I think scUM has created their own General Motors......

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I, too, am really upset by what they're doing..

kingstonlake wrote:

I alone, am thoroughly enjoying it.

So you either, A.) didn't read my post. B.) Have comprehension issues. C.) Got your troll turbo charger fixed.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I, too, am really upset by what they're doing..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:this..

DWags wrote:
What is it when you like it when somebody besides you is ****ing up? Is that psychopath or Schadenfreude, I forget the term.

Rodeo Burger wrote:Even the Walmart slappy radio hosts are calling for UM to publically offer Harbaugh $7-10MM a year and force him to take it or turn it down. In other words, give an alum a 40-100% pay raise in order to get him to "come home" and "save the program".

If the job is so appealing, why would they need to pay millions more than any other school in the country to get a good coach?

I just can't see the new prez going along with that, unless the salary for the football coach was paid for out of a new, dedicated endowment. Even then, I don't think he wants to be the guy who escalated the arms race in college athletics.

Besides the massive construction products taken on by UM, Brandon also expanded the staff of the UM AD by quite a bit, and raised salaries by a huge amount. There are some legacy costs there that will be hard to carry if they retain current staffing.

kingstonlake wrote:Basically, to big to fail. They have pushed all in with the ridiculous spending and facilities construction, funded by donations all hinged on football success. Now, as the football program is an utter embarrassment, the Falcon and the Snowman are on the way out, what now? Donors keep dumping $$ into GM to keep it afloat, or let it fail and build from the ground up?

You have an academic President, rumored to be sniffing AD's from Ivy league schools, while the dunderhead fan base is calling for 7-10 million dollar coaches annually. There is a fork in the road. I think Schlissel sees a program with some less than ethical operations academically and socially. He either has to reign it in or go all SEC. You are either going to be a university with a football program, or a football program with a university (borrowed phrase but spot on). Finding a even keel is very hard (MSU).

You go Fitzgerald or Harbaugh. One thing people don't realize about Harbaugh. He does it the MSU way in the NCAA. He recruited kids with something to prove at Stanford, not kids who think they've already proved it, like scUM does. I think Schlissel goes conservative on the AD and coach hire. Goes back to 8-4, 9-3 football and the fanbase ca go back to making much more of themselves than the rest of the country does. Otherwise you risk a complete implosion with those records @ $8 million a year for a coach. Which ever way he goes, you will have a divided fanbase, those that only care about a football program built on a fraud, or one that values the academic end of the university and a football program that is competitive and scandal free.

Rocinante wrote:Youvfail to understand just how much expendable income um alumni have. They are some rich fuckers. The cash will keep flowing.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rein.

Herbie Green wrote:
We are playing OSU this week in the biggest game of the year. And your mindset is "I am going to write an esssay about UM comparing them to GM"

Herbie Green wrote:
We are playing OSU this week in the biggest game of the year. And your mindset is "I am going to write an esssay about UM comparing them to GM"

kingstonlake wrote:

And that is precisely what Dave Brandon thought. How'd that work out for him? Donors are speaking with their wallets, and closing them.

People don't amass wealth just to be stupid with it. As the shine continues to erode, so will the value of saying you help fund it.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:no offense, but I think you fail to understand how important UM is to some of us..

Rocinante wrote:

Link to evidence that the boosters aren't giving?

Rocinante wrote:

Link to evidence that the boosters aren't giving?

kingstonlake wrote:

Well, you at least read to the halfway point. Douche.

kingstonlake wrote:

Who said they aren't giving? I people won't continue to give towards a failing product. You seem to feel otherwise. Empty seats, ticket giveaways, and no waiting lists for seasons tickets seem to disagree

LooseGoose wrote:

Jeebus I was just poking you.

I actually read the whole damn thing.

Rocinante wrote:

That's different money than the donations that go toward facilities. Season tickets are expensive, but the real money behind the UM athletic program isn't tied to season tix. It's tied to boosters who give regardless, and will for at least the next decade trying to bring the program back. See Ross, Steven, 200 MILLION

If you have a theory, that's great but if it's not backed up by facts, it's just air.

Rocinante wrote:Okay except... cough cough 200MILLION cough cough... last year.

kingstonlake wrote:

My apologies

LooseGoose wrote:

Now let's fight over kissing the S.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:let's call people names who have different opinions than ours..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:let's call people names who have different opinions than ours..

During the candid 40-minute talk, Schlissel expressed concerns regarding several aspects of the University’s athletic culture, including the academic qualifications of some student-athletes recruited to play for University teams, particularly the football team.

“We admit students who aren’t as qualified, and it’s probably the kids that we admit that can’t honestly, even with lots of help, do the amount of work and the quality of work it takes to make progression from year to year,” he said. “These past two years have gotten better, but before that, the graduation rates were terrible, with football somewhere in the 50s and 60s when our total six-year rate at the University is somewhere near 90 percent, so that’s a challenge.”

Schlissel also addressed the motivations for athletic departments to value performance over academic integrity.

“The incentives are really strong for them to be as successful on the field as possible, and some of those are in dollars and others are in performance,” he said. “If we had won Nobel Prizes this year, we wouldn’t have gotten as much attention as did our A.D. It’s sad but it’s really true.”

Schlissel added that Curzan said the Athletic Department “often tries to keep her at arm’s length,” expressing frustration regarding the marginalization of faculty governance in these matters.

“That’s why I’m taking a bit of time with the search for Dave’s successor,” Schlissel said. “Some folks wanted me to hire an athletic director (earlier) so he could fire the current football coach and hire the next coach but I want to take the time to make sure we get someone who is not only technically adept, but can ensure that the program has financial and academic integrity, and also someone who shares the value system of realizing our mission.

SACUA member Robert Ziff, an Engineering professor, said he believes student-athletes have an “extreme amount of demands placed on them,” as a result of their status, and that they’re often made to feel that the “$100 million Athletic Program is riding on them,” which could contribute to decreased performance in the classroom and elsewhere.

Schlissel said he understands these concerns and wants to work to make academics more of a priority for student-athletes by enforcing NCAA guidelines that cap the number of hours they can practice and compete.