Jack Swarbrick to step down in 2024

[TheProspector]

How can you make the argument the stock deal was a poor choice if (a) you and I know nothing about the total and cash value offered to ND from other apparel companies relative to UA, (b) you have no idea how much of the comp was in stock, and (c) you and I know nothing about how long Notre Dame's hold period was on the stock / when we would have liquidated our position?

On the Director's Cup point - any point about those standings needs to be conditioned by an understanding of how much relative budgets changed over the same period vs. ND and the gross number of sports by school by year.

Simply calling the football team "more consistent" is in itself a "super deceptive" description. See Veritate's winning % point by coach...I'm not the biggest BK fan, but denigrating his impact by saying he had the most losses of any ND coach is a little bit like denigrating Jamie Moyer for giving up the most home runs. Again, deceptive.

You've also conspicuously dropped your points about Campus Crossroads...Getting that through a conservative BoT was a fete in itself, and there was a time when things as simple as a video board were inconceivably controversial. The business professor and architect point don't really make sense either...gives no credit for execution nor makes any direct point about what those plans were vs. what was actually executed. I can think about so many metaphors which would highlight the stupidity of this point, but, alas, I do not suffer fools gladly.

Have you seen UAs stock performance? This was a company that Jack said was going to be a $20 billion company (currently have a market cap of $3 billion. Great call Jack). The hold period wasn't short. And yes, I don't know what the totals were, but it was enough that it was trumpeted as being so innovative in the press releases when the deal was struck.

On the Director's Cup point, your response is well, non-responsive. I'm sure there might be some minor movement for the reasons noted, but for someone so instrumental to our athletic department, I would expect improvement which isn't borne out by the data.

BK has the most wins purely because teams play more games per year now then ever before. His win percentage isn't in the elite category of coaches at ND. He's 7th all time. And look at his record in games as an underdog or against top teams. It's nowhere near the elite strata of ND coaches. I'm glad he figured out by year 8 not to lose to Navy, USF, Northwestern, Duke, Tulsa, etc., but coaches who can't win big games don't get statues of themselves by running through bottom feeder ACC programs even if they are the "winningest" coach in school history.

And no, I haven't dropped my points about Campus Crossroads, but I don't need to belabor the point. Jack is trumpeting his involvement because he can't trumpet actual football success like national championships or major bowl wins. And have you seen the construction on campus over the last two decades? Have you seen how addicted to money ND is as an institution? Crossroads was a super easy sell for all the reasons I mentioned. Increased revenue stream from premium seating and luxury areas (keep in mind Michigan did this to the Big House a few years before Crossroads so ND knew the financial impact here)? Check. Add classrooms to the stadium (see my prior post on Dean Gaglio noting this before Jack was hired)? Check. Student union in central campus location (see my other point on the campus architect you noted which was pre-Jack)? Check. If you think a stadium renovation that was more related to buildings for the students then the actual football team was a tough sell for the admin, I have some nice ocean front land in Kansas to sell you.

 

[stlnd01]

JFC stop typing so many words. You don’t like Swarbrick. Ok.

 

[TheProspector]

JFC stop typing so many words. You don’t like Swarbrick. Ok.

lol this coming after a multiple paragraph post from you on the prior page. I get it, you like Swarbrick. Ok. But attack the message, not the messenger.

 

[DillonHall]

Have you seen UAs stock performance? This was a company that Jack said was going to be a $20 billion company (currently have a market cap of $3 billion. Great call Jack). The hold period wasn't short. And yes, I don't know what the totals were, but it was enough that it was trumpeted as being so innovative in the press releases when the deal was struck.

On the Director's Cup point, your response is well, non-responsive. I'm sure there might be some minor movement for the reasons noted, but for someone so instrumental to our athletic department, I would expect improvement which isn't borne out by the data.

BK has the most wins purely because teams play more games per year now then ever before. His win percentage isn't in the elite category of coaches at ND. He's 7th all time. And look at his record in games as an underdog or against top teams. It's nowhere near the elite strata of ND coaches. I'm glad he figured out by year 8 not to lose to Navy, USF, Northwestern, Duke, Tulsa, etc., but coaches who can't win big games don't get statues of themselves by running through bottom feeder ACC programs even if they are the "winningest" coach in school history.

And no, I haven't dropped my points about Campus Crossroads, but I don't need to belabor the point. Jack is trumpeting his involvement because he can't trumpet actual football success like national championships or major bowl wins. And have you seen the construction on campus over the last two decades? Have you seen how addicted to money ND is as an institution? Crossroads was a super easy sell for all the reasons I mentioned. Increased revenue stream from premium seating and luxury areas (keep in mind Michigan did this to the Big House a few years before Crossroads so ND knew the financial impact here)? Check. Add classrooms to the stadium (see my prior post on Dean Gaglio noting this before Jack was hired)? Check. Student union in central campus location (see my other point on the campus architect you noted which was pre-Jack)? Check. If you think a stadium renovation that was more related to buildings for the students then the actual football team was a tough sell for the admin, I have some nice ocean front land in Kansas to sell you.

Dude, you're clueless. The ND football program was completely broken when Swarbrick took over. The current state of the program is heads and shoulders above what it was when I was a student for shitty seasons like 2007, 2008, and 2009. Take a close look at the string of failed coaches between Holtz and Kelly, and you'd start to appreciate Kelly more

 

[TheProspector]

Dude, you're clueless. The ND football program was completely broken when Swarbrick took over. The current state of the program is heads and shoulders above what it was when I was a student for shitty seasons like 2007, 2008, and 2009. Take a close look at the string of failed coaches between Holtz and Kelly, and you'd start to appreciate Kelly more

I was a student at the same time so I’m well aware. As noted though, there is nuance to the hires in between those coaches and the state of the program.

I’ve stated in other posts that I think the rot within the program was deeper than the AD’s office and went to the top with Monk Malloy and the turnaround of the football program is more to do with Jenkins’ willingness to play ball and not cut off the knees of the program unlike his predecessor.

 

[DillonHall]

I was a student at the same time so I’m well aware. As noted though, there is nuance to the hires in between those coaches and the state of the program.

I’ve stated in other posts that I think the rot within the program was deeper than the AD’s office and went to the top with Monk Malloy and the turnaround of the football program is more to do with Jenkins’ willingness to play ball and not cut off the knees of the program unlike his predecessor.

You can't separate Swarbrick, Jenkins, and Kelly- I think it's impossible to weigh each person's contributions separately. All three had to work together to turn the program around.

Sure, some of the Swarbrick praise is overblown, but of course anybody in any job will have failures during a long tenure. Have you ever been to a retirement party or funeral? Generally people say good things about the individual in those situations

Being an AD (especially at ND) is so much more than the hires you make. It's also about retaining the right coaches even if they weren't your hires, and most importantly, fostering an environment that makes it possible for those coaches to have success.

 

[TheProspector]

You can't separate Swarbrick, Jenkins, and Kelly- I think it's impossible to weigh each person's contributions separately. All three had to work together to turn the program around.

Sure, some of the Swarbrick praise is overblown, but of course anybody in any job will have failures during a long tenure. Have you ever been to a retirement party or funeral? Generally people say good things about the individual in those situations

No disagreement there. I’ve never said in this thread Swarbrick wasn’t a good AD. I’ve just pushed back on what I think is more effusive praise then deserved. I do think him and BK are similar; good at what they do but not great. Hopefully Freeman and Bevacqua fall into the latter category.

 

[GC90ND]

Have you seen UAs stock performance? This was a company that Jack said was going to be a $20 billion company (currently have a market cap of $3 billion. Great call Jack). The hold period wasn't short. And yes, I don't know what the totals were, but it was enough that it was trumpeted as being so innovative in the press releases when the deal was struck.

On the Director's Cup point, your response is well, non-responsive. I'm sure there might be some minor movement for the reasons noted, but for someone so instrumental to our athletic department, I would expect improvement which isn't borne out by the data.

BK has the most wins purely because teams play more games per year now then ever before. His win percentage isn't in the elite category of coaches at ND. He's 7th all time. And look at his record in games as an underdog or against top teams. It's nowhere near the elite strata of ND coaches. I'm glad he figured out by year 8 not to lose to Navy, USF, Northwestern, Duke, Tulsa, etc., but coaches who can't win big games don't get statues of themselves by running through bottom feeder ACC programs even if they are the "winningest" coach in school history.

And no, I haven't dropped my points about Campus Crossroads, but I don't need to belabor the point. Jack is trumpeting his involvement because he can't trumpet actual football success like national championships or major bowl wins. And have you seen the construction on campus over the last two decades? Have you seen how addicted to money ND is as an institution? Crossroads was a super easy sell for all the reasons I mentioned. Increased revenue stream from premium seating and luxury areas (keep in mind Michigan did this to the Big House a few years before Crossroads so ND knew the financial impact here)? Check. Add classrooms to the stadium (see my prior post on Dean Gaglio noting this before Jack was hired)? Check. Student union in central campus location (see my other point on the campus architect you noted which was pre-Jack)? Check. If you think a stadium renovation that was more related to buildings for the students then the actual football team was a tough sell for the admin, I have some nice ocean front land in Kansas to sell you.

You have no idea how long the hold period was, so it is borderline asinine to say it "wasn't short." My point here is that you are trying to leverage the "absence of evidence" fallacy to make your point. It is a fallacy for a reason.

Your Director's Cup counter is likewise non-responsive. At the end of the day, almost all the schools in those standings have more Olympic sports than ND, so relative outperformance is easier for them. They get more at-bats. I noticed you haven't brought up the two Capital One Cup wins as a part of this argument. Strange!

You didn't address your initial point on BK, which was to denigrate him because in addition to the most wins he also has the most losses. And again, if you want to debate BK's legacy that is fine, but if you are judging him through the lens of the AD's performance you have to be able to tell me who you would have hired that was available at the time. Who would have done better than BK? Debating a legacy in this way can't just be a game of absolutes. In order to be logical it must consider at least some relativity. Either that or you have to completely separate BK's performance from the debate about Swarbrick's legacy.

You have also now changed your point on Campus Crossroads. Decide what your argument is! I can't help myself, so I'll address your latest point. Jack has been very direct about his shortcomings on the national championship and big bowl game front - see the Irish Illustrated pod he did, for example. Saying he is trumpeting Crossroads as a means to compensate for those shortcomings is therefore both untrue and, again, asinine. It is well accepted that this project, in its current, executed form was his brainchild. I could respond to your points on premium seating (untrue), Dean Gaglio (firsthand, unverifiable), student union (vague, not necessarily a supporting argument), and campus architecture (probably didn't like the idea, doesn't like anything), but I won't. Oh wait.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

TLDR, just ban him

 

[TheProspector]

You have no idea how long the hold period was, so it is borderline asinine to say it "wasn't short." My point here is that you are trying to leverage the "absence of evidence" fallacy to make your point. It is a fallacy for a reason.

Your Director's Cup counter is likewise non-responsive. At the end of the day, almost all the schools in those standings have more Olympic sports than ND, so relative outperformance is easier for them. They get more at-bats. I noticed you haven't brought up the two Capital One Cup wins as a part of this argument. Strange!

You didn't address your initial point on BK, which was to denigrate him because in addition to the most wins he also has the most losses. And again, if you want to debate BK's legacy that is fine, but if you are judging him through the lens of the AD's performance you have to be able to tell me who you would have hired that was available at the time. Who would have done better than BK? Debating a legacy in this way can't just be a game of absolutes. In order to be logical it must consider at least some relativity. Either that or you have to completely separate BK's performance from the debate about Swarbrick's legacy.

You have also now changed your point on Campus Crossroads. Decide what your argument is! I can't help myself, so I'll address your latest point. Jack has been very direct about his shortcomings on the national championship and big bowl game front - see the Irish Illustrated pod he did, for example. Saying he is trumpeting Crossroads as a means to compensate for those shortcomings is therefore both untrue and, again, asinine. It is well accepted that this project, in its current, executed form was his brainchild. I could respond to your points on premium seating (untrue), Dean Gaglio (firsthand, unverifiable), student union (vague, not necessarily a supporting argument), and campus architecture (probably didn't like the idea, doesn't like anything), but I won't. Oh wait.

There is a lot I disagree with in your post, but this is going nowhere fast and there is no more reason to pollute the board with the back and forth which obviously isn't changing either of our opinions.

 

[GC90ND]

There is a lot I disagree with in your post, but this is going nowhere fast and there is no more reason to pollute the board with the back and forth which obviously isn't changing either of our opinions.

Needed a place to deposit this link - is this a good spot for it?

Notre Dame Wins Men’s 2024 Capital One Cup

fightingirish.com

 

[TheProspector]

Needed a place to deposit this link - is this a good spot for it?

Notre Dame Wins Men’s 2024 Capital One Cup

fightingirish.com

Light up grace.

Were 11th in the Directors Cup standings btw for this year.

 

[BobbyMac]

Have you seen UAs stock performance? This was a company that Jack said was going to be a $20 billion company (currently have a market cap of $3 billion. Great call Jack). The hold period wasn't short. And yes, I don't know what the totals were, but it was enough that it was trumpeted as being so innovative in the press releases when the deal was struck.

Well, it became a $20B+ company as he said it would.

Can you provide us a timeline of the share sales executed by Scott Malpass?

Can you also tell us what percentage of the original position ND still holds?

 

[Irish4life]

This thread is making me start to believe the dead internet theory, ain't gonna lie

 

[TheProspector]

Well, it became a $20B+ company as he said it would.

Can you provide us a timeline of the share sales executed by Scott Malpass?

Can you also tell us what percentage of the original position ND still holds?

UA has a less than $3B market cap so no idea what you’re smoking thinking it’s a $20 billion company. Although you are technically right that for a very brief period of time, its market cap was $20 billion+ before plummeting.

And even if ND Jesus Scott Malpass pulled the UA stock ripcord early, that doesn’t justify the original decision or the thinking we were partnering with a blue chip company who is nothing more than a modern day Reebok/FILA.

 

[BobbyMac]

UA has a less than $3B market cap so no idea what you’re smoking thinking it’s a $20 billion company. Although you are technically right that for a very brief period of time, its market cap was $20 billion+ before plummeting.

And even if ND Jesus Scott Malpass pulled the UA stock ripcord early, that doesn’t justify the original decision or the thinking we were partnering with a blue chip company who is nothing more than a modern day Reebok/FILA.

What were you smoking when you typed the following... and I quote:

"This was a company that Jack said was going to be a $20 billion company"

It was a $20 Billion dollar market cap company after JS said that. I'm not technically right, I'm just right.

AND

ND held the value of the contract when Malpass unloaded the position.

Now if you have info on the projected opportunity cost of signing with UA vs Nike, I'm all ears. I don't care personally what they wear besides the fact that Jordan Brand would get recruits hyped I guess.

And comparing UA with Fila is something..

 

[sfk324]

All Under Armour had to do to accomplish that market cap was lie to investors for years about sales figures. Heckuva company.

 

[BobbyMac]

All Under Armour had to do to accomplish that market cap was lie to investors for years about sales figures. Heckuva company.

It's a sector full of real peaches.

Nike uses slave labor

Adidas and Puma were seeded with Nazi blood money.

 

[sfk324]

It's a sector full of real peaches.

Nike uses slave labor

Adidas and Puma were seeded with Nazi blood money.

And Swarby helped cover up serial child molestation. Bet he felt right at home in those pitch meetings.

 

[BobbyMac]

And Swarby helped cover up serial child molestation. Bet he felt right at home in those pitch meetings.

So now attorneys in America shouldn't provide counsel to their clients so you can toss out a goalpost moving point?

 

[sfk324]

So now attorneys in America shouldn't provide counsel to their clients so you can toss out a goalpost moving point?

They shouldn't provide counsel that their clients should cover up crimes, no. That isn't a controversial position -- it is both illegal and against the rules of professional conduct. I hope you aren't an attorney if you're asking things like that.

Let's talk about goalpost moving, though. The issue was UA's market cap. I pointed out the fact it was driven solely by their fraudulent sales numbers and you decided to move the goalposts to include unrelated issues related to Nike's manufacturing and Adidas' founding 80 years ago (we've officially entered Godwin's Law territory, good work). Definitely no moving goalposts there. But apparently pointing out the original topic of discussion, good ol' ladyframes, has his own history ethical problems is a step too far. Makes sense.

 

[BobbyMac]

They shouldn't provide counsel that their clients should cover up crimes, no. That isn't a controversial position -- it is both illegal and against the rules of professional conduct. I hope you aren't an attorney if you're asking things like that.

Let's talk about goalpost moving, though. The issue was UA's market cap. I pointed out the fact it was driven solely by their fraudulent sales numbers and you decided to move the goalposts to include unrelated issues related to Nike's manufacturing and Adidas' founding 80 years ago (we've officially entered Godwin's Law territory, good work). Definitely no moving goalposts there. But apparently pointing out the original topic of discussion, good ol' ladyframes, has his own history ethical problems is a step too far. Makes sense.

Why wasn't he prosecuted or censured for his orchestration of this cover up?

As per your goalpost timeline:

I honestly cut/pasted your quote and corrected you. You asked me what I was smoking even though the words as written were clear... it became a $20B company. Period.

You then took a fork in the road instead of taking full responsibility for being wrong on your assertion JS was wrong about UA becoming a $20B entity and instead wrote this topic shifting (direct) quote:
"All Under Armour had to do to accomplish that market cap was lie to investors for years about sales figures. Heckuva company."

That said, I lined up my next kick towards the goalposts YOU moved. I just kept playing on the new field you laid out.

Your timeline and rationale are incorrect.

 

[GC90ND]

They shouldn't provide counsel that their clients should cover up crimes, no. That isn't a controversial position -- it is both illegal and against the rules of professional conduct. I hope you aren't an attorney if you're asking things like that.

Let's talk about goalpost moving, though. The issue was UA's market cap. I pointed out the fact it was driven solely by their fraudulent sales numbers and you decided to move the goalposts to include unrelated issues related to Nike's manufacturing and Adidas' founding 80 years ago (we've officially entered Godwin's Law territory, good work). Definitely no moving goalposts there. But apparently pointing out the original topic of discussion, good ol' ladyframes, has his own history ethical problems is a step too far. Makes sense.

How many times do you and @TheProspector have to be wrong before you delete your accounts? Routinely libelous, half baked logic, and a unique inability to admit when you are wrong and just move on.

 

[TheProspector]

How many times do you and @TheProspector have to be wrong before you delete your accounts? Routinely libelous, half baked logic, and a unique inability to admit when you are wrong and just move on.

If you want to die on the hill that the 2014 UA contract was a good one where our AD said UA was going to become a company on par with Nike, be my guest.

Obviously, the company is a dumpster fire regardless of how you or anyone else wants to spin it.

 

[TheProspector]

Well, it became a $20B+ company as he said it would.

Can you provide us a timeline of the share sales executed by Scott Malpass?

Can you also tell us what percentage of the original position ND still holds?

"We love the company we are partnering with, and we can't wait to grow with them," Swarbrick said. "We don't believe we're partnering with a $2 billion company. We're partnering with a $20 billion company."

You're being obtuse. Obviously, Jack's comment was not "We're partnering with a company that's going to be a $20 billion company for 2 years and then will plummet below their current share price over the next 5 years. " His comment clearly implies that they expected UA to be a blue chip company in perpetuity which was way off.

And you've also missed the point on Malpass. I wouldn't doubt that Malpass and the geniuses in the ND investment office saved Savvy's hide on the deal. That doesn't mean it was smart to enter into a stock based compensation model with a company that's a lemon. It's also probably why no other university athletic departments enter into similar agreements with their apparel partners.

At the end of the day though, I have no beef with you. Anyone who can run Decker off the II boards is fine by me.

 

[GC90ND]

If you want to die on the hill that the 2014 UA contract was a good one where our AD said UA was going to become a company on par with Nike, be my guest.

Obviously, the company is a dumpster fire regardless of how you or anyone else wants to spin it.

You measure "good" by evaluating financial outcomes for the school we all love and its student athletes. Those financial outcomes can be direct (near-term financial gain) or indirect (opportunity cost). To @BobbyMac's point, you really know nothing about the opportunity cost and what we know about the direct consequence suggests the school sold out of its equity position at a favorable valuation.

Therefore, as you have been all along, you are wrong.

When he made those comments, what was Nike's market cap? And where did he suggest UA would be "on par with Nike?"

 

[GC90ND]

"We love the company we are partnering with, and we can't wait to grow with them," Swarbrick said. "We don't believe we're partnering with a $2 billion company. We're partnering with a $20 billion company."

You're being obtuse. Obviously, Jack's comment was not "We're partnering with a company that's going to be a $20 billion company for 2 years and then will plummet below their current share price over the next 5 years. " His comment clearly implies that they expected UA to be a blue chip company in perpetuity which was way off.

And you've also missed the point on Malpass. I wouldn't doubt that Malpass and the geniuses in the ND investment office saved Savvy's hide on the deal. That doesn't mean it was smart to enter into a stock based compensation model with a company that's a lemon. It's also probably why no other university athletic departments enter into similar agreements with their apparel partners.

At the end of the day though, I have no beef with you. Anyone who can run Decker off the II boards is fine by me.

What is your point to this end? You admit the deal drove positive financial outcomes for the school, maybe even the most positive of all the possible apparel deals offered to ND, but it was still bad? Help me understand your obtuse logic.

And please give me the test by which we should measure whether the deal was relatively the right decision or not. What is the question we should be asking ourselves to indicate whether the deal was a good one?

 

[TheProspector]

You measure "good" by evaluating financial outcomes for the school we all love and its student athletes. Those financial outcomes can be direct (financial gain) or indirect (opportunity cost). To @BobbyMac's point, you really know nothing about the opportunity cost and what we know about the direct consequence suggests the school sold out of its equity position at a favorable valuation.

Therefore, as you have been all along, you are wrong.

The fact is, no one, me or you, knows what the original share based compensation was or if they sold out of their equity position. It's all sausage.

All we know is that we did accept some form of compensation in stock with a company that's a dud. We positioned the original contract as partnering with a future blue chip company (which was way off) and the share based compensation model as progressive and forward thinking despite no other athletic department negotiating their contracts like this (for good reason).

 

[TheProspector]

What is your point to this end? You admit the deal drove positive financial outcomes for the school, maybe even the most positive of all the possible apparel deals offered to ND, but it was still bad? Help me understand your obtuse logic.

And please give me the test by which we should measure whether the deal was relatively the right decision or not. What is the question we should be asking ourselves to indicate whether the deal was a good one?

You seem mad. Let's both take a few plays off here.

 

[GC90ND]

You seem mad. Let's both take a few plays off here.

Just trying to understand your point! Seems like you've run out of logical ammo though.