Moving "The Game" Response from AD Brandon
About 15 minutes ago I emailed the following to President Coleman ([email protected]) and AD Brandon ([email protected]):
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear President Coleman and AD Brandon,
I first want to commend both of you, and former AD Martin, on the wonderful job with the Michigan Stadium renovations. I have taken the several opportunities presented to the public to tour the new facilities and am very excited about them. This is a change that I am glad to observe and be a part of for this coming football season.
While change can often be good, changing traditions is often not. In particular, changing the tradition of U-M and OSU playing in the last regular season game (since 1935!) is a change that would be exceedingly bad, in my opinion. While I understand the need for sufficient funding of athletics, so that the general funds can be focused on maintaining our excellent academics, I hope that you do not accept a change of tradition of this magnitude because of money. This seems to me to be tantamount to allowing advertising or the sale of alcohol in Michigan Stadium.
Beyond the fact that moving The Game is bad for tradition, it is also very bad for the experience of The Game. No longer will the rest of the games during the regular season feel like preparation for The Game. No longer will we have the excitement of deciding a conference (or division once we've moved to a divisional format) champion based on the results of this game. No longer will we have the opportunity to redeem a 3 or 4 loss season by beating OSU in the final game of the season. No longer will we have an association of The Game with mid/late November, an association as ingrained in many of us fans as Christmas being on Dec 25 or Memorial day being on the last Monday of May. No longer will we be able to say that we participated in a tradition that started before we were born, before WWII. No longer would we be able to say that we are participating in a tradition that we expect to continue with our grandchildren, long after we've passed on.
There is so much to lose by moving The Game, but so little to gain beyond a few more dollars.
Please, please fight to keep The Game when it is.
Go Blue!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clearly, I've taken many points from others who have posted about this around these parts.
About 5 minutes ago I got this response:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for your point of view...
We are working hard to come up with the best solution to a number of competing interests. There are 12 Teams... 12 A.D.'s... a building full of Conference Officials in Chicago....and 12 Presidents who are all working on these issues. And, we all have our own traditions and desires regarding the way our expanded conference should be structured and scheduled for football. Contrary to your assertion, the scheduling dilemmas we are attempting to work through have nothing to do with money. It would be easier if they were!
To us, the Michigan - OSU game is the most important thing in our world! I know....I was on the team during four of the greatest battles we have ever had! However, there are other Universities and teams in our conference with their own needs and priorities.
I will do the best I can to maintain as many of our traditions as possible... I understand their importance.
Go Blue!!
Dave
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Besides the fact that I got this response so quickly (which makes me wonder if it is a canned response, though it does seem to respond to my specific email points), I thought it was noteworthy because A) he states that this is not about money but about balancing the desires of 12 different schools and B) he does seem to state a desire to maintain the tradition of The Game (though he certainly left himself an out).
Sorry about the length and sorry if this is redundant with other posts. I was just hoping to pass on information others might find useful.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:16 AM ^
... I can't imagine that he's up at 1AM replying to random emails. It is pretty impressive, though.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:32 AM ^
It's always possible it's not, but I'd bet good money it is. Sophisticated groups that get lots of mail have this stuff down to a science. I bet they have many canned response letters and a lacky picks the best one. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they have a program that does it (maybe with a lacky approving them). Them's my 0.02.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:50 AM ^
There are a number of standard templates that are drawn up for certain scenarios, then a staffer (or computer program) fills in a few context-sensitive details.
Odds are close to nill that Brandon personnaly responded.
Besides, if we are doing our job he should be getting such a flood of messages that there is no way he could answer them individually.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 1:43 AM ^
Well, hopefully folks can use this email exchange to adjust any emails they send in so that the auto replies get confused and someone actually has to read their emails.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:55 AM ^
haha this made me imagine a few funny scenarios... in the wake of this public outcry, the IT department sets up an automated response for Brandon based on keywords in the email sent to him. The following exchange occurs [the caps are meant to be read in an automated robotic sort of voice]:
Email to Brandon from his wife:
"Hey honey, I was thinking about making meatloaf tonight. Do you want broccoli or corn on the cob with that? I'll have some rice too, since the kids like it. Pick up some milk on the way home? Love, your wife."
Response:
"Hello YOUR WIFE,
The University, its administration, and I especially, want to reassure you that we are working on MEATLOAF TONIGHT. We understand the issue at hand, and are debating the positives and negatives of both keeping BROCCOLI and switching to a new system of CORN ON THE COB. We understand that RICE is a very strong tradition with all parties involved, and we are aware how strongly THE KIDS LIKE IT, and THE KIDS are very important to all of us. Allow me to reassure you, YOUR, that I am personally working on a solution to PICK UP MILK, and it will be announced very soon.
GO BLUE!!
Sincerely,
HONEY"
I'm sure many of these could be made in a much better fashion by someone funnier than me, but hey, I tried.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:24 AM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
I woke up to a big response. Should I write a diary of these or something? I have no idea how a comment could get bumped to the front page, if that's even possible. Thanks though, glad you liked it
August 27th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
Yes, a thousand times, yes.
--I'm mostly pleading with Fearless Leader to move your response, or at least link to it. 50 up votes might be a non-Raback record.
August 27th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
done. Hope it's not completely terrible.
August 28th, 2010 at 12:45 AM ^
There have been a few humor posts that have gotten over 100 upvotes, but this might be a record for posts since the voting change(s).
August 27th, 2010 at 3:19 AM ^
Dear KEVIN HOLT,
I want to reassure you that YOUR POST was FUNNY and fulfilled the tradition of LAUGHTER-inducing posts on MGOBLOG.
(I particularly liked the "first name basis" he switched to near the end of the response.)
August 27th, 2010 at 3:53 AM ^
Fucking Brilliant.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:16 AM ^
It's probably more likely that his admin receives all of his public mail and sifts through it for the actual important stuff. I know that's the way its done in quite a few offices at Michigan, anybody Director level and above generally has 2-3 admins to read the mail, maintain the calendar, etc.
But I'd guess with the large volume of mail he's recently been receiving (this, waterbottlegate, Rich Rod in general, etc) Brandon has several people reading his account to ensure prompt responses.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^
I sent DB an email the other night about 10pm and just after 11pm, he replied. The reply email had my name in it and specifically addressed my points. Not only that, but when I replied to his reply, he immediately replied again with a "I will do my best!" . His emails to me were not canned and I would imagine that, since he reads all his emails (as he confirmed yesterday), all the responses are his.
Go Blue!
August 27th, 2010 at 8:08 AM ^
in what appears to be our rolling over on this. We're Michigan. They're Ohio State. I don't give a damn about the needs/desires of the other 10 AD's and Presidents. Michigan and Ohio State are the horses of the conference and if they can not or will not protect the greatest rivalry in college football then it is to their eternal shame. It's very simple folks, Michigan and Ohio State simply say that they will be in the same division and they will play each other in the last game of the regular season. Period. And what will the rest of the conference do at that point? We all know the answer. They'll cave.
I've thought highly of David Brandon to this point but he is acting weak. Show some damn spine, David.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
"...if they can not or will not protect the greatest rivalry in college football then it is to their eternal shame."
I don't really give a damn about the other teams in the conference or the fact that there are 2 divisions when it comes to The Game.
I will say this: it used to be the Big 10. Now it's the Big 11/12. I didn't ask ask these other teams to come in the conference. If one of the greatest traditions in sports has to be changed just because of PSU or Nebraska or whomever, that is truly sad...no pathetic...no a travesty. Okay, I can't come up with the proper term to describe how putrid that would be. Oh wait....
FAIL
August 27th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
I believe you are looking for "traveshamockery."
August 27th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
I agree, 100%. The profitability of the B10 relies heavily on The Game. The rest of the conference members benefit greatly from Michigan and OSU. They would be fools to support any changes in The Game.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
Do they want to build depth for all teams by dissipating the national focus on The Game as a definitive part of the Big Ten's tradition? So the other teams can take bigger steps to tangibly get away from the Big 2 and Little 8 mentality that keeps them down now that there are more teams and a new structure?
Not sure how non-participating teams think things will change by the vaccuum left by removing this tradition's importance. Maybe they think they'll get more cred, and the vote goes 10-2 in favour of the non-participating teams who won't get lost in the hype over UM and OSU every year? I guess it's one less major competitive tradition advantage for the two schools when competing with the other big ten schools for attention and recruiting etc etc.
Maybe they want depth to be able to build the whole conference into a juggernaught to try to permanently stamp out southern arrogance once the cycle comes back around? That would take a lot of assumptions on their part though. Assuming they can build up the bottom by hammering down the top.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:29 AM ^
"So the other teams can take bigger steps to tangibly get away from the Big 2 and Little 8 mentality that keeps them down now that there are more teams and a new structure?"
If there's a Big 2 & a Little 8, who is the medium 1 leftover?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:40 AM ^
Interesting thoughts...
You'd think that with the strong threesome of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, there would be enough balance in the conference at this point to get people to forget about big 2 and little 8. Perhaps the 'tradition' of that mentality though is hurting the chances of The Game keeping it's spot.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:39 AM ^
If the Game gets moved and Michigan and OSU are in different brackets, what happens to all of the other traditional season-ending rivalries already in the conference (Illinois-NU, Purdue-IU, etc..)? This should be something that a common point for Michigan/OSU and the rest of the league. If you go geographic for divisions, pretty much everybody gets to maintain their rivalries in their current form.
Regardless of the e-mail, if this is about the perennial also rans (I'm looking at you Sparty) thinking it will be easier to get to the title game by going with this short-sighted approach of "balanced" divisions, then they are screwing themselves in the long run. They would be screwing themselves in pretty much the same way UM/OSU would be screwing themselves. The health of the Game is very important, not the end-all-be-all, to the health of the league as a whole. It is a very big asset that the league has, one that the other schools benefit from, no matter how much they may whine. By going geographic, I think both divisions are very competitive, but a natural ebb and flow will always happen, just like it did in the SEC. Does the rest of the league actually think splitting up UM/OSU so they could potentially (like most have said, once in 10 years) twice in one season is actually that good for the conference, especially at the expense of their own rivalries? I sure hope not.
I just think this is situation where the health of the Game and the health of the conference as a whole are actually on the same side of the argument. Let's be realistic, too, should what the Indianas and Illiniois of the world be calling the shots? No. Should they be ignored? No. But Michigan and Ohio State have driven the success of the league more than any other schools and to weaken the tradition they have built hurts everybody.
I just hope the presidents and ADs actually step back and realize that what is best for all teams and the conference as a whole is a geographic split,. If they are divided, they won't be able to stop the TV suits and Delaney from completely screwing this up. I can't believe anybody else would be pushing this idea but them. Who else would be so stupid (looking at you again, Sparty)? It should take any college football fan worth his salt about two seconds to shoot the following statement down: "Wouldn't it be great for UM and OSU to play twice?" No. The only type of person who thinks that is a TV suit. Like many have said, playing ONCE a year at the same time is part of what makes it so important and BIG. This is why separate divisions for UM/OSU is bad even if they play the last week of the season. I don't want to see a rematch a week later (again, said before) in a souless NFL stadium.
Thus, geographic divisions is the only sane solution. Would I take different divisions and the game remaining where it is, yes, but it wouldn't be best for anybody. I would also take that, because we already know the rematch thing would be rare enough that it wouldn't ruin things anywhere as much as moving the Game would.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
I have a problem with the AD's premise going into these divisional negotiations. The attitiude and arguement I want him to have going into this discussion is the same as Delaney had when he went out looking to expand the big ten. Do you think the Commish cared about the "other" teams in the Big 12 or Big East or wanted them all to have a "win/win" outcome. Hell no. All he cared about was, what was best for the Big 10. That is the attitude i want/demand from our AD on this subject. When it comes to "the game", all I want him to care about is what is best for Michigan and its fans. Compromise, is not an option on this subject.
And no matter what they say, this whole thing is about money and power. It goes back to Delaney being the brainchild of the B10 network. He has made some bold moves in the past, which have paid off big time. So because of this track record, he now possesses the power to dictact these obvious scheduling travisties to the B10 AD's and its fans. Brandon needs to grow a pair and stand firm on maintaining this end of year tradition. Just because the OSU AD caved in recently in the media on this subject, doesn't mean we have to lay down and "Take it like a man".... Stand up Mr. Brandon and do what is right for the tradition of the University of Michingan and its fans. It is time to to show Mr. Delaney and the other B10 AD's why we have earned the right to call ourselves the "Leaders and Best...."
August 27th, 2010 at 9:02 AM ^
I'll skip my real reaction (Eff everyone else) and engage the thought of building depth for the conference.
You don't need to split Michigan and Ohio State to do what you're suggesting. You can keep M and OSU in the same division and do what you suggest.
The other counter is, if Wisconsin or Iowa or whomever want a more porminent rivalry on the national stage, then they need to start playing a game for all the marbles like M-OSU did for forty friggin years. Moving The Game won't mean shit in terms of what you propose if M and OSU are still the primary contenders for the conference championship.
Props for trying to come up with an explanation, I just don't think it flies.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^
You are right that his reply seems directed at your email. His response says that tradition is important, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that playing the game to end the season is an important tradition.
It seems to me that if we were assured that the game would continue to close the season, most fans objections would go away.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^
that Brandon, Coleman and the OSU President and AD are getting tons of correspondence, and if it's anything like I see on here and OSU message boards, it's anti separate divisions.
I'm guessing that floating the trial balloon by Delaney, UM and OSU about possibly moving the game has encountered much more of a response than they anticipated. I'm sure they anticipated a lot, but even the national media is weighing in against what is being floated. With the first game quickly approaching, this issue rather then the first game seems to have dominated the UM and OSU message boards more so then the upcoming season the past few days.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:43 AM ^
.. you're right. If this had been just between UM and OSU, maybe it would have been squashed as quickly as the sponsorship fiasco was. But, they're dealing with other schools with their own agendas and likely the suits that are trying to make a buck selling the sould of college football. Who of those two groups do you think will be harder to convince to do the right thing?
August 27th, 2010 at 2:46 AM ^
I was talking to my dad about this and he had a similar feeling. That splitting Michigan and OSU up is so absurd that that this is all AD doublespeak. Then, we all get really angry, write a bunch of emails and when Michigan and Ohio State come out in the same division, he submitted to the will of the people while also putting it on us if it's the wrong decision. I disagree with this, but it made me feel okay about this fiasco for about 40 seconds.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:31 AM ^
Contrary to your assertion, the scheduling dilemmas we are attempting to work through have nothing to do with money.maybe enough of us are saying that so that they had to include that line into their canned email. i certainly hope so
August 27th, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
Hopefully seeing this response will help others craft emails to them that are not as easy to send a canned response back. Hopefully, with as many of us communicating our desires in ways that are increasingly harder to refute, we will help emphasize our desires concerning The Game (and division alignments).
August 27th, 2010 at 8:16 AM ^
projection. They put the "nothing to do with money" response in because they presume the masses think like they do, namely, that it's all about the money.
August 27th, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^
Wasn't there a quote from DB at the Detroit Economic Club. Someone asked if money was a determinant in the divisions and scheduling. Didn't he respond to that question with a "hell yes" or something to that effect? Well, well, it is about money, but now, with all the backlash, they don't want it to appear that it is.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:41 AM ^
How does anyone know whether playing a team two weeks in a row is going to take anthing away from either one of the games?
I call bullshit on this one, Delaney. Just because he is afraid it might happen isn't the same as knowing it will happen. The thing is that Nobody knows until we try it.
I though buisness men were risk takers.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:50 AM ^
Other teams' desires and priorities? We're effing Michigan, without us and OSU this conference would have been dead and gone years ago; it would be a midwestern version of the Big East. If Michigan has one major demand, which is to play The Game at the end of the season, then with our seniority and importance we should sure as hell get it. Honestly, who in the entire world cares about what Indiana and Minnesota want? I don't think we have them to thank for any big-time ratings or national exposure. If we lose the timing of The Game, but Iowa gets to keep playing for that stupid ass bronze pig at the same time every year, I'm going to lose my damn mind. Give me a break.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:50 AM ^
Michigan and OSU have a lot of leverage in this situation and need to start using it. Honestly, the opinions of the other 10 schools in the Big Ten regarding the Game should have no bearing on the decision. It needs to be left to the two participants. M and OSU carried the Big Ten for decades. The conference doesn't exist without the two schools. For an example of what the major schools mean to a conference, look at what Texas and Oklahoma did to the other schools in the Big 12.
If the proposed move of the Game from the end of the season is an effort to wrest a few million more dollars out of the advertisers, M and OSU need to step and demand greater shares of the pie. There is no question that the great economic value of the Big Ten has more to do with the Big 2 than any of the other schools. And if the conference is willing to kill the Game for a few bucks, its time for the Big 2 to demand a greater slice of it. And when the other schools realize that their entire take will be reduced, then our opinions will be heard.
And frankly, Michigan and OSU don't need the Big Ten. If the two left and joined a loose allegiance with ND and Texas as independent schools that played each other and joined together to sell TV rights to their home games, each school would fetch far more than the $20M+ each Big Ten team receives now. (My reasoning on this matter is that UT, M and OSU each are going to receive over $20M from their conference, and each of these three schools is clearly one of, if not the main draw in each conference, so each must be worth more than the $20M.)
And the BCS would bend over backwards to ensure that these 4 fanbases had easy access to the BCS bowls. I would be surprised if the Rose Bowl would rather have the best of those four over the winner of the Big 10 less the Big 2.
The Game is far more important to me than the Big Ten. The Game is the baby, the Big Ten is the bath water. Let's not forget this.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:20 AM ^
If the point of all this is to try and wrangle more money from TV and the advertisers about the possibility of OSU and UM meeting in the Big Ten Championship game, then doesn't that give those two schools some leverage? Now granted, I don't want a scenario like the Big 12 where Texas was/is the bully, but at the same time don't you have to stand up for one of the greatest rivalries in sports? So they are in separate divisions and won't ever play in the big 10 championship game. You're still going to have the scenario where they could be playing to see who plays in the championship game, and when one school is having a down year possibly playing to knock the other team out of the big ten championship game (and maybe their national title hopes).
The sad thing is if what some people have written is true, the extra money from TV if the schools are in separate divisions and might play in the championship isn't that great (a few hundred thousand). If the talk was each school might be able to get an extra 4-5 million dollars from the separate division scenario (somewhat less than what a home game revenue is), I'd still hate it but it would be slightly less understandable and you could say it's about the money. However, as Brian mentioned if the increased revenue is a couple hundred thousand dollars you could just raise the regular season ticket price 50 cents and make more money.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:54 AM ^
but these threads are really starting to get old. Why can't they just put them both in the same division so The Game still stays as The Game. My god I still can't believe this is even an issue. Why the hell would you want to break this tradition up? While were at it lets play Sparty once every two years, ND twice during the season and put Minnesota in the same division as Ohio State if they do decide to end it. This is pure idiocy.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
But isn't that the point of all these threads?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:59 AM ^
No defense of the move, no "We'll Never Play for the Big Ten Title Again." May not mean much but it's certainly not a bad sign.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:03 AM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
I really do think we can get this fixed (or at least, be in separate divisions but play the last week of the season). This isn't a case where the fanbase is 60-40 one way. It's more like 90-10 opposed. And the media is right on board with us. I do not see how, at the end of the day, the conference can make a move that is massively unpopular with almost everyone. The more publicity this gets, the more it gets trashed. We just need to make sure the news gets out to as many people as possible. A lot of fans are still completely in the dark about this.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:45 AM ^
I get that there are competing interests in the Big 10. One of them is ours.
We've heard loudly and clearly from Alverez, Iowa, etc. about what their priorities are. What about ours? Mr. Brandon, your job first and foremost, is to look out for the interests of the University of Michigan.
Whether we're out-voted or not, we should be screaming our position and our objections from the rooftops for all to hear. Why are our big voices silent? Where is Desmond, Charles, Lloyd, Mary Sue, heck even Herbie? They can't all be bound by some Big 10 Office gag order.
Why are our own people just rolling over and giving us all pats on the head like it's no big deal? In their heart of hearts do they really believe that this is in the best interests of Michigan?
The Game - Michigan against Ohio State in the last game of the season - is part of what defines the very essense of Michigan. Do they really believe that it is in our best interest to make it just another big mid-season game and replace it with Michigan-MSU on a BTN overflow channel?
We'll be completely overshadowed by the season-ending rivalry games in our own conference like OSU-PSU and Nebraska-Wisconsin, much less by the other key national rivalry games.
We will go from being the premier headliner national game on Rivalry Week, the most important week of the season, to being Tennesee-Vanderbilt. How is that in our best interest?
Mr. Brandon, It's time to lay the cards on the table. Either you have not been doing your job defending the best interests of Michigan, or you've worked out some sweet secret back-room deal that is so compelling that it makes throwing the very soul of Michigan away worth it. It's time to let us in on it.
August 27th, 2010 at 7:41 AM ^
I sent a letter, similar in scope to what the OP wrote, to Mary Sue Coleman and expect a canned response back. That there is a canned response suggests that the powers that be are being hammered with correspondence. Some of it may be coming from alumni with big bucks who provide significant financial support.
The bottom line is that all of us knew that the day Nebraska signed on the dotted line, things would change. It was inevitable and in many ways, long overdue. I see the nine game conference schedule as a good thing, although with the Michigan Notre Dame game, we (and MSU and Purdue) start each season with ten real games on our schedule, unlike some of the other teams in the Big Ten. Although this is a disadvantage in terms or scheduling, I welcome the change. To me, playing a Delaware State or another weak team is a joke. I suspect most of us are into quality football - I'd rather play a very strong team and have a great game and lose, than to waste a Saturday watching what should be a scrimmage.
Brandon and Coleman will do the best they can. Will things be perfect? I doubt it.
Another point that has not been mentioned with much frequency is how the networks vallue"the game" in terms of viewership. Frankly, from a network standpoint, I think interest in "the game" has probably dropped over the last couple of years for obvious reasons. In many ways, our timing could not have been worse to have gone 3-9 and 5-7. Had we been the Michigan of old, the stick we would be carrying would have been much bigger. I wonder how many people watched the 42-39 game from 2006 versus the game last year? That, combined with the string of OSU's wins doesn't help us. This adds yet more pressure on Michigan to having a winning team from the gitgo this season, although the damage may have already been done and the decision already been made.
August 27th, 2010 at 8:29 AM ^
So you say:
I think interest in "the game" has probably dropped over the last couple of years for obvious reasons.
Well, my friend, we've had a few bad years. Ohio State stunk it up against us in the 90's. So what! I was there when Woody busted up the sideline markers. I watched Biakabutuka rush for 313 yards. I held my breath for two and a half hours one late November Saturday in 1997.
I'm not interested in Brandon and Coleman "doing the best they can." As Sean Connery so memorably said in The Rock "Your best?? Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."
August 27th, 2010 at 7:16 AM ^
I am not moved.
August 27th, 2010 at 7:37 AM ^
His tune has certainly changed. His auto responses 3-4 days ago were about feeding us a shit sandwich and telling us it tasted great. Now hes dialed it back and is pretending to fight for our interests. The gigantic negative response might actually be having an impact.
August 27th, 2010 at 7:52 AM ^
on the Michigan coaches' show with Brandstatter. They are all dancing around the truth of what they are after. The future is looking somewhat scary.
August 27th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^