrictive policies at sporting events
- Alienated a large portion of the alumni with is pricing policies and arrogance in personal communications, both face-to-face at events as well as by e-mail and phone.
- Alienated a large portion of the faculty due to both the arrogance he displayed on a personal basis as well as the embarassment and loss of prestige caused by his childish acts like the sky-writing over East Lansing and then lying about it.
- Alienated a large portion of the administration and regents by arrogance as well as his handling the AD without regard to its effect on the University as a whole.
Brandon might have generated a lot of cash for the athletic department, and spent even more for the people within it, but at the expense of having few allies outside of it. Notice that the only people speaking up for him now are from within the department, not outside of it.
Outside of the athletic department, few have any reason or interest to speak up for Dave Brandon. But plenty of people have reason to want to see him go, and will jump at any opportunity to help to see it happen.
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
Mike Rosenberg, who ought to know an asshat when he sees one, did a pretty comprehensive takedown of Brandon over on SI. He wrote that Brandon forgot Bo's first principle: The Team, The Team, The Team.
I think it's more subtle, but more important, than that. Watching the reactions to Brandon around the sports world, I'm struck by the disconnect between "insiders" and the rest of the community. Coaches, athletes, Dez Howard, Todd Howard, Brandstatder, Dierdorf, a fair number of former players - are Brandon supporters. Meanwhile, students, fans, alums, and their representatives in new media form the core of the naysayers. To put it simply: Brandon seems to have fine job taking care of his team, we just weren't on that team.
To speculate, this might have a lot to do with Brandon's business background. Consumers of an inexpensive, undifferentiated commodity like pizza have no emotional connection to the product or provider, and commit no deep thought or analysis to their decisions either. It makes sense in such a context to treat customers simplistically, using tools of mass manipulation. But college football fans aren't consumers first and foremost, they're tribalists. They're looking for an emotional connection to the University, to the team, to each other. They invest a great deal more energy, emotional and rational, in their allegiance than they do to mere product purchases.
Much has been made of Brandon's personality, and I certainly share a visceral dislike of that kind of arrogant style generally. But if we'd been put on his team - if he'd tried to unite the larger community instead of fracturing it - the personality would even have been an asset sometimes, and he might have had a chance to hire the next coach. Instead, this kind of insider/outsider divide is part of his legacy.
Anyway, this is the lesson for the next AD, and the department in general: it's about the community, the community, the community. That's the mission.
November 2nd, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^
And after reading the other thread about "muggles," I think we can even identify why Brandon alienated the fans so effectively: he, like Elliott Mealer, is a former player. And evidently that raises an insurmountable barrier to understanding, in a visceral sense, what being a fan is actually like. An ass he may have been, but I doubt DB wanted to drive off fans (a few emailers excepted). But because he couldnt relate to the fan perspective, he couldnt properly appreciate what actually matters to us muggles; or took the fans for granted in the distinctive way that only former players seem to. Even if you treat it as a business, the first rule of business is know your customer. Brandon's ability to actually understand his customer seems to have been impaired by precisely the same thing that keeps Mealer from understanding why the fans wanted Brandon out. It's not just a background in marketing commodities (though that's hard to discount). It's that even if Brandon recognized what makes Michigan different from pizza, he was still seeing it from the perspective of the Jaguar dealer, rather than the Jaguar customer (or whichever luxury comparison you prefer).
November 2nd, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
My response is always "yeah, and?" One of Brandon's many responsibilities is making personnel decisions as to who will be the head football coach. His selection happens to be a miserable failure (albeit a nice guy) and there is a lot of smoke about how many of our major replacement targets would never want to work for Brandon. Given how big the football program is relative to the rest of the athletic department, his failure to put it in a position to succeed (and limited potential to make positive changes) alone might be enough for his dismissal. Add in the fact that oh yeah he happens to be a totally insufferable prick and it's a no-brainer to get rid of him. So what are these people's point? Yeah, we suck at football, yeah the guy is an asshole, and yeah he's been removed from his post for putting this toxic concoction together. So what?
November 2nd, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
I grew up in in Wisconsin and spent 2 years at UW-Madison in the early 80's. Of course, I was a born Packer fan too. The W/L records of neither of those teams interfered with a sold out stadium, nor did they diminish the joy of their respective stadium experiences.
So yeah, sports fans are capable of assessing 2 different sports functions concurrently: the one on the field, and the one in the seats. In my limited experience, it's good management that fills the seats, not the wins.
November 2nd, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
Der Schlockmeister disrepected our cultural heritage, which we've been building for nealry two hundred years.
Every Wolverine is part of the team.
November 2nd, 2014 at 8:21 PM ^
Hey! I am working on a project about Michigan football, and it'd be great if some of you could fill out this survey. Thank you! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1woxPCU8EGeo4WQldLxTdPi2J4BDCSer7fdwS_LesEl0/viewform?usp=send_form
November 2nd, 2014 at 9:16 PM ^
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
Thanks for pushing back against this stupid narrative. Dave Brandon wants people to think it was all about the football team's record. The total clusterfuck surrounding a student-athlete's brain injury, which was reflective of the total mismanagement of the Athletic Department by Dave Brandon and his ego, precipitated his firing. That was Dave Brandon's fault and Dave Brandon's fault alone. Don't let him throw the football team under the bus.
It would be unfortunate if DB and his minions managed to pull the wool over people's eyes about this. The student with the loudspeaker at the rally at the President's house gave DB much more cover than he deserved by complaining about football performance. But that shouldn't cloud the narrative for those of us who have been paying attention.
Comments