|
Post by ptctitan on Jun 2, 2022 7:13:21 GMT -5
It's the board. The board members/trustees are old fart in the bottles. How do we remove them? It's a combination of factors - not just one factor and not necessarily the trustees. The bean counter mentality that has plagued this university for over 4 decades is located mainly in the upper management levels of several areas - not just athletics. The answer is to keep those clueless people isolated from strategic decision making because their analyses always lead to three things: 1) cost-cutting, 2) capturing low-hanging, low risk fruit, and 3) focusing on increasing sales of in-context products like selling 50 more tickets rather than looking for the strategic benefit of placing lots of bodies in the stands. For example, when I proposed promoting a prior year's Oakland home game with a U of D heritage appreciation format complete with the Vitale era throwback crazy striped warm-ups and uniforms and $1.00 admission for all U of D alumni and their families, a high ranking bureaucrat not in Athletics first attacked the cost of selling tickets at a discount and free parking and then said that to be fair we'd then have to promote a Mercy game and a UD Mercy game. Think about that bean counter response. The seats are a fixed cost and would be empty anyway. Having cars parking free does not increase the cost of operating the parking lot. The extra cost of the throwback uniforms would be offset by a donation. But you might get 500-1000 more people on campus by acknowledging their part of the school's heritage. Especially when in NCAA basketball, the heritage is on the U of D side of things. Clueless is the word most descriptive of that response. BTW, the coaches were all for the idea. Thus, moving forward, the most effective strategy requires us to move around and isolate the clueless so the harm stops.
|
|
|
Post by upbasketballfan on Jun 2, 2022 8:32:44 GMT -5
It's the board. The board members/trustees are old fart in the bottles. How do we remove them? It's a combination of factors - not just one factor and not necessarily the trustees. The bean counter mentality that has plagued this university for over 4 decades is located mainly in the upper management levels of several areas - not just athletics. The answer is to keep those clueless people isolated from strategic decision making because their analyses always lead to three things: 1) cost-cutting, 2) capturing low-hanging, low risk fruit, and 3) focusing on increasing sales of in-context products like selling 50 more tickets rather than looking for the strategic benefit of placing lots of bodies in the stands. For example, when I proposed promoting a prior year's Oakland home game with a U of D heritage appreciation format complete with the Vitale era throwback crazy striped warm-ups and uniforms and $1.00 admission for all U of D alumni and their families, a high ranking bureaucrat not in Athletics first attacked the cost of selling tickets at a discount and free parking and then said that to be fair we'd then have to promote a Mercy game and a UD Mercy game. Think about that bean counter response. The seats are a fixed cost and would be empty anyway. Having cars parking free does not increase the cost of operating the parking lot. The extra cost of the throwback uniforms would be offset by a donation. But you might get 500-1000 more people on campus by acknowledging their part of the school's heritage. Especially when in NCAA basketball, the heritage is on the U of D side of things. Clueless is the word most descriptive of that response. BTW, the coaches were all for the idea. Thus, moving forward, the most effective strategy requires us to move around and isolate the clueless so the harm stops. How would another Dept. Head have input into the way the Athletic Dept. promotes their venue. How would they have any input at all into the decisions as to admissions costs or parking. Who would be responsible for this stupidity? Is the Athletic director also involved in the decisions in the administration of the Law School? This really can’t be happening there.
|
|
|
Post by ptctitan on Jun 2, 2022 9:11:08 GMT -5
I did not say another department head.
|
|
|
Post by upbasketballfan on Jun 2, 2022 9:23:25 GMT -5
I did not say another department head. My mistake you said high ranking bureaucrat. Obviously someone without foresight but I am still wondering how this person would even be consulted regarding the price of tickets if you are targeting a specific group of graduates from the University. Just because we have an event to honor a certain coach or team does not mean there has to be a similar event to honor every team or coach. I guess the argument makes no sense to me an why it was not pushed forward. The price of tickets or who is honored at a basketball team should be the decision of the Athletic Dept.. input appreciated, see you later!
|
|
|
Post by upsetcoach on Jun 2, 2022 9:50:43 GMT -5
Agree. And it further cements how crappy our school is/has been run. I'm sincerely praying that the new President has his shit together and is a strong supporter of athletics. Because if we don't get this right...i feel like the AD will be in great danger. But when I look at who's on the board of trustees I don't get a warm and fuzzy. Too many out of touch, people with no affiliation, and some Mercy people. Therefore, I am not expecting change. This new President could end up being just a yes man.
|
|
|
Post by Rogobob77 on Jun 4, 2022 9:25:10 GMT -5
I don’t think you are right about the UDM name change being made with “no discussion.” Fr. Muller’s history on the subject says the potential change was “a very sensitive and controversial issue.” Our consultants at the time (Young & Rubicam) recommended the new name as “an acceptable compromise.” I remember speaking briefly with Vowels at the ceremony five years or so ago when the “Detroit Mercy” double-down branding and new logo was announced. He is too much of a company man to convey his true feelings about the new direction (which would be carried over to Athletics branding), but my sense was he wasn’t pleased. Thanks for the clarification. I meant that it seemed to me that there wasn't going to be a discussion after the name was announced UDM. In other words, the student body didn't have a chance to have a say in the name change talks. Probably because the administration would have known, game over. I realize the University is private and can do what they want. However, you have to accept that will turn some donors off. Nevertheless, optimism is a happiness magnet and I remain to stay positive. I recall talking to a friend back in 1990 who worked for the University. She said the U-D people were advocating for “University of Detroit” as the post-consolidation name. The Mercy people wanted “Mercy University of Detroit.” It was pointed out to the latter group that “MUD” was probably not a good acronym for a college. Instead we got what we got. As a compromise, I would have suggested officially incorporating as “the Jesuit-Mercy University of Detroit” but making the more public day-to-day brand of the school “University of Detroit.”
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Jun 4, 2022 19:52:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification. I meant that it seemed to me that there wasn't going to be a discussion after the name was announced UDM. In other words, the student body didn't have a chance to have a say in the name change talks. Probably because the administration would have known, game over. I realize the University is private and can do what they want. However, you have to accept that will turn some donors off. Nevertheless, optimism is a happiness magnet and I remain to stay positive. I recall talking to a friend back in 1990 who worked for the University. She said the U-D people were advocating for “University of Detroit” as the post-consolidation name. The Mercy people wanted “Mercy University of Detroit.” It was pointed out to the latter group that “MUD” was probably not a good acronym for a college. Instead we got what we got. As a compromise, I would have suggested officially incorporating as “the Jesuit-Mercy University of Detroit” but making the more public day-to-day brand of the school “University of Detroit.” Your suggesiton would have been the best outcome. As it is now, the Jesuit part of the University heritage really gets the short end of the stick when it comes to recognition. And, as we have discussed before, other Universities have an official name and an everyday "brand name", such as the University of Notre Dame du Lac. We made a bad decision in 1990 and just doubled down on it a few years ago, wasting a million bucks in the process.
|
|