When it comes to winning and losing, if we're assuming that Mike Dee took over a ticket sales agenda in 2009 that was probably at the very least dependent on season results in 2008, then there were 13 other teams that had worse records over the Dolphins over the time period. Did they also each lose 17,000+ season ticket holders? I think it's a crutch to look at a pile of evidence and claim that we can't make a judgment unless that pile becomes a hill. Or we have a hill of evidence and suddenly we can't make a judgment unless we have a mountain. It's just argumentative. You have a guy that lost a lot of season ticket holders while simultaneously dissolving the team's customer retention staff and reducing sales force. You have a guy that enacted a number of very strange, publicly embarrassing programs/policies that contributed negatively to the brand. You have a guy that had a baseball background and whom MULTIPLE people a lot closer to the situation than we are (including agents and media) say had no real understanding of the football or the South Florida market. But no, in order to say that we're glad this guy is gone, we need to raid the Bureau of Economic Analysis for boxes worth of economic studies, we need to raid the Dolphins front office for boxes worth of their financial data, and we need tape recorded evidence of decision making processes in order to be certain that certain things were actually under his purview as the CEO of the Miami Dolphins. This reminds me of the conversation we had the other day with another poster who claimed that any in-depth analysis of the Dolphins' strengths and weaknesses as it pertains to how they will do in 2013 is completely invalid (and most likely biased) unless it is accompanied by the same quality in-depth analysis of all 13 of the Dolphins' opponents in the very same post.
Sadly enough...well hey, it's like you said. I just got done arguing with a guy who claims that marketing has absolutely nothing to do with ticket sales or franchise profits.
This is a great example. Why was it dissolved? How much was saved? Everyone wants to make this a purely football issue, when it absolutely is not. His job goes way beyond football.
I'm asking how you can criticize the dissolution of an operational department without knowing the cost of operating that department?
Because a customer retention department's job is to retain customers. The Dolphins had a 0.313 record from 2004 to 2007, and a 0.484 record from 2008 to 2011. Yet they didn't bleed season ticket holders from 2005 to 2008 the same way they did from 2009 to 2012. And you think dissolving the department that was charged with retaining those customers had nothing to do with that? Listen. Agree to disagree.
My goodness, how is that what I'm saying? What I'm saying is his decision on how much to spend on security is about the fan experience. That's what's going to drive his decision making. And anyway, are you trying to argue that game day security is some large expenditure? Most of the security is done with off duty police officers with the rest filled in by private security, who are probably being hired (if their security is anything like the University of Florida's) through an intermediary as independent contractors. Which we don't have, therefore no one can make any judgement about the job Dee did. Which is really what you're getting at. Sorry, I choose not to let perfect information be the enemy of reasonable information.
I love this board: The teams' record has nothing to do with the GM's performance. And now, the loss of fans, season ticketholders, money, and a bad reputation, has nothing to do with the CEO/Marketing guru's performance.....
I'm not saying it had nothing to do with that. I'm saying there is a cost-benefit. The South Florida economy collapsed in 2008. The team's attendance models could very well have predicted that because of the economic situation, the trends of NFL attendance, and the team's W-L record, they would lose 19K season ticket holders by 2012. At that point, Mike Dee determined cost of the retention department is more than the benefit it would bring in. These are all factors we aren't privy to, but are pretty important when evaluating things. Agreed.
Nobody said that. Whats being said is that those things need to be considered in concert with other factors, which are being ignored here.
Yup. "Argumentative" is a nice way of putting it. Sounds more to me like somebody trying erect an implacable wall in front of an inevitable conclusion they don't want made.
I'm trying to gather information to make an informed decision. As I said earlier, I'd love to model this stuff out.
Except that you know that the detailed financial information you say is necessary to make an evaluation isn't available. That makes it a conceit. You're pretending you didn't put that barrier there and then deferring to the impossibility of the barrier.
Im indifferent about Mike Dee. However, chief among his duties is to put butts in seats. This is to a certain extent tied to the product on the field. But to what extent is debatable. Here are the win-loss records for the last 4 years of some teams that were ahead of the Dolphins in average attendance last year. Jets 34-30 79k Carolina 23-41 74k Philly 33-31 69k Titans 29-35 69k K.C. 23-41 68k Cleveland 19-45 67k Jax 22-42 65k Bills 22-42 65k Cards 28-36 61k Chargers 37-27 60k Fins 27-37 57k 29th Each respective team has to face their own set of circumstances relative to their region. Whether it's other sports teams in their region, economy, weather, or whatever. Bottom line is that some teams with similar on field products still draw more fans than Miami. Im not saying tbat a better team doesnt make it easier. But,the next guy must do better.
You said to evaluate Dee we'd need his operational budget, balance sheet, etc. Were you honestly not aware before now that no team outside of the Packers reveals that information?
Bottom line to me is he's going back to a sport he understands far better and loves more, back in a region he understands better, and he's taking over a franchise worth about a third to a half of what the Dolphins are worth. He'll likely never work in football again. That sounds about right.
I figured that evaluating the CEO of a company would inherently entail these things. Further, it certainly is possible to piece a lot of pertinent information together.
How much more proof does one need before they look to the venue..the venue is impossible to market, people find reasons not to go, he tried to do what he had to do to change that dynamic, for christ sake how much time do you think he spent getting that proposal laid out, how much time for the blueprint of the reconfiguration, as opposed to other duties, it's right in front of everyone's eyes and your just letting it slide..The guy did the the most important think that would of gotten people in the seats, the most important thing to help develop the culture, and got denied.. You guys are fu&$in arguing about orange carpets and sh&$.
At the end of the day he failed. We can make all the excuses we want but the bottom line is the bottom line. He leaves Miami as a failure.
No, imo he didnt fail at the most important part of his job tenure, change the image and venue I would consider his main jobs during his tenure, he did everything possible to get that proposal to the table, and it was denied, rejected, *****ed at, it's not his fault that the majority of folks couldn't conceptualize his vision.
I can't compete with that type of surface level comment..not worth it if your unwilling to acknowledge what went down.. Ultimately politics, a passive scorned fanbase, and lies got in the way..not his fault..
I fully expect Carl Peterson to get this job. It wouldn't be such a bad thing either considering that unlike Dee he actually knows something about football and was able to breathe new life into a dead Chiefs franchise 25 or so years ago.
It's a results business and I personally don't want to hear or read anymore god damn excuses about anyone involved with the Dolphins. Get it done or get the hell out.
i agree to an extent man, but that stadium deal was fu&$in money bro, it's not gonna get better than that.
LOL...yeah, okay, riiiight. "We have a team that has had 4 straight losing seasons and not a playoff win in over a decade...the fans must be staying away because of Tebow day and the Orange carpet". You and CK can certainly share that sentiment. You have a right to think that. Have a great day.
Fair points, all. Except you MUST see the difference between Cleveland and KC and Miami. Too ignore the demographics, history, etc, is to not fully understand whats going on. Its not necessarily analogous to compare other cities to Miami. What would be a better analogy would be to compare our attendace Pre Wannstedt to now. Same stadium, same location, etc. What was our avg attendance from 1998 - 2001 compared with 2008 - 2011. I dont know the answer to that, but I am willing to bet my reasoning on that "stat". If our attendance was just as putrid as it is now, I apologize to all in this debate; you guys were correct, I am wrong. However, if our attendances was better, I'll humbly accept your capitulationg that I was, in fact, right about my conclusions.
Your bets aren't making any sense. First off, you continue to misrepresent what I've said. I've never said winning had nothing to do with attendance. You pretty much DID say the exact opposite though, that winning is the only thing that affects attendance. Of course now you've amended that to include market demographics. Better, but still off the mark, IMO. So in your "bet" you want to see if attendance improves if and only if win totals improve, because that's the only dependent variable that means anything to you. However the dependent variable that I think also has an effect on attendance (the marketing, sales, customer satisfaction, customer retention, etc.) has also changed. The Dolphins' CEO is stepping down. So if the Dolphins' attendance goes up this year, shouldn't I claim that as proof that I was correct? As for your second "bet", this one is just flat confusing. You want to compare attendance of 1998 to 2001, when Mike Dee was still with the San Diego Padres...to 2008 to 2011? Why? Why would attendance being higher in either period prove you are correct? If anything I already outlined a much better comparison. The Dolphins sucked from 2004 to 2007. They had a 0.313 record those years. Yet the average attendance for those years was 72,216 butts in the seat. The Dolphins from 2009 to 2012 (Mike Dee's time with the team) had a 0.422 record. Not a great record by any means, but better than the 0.313 record from 2004 to 2007. Yet, average attendance over the period was 63,388. Obviously the win/loss record isn't everything. From 1996 to 2012 the attendance level only correlated 38.01% with the team's win/loss record over the previous 16 games. So there's that.
Its been made abundantly clear to me by the mods that I am not to question your logic. So, ok. Great points. I appreciate the explanations I do feel like I have a better understanding of the system as you explained it. Well done.
No excuses, sir. I was obviously way off base. Its been pointed out here by well established posters that W/L do not affect attendance. I certainly defer to their logic and reasoning.
Judging by which posts of yours were deleted, I'd say what has been made abundantly clear is that you shouldn't go about insulting and attacking other members as part of your topical debate strategy. I notice the post where you insulted Third Man is gone.