Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
So. I would like to introduce you to the wonderfulness that is MGoStore. It currently contains a smattering of t-shirts, some maize, some blue, with snappy sayings that will totally wicked impress all your friends. Click on any of the images to be taken to the store.
(Note: apparently a few shirts, particularly the Hart one, aren't coming up in the popup. The main store url has everything.)
Anyone wishing to confuse students in Honors calculus will want to get their mitts on a "New Math" shirt; those in heart with Hart will want to express that feeling graphically:
And... well, I think I may have gone a little overboard with the Zoltan shirts.
...but that's not overboard. This could possibly be construed as overboard:
"Space Emperor of what" you ask? Of Space. Zoltan is Space Emperor of Space. But wait! There's one more:
Incensed comments from NDNation denizens in 3... 2... 1...
And this one is perfect for those of you with friends who are in MSU frats. You know the kind of meathead who doesn't even know that Ann Arbor isn't even a person, right?
If that's a little harsh for you or your grandmother there is an equivalent shirt, only totally classy:
And finally, let it never be said that I didn't take Lloyd Carr's tastes into account when designing the shop:
All proceeds go to a good cause: your local blogger.
After I had uncovered Web sites advocating the dismissals of John L. Smith at Michigan State, Houston Nutt at Arkansas, Urban Meyer at Florida, Brooks and others, I did research on coaches who should be untouchable -- such as Brown, whose team dispatched Southern California in the Rose Bowl last January.
Or silly Longhorns fans. You decide. My search took me to a site named www.burntorangenation.com, where a fan delivered this rant:
"Even though he was behind the national title last year, I find myself not fully believing in Mack Brown? With Number 10 (quarterback Vince Young) gone, I find it difficult to believe that Texas will slip back into its very good, but not championship-level, rate of 10 wins a season."
Throw the bum out. Immediately. Maybe Fred Akers or John Mackovic is available to return to Austin.
Does that passage qualify as a rant? It seems like concern expressed reasonably. There must be a special dictionary for newspapers that defines rant like so:
- An impassioned, often harsh speech or essay characterized by anger.
- Anything written on the Internet.
Curious definitions aside, Bozich would be making a good point... if someone from Burnt Orange Nation had written that. BON did no such thing. The cited passage comes from Notre Dame/Halloween candy blog Rakes of Mallow and found its way to BON specifically to be rebutted:
I just don't understand what people want from Mack Brown. He did very well with the Texas players he inherited, he's done damn well with the players he's recruited, and he won a national title with his 2002 #1 recruiting class - many of whom are still on this year's team. I guess I just fail to see how you can have a six year stretch like Mack Brown has had and still have people saying, "Yeah, but..."
... He's one of the best coaches in America, and there's no penalty for winning a national title "just because of" your elite talent. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. And it did.
Add in Bozich missing the subtle sarcasm of CanCharlie.com and the score is Internet Ranters 2, Bozich 0.
*(Several people have theorized that the only thing in the English language that actually "ensues" is a kickoff. Note that "hilarity" is also a member of this privileged group of nouns.)
Captains are Woodley and Long. Mutter mutter should have made Mike Hart a supercaptain or something mutter.
Alex Mitchell is penciled in at right guard. That, of course, means that the oft-dreaded spectre of Rueben Riley, tackle, is all but official.
Weakside linebacker: advantage Burgess.
David Harris has had a good camp and Prescott Burgess has worked -- he and Chris Graham of course are competing for a linebacker position. Burgess came on strong at the end of last week so we'll just have to see how this week goes.
Job still up in the air; whoever loses will be the first OLB off the bench in case of an injury.
Jamar Adams is (probably) your strong safety. Free safety is being battled out between Brandent Engelmon and Ryan Mundy:
At safety, Jamar Adams has had an excellent fall and (Brandent) Engelman and Ryan Mundy are battling hard at the other position.
Brandon Graham is a defensive end and may play this year.
Skill position redshirts are to be scoffed at. Not only is Carlos Brown going to play but Carr says that Greg Mathews and Brandon Minor will see time in an effort to get their talents out of the program as irritatingly fast as possible. I suppose that's good since it indicates that both Mathews and Minor are talented players, but it's wasteful to hurl them out on the field as freshmen for a few meaningless plays. An argument can be made for getting players like Edwards or Avant time as true freshmen when they're going to be counted on to contribute as a sophomore, but Michigan graduates one wide receiver -- Breaston -- and no running backs this year. Their services will not be critical in '07.
Minor and Brown are the most puzzling. At best they're going to be third string. With Mister Simpson, Jerome Jackson, and Alijah Bradley around Michigan certainly has sufficient numbers to do without the freshmen. At least one should redshirt, especially since Mister Simpson did last year. If both play Michigan will have a knot of three running backs with the same eligibility. In summary: bleah.
Zoltan! Is pushing for starting duties:
"He's punted the ball really, really well and it'll be interesting. But he's really made a push."
Grady is better. Hopefully he won't cut away from the hole this year:
"Kevin has had a very good fall. I think he's in the best shape of his life. He's worked hard and obviously he's had a year under his belt where he got significant playing time. He's made a real investment and has had a really good training camp."
Breaston and Manningham sound like the nominal starters at WR; Adrian Arrington is the #3.
Carr's diplomatic answer to the following doesn't say much unless you read between the lines:
Chemistry with you and defensive meeting...I heard you haven't been there as much. Is that different this year? Are you leaving them alone a little bit? ... "I think I have, and have always had, great confidence in the guys that have coached here for me and I have always believed that you give a guy a job, you give him a responsibility and you can't be looking over his shoulder. You've got to allow him to do the job if you are going to make him accountable. That's what I try to do."
It doesn't say much even if you do read between the lines, on second thought, but he didn't deny it. Hurray seeking confirmation of what I desperately want to be true despite scant evidence suggesting such!
This was said about Henne:
"All the areas, before the ball is snapped, I think he's completely comfortable with. He's got a lot of responsibility before the ball snaps and he's had enough experience and I think he does a great job with those issues. I think he's developing everyday as a leader. Physically, he's in the best shape of his life. I think he's quicker than he was a year ago, because he's more mature. And I think he's throwing the ball very well, so I think he's much improved over the year."
Hopefully it is true.
The captains also spoke to the media.
It never occurred to me to think the opening music of Michigan Replay strange. By the time I understood things like music and the 70s*, the Michigan Replay theme was so familiar I couldn't possibly evaluate it as anything other than what it was. It existed outside of time and context. I suppose I assumed that it had come from some discarded CD somewhere, its licensing fee a pittance to some obscure artist probably related to a member of the athletic department.
So it came as a shock to me when helpful reader Daniel Young -- now enshrined in the Reader Hall of Fame next to Penn State Guy Who Hates Me Guy and Guy Who Patiently Explains How To Spell "LeSueur" Whenever I Screw It Up Which Is Always Guy -- tracked down the entire, unedited song and emailed it to me. Strip away the state-of-the-art video highlight montage and listen to the blaring horns by their lonesome and like whoah. Cognitive dissonance, man. The Michigan Replay theme is funky. Not like white-boy funky. The kind of funk that alerts Orson to the presence of knee-buckling badonkadonk. Pam Grier funky.
Now that I've heard the thing in its natural habitat and arrived at the inescapable conclusion that it's more appropriate for "Blackula" or "Black Frankenstein" or, I dunno, "Black To The Future" than a couple of stodgy old crackers muttering about the latest football game, I can never go back. The incongruity is too much. Forever and anon the opening credits of Michigan Replay will cause girlish giggles unless we lose, in which case they will provoke nothing until my emotions re-engage sometime around Tuesday.
Here it is; the bits you might recognize kick in after about 35 seconds.
(You can download the file here; right click & "save as")
The reason the song is reminiscent of something Shaft could saunter to is simple: it's from an honest-to-god blaxploitation flick. As Mr. Young writes:
I've scoured the end credits on many occasions, but have yet to find any reference as to where the theme music comes from. Fortunately, I have a friend who's big into old school funk ... he was able to unearth the source of the Michigan Replay theme. It's a cut off the soundtrack to the 1972 blaxploitation flick Across 110th Street called (appropriately) "Across 110th Street Instrumental" by JJ Johnson & His Orchestra. How it ended up as the uncredited theme to Michigan Replay is anybody's guess (maybe Bo was big into funk back in the day).
I'm not sure if the instrumental is the same music as the identically-named title track that, according to Pop Matters, is part of the film's enduring cachet...
Like its cinematic compatriots, Shaft (1971), Trouble Man (1972), and Car Wash (1976), Across 110th Street owes much of its notoriety to a memorable theme song. Written by Bobby Womack and J.J. Johnson and performed by Womack, "Across 110th Street" is a majestic soul-funk classic in its radio incarnation -- perhaps appropriately, the film itself presents a more downbeat version over its opening credits -- and one of the best of that era's numerous musical chronicles of inner-city pain. (Womack's single has since received further exposure from its somewhat incongruous use in Quentin Tarantino's 1997 L.A. noir, Jackie Brown.)
...but I damn well hope so, because when you think "majestic soul-funk," you think Michigan Football.
I personally owe Mr. Young even a bit more, because listening to the MP3 over and over -- and over -- triggered that pulse-quickening realization that was late in coming this year: football. FOOTBALL.
Let's git it aawwwwwn.
*(As much as anyone can possibly understand an era when lime-green corduroys seemed like a good idea.)
Maybe in-state recruiting isn't going quite as bad as all that. Scout's updated instate rankings have DE Ryan VanBergen at #3, ahead of Dionte Allen, and WR/TE Martell Webb #5. Vince Helmuth is #13, James Rogers #20. Allen to FSU still stings, but if Ronald Johnson does indeed commit Michigan will have pulled three of the top five players instate according to Scout.
Woodley is honest. From an AP article on the senior defensive end:
Three years later, Woodley conceded it's fair to call his career good - not great.
"I came here with a lot of expectations and I think I've gotten a little better each year, but I haven't done all I want to do," he said. "I was really slowed down by a cracked bone on my right forearm last year, but my strength is back and I'm ready to go."
That's harsh, since Woodley was by far the defense's best player last year. Equally honest noise is made by English:
"We need LaMarr Woodley to be a dominant player. I don't think you should sugarcoat that," English said. "He has to make big plays, be consistent and healthy for us to be successful. The LaMarr Woodley that you saw against Texas is the player we need all the time."
Message board denizens have noted Woodley's ominous quote along the lines of "I'm in pretty good shape, not great shape" and taken it as a sign of stagnation in his game. Even if Woodley doesn't take the leap from pretty good to great he's a lock to be All Big Ten if he remains healthy -- a full 12 game season from him would have seen 9 or 10 sacks and something like 20 TFL. All American would be nice, especially with three other players on the line who range from almost as good to frighteningly potential-laden.
We're #6 in terms of successful NFL alumni according to the Wall Street Journal. OSU is #5 and the rest of the schools are ACC/SEC teams. Most pissed off by the list: North Carolina fans, who have had nothing approximating the success their #10 spot implies.
More voting! Bloggers are going ballot crazy. I and a dozen or so others will be participating in a weekly not-Heisman poll:
A player of the year award, voted on by bloggers, that will highlight players who might not play quarter- or tailback for a BCS school in the national title hunt. Stalwart offensive linemen. Doppelganger-like defensive backs. Sure-handed wide receivers. All of those positions shunned by the Heisman will be embraced by the Maxwell Pundit, the first player of the year award voted on by those in the college football blogosphere.
But what about punters, goddammit? Projected first ballot:
- ZOLTAN THE INCONCEIVABLE
- I dunno, some loser
- See above
- See above
- Gary Sheffield
Etc.: FO's totally rad Strategy Minicamp articles continue with a look at defensive "stemming," or realigning before the snap; A couple previews from the Cheese State; WCH looks at the potentially bleak Michigan blueline next year.
It is official official roundtable time; the first one is up at House Rock Built for your edification.
1. What's the biggest ripoff in this preseason poll? Either pick a team that's offensively over or underrated, or you can rag on a particular voter's bad pick (hey, we're all adults here, we can handle it).
Well, I've already made my positions on OSU and ND clear, but I can at least see what the attractions of those teams are. I was hoping the poll be would virtually flat for the first eight or so spots and that OSU and ND would be somewhere in there.
One team stands out as particularly mindboggling: Miami. #9? This is a team with all of two scholarship quarterbacks that has question marks at running back and wide receiver and must replace four-fifths of its offensive line. Longtime OL coach Art Kehoe is gone along with most of the staff on that side of the ball. One hesitates to mock a Miami defense that will probably reload as per usual, but the cornerback situation looks pretty dodgy -- three sophomores and a junior who's missed the last two years with knee injures -- and Orien Harris is gone. This is partially my fault for dumping them in the low teens for no other reason than "it's Miami." No it isn't, not anymore.
2. What shold a preseason poll measure? Specifically, should it be a predictor of end-of-season standing (meaning that a team's schedule should be taken into account when determining a ranking), or should it merely be a barometer of talent/hype/expectations?
Ideally the answer to this question is "yes." In a platonically perfect poll these are the same thing -- minus "hype" -- but the information in college football is so incomplete that schedule strength inevitably distorts the poll.
Given harsh reality, I choose door number B: barometer of talent. This is a sort of schedule projection, too, but one that takes into account that even an undefeated West Virginia team is closer to Utah than USC. And if you're going to do that, where's Boise State in your top five? The Whitlocks of the world who place the Mountaineers #1 but don't have the projected WAC, Mountain West, and MAC champs in the top ten have created ballots with no internal consistency. Their ballots are all "ooh, shiny record" for certain teams that are hyped up but ignore it for other mid-majors because they didn't have a nice game last year. They're easy: show a man one nice game against Georgia and he'll give it up for you.
3. What is your biggest stretch in your preseason ballot? That is to say, which team has the best chance of making you look like an idiot for overrating them?
Nebraska. I mean, obviously. Even if Iowa flops I can still point to Tate and Ferentz and say "can you blame me?" If Nebraska does not justify its preseason placement at #10 on my ballot I have to tell the world that I put faith in Bill Callahan a year after his team set football back 80 years with that 6-3 game against Pittsburgh in which a victor is still undetermined because anyone who attempts to watch the game dies. It's The Ring of college football games.
4. What do you see as the biggest flaw in the polling system (both wire service and blogpolling)? Is polling an integral part of the great game of college football, or is it an outdated system that needs to be replaced? If you say the latter, enlighten us with your new plan.
They are myriad.
- As SMQB has noted, the artificial ranking of teams from 1-25 forces the voter to opine things he probably doesn't believe. I've proposed relaxing the restrictions by giving voters a set number of points with which to distribute amongst 25 teams however they please, allowing voters to express their opinions more accurately. Technical limitations ("I can't figure out a good interface") prevented its implementation this year but it's still on the table for future seasons.
- Polls have multiple personality disorder as they progress through a season. Clearly, preseason polls are all projection. Without any games to evaluate, they're (often hilariously inaccurate) guesses at the way the season will turn out. They remain excercises in projection as the season progresses -- otherwise a top ten team who had the misfortune of losing early would drop out of the poll entirely -- but take on an element of a season grade. By the end of the year, they still maintain a mix of both, which renders them somewhat incoherent.
The best example of this from last year was the Penn State and Ohio State. I, and probably most others, thought that Ohio State was the better team but ranked Penn State higher because of the niggling issue of that 17-10 PSU win early in the season. A number of voters went ahead and ranked OSU #3 anyway, September be damned, and I couldn't argue against it because... what exactly were we supposed to be voting for anyway, the best team or the best season? I'm the dictator of this here poll and even I couldn't tell you.
- Polls have their own momentum. Ideally, previous weeks and years would be totally irrelevant to voters entering a fresh one. Anyone who's seen West Virginia knows this is not the case.
- People, and by extension polls, tend to assume that the winner of a game deserved to win because of ineffable heart. As Statistically Speaking noted:
I still don't think voters understand just how much influence random chance has ove individual games. Because Team A beats Team B on a last second field goal, doesn't necessarily mean Team A is the superior squad. There is a lot of 'noise' that goes in to deterining who wins and loses a football game. I think its important to look at other factors besides the final score, such as yardage, penalties, location, previous schedule, turnover differential, etc. to determine if the game was accurate portrayal of both teams. I realize each of these aspects is highly subjective, but I think sometimes we put too much stock in the end result (final score) without considering the means with which that end was acheived.
This goes back to that season grade/best team dichotomy. If we're grading the season harsh drops for unfortunate losses are all right; if we're trying to figure who's the best team they aren't. Polls seem to be caught in the middle.
5. You're Scott Bakula, and you have the opportunity to "Quantum Leap" back in time and change any single moment in your team's history. It can be a play on the field, a hiring decision, or your school's founders deciding to build the campus in Northern Indiana, of all godforsaken places. What do you do?
There were multiple missed national championship opportunities in the 80s, but I was not yet maniacally invested in the Wolverines so an alteration there would only serve as ammunition in inane message board conversations I no longer participate in. (Much.)
So there are two candidates, one of which would only require Scott to move a body part two or three inches.
Scott, as either Prescott Burgess or Ernest Shazor, blocks Dusty Mangum's field goal in the Rose Bowl. A win in that game would have made the '04 season a satisfying one, the first for Michigan since the Orange Bowl win in Tom Brady's final season. Some of Michigan's lost luster would still be around if they had won that amazing game.
Scott, as John Navarre, throws a touchdown on the last play of the '02 Ohio State game. As detailed earlier, I ventured into the heart of darkness for tha
t game and experienced the carnage firsthand. Had Navarre thrown the ball to the other side of the field instead of a triple-covered Braylon Edwards he would have found a relatively open person who was either Jason Avant or Ron Bellamy, who would have reached up one hand to stop the ball's momentum before snatching it to his chest mere feet from my seat. The team would have rushed over to the tiny Michigan student section at the cusp of the endzone, told me that I was their inspiration, and everything outside of that stadium would have been well worth it.