New tradition maybe? Jump Around is younger than the youngest Michigan student.
Mike Lantry, 1972
New tradition maybe? Jump Around is younger than the youngest Michigan student.
stadium atmoshpere in An Arbor.
The one aspect that you don't address though is that is the largest stadium out of all of those, and by far the most quiet.
That is not a great thing. I grew up going to games there and it was not always like this, it used to be a lot louder, but we lost something along the way.
I honestly think we had too long a run of decent-to-good results that turned our fanbase soft.
For so many years, our team had high expectations at the start of the season and played to not lose, rather than win. My theory is that two decades of this turned many M fans into the type that go to the game, sit, and wait for something to happen, good or bad, to get them to do anything, cheer or groan. Passive.
I've been going to games since 1965 (when I was a little boy) and as a student and an alumnus, with season tickets in five different sections of the Stadium.
The stadium got louder during Bo's tenure, most particularly because the student section got a lot more intense then. The stadium, and the students, never got quieter. Still, I can remember it being quiet enough that you could clearly hear pads hitting. It has not gotten "quiet." As for any quietness in the past 24 months, there was The Horror, and then 2008. The fans have not gone "soft." And, I can assure you all, that 3-9 thing last year was an aberration in every way possible, including Bump's 1968 season. Last year is not a model, or an exemplar, of anything. It was in every way an outlier that any good statistician would disregard as being outside the mean.
One game sort of spoiled, and also defined, Michigan for about 30 years; the 1969 uspet of OSU. Before that game, we lost to Missouri that year, by about 40 points. That was quiet. Our team just needs to win. RR is doing that. We didn't lose any games last year because our fans were soft. We lost because of incompetent play on the field. Let's get back to winning, and putting on a classy show on Saturdays.
The stadium was louder in the 1970s than it has been recently. (Maybe the renovations will change that.) I don't know how you can suggest otherwise. We had a pretty raucous atmosphere back then, and not just in the student section. What's changed is 1) that tickets have become more expensive, pricing out some fans and 2) the average age of season-ticket holders has gone up considerably since then. In the '70s, we didn't sell out every game until 1976, and Canham had to market like crazy to convince people to come at first. That attracted a younger, rowdier fan. 35 years later, that same fan is still there, but doesn't have the energy or interest to make the same noise.
BTW, that Missouri game you mentioned was 1) not a sellout at all and 2) the single worst home loss Bo ever suffered (40-17). It's a bit of an outlier.
I think we took a worse physical beating, however, from Heisman-winner George Rogers and his South Carolina Gamecocks.
He was like a ninth grader playing against sixth graders.
He should not have been in college; he belonged in the Pro Bowl.
Your arrogance is absolutely astounding. And this is coming from someone who is arrogant.
"an atmosphere that was less commercial than practically any other big football progaram particularly less so than places like the SEC, and less so than Ohio Stadium"
Yup, that we are.
"an atmospehere that was somewhat quieter and more respectful than other closely comparable places like Camp Randall, South Bend and Happy Valley (never really "quiet"; the assembly of 110,000 people is never quiet)"
Why would we like to be quiet? Respectful is one thing, but quiet is an awful thing to be for college football. Were you the type of student that sat in the student section with your textbook so you could get in some reading when a timeout was called?
"an atmosphere devoid of such professional sports abominations like reocorded music,"
While no longer true, it is doubtful many opposing fans could point to this. I'm no fan of the new music, but it doesn't make or break the stadium.
"a generally lower level of unruly and outrageous behavior."
My word! Outrageous behavior at a college sporting event? Next thing you know the constable will allow the genders to spend time together outside of the bi-monthly dance.
"That's not a "lousy" reputation. That's a wonderful reputation. Unless of course you are a 24 year old male who has just consumed 11 beers. (That's a great donor base.)"
You really must have had a miserable in college. And uh, I'm a little bit younger than that, but you're right about the drinks.
In conclusion, lighten up. You want to be a smug dick to everyone in the stadium that isn't going to follow the rules you think are in place? Great. Go ahead and be that dick. But don't be surprised when someone challenges you by a simple act of standing up.
And have a nice day!
We really don't have to agree, or even converse, about general game-day aeshtetics. It doesn't matter.
The essential point of this thread was whether it is cool to respond to a "Down in front!" request by saying "Up in back!"?
The essential point behind "down in front!" is to say, "I am going to tell you to sit down without asking you, because I cannot see." The essential point behind "up in back!" is to say, "I am going to stand because I am cheering on a sporting team." Are the two at odds? Yes. Do the underlying ideas have to be? No.
If someone came over and politely asked, "would you please sit down, I cannot stand for long periods of time and cannot see," I'm willing to bet things would be quite different. However, your belief that somehow the "down in front" crowd is more respectful than the standing crowd is laughable. The very idea of "down in front" does not guarantee status, wealth, respect, or anything else so many of the fans that shout it seem to believe they possess.
And as for your attempts at taking the higher ground, might want to have explored that about -120 points ago.
"The essential point behind 'down in front!' is to say, 'I am going to tell you to sit down without asking you, because I cannot see.'"
After that, I think the sequence goes something like this;
First somebody asks "You," as the guy who own't sit down, again, nicely, to please sit down.
Then, four more people ask, somewhat more insistently.
Then, somebody goes to the Section ushers. Chances are only about 1 in 4 that the ushers will come; they are instructed to maintain their positions at the portals. They are trained to call A2 police for disputes in the stands.
Chances are nearly 100% that if the ushers are told that there is trouble in the Section and that the police are required, they WILL call, and the police WILL be there in about two minutes.
Then, with "you" as an obstreperous patron blocking other people's view, and with about 30 people behind "you" all complaining and pointing "you" out to the two or three police officers arriving on-scene, the chances that they will take you out are quite good. If they are called back a second time, because you are again doing it after a warning, it is a near-certainty that you will be listening to the end of the game on a transistor radio outside of the stadium.
This won't happen everywhere in the Stadium. It will happen in most places that I frequent.
Oh noes, the polices are coming for me! Lawdy! Somehow, in my many times in Michigan Stadium, I've managed to avoid being "taken out" by those notorious thugs, the Ann Arbor police. Maybe because I have only sat in the student section as a student and alum, and maybe because the fantasy section you live in where you are king of the blue hairs is really just a fantasy. Similar to the kind that made you wake up sticky back in 1968 with visions of Julie Andrews in your head.
But yes, I think you were absolutely correct to respond to my post about it being necessary to be polite in asking someone to sit down with a meandering scare post about how those that stand will inevitably find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Well done.
"...as a student and alum..."
Stay there, and we shouldn't have any problems. All we need to do is to figure out how to get you a student i.d. every year into your 30's and 40's.
You're on your own for scoring a ticket in Section 31.
Yeah, I mean, I know that you have to donate at least 10,000 dollars to get out of the student section these days. It's really a tough requirement, but I've heard it ensures that at least 60% of the stadium is quiet enough that you can actually hear the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra when those dang-blasted kids actually stop playing their foosball every so often.
Are you suggesting we build a highway in the Big House?
Could help with post-game exits, I guess.
That Darn Wolverine is BACK!
Maybe the oddest thing about this thread is Section 1's insinuation that ND fans are somehow a rowdy bunch.
If you're sitting in Sec 1, here's a tip.
Get up, turn behind you and throw your hands in the air, yell like absolute hell, belt out a thunderous LET'S GO DEFENSE!, turn around and continue to yell through the play like there's no tomorrow, and from my experiences I guarantee you 40 other foaming-at-the-mouth Wolverine fans will be there right with you.
You'll never hear a "down in front" when the whole section is on your side and you've done your job right.
And I endorse this message.
i don't think its fair to say people are bad fans for not standing the entire game. maybe the fourth quarter of a close game everyone should be up. I stand for about 85% of the game and my flat feet and lower back are killing me by the end. people who don't want to feel this way shouldn't. i think standing for "big plays" (3rd downs, etc.) only is very understandable. plus, i love jumping out of my seat when the ball is in the air on a deep ball.