The Story 2014: Memories Of Butter Comment Count

Brian

Previously: The Story 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008. Preview 2013.

So I'm in Canada and I'm shopping for food and we're in the dairy isle and my friend laughs and says "no way." But yes, yes way. There is a margarine they are selling called Memories Of Butter.

o-MEMORIES-OF-BUTTER-MARGERINE-facebook[1]

This is an acceptable name for something only if dairy cows have been obliterated by whichever flavor of apocalypse comes home to roost. In between shifts at the sludge plant you smear Memories of Butter on your protein cube and weep silently when the child who doesn't know any better asks you what it was like during the Before Time.

In a world where there is butter, this is literally the worst possible marketing. The butter is three feet away. Once moved to action by the memory of butter, you can reach out and acquire butter. Our operative theory was that it was badly mistranslated from French, or at least there was something lost in translation. What that could possibly be we do not know.

And so: Michigan football. There is no quote more Memories Of Butter than this Gerry DiNardo exclamation about Michigan finally getting rid of that Denard Robinson guy:

"When I saw them in the spring it was like a war at the line of scrimmage. It was what you imagine it looks like at Alabama and all the downhill teams. It changes your entire program. Just like the spread makes your defense soft, the West Coast offense makes your defense tough."

That comes from a Mark "Stretchgate" Snyder article that is almost as embarrassing as the article that will follow him around until he dies:

Every spring and fall, the network analysts would attend a practice, try to absorb the flavor and make nice about the impact of an offense they knew didn't fit.

Then they strolled into Ann Arbor this spring and had to check their GPS — or their mirror to see if they rolled back a decade.

This was Michigan playing smashmouth football, the game's nastiest, purest form.

Michigan finished 11th in the Big Ten in sack-adjusted rushing, ahead of only Purdue, and was last nationally in TFLs allowed. A tub of margarine may well have made the two-deep on Michigan's "smashmouth" offensive line. It would clearly be the Free Press's best reporter.

Michigan football is a white tub proclaiming to be a memory of a feeling. It is on the shelf next to things that still provide dat mouthfeel tho. For everyone reading this Michigan basketball has provided the craved-for combinations of hope, joy, and even eventual, forgivable disappointment. For myself and a goodly hunk of the people reading this, USA soccer has also filled that void. But when we cleared the NBA draft and the World Cup, the cliff loomed ahead.

The dread was palpable. Dread. Unprecedented, but true.

-------------------------------------------------

4355d408624ca-18-2[1]

How did we get here? Every year the fact that I declared 2005 the "Year Of Infinite Pain" becomes yet more ridiculous as we explore new avenues in not feeling real good about football, but I submit that 2013 was the worst football season I have ever experienced. 2005 just isn't even in the ballpark anymore; 2008 had an obvious explanation and novelty; 2010 was GERGtastic but man I can't get that mad at a season containing the 2010 Notre Dame game.

Why was 2013 the nadir? We've learned that it's worse—so much worse—to know that you have absolutely no chance to score points than to have absolutely no chance to prevent them. Ludicrous pointfests like 2010 Illinois and 2013 Ohio State are full of explosions, at the very least. Farting out a three-point loss with under 200 yards of offense is death on a field. There are tense, well-played defensive battles that are the football equivalent of pitcher's duels, and then there's 2013 Michigan: Don Kelly, the football team. (Except when they weren't.)

I kind of lost it as a result. By the end of the year I was giving up on UFRing anything and proclaiming that I was going to go bowling because the Big Lebowksi taught me how to sportsfan my best

The movie is a series of unfortunate events culminating in the death of Donny thanks to the bullheaded stupidity of Walter, who doesn't want to give up his fifteen dollars to some nihilists. That Donny dies as an indirect effect of that decision is the capper: your desires and actions are futile; you are subject to the random capricious whim of a universe that doesn't care about anything and if it was going to care about something it absolutely wouldn't be you. I don't have to spell the rest out for you. Sports!

…and I remember watching the bowl game in this state of obligation. Worthless, stupid obligation. We had gone from infatuation to a  bad 30-year-old marriage that will never end because no one can think of anything better to do.

In retrospect, all of that seems… on-point, actually. Semi-quitting and having public conniption fits at the folks who defended Borges looks like eminently defensible behavior, and that's coming from a guy who occasionally remembers certain actions in high school and has to quickly think of something else lest the eyerolling self-shame overwhelm.

This is where we are: when I got around to doing the Iowa UFR at the last possible moment, most people just asked "WHY?"

----------------------------------

How do we get away from here?

Many of you aren't going to like my answer to this. It is: hold on to what we have and hope like hell. Transitions are awful. Michigan has suffered through two consecutive botched ones that left the roster in a state of strip-mined mid-majordom for the better part of a decade. The next one will either be run by Dave Brandon or an unknown person who has just arrived. With nothing approximating a terrific idea out there after Texas snapped up Charlie Strong, with zero reasonable, available Michigan Man™ options out there, the move appears to be to sit tight and hope.

And Brady Hoke does provide a good deal of hope. Seriously! His recruiting is bulletproof. He is the real William Carlos Williams. Michigan can suffer through the least tolerable season since the 1960s; he can lose three top-100 commits; Michigan State can win the Rose Bowl. None of this prevents him from locking down a class of consensus four-stars minus a kicker and an OL legacy. Save for the rare Skeeps suckerpunch or microfracture surgery, all of these players will arrive qualified and stick around until they've been definitively passed on the depth chart… and possibly beyond.

If these are the kind of positives that seem beneath This Is Michigan, well, yeah. This Is Michigan is fiction. This Is Michigan has rarely meant anything better than 9-3 since the 80s ended, and the program is now 1-5 against MSU and 2-11 against OSU since [insert year here]. They haven't had anything approximating a complete roster since 2006, and even that team was so desperately short on cornerbacks that Chris Graham spent much of Football Armageddon trying to cover a future first round pick WR.

This is were we're at: trying to figure out exactly which things we took for granted for 40 years are real assets and which are replaceable. For me, keeping guys around until they're good is not replacement-level performance—as much as I wish it was. And even if I think Hoke is set on 1997 Michigan as the endpoint of football as the sport mutates at breakneck speed around him, there are teams that make it work.

I just want something to work now. I just want something to sit on my tongue and dissolve into a salty heaven, like my father told me about in the long long ago. I may be of the mines and forever from the mines as we try to keep the engine that keeps us all alive running, but by God even a man of the mines has heard about grass, and the possibility of moving forward upon it for upwards of three yards at a time.

Let's find a cow. Let's punch it until it excretes butter. We may later find out that punching a cow until it leaks is not the optimal way to do these things, but that's for later. Now is for building a society like idiots who have only read about it in books.

Comments

snarling wolverine

August 25th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^

Wisconsin felt like a miracle but at that point we were 2-2 against a tough schedule and didn't seem like a bad team.  Bowl eligiiblity seemed very much alive at that point.  

After that, we absolutely should have beaten Toledo and Purdue (we scored 42 points that day!) and could have won the other two.  To me, we were definitely better than our final record. I remember walking out of the stadium after the Utah game and feeling like we had a decent team.  We knew Utah was pretty good (although we didn't know they'd go 12-0) and we hung with them.  That day the team played to its potential, especially on defense.  But as the year went on, I think a lot of players on the team stopped buying in and things snowballed.

Monocle Smile

August 25th, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^

Last year was worse because it was like a knife being twisted after slowly sinking in. 2008 was a big band-aid being quickly ripped off.

2008-2010 were painful, but they all had exciting moments where the time outplayed its own capacity. 2013 had...well, one almost moment. Winning the OSU game would have been one. The Indiana game was rather silly, but I never felt that the 2013 team played beyond its ability.

Space Coyote

August 25th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^

First people read the pressers and read too much into it. Now they read this and read way too much into it.

Look people, this isn't an analysis piece! This isn't even a feel piece! This post is about butter! Plain and simple, good ol' fashioned butter. That's it. Yeesh...

Space Coyote

August 25th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

Now that's taking it too literally. That's just seeing things at face value because of the picture of "Memories of Butter". Talk about judging a book [post] by its cover.

At the heart of the piece, Brian just really wants butter.

And if you're not down with Land O'Lakes, then we are just on totally different levels of thought here.

Here's a link to Land O'Lakes butter, just for reference.

Alton

August 25th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^

Oh, absolutely.  There are many many variables that go into ticket sales.  Let's not overlook any of them.

Although the "ticket prices" thing is countered by the fact that we have reached the point where the Michigan ticket office is essentially giving away tickets for Saturday's game, and there are still going to be undistributed tickets when game time arrives.  That did not happen in 2009.

Hannibal.

August 25th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

2008 was worse in terms of the product on the field, but 2013 felt more miserable.

I have never been as unhappy as I was last season.  2009 was close, but 2013 was the worst.  I was strangely okay with the 2008 season.  It was still a disaster, but at the time, I kind of accepted it as sort of necessary and also something I was going to have to endure as a fan. 

Last year, I did something that I hadn't done for over 20 years.  I quit watching.  In 2010, I watched every second of OSU plus a bowl game where we lost by a combined 68 points, but last year I lost any semblance of hope.  I skipped the Iowa game and the bowl game.  Before that, I hadn't voluntarily not watched Michigan football since 1990.

I was looking foward to the 2008, 2009, and 2010 seasons a lot more than this one.  This is, by far, the least excited I have ever been for an opener. 

snarling wolverine

August 25th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

After the first couple of games in 2008 we were 1-1, having beaten Miami (Oh) and taken a strong Utah team (which finished 12-0) down to the wire.  You had zero expectations at that point?  

Over the next two weeks we lost at ND in a turnoverfest and then beat Wisconsin.  A 2-2 start against a tough schedule.  I don't think anyone at that point expected us to go 1-7 thereafter.  A lot of people now are engaging in revisionism.  There was a lot of optimism at that point.

 

Sopwith

August 25th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^

Bitter as the experience was, we knew why it was happening.  It was inevitable as soon as you looked at the 2-deep.  2008 was a kitten trying to cross an 8-lane expressway.  At the end of it, I was like, "2008, you poor miserable little sonofabitch, you never had a chance in this world." 

2013 just never made sense.  2013 was an adult cat crossing a country road in Amish country  and somehow getting run over by a horse-drawn carriage at half-trot.  Does any of us know why we would lead the country in TFLs?  In the bad way?  Why 27-for-27 happened? 

I look at the 2013 and think "well... that's a head-scratcher."  And some of us just hate the bad things that aren't supposed to happen more than the objectively worse things that are pretty much inevitable before the fact.

GoWings2008

August 25th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^

is not very good for you.  Butter is more natural and isn't chemically altered like margerine is.  Taken in moderation, you're better off with the real thing.

My connection?  Nuss is our butter.  We just need to learn to cook with it since we were used to margarine for so long (GERG and/or Borges).  They looked like butter, but they were a false version of it.  I think the defense will be as good as we think it is, and I think the OL will gel enough to give our offensive firepower time to move the ball.

I have faith.  Smooth like buttah. 

unWavering

August 25th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^

Great post, but I don't get this quote: "2010 was GERGtastic but man I can't get that mad at a season containing the 2010 Notre Dame game." I actually thought the 2013 ND game was better. It looked like just about everything was rolling full force and the season outlook was really good. In 2010, the defense was OK only giving up 24 points, but it was beat over the top time and time again by horrible safety play. 2010 was two stagnant offenses making a huge play every so often. 2013 was just consistent good play after good play. The 2013 ND game didn't make up for the rest of that season, but I submit that the 2010 game didn't either. 2010 was just as painful to watch. Maybe more entertaining, but just as frustrating.

Surveillance Doe

August 25th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^

I attended every game in 2008. It was horrible. That season almost killed my liver. For me, last year was worse because it wasn't fun anymore. Even our wins weren't fun, aside from Notre Dame. Northwestern was kind of funny, but it wasn't fun. I agree completely with what you said. Sports are largely about being entertained. 2013 was not entertaining.

Needs

August 25th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^

I actually think they were really similar years. Huge expectation creating wins over ND followed by a series of too close wins against bad teams and an end of the year filled with losses to better teams. The difference is that last year's losses contained a lot more hope than did 2010's. It's easy to forget, but we were never within a TD in the 4th quarter in any of our losses this year, and the Wisconsin game was equally as depressing (if more exciting) than last year's Iowa game.

The case for 2010 is the pure wonder of watching Denard, which can't be understated, but the close games and losses were equally, if not more, painful, because you could see and feel this whole thing that most of us were hoping would happen just collapse in upon itself.

notetoself

August 25th, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^

or the Isle of Dairy, rumored for much of the 17th century to be somewhere off the north coast of Ireland - a magical place full of milk, butter, and ice cream; a veritable desserter's delight. the dark history that most tend to ignore, however, is that the isle was also used as a prisoner colony for the lactose intolerant.

/typos

bronxblue

August 25th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^

Great write-up.  Absolutely how I felt about 2013, and though I am optimistic about 2014, I still see it as a long slog back to competence. 

This is the money quote to me:

If these are the kind of positives that seem beneath This Is Michigan, well, yeah. This Is Michigan is fiction. This Is Michigan has rarely meant anything better than 9-3 since the 80s ended, and the program is now 1-5 against MSU and 2-11 against OSU since [insert year here].

I've pointed this out before,and inevitably people talk about Bo and the "Michigan Man" meme that lost a bunch of Rose Bowls but at least was a national force.  But football of the 80s and 90s is dead, and acting like you can recapture that glory through grit and platitudes is why there are so many Romans, Prussians, and every other fallen dynasty walking around the streets of A2.  UM is a shiny mid-major right now, and outside of the random 2006 or 2011 season they have been that way for over a decade.  I personally think Hoke is going to be fine as a HC, and his recruiting will make UM better by sheer intertia.  But I can't wait for people that still worship at the altar of a faux bygone era quiet down.

Space Coyote

August 25th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^

"This is Michigan" isn't a right. It isn't something that just happens. It is an expectation, that you will work, that you will perform, that you will be a part of a team, and if everyone does their part, they can be great.

But "This is Michigan" isn't an automatic means of winning 9 games minimum. Other teams are out there working their ass off too. Parody is greater now than it ever has been before. Programs across the country need to be built or rebuilt before they can be good. "This is Michigan" doesn't spring up a fully fortified fort over night that results in running over opponents on offense and shutting them down with your defense. It's an expectation to be met, to be achieved. It's an honor and a privilege that can be attained. People took it the wrong way, that this is easy because this is Michigan. It's hard, it's hard for everyone in college football, but if we meet our expectations, if we work how we're supposed to work, coach how we're supposed to coach, fight how we're supposed to fight, then this will be Michigan again.

bronxblue

August 25th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

I absolutely agree.  That's what drove me crazy when people just expected UM to roll out wins by showing up - maybe that was the case years ago when elite programs like UM had significantly more talent than the opposition, but that doesn't work anymore.  Winning 9 games is hard, and Carr worked hard to get that team to that level.  But yeah, it takes work to be that good consistently, and while I didn't love Carr by any means he certainly put that work in for most of his tenure.

UM will get good again, but it seems like a portion of the fanbase was shocked that UM had to work for wins like everyone else, and that was the part that has annoyed me for so long.

jsquigg

August 25th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^

I don't disagree.  I think of "This is Michigan" as a statement of setting the bar high and refusal to settle.  Like you said, nothing is given and nothing should be taken for granted, but even though Michigan hasn't met their own standards in a long time, that doesn't mean the AD, coaches, players and fans should lower what the standard is.

CompleteLunacy

August 25th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

What gives me faith in Hoke is I think he knows he needs to adapt to changes in the football landscape. He and Mattison changed the defensive scheme to address it, hopefully with good results this year. He changed OCs to get someone who, yes, is pro style, but also knows how to call an adaptable offense in this century.

But yeah, I'm done with talking about the past. It's time to add some new years to the stockpile of past success. 

antidaily

August 25th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^

3-9 was worse than last year. Barely. But it was. You can look back and understand why 3-9 happened, and thats more comforting. But... Toledo beat us. Throwing to the same guy over and over and over again. Bowl streak ends, OSU destroys us, other crappy achievements unlocked. 

That was worse. We've just forgotten it.

bronxblue

August 25th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^

I was less down about 2008 because you looked at that roster and you figured, maybe 7 wins if the defense played great.  It didn't, and we see what happened.  2013 was just depressing - Toledo beat UM, but this team nearly lost to UConn AND Akron, and both took near-miracles to pull them off.  They also couldn't run the ball at all; at least 2008 had the germs of a possible juggeernaut.  Outside of Funchess, nothing looked great last year that seemed like it could make a step forward this year to elite status.

Reader71

August 25th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

I'm not sure how one could have seen germs of a juggernaut in 2008, but not in 2013.

I look at the 2013 defense and see a potentially great one in 2014. Lewis, Stribling coming along as freshmen, Clark rounding into All-B1G, Jake Ryan getting healthy, and a ton of nice pieces everywhere else. We lost 1 safety. As terrible as the offense was, we might have a first round WR and we do have the first 5th year senior QB since Navarre.

In 2008, I was really hoping our recruits were going to be ready to play in 2009. I have never felt that before or since.

This is about a few things: preference for offensive football, resentment over how RR was treated, and recency. All of them are fine reasons to feel the way one does.

Brian says Hoke looks at 1997 Michigan as the pinnacle of football. Assuming something about another person's thoughts is weird to begin with, but would that be so bad? MSU seems to be going for a similar thing, and having some success. Ala-fucking-bama is owning the world with a similar plan.

CompleteLunacy

August 25th, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^

And we got the guy who was helping Ala-fucking-bama sustain the success they were getting. A guy who got wrongly scapegoated as well for somehow failing against Oklahoma. A guy who also helped turn around Washington from a laughing stock to a respected opponent.

So yeah, there's defeinitely reason for optimism. 

I think you can definitely win both ways in college. I don't think the growth of the spread has eliminated the possibility of the "Alabama way".

To go off on a tangent...it reminds me of the NHL. There are two kind of 'styles of play" that have proven successful at winning cups recently. One way, championed by Detroit, is puck-possession. That's how they won in 2008, and it's paved the way for a team like Chicago to pretty much copy the style (and, if I'm being honest, be better at it that Detroit). But then you have another style, basically the "beat em up" style, really first championed by Anaheim in my mind in 2007...and been replicated for recent success by teams like Boston. It's always fascinating when the two styles clash, because honestly it can go either way and it leads to the best series. I think of Anaheim vs. Detroit in 2007...and the even better tightly contested rematch in 2009. I think of Boston vs. Montreal...Boston has had success, but Montreal figured them out last year. The key to winning in these "clashing styles" is for a team to gain some of the opponent's identity...e.g. for an Anaheim to be "smart bullies" and know when to outskill their opponents, and for a Detroit to be more physical and know when to lower their head and go directly at the opponent instead of finesse around them. To me, college football has turned that way. When Alabama meets an Oregon, they need to employ a more offensive strategy, even though they are a defense-first team. And when Oregon meets Alabama, they need to rely more on their defense and be patient with their offense. The times when either has had success have been when they've excelled at that.

OK, wow, I wrote a lot more than I intended to, haha. Alright then, I'm done.