TIMMMAAY

August 1st, 2013 at 8:38 PM ^

And I think you know that.

First ticket increase.

Water bottles.

The Brand.

Second ticket increase, PSD increase.

Mascot?

The Brand.

The Band...

New MMBB priority seating/PSD shenanigans.

Dynamic Pricing. 

Seat cushions banned.

Seat cushions un-banned. 

I'm sure I forgot a few things, but that's just off the top of my head. I know he's done a lot of good things too, but like the Rounders quote: You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once. DB is really pushing that line. I'm spending much less these last couple years on UM Athletics than I used to, which will affect the intensity of my sons fandom. Maybe there is a real long term upside for the UM that I don't see?

Edit: As Dahblue also points out below, UniformZ, don't know how I could forget all that we've had in his term. Also curly fries, and ads around the ouside of the Big House. Ugh. 

dahblue

August 1st, 2013 at 8:29 PM ^

Too bad they don't listen about things that really matter and tarnish the brand!  (I'm looking at you, Pop Fucking Evil and Bumblebee uniforms)

Luminous

August 1st, 2013 at 8:52 PM ^

Looking at the Wayback machine Non-pocket seat cushion have always been on the Permitted Items list. (unfortunately the last update was in May, so there may be something during the off season that it missed).  When was the announcment (or quiet policy change) made for the banning of seat cushions?

uofmdds96

August 1st, 2013 at 9:25 PM ^

I just made mine into a hat. Damn you DB, damn you. Are seat cushion-hats on the prohibited list? Next thing you know, you won't be able to sneak alcohol in. I am glad the terrorists did not take our seat cushion freedom.

PeterKlima

August 1st, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^

There has been a lot written in social media the past day regarding changing restrictions around seat cushions at Michigan Stadium. This speculation predated any official policy that the Michigan Athletic Department was able to finalize and announce to our fans.

We have been advised by stadium security experts that we need to tighten up security measures, specifically regarding seat cushions, in light of recent national events. This has prompted our athletic department to take a clear and hard look at our existing seat cushion policy.

We are therefore implementing a more concise policy than what was previously in place.

Beginning in 2013, the following are what we will allow at Michigan Stadium:

-- Foam seat pads

-- Non-pocket seat cushions

-- Small seat cushions without pockets, zippers or any storage slots

The following are types of seat cushions that will NOT be allowed:

-- Seat cushions with pockets, zippers or storage slots

-- Cushions with seat backs

-- Seats with arm rests

-- Seats with other attachments

-- Cushions that include any type of metal

Social media drove some inaccuracies before we were able to finalize our policy, as the research has been on-going with security experts, peer institutions and those in professional sports. The most up-to-date information on Michigan Athletics can be found at MGoBlue.com.

Most importantly, Michigan Athletics will always continue to research and evaluate policies and procedures that provide a safe and secure environment for all fans who attend Michigan football games.

Dave

Section 1

August 1st, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^

So, uh, I missed the "ban" on brought-in seat cushions.  When did that happen?  It had to have been since the IMG-sponsored "permanent" seat cushion program.

Which gives me the distinct impression that it was not safety, or security, or anything else like that which prompted a ban.  Rather, it was to eliminate any outside competition with the IMG permanent seat cushion deal.

maizenbluenc

August 2nd, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^

they had a cow about it in Green Bay, and the retracted to the foam are ok, material covered are not. This unfortunately includes the Sippin' Seat Flask Stadium Seat Cushion.

NFL ban: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/06/13/nfl-bans-purses-seat-cushions-…

Bill's fans: http://online.wsj.com/article/AP704c2397e3f84437b09028017d2a2343.html

Green Bay: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/21/packers-say-some-seat-b…

While there is an alterior gain to be had from seat cushion rentals, I suspect there is either specific intelligence behind this, or it is a response to the Boston Marathon bombing.

Mr. Yost

August 1st, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^

This was stupid and should've never been changed, but I do kind of feel bad for the people who want to change anything at Michigan Stadium. If enough people cry about it, they're always going to win.

It's kind of funny actually.

Michigan is truly a school of the People.

ChopBlock

August 1st, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^

I oppose this move.

What with Maurice Clarett's connection to the Israeli mob, I'm sure some Buckeyes could find enough Semtex to make a seat cushion.

BiSB

August 1st, 2013 at 11:49 PM ^

Is it really your contention that this is about EVACUATION ROUTES? Do you think people are going to trip on them during a mad scramble or something? And If that was the case, do you really think it's a good idea for the Athletic Department to rent out seat cushions and then LASH THEM TO THE GODDAMN BENCHES? Man. I need to go to bed.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 12:46 AM ^

I think that Michigan Stadium, being a little older, larger, and by way of "grandfathering" a little less regulated than an NFL stadium, is probably a little more dangerous. Do you disagree? I am glad that all of you are experts on safety measures, and are so much smarter than NFL/AD execs making these decisions. I suppose you're against pat downs at the airport too. So sorry that you've been so inconvenienced.

http://www.nfl.com/allclear

BiSB

August 2nd, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^

Do what the NFL does, you say?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/21/packers-say-some-seat-backs-foam-pads-survive-seat-cushion-ban/

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Lambeau-carry-in--seat-cushion-policies-clarified/81018b88-3b12-432c-be60-59fd9ee859e9

Seat backs and seat pads are permitted in NFL stadiums.

 

And I still don't see what evacuation routes have to do with anything. MIchigan is older and more congestion-tastic than many modern NFL stadiums, but if the concern is a bomb, subsequent evacuation is an ancillary concern. And not to speak for the terrorists here, but I dare say that if they can make something dangerous out of a 1-inch-thick piece of foam, they can make something dangerous out of a three-inch-thick winter coat or a shoe or a pair of jorts or a thousand other things.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^

The NFL HAS walked the policy back in a couple of cold weather cities with metal benches after public uproar.  As usual, the guy with the biggest mouth gets his way.  If only that mouth were more often attatched to a brain.

If only YOU in your infinite wisdom had been consulted prior to the Terror attacks. Imagine the lives you could've saved.

The reason that the blog's attempts at satire failed so miserably is that the policy COULD NOT be reduced to absurdity.  It IS the National Precedent.  I'll grant you that on the spectrum between strolling right into the stadium and walking through an ion spectrometer in your boxers where you draw the line IS somewhat arbitrary.  But welcome to life in America post 911/Boston Marathon.

Bottom line The policy was construed as David Brandon's crazy isolated idea to squeeze more money out of the fans.  This is not the case.  It's NATIONAL POLICY.  Frankly, the blog's attempt to frame it as such is one of the dumber and more transparent volleys in Brian's ongoing David Brandon smear campaign.  I'm a little disapointed that everyone else seems to be swallowing it without dissent. 

And when/if Brandon really DOES do something silly, aren' you the least bit worried that people are going to dismiss it as you crying wolf AGAIN? 

BiSB

August 2nd, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

The NFL HAS walked the policy back in a couple of cold weather cities with metal benches after public uproar.  As usual, the guy with the biggest mouth gets his way.  If only that mouth were more often attatched to a brain.

Cold weather cities with metal bleachers. This sounds familiar. Where could I find a stadium like this?

If only YOU in your infinite wisdom had been consulted prior to the Terror attacks. Imagine the lives you could've saved.

Well, seeing as there were absolutely no foam pads used in the Boston bombing (or any bombing in the history of ever), my foam-pads-for-all policy probably wouldn't have helped.

The reason that the blog's attempts at satire failed so miserably is that the policy COULD NOT be reduced to absurdity.  It IS the National Precedent.  I'll grant you that on the spectrum between strolling right into the stadium and walking through an ion spectrometer in your boxers where you draw the line IS somewhat arbitrary.  But welcome to life in America post 911/Boston Marathon.

There is no such thing as "National Precedent." And if we're talking "post 9-11/Boston," bombs have existed for a centuries. Stadiums have been presumed to be targets for decades. And unless you can fit a pressure cooker in a 1-inch-thick seat cushion, Boston hasn't changed anything about the threat potential.

Bottom line The policy was construed as David Brandon's crazy isolated idea to squeeze more money out of the fans.  This is not the case.  It's NATIONAL POLICY.  Frankly, the blog's attempt to frame it as such is one of the dumber and more transparent volleys in Brian's ongoing David Brandon smear campaign.  I'm a little disapointed that everyone else seems to be swallowing it without dissent. 

Again. There is no such thing as "National Policy." There is no government agency that sets Foam Butt Padding Policy for the United States.

And when/if Brandon really DOES do something silly, aren' you the least bit worried that people are going to dismiss it as you crying wolf AGAIN?

If?

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^

What exactly are your public safety qualifications? Do you know for sure that there isn't credible intel that a terrorist attack was/is planned using these foam pads to conceal explosives/chemical/biological agents? I have got to tell you, it seemed pretty random to me too, but usually when a public safety policy is adopted by the NFL there is a pretty good reason for it. We might just think about worrying about our area of expertise and leaving public safety to the experts.

Monocle Smile

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^

I don't want to insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe any of what you have typed so far. You're doing a pretty good "fucking stupid" impression, though. You seem to be the ONLY user who thinks this policy wasn't an exercise in inanity, so clearly the mods aren't worried about people dismissing what they write as "crying wolf."

When people complain and the "public safety policy" is repealed, then there's probably no good reason for it in the first place.

I could easily hide a biological agent in a test tube up my ass. So why aren't cavity searches instituted?

Or I could overvolt the lithium-polymer battery in my cell phone and then breach the casing, setting off a possible small explosion with hazardous fallout. But they don't ban cell phones.

The NFL, like every sports organization, does many things for terrible and/or arbitrary reasons.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^

Obviously there is no way to guarantee safety in any venue. If someone is willing to trade their life for another one there's not much you can do about it. Does that mean we stop trying? We just open up the doors and let people drag their duffel bags in for good measure? Again, I don't think the policy would have been instituted were there not a credible threat somewhere along the way. On a personal note, I could not care less what you think about my intelligence, and will not stoop to your level in reply. Additionally, I have never used "Your idea is not popular here" as a reason not to speak my mind. This would be a very boring blog if everyone just went toe up foreclosed personality as you are suggesting.

BiSB

August 2nd, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^

Again, I don't think the policy would have been instituted were there not a credible threat somewhere along the way.

And I REALLY don't think they would have rescinded the policy if there were a credible threat. It's not like they're saying, "Well, the FBI is saying that someone is going to try to blow up a sea cushion filled with toxins and killer bees, but Brian Cook REALLY wants his seat cushion, so forget the policy."

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^

     I cannot say for sure WHY the policy was instituted, or all of the factors(crybabies, new intel, etc) that caused it to be revoked.  I dont work in that area of public safety either.  I have had the chance to shoot the breeze with a few border guards though.  The stories I heard about alerts and things turned back at the border...Let me put it this way.  Maybe its a generational thing.  But when someone takes a measure to protect me and my family, I'm not going to be the guy that holds up the line asking "Why do I have to do that?".  Mostly I want to punch that guy in the neck.  Maybe I am a bad person after all...?  If they wanted me to pass through an ion spectrometer in my boxers to access the stadium, my response would most likely be a relieved "Yes sir, where can I set my shoes".  But then I'm not of the current "entitled" generation either.

     So no, I do not know for sure why the policy was instituted.  But neither do you.  When someone tells me to do something for MY safety, I guess I'm just willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Monocle Smile

August 2nd, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

Firstly, you just blamed the current generation for an issue mostly perpetrated by your crowd. People around my age and younger are much more willing to jump through hoops regardless of their measure of ludicrousness. It's the older folks that will generally go on diatribes about "back in my day, we didn't need to take our gosh darn shoes off at the airport" and crap like that. It's bad enough that the millenials get blamed for the problems we have that aren't really our fault; we don't need you blaming us for your shortcomings as well. So you're already off to a bad start.

Secondly, we're talking about an ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. Not law enforcement. And Michigan Stadium isn't the fence to Tijuana. If the FBI broadcasted a "no seat cushion" policy, then I wouldn't emit a peep about it.

This particular policy was almost certainly instituted to squeeze more money out of the home crowd by giving them the option to either pay for a seat cushion or suffer rigor mortis of the ass. The AD has demonstrated in the past that they're petty enough to change the rules for a pittance.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^

I do not know for a fact that the new guidelines were handed directly to Michigan's athletic department by some branch of Homeland Security.  But when you're talking about 110,000 people, I would be pretty disappointed in both entities if there was not at least some level of cooperation between the two.  I do not know the level of communication between the two, but common sense tells me that David Brandon didn't hire these guys off the street

Any more than the NFL hired these guys

M-Wolverine

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^

Far more so than a terrorist attack. That you would so readily bend over backwards and accept what people in power say is far more dangerous. And that you'd give away freedom so easily just to feel safer, even if you in hardly any way are.

The short crass version- don't live life being afraid of everything, stop being a pussy.

(And I agree the blog gets worked up over David Brandon nothing's. But this was just stupid by him because the reward is minimal for the bad press and feelings.)

ClearEyesFullHart

August 3rd, 2013 at 12:32 AM ^

I would still go to games if they passed out sticks of dynamite at halftime(I just wouldn't bring the family).  I look at a policy like this and ask myself "What is the harm?" Here...I am sorry, but I think arguing FOR the cushions to be allowed is AT LEAST as ridiculous as banning them.  Are they even that effective?  Are they really worth lugging from the car?  I'm not saying I would never queestion authority on matters of safety, but come on, is this really the battle you want to pick?  ANd yeah, there are always going to be tears from the change-resistant crybabies(and those actively manufacturing reasons to cry) but I hardly think that's reason enough to compromise safety.

ChopBlock

August 2nd, 2013 at 7:41 PM ^

 

But when someone takes a measure to protect me and my family, I'm not going to be the guy that holds up the line asking "Why do I have to do that?". Mostly I want to punch that guy in the neck. Maybe I am a bad person after all...? If they wanted me to pass through an ion spectrometer in my boxers to access the stadium, my response would most likely be a relieved "Yes sir, where can I set my shoes". But then I'm not of the current "entitled" generation either.

I shudder to image your thoughts on the Korematsu decision.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^

Take a step back and think about what you are saying.  You are equating butt pad prohibition with being forced into an internment camp.

On second thought, if you write a piece blaming those internment camps on Dave Brandon, you'll probably get front paged. (actual precedent  http://mgoblog.com/diaries/dave-brandon-unveils-commemorative-lloyd-brady-2012-sugar-bowl-uniforms and yes, I find that diary about as funny as the superbowl snipers a couple of posts up)

If you could make an effort to suggest that Brandon is a bigot and/or hates homosexuals, that is always value added content on mgoblog.

ClearEyesFullHart

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:24 PM ^

People act like its the same thing. Like being made to leave their pads at home is such a terrible violation of their rights.

I don't think the bag policy, the pad policy, the liquid policy...I don't think any of it is ridiculous. I don't suffer from the delusion that it makes the stadium "safe" but I do believe that to a degree these policies make it "safer". I don't see how anyone can find it the least bit funny either.

Monocle Smile

August 2nd, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^

YOU were the one who asked if the mods were "worried" about crying wolf. That's why I brought up the fact that your opinion isn't popular...one or two users having rods up their asses isn't a good reason not to post blog entries. I never told you to shut up because your opinion is unpopular, and it's wholly dishonest to suggest I did.

Nice slippery slope fallacy. Good to know you can't draw meaningful distinctions between 1-inch thick pieces of foam and duffel bags.

BiSB

August 2nd, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^

I think it's pretty safe to say that there isn't a credible threat that terrorists have a super-secret foam pad attack planned, seeing as the NFL is still allowing foam pads in, Michigan is allowing foam pads in, and pretty much every college stadium in the country allows foam pads in.

You seem very fixated on the NFL's policy. That's JUST for the NFL. And it STILL allows the kind of stuff we're talking about.