Helmet numbers are here to stay
But I'm not the coach who gets to make the call.
I think this is just a clever way to improve night game jersey sales in Ohio. Hoke knows we are judging him using that metric, and wants to keep us satisfied.
You don't say?
Hmmmmm. Let's put W's on the helmets after each win, like WWII bombers after each successful mission.
And perhaps some tastefully done nose-art of naked cheerleaders on the front of each helmet.
keep winning and I don't care. Start losing and...
Count me in the "like em" group. Cool, retro, touch without going all throwback.
and did the btn annoucer say that Hoke choose to keep them because the players wanted them?
Who wore those numbers, which, I am not sure why the jersey doesnt do that, but whatevs
What happens when the players say they like yellow pro-combat jerseys and blue wings on a yellow helmet? You know some of them eventually will.
I'm sorry, Michigan stands for something. Michigan is more than just today's teenage fashion trend. That's what Maryland is for. Becasue they don't really stand for anything.
It's to honor the former players who wore the numbers on their helmets--not just wore the numbers. The helmets used to have numbers on them. Hoke, as quoted in annarbor.com:
“We want to honor those guys who wore those numbers (on their helmets) before. The 42 championship teams. And the guys who have represented Michigan. That’s important to us.”
Like most of college football except Alabama, the numbers were on the helmets for only a short period time in the 60's.
They were actually on our helmets for 10 seasons (1959-1968).
The numerals were added in 1956. Second sentence of the second paragraph on the Kramer helmet:
Yes that is exactly what they said
that they are back because the players love them, I'm on board. I like the idea that it's an internal thing, giving the players more ownership.
We're not the ones out there busting our asses. If that's what they wanna do then I'm for it. They might look better if they were the same color though.
I bust my ass at work. I'd like to change our longstanding corporate logo to something cooler, but it just doesn't work that way.
Brady Hoke takes and cares about the player's opinion more than your boss takes and cares about your's....
Hoke gets it. Not only does he know and love the UM tradition, he's making great additions to it. Here's hoping Hoke, establishes a Bo/Lloyd like legacy in A2.
I like it. It's a small change but it's a change. As long as they keep improving week to week, they could put Roman numerals on their helmets for all I care.
If RR did this, Ann Arbor torch and pitchfork would be sold out. But eh, whatever, I think they're kind of cool. And we just trucked a B1G team by 60 and have a top 5 recruiting class so I refuse to complain about anything M football related today.
If RR had won his first 5 games his first season, he would have been able to do these types of things.
Let's not go down this road.
RR wouldn't have known that we used to wear numbers on the helmets.
Michigan's history with numbers on the sides of their helmets dates back only to 1959-68. That is all. Michigan didn't, as Hoke claims, win "42 Big Ten Championships with those helmets."
Brady Hoke was 10 years old when Michigan last had numbers on their helmets. Rich Rodriguez would have been about 5 years old when Michigan last had numbers on their helmets. It was a nine-year tradition, that was driven not by any Michigan tradition at the time, but was driven by the then-current fashion among other football teams.
I have wondered if there was a rule in the late 1950's that requred teams to put numbers on helmets; I have been unable to detemine whether such a rule existed, but it is true; as of the late fifties, every single team in the Big Ten Conference had put numbers on the sides of their helmets. As shown here, by The Helmet Project:
(Click on "BIG TEN" in the left sidebar, then scroll down for each team's historical helmets.)
So it is almost impossible to argue that this is a return to any "Michigan tradition." As far as I can tell, it was a late-fifties rule that Michigan was forced to comply with, for eight or nine years, along with everybody else in the conference.
I'm glad that somebody else besides me said it, but it needs to be said; given the outlandish kerfuffle over the Number 1 jersey, which never even got as far as an actual football game, there just can't be much dispute about the fact that if this same action (retaining numbers on the sides of helmets as part of our regular numbers after the UTL game) had come up during Rich Rodriguez's tenure, the arguments would have been layered with RR's alleged 'failure to understand Michigan traditions.' Whereas with Hoke, the exact same scenario is used to promote his deep understanding of Michigan traditions. It's all a bunch of baloney.
I disagree with you, but then again, who really cares if RR would have faced scrutiny or not? He's gone and nobody knows what would have happened, and this would have never happened for the reason I pointed out anyway?
The reason why RR came under such intense scrutiny is bc he switched to a drastically different system without his guys in place, and subsequent losing seasons, followed by the bastardization of our D and special teams. BC or this, with a small case of throwing players under the bus and passing the buck, he got all the scrutiny one could throw his way...If he put the numbers on the helmet, he probably would have gotten scrutiny. If he won, it wouldn't have came or would have blown over
You posit an interesting notion; that Rodriguez might only have gotten scrutiny on things like uniform issues, because of unhappy results on the field.
We know, from history, that that notion is wrong.
Before a Rodriguez team had hit the field (and assuredly in 2008 it was the catastrophic ThreetSheridan offense, NOT the defense, that got that year off to such a terrible start), and before there was ever a single "L" associated with Rodriguez, we had Braylongate and the kerfuffle over the Number 1 jersey. It is a decidedly less-important affair than changing Michigan's iconic helmets for Conference play, but there you go; a perfect comparison of what was such a disaster in the press for Rodriguez, and what is so smoothed-over for Hoke.
Some 5-and-0's are better than others.
but dont you think that the two reasons you cite are valid reasons to be fine with the changes? When we had a losing team with RR all the fans could hold on to were the past michigan traditions bulit by much more sucessful teams. Now that Hoke has turned the tide (i mean jersey sales are through the roof in ohio) this team can start its own traditions without the uproar that would have accompanied them under the rich rod.
Not that its the best comparison but remember rich rod was 2-3 at this point in his first year as coach
And Coach Rodriguez was 5-0 at this point in the season that he got fired.
Are you ever going to give up on this Protect Rich Rod from the Interwebz kick? Or are you just going to keep up the good fight until he gets another job or you die?
He wasn't 5-0 as a Michigan coach at that point. He was 13-16.
But anyway, no, I don't think he would have been crucified for putting numbers on the helmets. He instituted a lot of changes, many of which did not draw criticism.
Completely irrelevant. Rich Rod is gone, and it should be obvious by now that that is a good thing.
I didn't start this thread. And I didn't introduce "Rodriguez versus Tradition" into this thread. I didn't even start the trashtalking aspect of that old argument; you did. But if guys like you want to start it, I'll be happy to finish it. At least insofar as it requires any clear-eyed recitation of history.
If, on the other hand, absolutely nothing matters apart from W's and L's (which is probably true for the vast majority of self-identified "Michigan fans"), then everything else is irrelevant. And Hoke can say anything he'd like about Michigan tradition and it means nothing as long as he's winning.
I believe all the torches and pitchforks were sold out long before RichRod left Ann Arbor and were consistently on backlog long before for his tenure came to an abrupt end.
I'm indifferent to them honestly, but if the players and staff like it, that's excellent. Besides, all it takes is for one point from Hoke, and the indifference may become sheer adulation. The point is just that magical.
Yuck. You don't put a nose ring on the Mona Lisa.
You will love the future Mascot. Will be part Wolverine, part Corporate logo.
Um, we were not very good the decade that Michigan wore numbers on the helmets. We got good when Bo came in and removed the numbers.
So here's an idea: Since we are so keen on selective-memory throwbacks, let's honor those great Bo teams and take the numbers off the helmets.
Yes; as I indicated above, Michigan's "tradition" with numbers on helmets is mostly artifact and trivia, not any real tradition. And not any sort of tradition, as you rightly point out, that is built on pure success.
But in 1964, Bump's best year, Michigan went 6-1 in conference, 9-1 overall, beat good MSU and OSU teams, and went to the Rose Bowl to put a 34-7 beating on Oregon State.
With numbers on their helmets:
it's just a matter of personal preference.
The argument that they somehow "ruin" something that was previously perfect and never-changing betrays a highly-selective personal editing of actual fact and history. Or to put it differently, it's horseshit.
I'd like to see the stickers come back largely because I arrived at UM in '71 when Bo used them, but it would be idiotic to argue that not having them is somehow an affront to "tradition."
They look clean and sharp. I hope they keep them.
To cite winning, player preference or precedent as rationale for numbers is pretty suspect to me as either 3 points can change due to opponent strength, group think or be countered with another historical precedent.
Brandon and Hoke will interpret tradition through their own lens and personal needs. Player preference? Please, they do what they're told and have little choice.
It will be interesting to see where AD Imperius takes the program over the next 5 years.
Honestly, my first thought was "why?" since it was supposed to be a one-time thing. I was mostly worried about them being an alternate, willy nilly thing which might happen randomly.
Aesthetically I like them, though want the colors to match.
If they would make it a new tradition to wear numbers in conference games, that would actually be kind if cool, since there's an eccentricity about it. (Think LSUs tradition of wearing purple at home for OOC and wearing white for SEC.)
Alabama will not like this one bit.
"Our Helmets Have Numbers!
Are we really going to start this bullshit argument all over again for the 4th time?
Well, let's see - we can't bitch about the defense. The whole "Hoke is killing Denard's passing" meme took a hit this week. There were 51 reasons (the defense scored a TD) why the "Borgess is killing the offense" bitch may not be correct. The "turnovers are just random and can't be kept up" idea took a hit too. And, the sabermetrics kids are still crunching numbers.
So yeah, it appears that we are going to freak out about the coaches agreeing to go with something that the team used to do and the players asked for. (Just be glad they didn't decide to honor Desmond Howard and the early 90s team that wore helmet stickers.) But at least we have found a way to turn it into a RR v. Hoke argument. So +1 for creativity for us. What we really need is to create more threads on this topic.
Just a thought - we haven't even seen the road uniforms yet.
It's all part of his strategy
Add helmet numbers to replicate losing seasons in late '50's-early '60's. Remove numbers and beat OSU, start new 10-year war
Who pooped in your cereal this morning?
Eh, it's not very obtrusive, is a part of the uni's history and makes it easier to see who's who. Not a fight I feel the need to pick.
Love it, been hoping this would happen for years. Looks great out there.
Bando Calrissian, Uni Watch junkie.