Article about M retiring Woodson & Howard's numbers
Article in the paper today about Michigan retiring more numbers. Specifically, Coach Carr saying Woodson and Howard should have their numbers reitred first and Rosenberg saying that both should happen at the M vs ND game.
I'm "BK Finest"ing it right now. Desmond's number is in fact going to be retired. Its already public he's being "honored" during the ND game. Enough athletics people have leaked that its going to be a formal retirement of his number.
I just don't see the logic of doing two numbers at once. Why wouldn't the athletic department wait to give each guy his own day. Plus, wouldn't they wait until Woodson is done playing. Unless he doesn't have a game that week it would be hard to attend anyway.
The atmosphere at the ND game is going to be absolutely insane, as it is the first ever night game, so I could easily see them doing it at the same time. Or else you retire one at the ND game, and then another at an Indiana game? It will make it fair and not favoring one over the other.
I am in agreement both numbers should & need to be retired. DH & CW, - LEGACIES !!!
I am all for it. Those 2 deserve the honor and have been model representatives of the university.
IWoodson is my favorite UM player of all time and he definitely deserves it. I will hate to not see another number 2 playing DB for my team ever again though. Oh well...as I said initially, he definitely desreves it.
I am in agreement of special players deserve special days all there own... And Charles Woodson is not only a altime Wolverine.. But an all time college football great. To give you an idea how much i think of Charles Woodson I hate the Packers . But became a fan when he went there
I'm squinting in your general direction right now...
I think that it is great we honor players and their numbers but it does not make sense to retire them in football. With 90 to 100 players on a team including walk-ons, you will limit your numbers if you have 10 or more retired. Plus it makes the number special for a position if the player is awarded the respected number from the past like #1. Desmond and Charles are worthy but number retirement is not practical.
Woodson and Desmond are all-time greats, and yea maybe retire Woodson's because he's one of the greatest players in college football history,
but as brilliant as Howard was here if we retire his then we have to retire about 5 other numbers at least. unless the criteria is winning a heisman which isn't completely fair since some players arguably had better careers then Desmond without winning a heisman...
but damn it i wanna honor them so whatever im cool if we do it
Des and Woodson should still have the option to give out their numbers. Could/should be very motivating for a player to try and earn those numbers, I'm sure they would have fun with it, too.
Instead of retiring the numbers, make Howard and Woodson custodians of 21 and 2 the same way the coaches are the custodians of 1.
We need chunkums to photoshop your avatar, where Dantonio is staring, while Hoke waves his finger at him.
That's why. I don't think running out of numbers will be a problem.
I'm of the mindset that this may be a more effective way of honoring these players. Because there is no signage in Michigan Stadium, when you retire a number, you effectively eliminate the number from the consciousness of the average fan. Even here on MGoBlog, home of some of the most knowledgeable U-M fans around, I'd be willing to bet that many are unable to reel off all the names/numbers of all the players who've already had their number retired. Allowing current players to wear historical numbers provides a link to the past and keeps those former players top of mind. Just my 2¢.
I always thought it would be neat to have our numbers link to the past greats. In a sense make it look like our starting lineups never change since the numbers would stay pretty close to the same each year.
On offense you could have 21 and 1 at WR.
Maybe #7 at QB...Leach and Henne
77 at LT for Long
72 at G for Dierdorf
#2 at CB
#55 at DE
etc...
Each year the coaches and former players would get together and select the players who had earned the number. If a player failed to live up to the number off the field he would be stripped. Then the greatest honor would be how many years you were able to wear the number.
My greatest achievement at Michigan was the fact I was awarded the #77 for 4 straight years.
I really like the idea of honoring Woodson and Desmond, and their numbers should be honored, but retiring the numbers takes those classic numbers out of circulation. Rather, I think that you can honor the numbers - have the whole ceremony and put up the number with the player's name and the usual banner, but keep the number active but only to be worn by deserving players at the position, sort of like Braylon has already done with the #1 jersey.
There are no banners. A casual U-M fan or a fan from an opposing team visiting Michigan Stadium has no idea when it comes to who's had their number retired at U-M. When it comes to retiring numbers, at least for football, it's almost a case of out of sight, out of mind.
i think you mean there are no banners yet. i fully expect those two stories of blank glass above the suites to be a place for that sort of thing, which i think is bad.
doesn't seem like brandon can leave that kind of thing alone for long.
Especially a grossly offensive idea like that, that the Stadium architects would hate. Brandon likes listening to experts. The experts would not like that.
Unless, of course, there was a sponsorship and/or unrestricted giving opportunity involved. "The Al Glick Mezzanine of Honor."
this, like most things, will not be an aesthetic decision. it will be "now you can donate money to enshrine players in the wall of fame at michigan stadium! choose your level of fandom in $500 increments!"
brandon does like listening to experts, experts on how to provide the most points of sales and diverse revenue streams and once you have maxed out all the billboards and licensing deals and psls and parking fees and tv deals and all the rest, things like this are surely on the way. i am not saying it can't be done in a classy way, just don't get too attached to blank surfaces.
Are you sugesting that in the future, the B1G Ten Network and Super Conference Playoff pay-per-view revenues won't cover costs, and they'll need to make payroll for the football players... ?
We do have painted fire hydrants with their numbers, though.
this i like
That's a cool idea...
Earlier post mentioned that many Mgobloggers don't know names or numbers of retired players. Probably because we/they saw Michigan football in the 90s through today, and haven't bothered to learn about earlier years. The only #s I remember are the Wistert brothers(#11) and Tom Harmon (#98). Certainly know about Gerald Ford, Ron Kramer(maybe the finest athlete ever at Michigan), and Bennie Oosterbaan. Go to the Bentley Library website, bentley.umich.edu, for a great archive of Michigan athletic history.
Woodson and Howard: Both worthy based on records. Once they retire the greatest wide-receiver in NCAA history, Anthony Carter, they can consider these guys. Sorry, Desmond doesn't hold a candle to AC.
Not only is Woodson a hall of fame CB and a heisman trophy winner, he is a model citizen and teamate. He has done so much for the Mott's Women and Children's Hospital. I would agree with many of the posters above that he is my favorite wolverine of all time.
at small groups, etc., you know; he has been "working" on the issue of retiring numbers almost since the day he took the job. It is my slightly-educated guess that this has been a pet project of Lloyd Carr's, since he was an Associate Athletic Director.
Rosenberg actually summarizes the story pretty well. Interesting, that he is now apparently back to getting interviews with Lloyd Carr. (At least interviews that we know about, on the record. Neither he nor Snyder have gotten a single private interview with anybody in Schembechler Hall since August of 2009, have they? Including Brady Hoke?)
Carr's motivation seems to be a combination of:
- Howard and Woodson are so good; on paper, it is impossible to justify their not getting #'s retired. I'd agree with this point. I actually sort of wondered, for as long as I have been concsious of it, why Ron Kramer's number 87 was retired. It had to have been a combination of factors; Kramer was a local kid (that helps), Kramer had a good NFL career with the Lombardi-era Packers, and he stayed close to the University of Michigan and Detroit-area sports and media circles. And of course, you could say the exact same thing about Howard and Woodson. Why would Kramer's number be retired, but not Bob Chappuis? Not Rick Leach? Not Ron Johnson? Not Howard and Woodson?
- There are no Schembechler-Moeller-Carr-era retired numbers
- We have no African-Americans with retired numbers, and that is now an uncomfortable omission. Rosenberg had no qualms about reporting that, and no qualms about asking Carr the question, which Carr had no qualms about answering. Politically, of course, Lloyd Carr would be right at home on the Editorial Board of the Free Press. That's never been any secret.
- What Rosenberg did not report, perhaps because Lloyd Carr is the only guy in Michigan athletics who will speak to him, is that David Brandon's personal focus has been to try to establish some form of metrics for jersey-number retirement across the board, in all sports. Brandon has already taken the decision-making away from the sports themselves. Retiring football numbers will not be the football coach's decision. Nor in baseball, hockey, basketball, etc. Brandon really wants to step in and make a Department-wide policy, where there has been none. And I'm really not so sure how that would work. How do you do that? What sort of criteria do you write? We've recently seen Bill Buntin and Glenn Rice's basketball numbers retired? What was that criteria? I don't know.
My own view, for whomever might care, is that I am nonplussed about Brandon instilling some sort of system or committee or whatever for number-retirement. It is a purely aesthetic issue. Impossible to quantify, so why try? It is like establishing a committee to create art or music. It's not a terribly big issue to me, personally, and I agree with the notion of honoring both Desmond (who's said some stupid things, but so did Ron Kramer) and Woodson. I just don't see any big deal to it. I guess l'll let Brandon (oh, and Vincent Smith and Junior Hemingway) worry about it.
From mgoblue.com:
Kramer's No. 87 never will be worn by another Wolverine as he was the epitome of the rugged defensive end and also made impossible catches as an offensive end. Kramer was a two-time All-American (1955, '56) and earned nine letters in three sports -- football, basketball and track.
I won't make the case for other players here, only defending the case of Kramer. He is one of the greatest athletes ever at Michigan. One of the last 2-way players at Michigan. And a great one. One of the few 2-time All Americans from Michigan.
Rather, "Why Kramer, versus Bob Chappuis(#49)? Why Kramer, if not Rick Leach(#7)? Why Kramer but not Ron Johsnon(#40)?"
You really didn't need to remind me about what Ron Kramer did on the football field, or in other sports. And I didn't mean to pick on Kramer, who was a remarkable athlete. Even the Wistert brothers are an interesting example of number-retirement confusion. They were all good players; All Americans, and, as was typical of the time, good two-sport athletes. But for the interruption of WWII, however, it is hard to figure out how they might all have gotten into Michigan and all worn Number 11. Because Moose Wistert was a high school dropout who went into the Marines and later came back to college under the GI bill. He was in his 30's when he became an All-American at Michigan. The Wisterts' is a really great story, for sure. Three brothers, all tackles, all Number 11, all three All-Americans. Unlikely to ever be repeated, in an era of five-year eligibility. (The Wisterts were all born four years apart, when freshmen could not play.)
As I say below, these are essentially aesthetic decisions that are hard to quantify. My point about Ron Kramer is that it is hard to quantify, or at least distinguish, the retirement of Number 87.
This is a problem with retiring college numbers. These guys have such short careers, and there are so many great ones. I would have rather never retired any in the first place.
The UNC basketball route - retiring the "jersey" but not the number - seems like a better alternative.
This is also how Michigan Basketball does it. None of those jerseys are "retired," only "honored," or some such terminology. Then again, with basketball, you can only use #'s 1-55 by rule, so it's necessary to restrict it a bit out of sheer necessity over the years. Especially with a program like UNC.
It's a somewhat similar idea for Michigan Hockey, which traditionally only issues #'2-39. You're using most of those numbers each and every year, and with as many great players as there have been over the years and such overlap with numbers, you'd be honoring a gazillion guys all over the place. And you can't flat-out retire anything because of the sheer lack of available numbers to begin with.
I think we have five retired jerseys. Cazzie's #33 is apparently the only retired number, though.
Speak very loudly. Of the two, Woodson is a stronger case overall, but Desmond is very very comparable as well.
Forget about shortening the list of available numbers. Forget about never having another CB to wear the #2. No one has truly done it justice anyway since the Washington State game.
As far as the #21, there's always available numbers in the twenties. Besides, in today's game all of the skill players covet the single digit numbers.
I am for this. Both of them.
I'm not a fan of seeing the numbes retired. I prefer the concept of the number living on and being recognized going forward. Like the #44 at Syracuse or the way #1 was at Michigan before Braylon highjacked it. In my opinion, the numbers receive more recognition by having them as a reward for the most deserving player at a given position. Then each week the TV talking heads will get to say something about the former player. Retired numbers just hang there. Even though #1 hasn't been worn since Braylon graduated, EVERYONE knows what that number represents and the lineage that started with AC. I don't see retired numbers having the same sort of on going glorification with them.
I'm all for doing something to honor Woodson and Howard, I just think that having their numbers on the field does more to continue their legacy
Now, a question for you; would you establish a policy to perhaps do something else to honor certain players and jersey numbers together, and also un-retire #'s 11, 47, 48, 87 and 98 from active use? I think that would be as interesting, for all the reasons you suggest and more, as it is unlikely.
I thought about this after posting my comment. I would not unretire the numbers for two reasons. first, some of the numbers aren't really used for the position that the historic players played . Only Kramer had a number that would be relevant to the current player at that position.
47 -- Oosterbaan -- End (WR/TE not typically in the 40s)
98 -- Harmon -- RB (Not typically in the 90s)
48 -- Ford -- OL (Not typically in the 40s)
11 -- Wisterts -- OL (Never in the 10s)
Second, the numbers have been retired. Tradition / inertia should just let them stay that way.
Instead I would create a "Legacy" category. Effectively equal to being retired. If the numbers/names were to ever hang in thes Stadium, Legacy and Retired numbers would be given equal treatment. Obvious Legacy candidates would be 1 (AC), 2 (Woodson), 6 (Wheatley), 21 (Howard, Biakabatuka), 77 (Long).
This whole "Braylon hijacked #1" meme is revisionist history at best.
When the scholarship was announced, it received universal admiration and respect. There was an event with Anthony Carter, it got really positive press, and the fanbase ate it up.
Since then, nothing has changed in respect to what the scholarship does or doesn't do, it's still given every year even if no one wears #1, and Braylon does not have veto power over who wears it. And if you feel there's been someone over the last three seasons who should have had it, that player must have eluded me. The #1 jersey has come to mean something, it's a tradition that's evolved, and it seems to me everyone was OK with Braylon endowing the thing until Rich Rodriguez started losing games.
As for the RR kerfuffle over issuing #1 to a non-receiver, I still don't understand how that decision never went across Jon Falk's desk. Or how it could have happened in the first place. But it was an honest mistake that was rightly corrected.
If you don't like Braylon, that's your decision. But perhaps you should play for Michigan for four years, become one of the program's most recognizable players, and endow a scholarship after you leave before you torpedo what he's doing. Last I checked, there aren't too many former Michigan players, especially recent alums, who have thought to endow a scholarship. We should applaud our former players for giving back to Michigan like that, and encourage others to do the same.
By "highjacked" my comment was that the number has not been given out since Braylon left. I am very pleased that he endowed a scholarship. RR was wrong to consider given it to a DB. But the idea of a legacy number having significance only works if someone gets to wear it, otherwise it worse than being retired.
No I didn't play for M for four years (or even one). If I'm the only person who didn't play four years for M that has made a pointed comment, my apologies. Otherwise, calm down.
Name a player since Braylon who should have worn #1.
Closest would be Manningham, aside from his off-field interests that led to him being suspended. But there sure as heck wasn't one in the last three seasons.
Here is a list of the players to wear #1 since AC.
| Anthony Carter | WR | 1979-82 |
| Greg McMurtry | WR | 1986-89 |
| Derrick Alexander | WR | 1990-93 |
| Tyrone Butterfield | WR | 1994-96 |
| David Terrell | WR | 1998-2000 |
| Braylon Edwards | WR | 2003-04 |
McMurtry was good to very good. DA and Terrell were very good. Edwards was very good to great. And AC was in another class. Butterfield, who played under Carr, was a JUCO transafer (as I recall) and his only claim to fame is dropping what would have been the game ending pass against Virginia in 1995. He's an outlier.
Arrington and Manningham both had the skills to be worthy of the #1 if McMurtry was a #1. Roy Roundtree should be considered, if not granted, the #1. The jersey has been out of rotation for too long. The status of the #1 at this point is like a retired jersey (not being worn) but without granting the creator of the legacy his shining moment in the Stadium.
EDIT: Notice that the longest that #1 had gone unworn was three season ('83-'85, following AC's graduation) until the current six season ('05-'10) dry spell. This is the basis of my "highjacked" comment. Nothing else.
Arrington had more off-the-field issues than Manningham... WAY more. Game-changer? Yes. But also a guy who managed to pick up a DUI, domestic violence charge, and an MIP in one fell swoop the week of the PSU Game in '06, then got in trouble again the next offseason.
And, yes, Butterfield is an outlier. But you have to take into account the #1 jersey changed when Coach Carr tweaked with the tradition to use it as a motivational tool to get Braylon "on the same page." And it worked.
So it is ok as a motivational tool for Braylon but the same idea wouldn't apply to Arrington who got his act together for his junior season?
And if the receiver needs to be on the same playing level as Braylon (one of the best receivers to play at Michigan) than just retire it. Who are we going to be waiting for? There are no guarantees that someone in the future will be a top 3 NFL pick playing WR at Michigan.
A legacy number only works if it is worn. That has been my point from the beginning. Six years has been too long. The freshman this year were in middle school the last time someone wore #1.
Braylon had cases of entitlement and drama-queen. Like showing up with an Oscar Gamble-sized afro at the 2002 media day. He never got arrested, never had issues with the law, and never failed to pass a drug test when he played for Michigan.
There's a difference between simple motivation and rewarding a player who has a drug problem or can't keep out of trouble with the law. Manningham admitted to failing a drug test multiple times in his time at Michigan, and had to admit it to NFL teams before the combine. Arrington had multiple brushes with the law, leading to suspensions from the team.
At any rate, this discussion is overkill. Neither one of them got to wear #1, and in my opinion, Coach Carr had every reason to make that decision.
everyone was OK with Braylon endowing the thing until Rich Rodriguez started losing games.
Just another mean-spirited, gratuitous cheap shot.
Yes, everyone was thrilled by Braylon on the football field. Yes, everyone was happy to see him endow a scholarship. Yes, Braylon has said he will not directly interfere with the assignment of the number.
None of those things have anything to do with why so many people now correctly regard Braylon as talented, petulant, spolied, erratic and untrustworthy. All of that came as a result of what Braylon has been saying and doing, on his own, for the last several years.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, those of us from Bo Schembechler's Univeristy of Michigan can start looking forward to welcoming students of Brady Hoke's University of Michigan to a season of football featuring Denard Robinson from Rich Rodriguez's University of Michigan.
This is all very interesting. I understand Woodson and Howard won the Heisman Trophy and both have now also won the Super Bowl. They are great football players.
If they are going to retire a jersey, and as some suggest an Afro-American's number for the first time at UM, and a Bo / Mo / Lloyd era - I go with Anthony Carter and his #1 for all AC did to bring UM out of the 3 yards and a cloud of dust. HOWEVA..... I love the idea of keeping the #1 around for the proven and best WR. So, why not do something like that for the #2? The best DB on the team, gets #2..... just thinking out loud there...
In terms of retiring Howard and Woodson's numbers...
Desmond started his Heisman run with the 4th down TD catch vs. Notre Dame, in the North End Zone, my freshman year at UM. So I agree with the ND game for him
Woodson, sealed his Heisman with the punt return TD vs. Ohio into the South End Zone. He's from Ohio, let's retire his jersey at that game.
Just my thoughts.....
Retiring numbers in college sports is unspeakably stupid. Other than 98 and Ford's number (er... 45?), Michigan should unretire all the others. I'm willing to hear arguments why the others should remain retired, and am most willing to be convinced re: the Wisterts and Oosterbaan.
What's a cooler tradition, saving Desmond's number so that nobody else can have it, or telling a high school prospect "hey man, see that dude on ESPN? You can be the next to wear his jersey."
They should retire numbers temporarily (i.e. Kramer's was just retired, so leave it that way for 5-10 years), and then put them back on the market after that.
Kramer's jersey wasn't "just retired."
Before Gerald Ford's number (48, not 45) was retired in 1994, the last one to be retired was Kramer's, right after he graduated.
Huh. For whatever reason, I thought they just retired it when he died.
either Woodson or Desmond, but you cannot unretire anyone who has had theirs retired. That is a worse idea than retiring them.
If they do Desmond's at the ND game this year - they should go Chuck's at an OSU home game, for sure.