Comments on: Column: Who Wins with College Bowl Games?

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:59:33 +0000

The commercialization of the program began long before Brandon arrived. Don Canham started it when he became the athletic director, and his successors have carried it on with the the tacit approval, if not active encouragement, of university presidents from Robben Fleming through to Mary Sue Coleman.

I suppose one could make the case that commercialization actually began when Fielding H. Yost built Michigan Stadium.

By: cmadler

cmadler — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:14:12 +0000

Tradition, schmadition. The 1942 Rose Bowl was played in North Carolina. Alabama has won as many Rose Bowls as Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Penn State combined.

“On January 8 – January 8! – Northern Illinois played Arkansas State in the Godaddy.com Bowl. How many things are wrong with that sentence? Is there anything right about it?”

Aside from the date — and other than “tradition”, why should there be a magical January 1 cut-off? — how exactly is that objectionable? Why shouldn’t two conference champions meet in a post-season game? Is the “Godaddy.com Bowl” really more objectionable than “The Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio” or “The Rose Bowl Game presented by PlayStation 2″?

Oh, and the Tournament of Roses’ “never on Sunday” policy was instituted in 1893 (“to avoid frightening horses tethered outside local churches and thus interfering with worship services”), nearly a decade before they held a football game to raise money for the parade. It’s a tradition!

By: ScratchingmyHead

ScratchingmyHead — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:07:50 +0000

Dr. Harry Edwards wrote about this very matter 35-40 years ago, only he limited his analysis to the exploitation of Black athletes. As Dave Brandon has assumed his role as AD at UM, you can see that he is slowly furthering the commercialization of sports (night games, outdoor hockey now NHL Hockey) at UM but ironically he must confer with the NCAA as to whether the school can give the athletes a throwback jersey that cost probably $65 while Brady Hoke gets a $160,000 bonus for his players winning the Sugar Bowl. Probably half of the parents of UM players will never get to see their kid play in the Big House while certain individuals who are affiliated with the program get front row seats and are invited to an all expense paid bowl game while making a minimum contribution to the program other that promoting and supporting the economic exploitation of these young people while providing political coverage and justification for its action. That’s their payoff. If an athlete’s parent or relative get support to attend a game that athlete can be cited for violations that will jeopardize their career. This system will eventually collapse under its own weight because these past series of bowls was the least watched in recent years. However, as one of my kids pointed out, the sports administrators and television execs are not aiming their efforts toward my generation, but because we are a sports crazed society where every parents think their kids is the next superstar, they are focusing on hooking the younger generation of soon to be washed out athletes. John U, I like your commentary and I would hope that at some point you do an investigative piece on the commercialization of the program by Dave Brandon. UM is a public University and must cooperate in any endeavor of the sort.

By: David Fitzpatrick

David Fitzpatrick — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:40:56 +0000

I think John U. Bacon could not be more wrong about RichRod, but he has hit the nail on the head here.