I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
|1 day 21 hours ago||Not OT||
per MGoBoard FAQ:
I hope we're not going to take them lightly this time around.
|6 days 5 hours ago||After||
reading the following:
I started expecting a fireball, so the actual video was somewhat of a letdown.
I wonder if this is the same as expecting to lose by 35 and then only losing by 11?
|6 days 23 hours ago||Nice to know||
Mgoblog is Ars-Technica savvy.
I suppose it should come as no surprise.
|1 week 7 min ago||I was expecting||
I guess it's been too long since I saw the movie.
|1 week 1 day ago||Is there||
a reciprocal obligation from the professional staff and AD?
If so, do you think they are measuring up better than the fans are?
(I'm thinking particularly of the "love for the game that isn't rooted in the almighty dollar.")
|1 week 1 day ago||I don't think||
Brian called the entire Michigan football program "horseshit," but the way you parse his comments may depend on how inclusively you define the words "entire Michigan football program."
I think that sounds over-broad.
|1 week 1 day ago||. . .||
|1 week 2 days ago||Is it possible||
to get passing and rushing yards as a percentage of opponent defensive avg. as well?
I'm not any kind of football mind, but since I was a teenager I have always thought it was misleading to count qb sacks as a rushing play. Is there as yet no consensus forming about making rushing yards sack-free, and counting sacks against the passing game?
|1 week 3 days ago||Obviously||
the problem was with RR.
Look how he is stinking up the place at Arizona, and look how our program has taken off since we ditched him. Who would rather be cheering for Arizona right now?
The proof is on the field.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Maybe DB||
is floating this rumor so that, when M shows up wearing proper uniforms, everyone is so relieved that they don't notice M getting beaten 50-14.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Are you suggesting||
that Hoke has changed the tide on the rivalry?
P.S. -- In 1985, it was a very good year . . . .
|2 weeks 1 day ago||"Funky."||
Is this a pun?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Your word||
in God's ear.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Hand||
just chose dinosaur-y Alabama over MBA-driven Uniformz-y Michigan.
Michigan isn't winning as much as dinosaur-y Alabama or uniformz-y Oregon.
Uniformz may not be the answer to winning and losing, but they may have something to do with holding on to the devotees of the team that once wore what Bo once called "the uniform with the proudest tradition in college football."
What you're hearing is "feedback." "Whining" is just a term of arbitrary deprecation. Stop whining.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Well, so far||
we have threads deriding the abysmal playcalling, and threads defending it.
We also have a thread warning us about more uniformz shenanigans.
Why don't you start the "Uniformz Appreciation" thread?
Edit: This was in response to "No joke it's Hoke." Sometimes the response linkage seems a little hinky.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||The Brandon,||
the Brandon, the Brandon.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||"Beetles?"||
|2 weeks 2 days ago||For some reason,||
it's almost impossible to find this information with a simple google search.
White jerseys were instituted by the NCAA in the 1950's to facilitate viewing on monochrome (ie, "black-and-white") TVs of that era, even though the NCAA's first invasion of the television world was to ban broadcasts of games by Notre Dame and Penn in 1950. By about 1952, the NCAA had settled on the one-national-game-a-week plus regional broadcasts that more or less were the rule until the NCAA was successfully sued by Oklahoma and U of Georgia in 1981.
The white road jerseys were instituted sometime around the beginning of NCAA football broadcasting ca. 1952, although I can't find any explicit discussion of this on-line; I remember it was in the CTE story a couple of years back, I think in the New Yorker. I can't find that online either. According to a hit for "Dawgsports," the white jersey rule was lifted sometime around 2009.
You can see home unis on both teams in both the snow-bowl OSU game of 1950 and in the excerpts of the UM-USC Rose Bowl of 1948 posted to YouTube by WolverineHistorian. If the white-jersey rule has in fact been lifted, the Game would have been the perfect place to restore some real throwback action. Unfortunately, the MBA's are in charge with gimmick uniformz the new "tradition."
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Maybe Hand||
will flip back to us if we offer more gimmicky uniformz like we did in '11. After all, recruits eat that shit up.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Is that||
the "Tsar Bomba" of 1961?
|2 weeks 2 days ago||"I swear,||
some of you are more concerned about the fucking uniforms than winning the game."
I, for one, hate the brain-dead offensive play-calling and embarrassing losses as well.
But I think I'm also entitled to my own opinion on the idea of someone with an MBA mentality shitting all over that which Bo once called "the uniform with the proudest tradition in all of college football."
Losing is bad enough without the additional irritation of "what is that shit they're wearing?"
|2 weeks 2 days ago||RR||
never had anywhere near the third-best paid DC in D-1 football, either. If you factor for compensation, you get Borgerg.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||This is||
so not the time for a big-time coaching search.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||I||
turn mine off, although the whole NSA thingy has me wondering if it matters one way or the other.
No-one loves a grammar Nazi, but I don't flinch from the opprobrium. This is Michigan, fer Gosh sakes.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||A clause||
with "dumb" and "ignorant" in it really needs to have a verb, unless it's an adjective phrase modifying "I."
In the latter case, you're missing a comma.
Edit: You need a comma in either case.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Why don't you put it||
in a comment? I'll read it.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Back then,||
each of the unending succession of crap seasons was immeasurably sweetened by wrecking an otherwise MNC-bound OSU team.
By 2002, when this situation was shaping up again, it seemed all the papers where I was were going "it would be better if M lost and gave OSU a chance at the MNC." I date the malaise at least back to that. Pounding a highly-regarded OSU team in '03 was nice, but it needs to happen more than once every 13 years to be enough.
|3 weeks 4 hours ago||You have to give||
RR credit for his share of the smooth coaching change, another planet from what was waiting for him when he got here.
|3 weeks 4 hours ago||Another part of the difference||
between RR and Hoke was the budget constraints that forced RR to make do with second- or third-choice DC's. Either way, Shafer should have gotten three and then RR should have gotten five. And Rubinstein should never have happened, which maybe it wouldn't except for something murky, and not to UM's credit, with or without RR, going on in the background.
|3 weeks 4 hours ago||Actually,||
One time "she" called me up to say she was in the mood. This is what she said to me when I got to her front door before she put the phone down.
|3 weeks 4 hours ago||"When it works"||
appears to be September-October. I'm not liking the current RR-like trajectory, but as always, I'll keep watching and hoping.
|3 weeks 4 hours ago||At first||
I thought you were going to hearken us back to 1951-1968. I guess it's all about perspective.
|3 weeks 5 hours ago||That||
|3 weeks 5 hours ago||If you||
tighten up the columns, I bet you can make it easier to read. Looks like a good idea for a post; diary-worthy, once you make it readable.
P.S. "separate" with "a," not a second "e."
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I think||
if we are to speculate on an RR defense in a hypothetical year four, we should allow for DB to give RR a Mattison-level piggy bank to hunt for a top-level DC in the interest of giving RR a level hypothetical playing field. I am sure RR realized defense was bad at least as much as Hoke understands offense is bad.
Why would RR hand-cuff his DC to the scheme he wanted? If it is for the same reason that Hoke/Borges are handcuffed to the 0.97-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense (which did work well for Woody Hayes in the '50s and '60s, before the Rose-Bowl dark ages descended on Manball in the '70s, consigning it to no more than regional relevence), then it is because that scheme was relevent to how the team practices on both sides of the ball and what he needed was someone who could make the scheme he relied on as head coach succeed. As in, well enough to make his over-all scheme succeed.
Actually, to be fair, my memory of those years was that, in big games, the O was constantly putting the D in a bad position, giving them a short field to defend, failing to answer scores, not staying on the field and for the wrong reasons, etc. The D ended up with bad numbers, but I often had the feeling that the failures on D started with failures in the O.
I don't know if RR could have pulled it off at some point with the current coaching budget for coordinators. A change in D was absolutely mandatory to even discuss a year four, because it is not clear the team was growing more positive in outlook despite the improving record over the first three bad but not incomparably bad years (9 losses was a record, but the '34 and '62 seasons were still worse on a percentage basis).
I thought it was a bad decision to let him go after year 3 because of the horrible face the Michigan community showed through those 3 years and because I thought 3-and-out was a Notre-Dame type thing to do and might come back to haunt UM. Starting a real coaching search for '12 while giving RR a fourth year to field a junior QB in his scheme and a first-tier budget to look for a DC would, I think, have left M in a better position to look for a solid replacement if RR hadn't had a decent '11 and maintained his pace thereafter. Having given him a chance, UM could seek a replacement without going all Notre Dame, just as OSU had done in '87 and '99 and as UM did after Elliot's 8-2 season in 1968.
At this point, M has to give Hoke 1-2 more years, at which point I don't know what replacement choices there will be absent a striking turnaround from the post-Minnesota profile this team has shown us.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||"Gift"||
is a noun.
It is probably derived from a Germanic past participal of the verb, "to give."
Oh well, "gift" until it hurts.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Woody went for 2 in '68;||
but he didn't get it. A one-pointer would have made it 51-14. The big deal then was that that was an 8-1 4th-rated Michigan team, and the best since a 1-loss Rose-Bowl champion in 1964. Woody's 1968 and 1969 teams seem to have been lousy at kicking extra points.
Woody did go for 2 and get it, I believe, in a 1961 50-20 victory in Ann Arbor.
Carr's 1995 and 1996 OSU victories are still fond memories for me, although it is hard to know how to compare then with now. A lot has happened in the last 7 years.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||"Yakety axe"||
For those who prefer sound production using stretched wire:
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I was disheartened||
by the 2nd-half fumble recoveries because I knew it meant the offense was coming back on the field.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||How high||
does this go?
Is Mary Sue Coleman next?
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Do you mean||
AFTER Brandon fired RR?
|4 weeks 2 days ago||"It seems||
like there is no way to please people."
We went through this four years ago. This is in fact exactly right, as long as you came in stressing "accountability" and your team loses in an embarrassing and discouraging way. If you are the head coach and your team is losing games while exhibiting visible flaws, this is how it is.
People aren't really mad about the fact Hoke doesn't scream and yell at press conferences. They are mad about Hoke's third-year team setting records for futility in the course of two embarrassing losses.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Am surprised||
to see you call Carr "one of the worst coaches in football history," expecially since he was shaken out of the Bo coaching tree; is this /s?
I tend to disagree, although I am no fan of his post-January-2008 behavior. I believe he was kept around a little longer than he wanted. I wonder if it might not have helped M to go through the painful transition to a post-Bo coaching tradition a year or two earlier, especially while Bo himself was still around to vaporize mutineers, defeatists, spies and traitors at a glance with his mighty heat-ray vision. But it was Bo himself who asked Carr to stay on after Carr's heart was still in the recruiting process and the other gruelling aspects of the HC job. Easy to see the trouble to come with hindsight.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||two years.||
|4 weeks 4 days ago||I agree||
that it is unlikely that personnel decisions at the AD will be settled here on this board; we can only be observers and critics and opinionaters about about the object of the passion we all have in common. I also admit that my lurking here has fallen off and I have missed much of your mentioned previous work.
The argument about youth and inexperience is mitigated for me by the examples of teams that approach M's level of performance with far humbler resources; the example of Akron comes to mind.
I understand that the D is dependent on the practices against the O. This said, wouldn't also be in the D's interest for the O to practice plays it can actually execute? For the O line to perform the way it does in the schemes it is asked to execute, what possible value can it be to the D to practice against it? Regardless of the long-term picture, I would think it mandatory to both the O and the D for the O to be practicing plays that will actually work in game situations. As happy as I was to see Fitz not asked to hit the line 27 times at 0.97 yards a pop, I still got a sinking feeling watching Devin take one long drop after the other knowing nothing was going to happen before the rush enveloped him.
Just as in the expectations-gap years of The Coach Who Shall Not Be Mentioned, I find myself asking, "Why is this happening?"
I think we should bury the "little brother" meme for a few years. I don't think it has helped us.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||What does||
"snowflake" mean? Is it a term of deprecation? Should I feel deprecated just for posting here?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||I think we took that first step||
toward being ND when we fired RR after 3. Now we are that team that only gives a new coach 3 years, unless the lifers in the AD are kind enough not to sabotage him behind his back. After that whole disgusting performance, M has very few places left to go.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Do you mean||
"supposed to be built?" Because it is hard to say "is built to have . . . a strong OL" AND "OL has been a complete, absolute failure" without implying the conclusion that "it [M]" is a complete, absolute failure," yet you seem to shy away from assigning any responsibility to the staff for where all this lalapolooza of failure you mention is coming from.
Once upon a time, the detractors of a coach since forced out of town used to remind us over and over that a coach has to design the game plan around the players he actually has. Has this shoe grown too uncomfortable for the current generation of feet to consider wearing it?
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Urban Meyer||
doesn't believe in an OSU-UM rematch for a national championship. A one-loss SEC team must always be in the MNC game.
***Still annoyed about 2006***
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Looking back at myself,||
I think you're right about the effectiveness of fear.
By now, the coaches shouldn't have to work very hard to create an illusion of fear.
Except, if it's real, do you call it an illusion?
|10 weeks 3 days ago||You're right.||
This would be more apropos of last week. It was easy to forget the path UConn has taken after the loss to Towson State and the light regard they were getting since.
Since Appy State, it seems that UM has more-frequently-than-average unfortunate outcomes with lightly-regarded opponents.
I don't know how this plays into the psychology of the current team, but I hope it helps to have these two "learning experiences" this early in the season without having to pay for them with a loss.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||This makes me think||
of the "King of Town" in Homestar Runner.com's "Strong Bad Email #134.
I would link, but I am having a flash-player snit and can't use that site.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||I think there is something debilitating||
about the very practice of scheduling tomato cans.
I think the "weak" mentality originates in the very idea of scheduling a team just to run up the score on them.
In Alexander Technique, the distinction is made between "end-gaming," ie, "the ends justify the means," and "means whereby," ie, the means you employ are the the blueprint for your ultimate outcome.
I think scheduling tomato cans smells of the mentality of puffing up season numbers in order to get scheduled into a prestigious post-season destination. Or alternatively, it represents the effect of money trumping the fan or player experience as the determinant of scheduling decisions.
The 18- to 20-year-old mind, I think, senses without fully consciously grasping that (to paraphrase MLK's "Beyond Viet Nam" speech, 4-3-67) the adults in charge have piled calculated cynicism on top of the inherent physical hazard of playing the game, and they have a sense that greed has turned the game they love into something a little twisted as well as potentially dangerous. And so, subconsciously, they can't help but approach these debased demonstration games without their full enthusiasm, even if they don't know why this is.
We expect them to put their health and well-being on the line in exchange for the team experience and, often, help in paying their college tuition. I think, in return, they have a right to expect the people, for whom they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, to at least go through the motions of making the regular season a reasonably meaningful football experience.
At any rate, they must know that the scheduling wasn't made with an exciting athletic contest in mind, and this may make it difficult for the eighteen-year-mind to cover for adult cynicism with youthful enthusiasm.
oops tl;dr but this thought started to form as I was watching the game.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||I go with this.||
Quality of life over quantity.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||This is apropos what --||
just recreational anti-RR trolling?
|11 weeks 3 days ago||Not to mention||
getting a score on just one of the multiple cracks from inside the 5 in the 14-11 loss to OSU in '72, and not missing crucial field goals in '73 and '74 would have given Bo three more victories against top-5 competition with three plays. "What-if" works both ways.
|11 weeks 5 days ago||Apropos||
1) VARYING QUANTITIES? Back in my days, it was SPLAT (except when it was corndogs); NEXT! and then you payed your quarter;
2) is that what they mean by "leadership?"
|18 weeks 2 days ago||thatsharsh||
|18 weeks 2 days ago||Sorry,||
smallest thing I got is $100.
|18 weeks 6 days ago||I think||
whatever happens in your impressionable years is what sticks to you.
Having survived the OSU beat-down of 1968, or, worse yet, the agonizing stretch of close losses (and one tie which might as well have been a loss) to OSU from 1972-75, everything else (above) seems endurable to me. And the yang is, of course, 3 wins in a row over OSU from 1976-8 and the ruination of OSU seasons in 1995-6. But the emptiness and sorrow never goes away.
|34 weeks 1 day ago||Heading||
makes more sense if you read "Kill" as a noun.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||That's how I first read it.||
Which made me wonder if the "We on" version was a reference to an incendiary airline accident.
I still don't know what the jet silhouette signifies, unless the complete thought is not parallel to the "We been on fire" construction, and reads something like "We on aerial transportation."
|35 weeks 3 days ago||I did.||
I play one myself, and as an admirer of the instrument, I have to correct spelling --
"'Cello," or "Cello,"
is an abbreviation for the Italian "Violoncello," itself a diminutive of "Violone," augmentative of "Viola."
In Vogrich's case, I had the idea it was more the size of a contrabass.
|40 weeks 2 days ago||Statistically speaking||
I am wondering if you are differentiating expectations based on a run-based offense v. a pass-first offense.
I imagine that there were teams in that stretch with below-average passing and running stats; the improvement in overall winning average for teams with strong running games might be accounted for merely by excluding teams that stink at everything.
Or in other words, I wonder if a look at strong passing teams would show a similar tendency toward above-average winning percentages?
If you are not trying to make a point that the running game is more predictive of winning than is the passing game, then I misunderstood you.
|47 weeks 5 days ago||When||
did UM go Nike? This would still leave us with the '70's and most of the 80's.
It's sort of sad that, in order to save money, we've lost control of our own uniforms.
|47 weeks 5 days ago||Voice in the wilderness?||
from the above:
|50 weeks 6 hours ago||I used to care about the tradition.||
And maybe it's because it was a part of the Michigan sporting culture; particularly, although I didn't know it at the time, Bo's turning down Texas AM to stay with a smaller salary at UM, and later, as AD, sending Billy Frieder packing prior to the BB championship after he signed a contract at ASU. I probably naively believed that winning came from resisting the temptations of greed and money, and it seemed that way after Fisher went on to win the championship. Someone posted that Bo wanted to ditch the helmet design when he first got to UM; I didn't know about that at the time either.
Carr appeared to continue the tradition of winning without giving in to the pressures of big-money college sports, although, in retrospect, the MNC in '97 and the seeming near-miss in '06 draw attention away from a sort of meh-ish 8-4 to 9-3 average overall, perhaps the price of resisting the pressure of big money.
Perhaps the NCAA game has given in to money in a way different from the big-money days of the '20'-60's. Perhaps TV has driven CFB away from the community-rich seeming democracy of a fans-in-attendance-driven sport to a TV-contract-advertising-revenue-driven sport, with the transition accelerating during the BCS years. The economic pressures drove cream-puff scheduling that produced 8-home-games-a-year, more fan revenue and shittier matchups.
Through all this, the new CFB economic system has forced ADs to compete to pay higher coaching salaries (look what happened going from Gerg to Mattison). Increasingly, the ditching of old niceties makes the unpaid status of athletes in revenue sports harder to look at as the role of money in determining the substance of the sport increases.
I can't predict the future. The viewership debacle for last year's MNC game gave me hope that the corporate side of CFB had at last gutted the goose with the golden eggs enough to maybe push the balance of power back to a more fan-oriented economic model, and that the pressure to abandon historic traditions and to conform to the featureless and faceless marketing of CFB without a sense of place or history would abate, but, as the latest clown uni business here shows us, we are not there yet.
Whatever happens, I think that it is natural that, as the thing I followed these past years changes to look less like what I know, that I will lose my emotional attachment to it. It is like going back to your old hometown -- the more it resembles the way you remember it, the more at home you feel, and the more it changes, the less it matters to you that you once belonged there.
I don't use tradition against other fans, I don't think. In fact, the more OSU fusses with their unis, the less that feels like The Game as I have known it since we got beat up in 1968 (I think that is the year that Woody settled on the uni that generations of M fans have grown to dread until the clowniform business got to them a few years back). Whether its ours or theirs, I am more likely to remember the black depressions that came from losing during my early teen years (unfortunately, there weren't that many big-game wins; just astronomic winning percentages capped by disappointment most years) if the unis remain reminiscent of those years. My life hinges less on these outcomes now; if modern corporate marketing tries to create a new brand identification with me now, there is a long way to go to match the passion I developed for the "tradition" over the years. This is doubly so if the new "brand" is a knock-off of the marketing precepts being used in every other geographic niche of the country.
Maybe changes in the sport will make it safe to cling to tradition before the economoic pressures of the last few decades have destroyed them all. What Michigan football's trappings and traditions will look like then, I don't know, nor do I know how I will react to it or how much attachment I will feel to it.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||"So, for the first time,||
both teams enter the game unbeaten and untied, 10-0."
I believe both were undefeated and untied at the time of the 1970 game as well, although that year Michigan played a 10-game season and OSU played a 9-game season.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||I was wondering the same thing.||
I can only imagine some of this info being in old newspaper articles. There must be some other form of primary documentation to which OP is privy.
RE Lantry, I can only think "1974," as well as the then-President having to take his side when questions about that failed (?) 18-yarder came up at press conferences.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||I think||
it's more a matter of fitting his message to earthly beings bound by the limits of materialism.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||"Brutal,"||
but it DID get there.
I was pleased by the time we left on the clock for Sparty to work with.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||That's what I was thinking.||
I missed the first half because, for some reason, I couldn't find a sports bar with this game (in Atlanta, GA) and I only found one in time for the second half.
When I saw the 6-0 score and the stat line of one interception, I thought, "thank god this isn't ND all over again."
Conservative, boring, ineffective, maybe. But I'll take all of those over 6 turnovers.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Certainly,||
after three consecutive years of subsequent UM-OSU games in the last regular-season game and in the conference championship, the divisions will be correctly re-aligned.
It's true: sometimes I lie to myself to make myself feel better.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||I think||
the title of that article should be "Does . . . ?" and not "Can . . . ?"; but, to be fair, I only had one quarter of statistics a quarter-century ago.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Title should be||
"Gripes ABOUT Borges." Some folks will click through thinking Borges was griping about something. This way it is more hits, but you don't want to get them this way.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Just in case people are looking up old scores,||
Michigan's 9-3 "Snow Bowl" victory over OSU in 1950 consisted of a TD w/ 1-point conversion and a safety.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Thanks.||
I saw them, but I thought they were just images there to explain the vote totals.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||It has been noted here in thin times||
and thick times: winning makes all vexing annoyances go away.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||To be fair,||
the commenter's first name is "Velikovsky"; we should be encouraging him to try out his English and offering correction in a friendly way.
Also, if the rest of his name is literally descriptive, he's of the canine persuasion, and we need to make allowances for the problems of typing without opposable thumbs.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||I don't know||
how to figure this out;
can anyone tell me how to vote on a forum topic OP?
|1 year 6 weeks ago||They seem||
pretty happy with Kenny Guiton's performance as back-up.
Apropos which, where have we heard this before?:
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Here's what the OSU OP says:||
|1 year 6 weeks ago||In addition to the above,||
this is a mirror of Michigan's excruciating OSU loss in 1974.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Bump Elliott||
had to warn Bo off when Bo told him "the first thing I'm going to do is get rid of those silly helmets." Thank god for supportive former coaches in those days.
There were no wings during Yost's coaching career, although he was AD through the first three years of the Crisler (and hence, wings) era.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||more||
|1 year 13 weeks ago||I don't think||
the '68 OSU team was as well-put-together as the '69 team, which makes the upset all the more surprising. '68 OSU had several key games by which they slithered to the MNC; '69 OSU was never in a close game until they lost to UM. So I would put the '69 team over the '68 team. It just so happens that Bo was able to get ready for them with mostly Bump's team while staying under the radar; I think Woody overlooked us.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||Carr||
was trying to get out the door since before '06. Nothing cost him his job; he was done as soon as he could find a way out.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I read||
this double negative a couple of times:
before deciding it doesn't mean what it's intended to mean, although it has a "You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor" kind of pliability about it.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I think||
it's about the same for the Big Ten, although UM's is better than the conference as a whole, similar to its record against the SEC.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This should be||
I don't see anything in there about "Beilen's take." Is the OP mis-leadingly titled, or did I miss something?
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Let's try||
an alternative 2006 scenario.
Let's suppose UM goes undefeated until losing in a close game to OSU, and the two are ranked #1/#2 at the end of the season.
In a four-game playoff, UM is paired with #3 U-Florida, and OSU is paired with #4 USC.
Judging by the results of the Cap-1 bowl a year later, UM pounds UF and advances to play either OSU or USC. If it's OSU, then maybe the outcome is like the outcome of previous rematches of regular-season games, such as the bowl matchup between UF and FSU after the 1996 season, or Bama and LSU in 2011-12, ie, the team that lost in a nail-biter during the season comes back and annihilates the other team in a rematch on neutral territory. If the opponent is USC, then UM loses by three touchdowns, but the outcome is nullified by an NCAA ruling four years later.
Under the BCS system, UM is talked out of its #2 ranking as part of an obvious conflict of interest between the talking heads at ESPN and the conference that the #3 team is in. The whole system revolves around the politics of money and influence with an increasingly SEC-besotted MSM, and the willingness of some coaches to cover themselves with the stench of shameless self-interest in order to advance themselves under a corrupt system poised between corrupt bowls, indifferent broadcast companies primarily concerned with money, and a strange entrenched bureaucracy at the NCAA. UM gets shafted, and loses by three touchdowns to USC in a meaningless beauty-pageant bowl, which result is nullified by the NCAA four years later.
Under this scenario, it seems UM's MNC shot is better under a playoff system, although perhaps not by much.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Deliberate?||
Just noting the proximity of "dick" and "showering."
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Meh.||
I was behind Lloyd as coach, but not sure since about his loyalty to M above personal factions. I think RR showed more loyalty to M after he got fired than Carr did after retiring.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Last I checked,||
there is no "no religion" rule on Mgoblog.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||The very word "evil"||
is a step away from rational conversation, because it is a perjorative term and hence an expression of bias. It may be a useful shorthand in the absence of time for deliberation, but it belongs in the same category as "terrorist (as opposed to "insurgent," "freedom-fighter," "partisan" or "member of the resistance")" or "us and them."
My favorite movie quote regarding a breakdown in ethical behavior is from Thirteen Days, featuring Kevin Costner attempting yet another implausible regional accent in yet another JFK-related movie, in which the president muses on a meeting with his very militaristically gung-ho JCS with the following:
It isn't so much good and evil as it is a question of how we respond to strong or irresistable pressure to renounce our own better judgement. I don't think "indifference of good men" is the problem; it is that sometimes doing the right thing seems like a costly, extravagant luxury. Doing the right thing comes at a price.
I think it is unlikely that whoever is in the position to investigate this scandal will ever have the authority or resources to do a full investigation. (The range of unanswered questions includes the mysterious 2005 disappearance of Ray Gricar, the prosecutor with the original jurisdiction in the Sandusky case. If this is indeed related, then suspicion could extend outside PSU to local government and law enforcement. Rooting all this out would be a titanic task that would hinder PSU operation indefinitely.) Our knowledge of what happened will probably always be incomplete and we may never know whether the culture that enabled the scandal has been rooted out. (Nation-building from outside is rarely successful.) The plausible actions, even up to the prosecution of Spanier, may still end up being merely symbolic while leaving the culture largely intact. We may never know whether doing the right thing there is merely inconvenient or whether it is an unaffordable luxury for the average person. We may decide we can't afford the expense of finding out.
The doctor who did MLK's post-mortem said he had the heart of a 65-year-old man when he died; MLK was 38 at the time. He paid a heavy toll, spiritually and healthwise, for doing the right thing. Heroic people will pay the price to do the right thing regardless.
The rest of us will hold back when it means,for instance, relinquishing or diluting our power to protect and take care of our own children; one friend of mine said "your idealism goes when you have your first child." Or as Gandhi said, "The drowning are in no condition to help others."
We can only hope we find our way to situations where we aren't consistently asked to abandon our better judgement; at best, we can only afford to stand up to a few battles and to hope they end up being worth winning. Among the people whose lives are touched by the Sandusky scandal are those who served under Spanier et alia who wanted, like any of us does, to be good but, for one reason or another, couldn't afford to avoid some share in the guilt when they realized the complicity stretched all about them.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||You named two of my nominees.||
1.) 1981 -- Bo's first Rose Bowl win, and M's first since 1965. thank God almighty, free at at last.
2.) 1986 Fiesta -- the championship game that should have happened in 1997/8.
I would add the 1988 Hall-of-Fame Bowl win over Alabama because, although both teams were not the most successful that year, it was M's first encounter with Bama and it ended with a win to offset the loss to Auburn in the 1984 Sugar Bowl.
And of course, the '08 Cap One Bowl. Revenge for Meyer's victory in the whine wars of '06, and a satisfactory matchup with the Heismann Trophy winner.
Michigan was hosed more than once in the Rose Bowl. On balance, I would have been happier with no Rose Bowl. I never understood the B10's strange marriage with the Pac8, which was a very unhappy one for us from 1970-92.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I read||
here on some post or another long ago that Bo claimed he heard the officials gloating about throwing the game (on purpose). Disturbing they can get away with it if true.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||They used to be underlined||
before the latest system tweak when the neg-bombs went away.
I add underlines to mine using the plain text editor and html.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||It takes two.||
If a right note is surrounded by wrong notes on every side, then it will sound wrong also.
A note can only sound right relative to its neighbors, ie, the neighboring notes need be right for the pitch relationships to sound right.
Or, to put it another way, if you had perfect pitch, you might find that she DID hit ONE correctly, but that only someone who knows A=440 hz when they hear it would have any way to know without other correct notes for reference.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I think "tone deaf"||
is the flip side of the concept of "talent." Most people, for various reasons, chose to mystify and mythologize "talent," which is another word for "ability," which, in music, is usually a combination of aptitude and devoted, persistent, diligent toil.
Those who fail to achieve at the highest level prefer to think of the outcome as the result of disparities in some recondite, mystically bestowed "gift"; and from the time of Paganini, audiences looking for a good show prefer to think that they are witnessing some freakish abberation in the natural order of things rather than the outcome of painstaking devotion.
You may not be tone deaf, merely forgiving. And being "forgiving" and "congratulatory" with a girlfriend is hardly to be faulted, especially if she has breasts like Victoria Zarlenga.
But it wasn't very good music.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||"Francis Scott Key just shat himself in his grave."||
Actually, FSK had nothing to do with the music.
The traduced composers were members of the Anacreontic Society, possibly headed up by John Stafford Smith.
Here is an instrumentally accompanied rendition of the original opus; the singer isn't terribly preoccupied with consonants, but the lyrics from the YouTube description are below:
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I got over Michael Weinreb||
after he channelled his PSU sorrows into a malicious dig at UM after the Sugar Bowl. His writing there was transparently arbitrary and agenda-driven, such as calling CFB's 15-year-old overtime rule a "loophole (!?)" mixed in with various malicious digs.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Oosterban?||
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I don't know about "since 1950" --||
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "his own terms"; would you consider Rommel's death to be on "his own terms?"
Speaking of "health and family," this seems to be a refrain for OSU coaches, doesn't it?
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Woody and Bo||
were bros, and they were cut from the same cloth. Perhaps that gave Bo a tolerance for things about Woody that the rest of us can't stand.
I think Woody's social disease was just a lack of self-discipline and respect for others in the heat of the moment and what I will have to call a hint of malice.
In W's best moments, he was a model of citizenship and leadership, such as the time in 1960 when he showed up to speak to and break up a crowd that had formed in protest to the Ohio Faculty Senate's decision to decline OSU's 1960-1 Rose Bowl invitation. His words at the time went to the tune of something like: "We're not talking about the rent; it's just football. Keep your focus on the big picture and stay out of trouble. Go Home." His actual words from this occasion are actually quite moving.
But from the time I started watching football in 1969, W was always in the news. He didn't lose "all restraint for a moment"; he did it over and over and over again. By this point, we have to acknowledge a complex mixture of not compatible tendencies; the restraint and good will he preached at the high point of drama in the institutional struggle between academics and football in 1960 are not visible in what looks to me like disrespect and ill will for at least some of the people around him on the football field. Not just the adversaries -- one of these days I need to go and pinpoint the place in the film of the 1969 M/OSU ABC broadcast where Woody expresses the sentiment, to an assistant, that "you're in the way, I can't see" by shoving him and knocking the beverage out of his hand. Fairly or not, that is the image of him that resonates with my recollections of the years that he personified OSU football to me.
And then there is the running-up-the-score thing. All of this together I take as a hint of malice.
To sum up, I quote Wilhelm Furtwüngler's comments about the symphonies of Anton Bruckner: "It is philistinism to suppose that greatness arises from a lack of faults." So Woody may have been a great man, just not a very nice one all the time. I think the normal hatefulness inspired by success over rival fanbases is augmented in his case by repeated instances of not-cool behavior.
This is the first I've heard about Woody speaking to the team from TSUN; the mythology seems to be that he would never stoop to do such a thing. I know Bo was tied to the OSU family by his years as an assistant there, leading to the famous "Dammit, Bo!" story. Can you lead us to more info on the subject of Woody's address to the Wolverines?
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I don't think that's fair.||
I've slowly evolved from a Leg-Man to an Ass-Man over the years, but no Dick is involved (except mine).
|1 year 27 weeks ago||My take||
is that he is an excellent OC who was fortuitously paired with an excellent DC at WV when he made the leap to HC, and exposed when UM cheaped out on a DC.
Would Hoke have fared better here in '08? Even without real money to hire assistants, I doubt Hoke would have ever put his secondary in the hands of someone like Gibson. He certainly would not have done as well as he did starting in '11. Anyway, I think the timing was as fortuitous for Hoke as it was shitty for RR; he got two years experience at SDSU, which was a promotion from Ball State, and the additional experience building programs. He also knew where he was headed all along, while RR found himself at an institutional dead end almost immediately after slamming the door on his first escape offer at Bama. UM was a little like Anywhere But Working for Pastilong to RR, which made everything a little unsettled for everyone. That, and a fractious and entitled UM community that was just realizing that Generalissimo Bo was no longer cracking heads and enforcing discipline -- picture Yugoslavia after Tito. As time goes on I can start to imagine how '08 could happen to either UM or RR.
From what I saw, entitled goons at WVU started making it impossible for RR to stay shortly after he gave his pledge to WVU. He built a gravy train, and then all the parasites wanted to suck off it, which is normal, and then they all wanted to get to drive it, which is also normal but intolerable. And all along, he seems to take the blowback created by the double-dealings of Pastilong, BM and MSC. (Gibson is still his fault -- here and at Arizona.)
I hope he gets a chance to set up his old formula for success from WV and to put all of the crap that fell on his head behind him. I think he showed himself to be a genuine, well-meaning and honest administrator as well as a powerful offensive mind while here, despite all the rest, which is hard to grasp after all the kerfluffle thrown up by the turkeys at WVU, the MSM smelling a "decline and fall" headline, the blame-shifting of BM and MSC covering up their own potentially firable offenses and, most of all, a rancid coalition of unethically ambitious local press and implacable RR-hating fifth-columnists inside our own AD. I hope, and we will see soon enough, that RR's departure from UM turns out to be a win for both. I can't remember if DB ever came out and said that it was all just too much to keep fighting back against even if success was on the way, but I remember getting that impression and at the time I though it was all unfair.
Now that I think about it, is was just plain true. At the time, I thought that firing RR rewarded saboteurs who put factions over program by giving them what they wanted. Now I think that it did bring the factional strife at UM to a quicker end; fighting it out would have, among other things, kept the old partisan hostilities on a permanent war footing until the battles had been fought to a restless truce, waiting to break out again. And against this, RR's potential was still unproven here and nobody was predicting an '11 season under RR that would be as good as the one Hoke actually had. I hope RR gets off to a good start at Arizona so we can all move on to greener pastures.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I got one of my degrees||
from FSU. Meh.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I want to see||
what happens after Rubinstein and Snyder publish a cowardly hit piece against the Navy SEALs.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Everitt||
makes Chuck Norris look like Urkel.
Looking at the money quote,
I wonder if this makes us Cap-One Michigan or 2009 Alabama. I hope the former.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Exactly; we should all||
be inspired by the example of Gilbert Gottfried:
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Actually,||
CJ's campaign press officer, Meredith Turney, did deny that "the Google bomb excuse is the perfect cover" for cjk5h, although the confusing wording could also be construed as a denial that cjk5h.
This is somewhat compelling, because she refused to deny that CJ had ever taken the tag off a mattress; it's all here.
In case no-one else extracted the following line here, the Deadspin article linked above contains this diamond:
What about his announcing/abuse-of-bully-pulpit career?
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I think||
it's an "N" -- if you look closely, the "M" in "Mike" has three humps.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I don't know --||
pictures don't lie, do they? This is purportedly Indiana in 1934:
(You can see it larger by right-clicking on the image and selecting "view image" from the popup menu; the photo credit reads "Courtesy of Indiana University Arbutus Yearbook.")
From your comments about the linked site, I have trouble believing you actually looked at it. Sorry if I'm wrong about that.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Needs more||
mood-altering use of light and shadow.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I don't know --||
they/it have/has a sort of Hannibal Lector aura to them/it.
And there is a sort of winged-helmet look to the way the grille swerves up at the end. I bet Brandon could find a way to utilize that when he gets around to testing out marketing gimmicks on the helmets.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||If there's going||
to be a big change, the first thing I would do is get UM/OSU back into the same division. I don't know how deadly serious DB was about prioritizing a once-every-nine-year-or-so UM/OSU matchup in the neutral-site conference championship; for me, when the annual UM/OSU matchup ceases to be a central event in CFB, then CFB is a strange and new sport to me. You can molify me if you move the championship to the home venue of the higher-ranked division winner and UM and OSU both win their division three years in a row. In the meantime, the split into separate divisions puts our favorite game at high risk over time.
As far as VTech, I'm not sure this conforms to what we learned last go-round, which is that Universities make ten or more times the money off research grants correlated to membership in the AAU than they do off Football/TV. When speculating on conference realignment, I would consult this list first.
What's the latest on Nebraska's AAU status? Apropos which, this guy said the following, which I hadn't heard before:
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Do you think||
UTx's entitlement issues will survive the 16-team conference era?
I have trouble seeing them go gently into this dark night.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||You realize||
that guarantees an LSU/Bama '11 situation every year, plus Appy State or Western Michigan advancing to the semi-final every seven years or so? This is fine by me, but imagine the howling if UGA had beaten LSU in their conference championship this past season.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I think||
he means CFB/TV market.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Or in comments||
on an OSU blog, for that matter.
My feeling on the OP as a whole is that clearly the MgoCommunity hasn't worked out its feelings about where the RR era fits into the 140-year history (after all, it's still not too long ago) and posts like this serve as a huge vent for accumulated explosive gases that might be harmful otherwise.
After Bo died, we thought we were a community and found out during the RR era that some people so put their factions over the good of the program as a whole that sabotage was possible. I like having the discussion out in the open better.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I was a 14-year-old||
expat in Atlanta that year, so I remember vividly that, other than the Rose Bowl, the MSU game was the only Michigan game televised nationally that year. It was thin gruel in those days. My dad occasionally brought back Ann Arbor News game articles from business trips up to Ann Arbor.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Oops, you're right.||
1965 is in.
"Bunce" is already covered below, so never mind.
Plunkett was the QB in the '71 Rose Bowl v. Woody. After 41 1/2 years, I can still hear the incessant bowl hype for that one: "Jim Plunket leads the Stanford 11 against the pulverizing ground attack of Ohio State." OSU is nevertheless one of three teams honored at the official NCAA site with an MNC for 1970.
By the end, the '72 Rose Bowl had a very déjà vue feel to it.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Looking back to the RR transition,||
my vote for the Nostradamus award goes to "Rick," writing here from the OSU point of view at the blog "Waiting for Next Year," for comments in a Feb. 4, 2008 intervew with Brian Cook, in which he saw things none of us wanted to see, including Brian, and wrote proleptically with acumen approaching hindsight:
It is dizzying to go back and read predictions, like Brian's, from that era in the harsh light of hindsight.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||This isn't exactly a response||
to your post or an argument with it in any way, but your post reminds me that we further owe RR for his part in a really seamless and quiet transition to the Hoke era; particularly his advice to his most noteworthy recruit. I think we owe him good wishes (except against UM in the Rose Bowl) just for the contrast between the saga of Mallett and D-Rob.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Revelli||
was given a special tribute at the 1970 UM-OSU game, the last one he conducted. The rest of that game I recall as a horror, ending 20-9 with only 33 Michigan rushing yards.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||That last drive||
was the result of a Stanford kickoff return getting snuffed in the end zone for a safety; it looked for a long time like the game was going to end in a 10-10 tie.
The safety seemed to come out of nowhere, but M's next kick didn't pin Stanford nearly as far back and allowed them that last drive.
Michigan should have stopped going to the Rose Bowl after 1948.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||And I||
still hate the Rose Bowl. By the time anything positive transpired there -- 1981, 1998 -- it was too late to change my conditioning about getting hosed there nearly every time M went.
In the little footage I've seen of that game, the field looks muddy. I don't remember noticing that at the time.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||The BANDS||
were the subject of a Newsweek article prior to the Rose Bowl.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Our chief weapon||
is surprise...surprise and fear...
|1 year 27 weeks ago||There seems less difference||
when you consider this:
As far as 3-9, even a commenter with an OSU avatar can see this from the banks of the Olentangy:
This article doesn't seem like a huge amount of space to spend on a major rival. It is Spring, after all.
I thought at the time that we lucked out with RR because he actually turned out to be serious, even passionate, about creating a family atmosphere and with his focus on quality off-the-field behavior, emphasizing grades, sitting his #1 punter for OSU for disciplinary reasons, etc. I thought the lazy repetitions of the MSM meme about "sleazy" did a serious injustice to the truth about RR. I was/am also one of those who thinks three years is maybe one year too early to pull the plug on anybody who doesn't crash a motorbike with a mistress on board or something similar, maybe the opposite of giving Weiss five years, perhaps one too many. At any rate, all the coaches involved either way, and the schools that fired them, are going on with their lives.
I also think we lucked out with Hoke. I was covering my eyes when the talk was around Harbaugh and Miles; I had seen enough comments about Harbaugh from commenters over the years on this site to make me wonder how long it would be before something unpleasant happened with Harbaugh in charge, although he is very good at what he does. With the Hoke hire, UM continues an unbroken tradition of coaching with the highest ethics and concern with the welfare of the young ones under the coach's responsibility. (I'm not fooled by the Rosenberg/Snyder hit job for a minute, thanks to the detailed desconstructions we saw first on this site.)
It also turns out that Hoke is an aggressive but effective game-manager and an outstanding recruiter. And rather than cheap out on a DC for the sake of $10,000, our new AD decided to compete price-wise with the NFL to make sure the boys are ready to play.
A few breaks in scheduling helped us out last year. May the good times continue.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||He||
twists their heads off.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||How about||
"Charlie Bauman Director of Pugilism?"
edit: Not to worry; he's already the punchline to a joke.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Are you sure||
I defer to your expertise as a scientist.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||You did see||
this, didn't you?
|1 year 28 weeks ago||SI says||
all your opportunistic hack journalist are belong to us.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I think||
lawyers are that way too.
I had an acquaintance try to sue their lawyer some time back; apparently this isn't very easy to do.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I believe||
this was tongue-in-cheek:
As you can see, the adjective "responsive" is partnered with the subjunctive "would," referring to the counter-factual condition if MR had continued to write columns about UM after the hit piece.
The whole article is very sympathetic, after an initial profession of hostility-on-principal to UM. The author travels the same ground as Jon Chait in 2009:
And arrives at this conclusion:
Worthwhile retread of the territory we have all come to know, despite the misplaced comma in the quotation above (it is only an extended tweet, after all).
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Not sure if real.||
Saw "gluta-" in there twice.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Maybe||
the lesser conferences could arrange a playoff to decide the equivalent of an "at-large" bid in order to get the pollsters out of it.
As we know, the polls aren't always right, and the transitive rule of "better" (the basis of comparison for teams that haven't played each other) in CFB is shredded on the field every Saturday.
I'm not sure about leaving a conference champion out on account of polls. What if the pollsters punish an early season loss to Alabama or Michigan in favor of an early win over Eastern Michigan or Louisiana Monroe?
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I think||
it was a rare excess; maybe Craig James rises to Rosenberg's level. I'm not a professional, and I suppose it would harm the UM brand to be the plaintiff in a libel suit, but I think the story was actionably bad.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I'll have to||
try that line on my next date.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I had forgotten it||
until I googled it. It is here (actually, "Messner's relief"), under "The most helpful favorable review." (Brilliant for someone to get this to the head of the line for "favorable reviews.")
My google search first lead me to this article; apparently the author was unaware of any of the stages in Rosenberg [MR]'s apotheosis to the pantheon of sports writers. He writes as an MSU fan, without pleasure, about the weeks during which MR was exiled by the Freep to write about MSU:
|1 year 28 weeks ago||"Taint,"||
tentacles, testicles. I hope this is all only metaphorical.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Call me "Mike."|
|1 year 28 weeks ago||You||
just gave me new respect for Drew Sharp.
I'm not sure I like this sensation.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I'll||
just look at the pictures.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||It's||
(Is there a harder word to spell in the English language?)
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I don't know the magic number,||
(I've heard six before), but the major point (eventually) will be to give all teams a path to the title.
In the ugly-duckling stage that CFB is going through right now, the object should be to leave out as few teams like 2004 Auburn (undefeated conference champions from a major conference) as possible; until there is a real playoff giving an avenue to all teams, it's all damage control.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Well,||
is pretty much the name of competitive sports across the board.
I don't think if #17 MSU pounds the highest-rated team in the semifinal, that they will remain #17. Besides, #17 base on what? If they can beat a champion, then they are a champion.
The Atlanta Braves were the second-best team in baseball in 1983 with a .299 team batting average, but they happened to be in the same division with the best team in baseball in a time before wild cards. Is this unfair? At least they could have gotten in by beating the LA Dodgers a few more times. What do you say to a team that never had a chance because Gary Danielson doesn't like (ie, isn't paid by) their conference?
Get the competition out of the polls and on to the field. You want to be #1, then win your conference.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||As opposed to now,||
where, as we see above, the greater the ESPN slurpfest over the conference, the better the chance to have the places in the national title game decided before games are even actually played.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||After 90 years||
the logic of championship v. beauty pageant is not quite intuitive to many, but it comes down to whether you respect the fact that the most "deserving" team is not always the winning team.
I think the championship model is ultimately fairer because it allows teams to control their own fate (by winning when it matters most) and to have a route to the championship.
I don't think a four-team invitation-only tournament is the final answer, but it is closer than a two-team, invitation-only tournament which we call "BCS Championship." Not as many undefeated arguable #1 teams will be left out this way.
The fairest answer, in my eyes, is one in which all teams in the system have a path to the championship, unblocked by ESPN hype or the size of their television audience, which a four-team invitational is not. It is closer than the BCS thing.
But even under a "fair" system, odd things will happen. In 1983, the Atlanta Braves were the 2nd-best team in baseball with a .299 team batting average. Unfortunately, they were in the same division as the best team in baseball in a time before wild cards. I cherish that team, but I accept that, to be a champion, they would have had to beat the LA Dodgers a couple more times, which they didn't. It was still a hell of a team, just not the WS champion. At least they had a chance to try (and fail) on the field.
Assuming they didn't place any more teams in a BCS playoff than the other conferences, poll-based championships are unfair to the other teams in the same conference, but not to other conferences. Conference championship games don't add that much to the game of football that I can see, but I assume they are enormous money-makers.
I'm not a fan of playoffs for the sake of having playoffs; watching the spread of playoff creep, the later and later dates for deciding champions, and so on, is, I think, about the media profits rather than the fans, and I think it debases the regular season games, especially in baseball. I would be perfectly fine going back to a simple National and American league pennant with maybe a tie-breaker series as needed. But here, each team has always had a path to the championship, which CFB still does not have. In CFB, too little of the outcome is in the hands of the actual players.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Merchandising?||
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I'm not sure||
about "forget"; the guys over at the Freep are still pretty much the same and apparently still stirring stuff up. This is up to personal choice, but I have trouble forgetting.
This next point isn't directed at you, but I'll just stick it here anyway rather than post another comment: I get a sense that a lot of the energy being expressed here is not of the "forgive and forget" variety; it's a little too vehement for that. Why can't we all just get along?
|1 year 28 weeks ago||You're right.||
I had to recheck the title; the semi-colon is really there. Good catch.
I don't understand as well.
Are people saying the Freep Jihad didn't really happen, or what is this overwhelming outpouring of hostility all about?
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Texas 2008 lost 1 game and||
There will always be something. I think the first priority is to stop leaving an undefeated team (Auburn, SEC, curiously enough) out of any MNC consideration. What do you do in the case of something like 1973 UM/OSU? That case and the one you cite are conference-level problems. More on that later. I think 2004 Auburn being out is a bigger deal than 2008 Texas being out. Having a good day against a good team or two isn't enough; ask Oregon State 1967 ("giant killer"). To control your destiny, you should beat everyone, and yet this wasn't good enough for Auburn 2004. That's what needs to be fixed first.
We may need to adapt the thinking of "top 4 team," which comes from 90 years of MNC-by-beauty-pageant, to "championship team," in which a good team with a bad day is out. Voting and polling requires the false application of the transitive rule ('team a beat team b which etc.etc.etc.') which is decisively disproven on the field every week.
Championship, yes. If UGA beats the winner of the Bama/LSU contest, then I would be extremely leery of pronouncing the losers better than the winners. That would take the word 'better' into the realm of Tarot cards and Ouija boards. In the event we have an on-the-field result to refer to, I will take that over all the Gary Danielson hype he can huff.
If your problem is about relative division strength, that is a hard one to do anything about. If we are to prioritize playing football over polling, talking and PRing about it, though, I don't think it's too much to ask the winner of a strong division to defeat the winner of a weak one as part of the process of winning a championship. If Ga can beat LSU as part of a championship process, then Ga goes. If LSU and Bama can't win the key games, than they are out. That, or we stay attached to the system that left 12-0 Auburn out in 2004.
I assume that the condition reads "conference champion," not "any or all of various conference co-champions." Conferences can keep old conference championship rules, but they should have to have a way to decide which team is designated as a participant in a playoff. And hopefully do better at it than they have in the past.
I wonder of the division system isn't really just an excuse to have an extra game with lots of commercial kerfloofle, because I have rarely seen a conference championship game clarify rather than merely further confuse the championship picture (Okie '03, so on). In a world not all about the money, I would eliminate divisions and have a championship game only if needed to break a tie.
There's talk about "preserving the meaning of the regular season." What does the regular season stand for if you send two conference runner-ups over the conference champion?
Probably the biggest problem playoff opponents have is that the team that wins isn't always the team that is "supposed" to win. And in a system where outcomes are alternatively driven by results on the field and by hype, money and back-room deals, it is sometimes hard to acknowledge the winner over the one who was "supposed" to win, with all the economic consequences that entails. Fans want meaningful, good ball games. Advertisers, TV, and other revenue-driven entities want splashy events involving well-known national brands in manufactured circumstances. In the end, hopefully the attempts to manufacture the outcomes will backfire and economics will drive the controlling stakeholders toward a true championship system.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Maybe in a time||
when all conference champions are included in a playoff, the Rose Bowl could be the designated playoff game for the B1G/Pac12. In the mean time, as you say, it makes no sense to try to mix tie-ins with seeding. Hollis -- well, what can you say.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||If #16||
can win 4 in a row against higher-rated competition, then they are completely legit national champions. And if #1 can't prove it on the field, then they aren't. I'd rather do it that way than seeing if Osborne or Meyer has better PR skills in a loaded interview with Gary Danielson. If UM beat Bama, LSU, OkSU and Stanford last year I would have no quibbles about "deserving."
And having an argument about who is the real #16 is no where near as glaring a deficiency as having the NCAA have to acknowledge three "National Champions" on their website for 1970 or two for 2003.
All the "Rose Bowl tradition" means for me is having the Big Ten champ end the season with a loss in a meaningless exhibition for twenty straight years. I get nauseous thinking about the words "Rose Bowl."
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Michigan's record||
vs. the SEC is already way over .500, including the unfortunate Gator Bowl outcome.
When M starts winning out, the SEC will be no problem.
Let the rest of the B1G fend for itself.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Don't forget Gary Danielson.||
But aside from the media as a whole, we have to blame Urban Meyer, the top wiener of them all, for being willing to play the whine game at the cost of cheapening CFB with the nauseating sound of self-interested faux outrage.
We owe him a major kick in the Buck nut to go with the belated one we gave him at the Cap One bowl. We will never be even with him for being the whiner that he is.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Double entendre --||
|1 year 29 weeks ago||I don't think there would be a violation||
unless you swaddled your feet in actual US flags. Representations of familiar motifs from the flag are utilized all the time (I assume legally).
edit -- oops/should have kept reading the comments before commenting. Sorry for the tautology.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Oops.||
I thought I could get it to work, and now my temerity is recorded for posterity.
FWIW, I can't get "preview" to work with embeds.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||But Bo said||
a college football game kicks off at noon. I guess people got up earlier in those days, before electricity. (You ever notice there isn't much to do on a camping trip after sunset?)
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Facetiousness||
is a weapon of unpredictable impact.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||My beef with the East Germans||
was always the East German judges down-voting everybody.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Anybody||
tracking jersey sales?
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Not so fast.||
She was asked what her favorite memory was; she said "lunch."
Cherish your memories while you have them.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||"Castles" and "Sand?"||
This will always be first on my list when I hear those words:
Maybe this will be the epitaph for the Meyer years.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||When I first saw the "cat-organ,"||
I was expecting something like this:
Especially after the OP's lead-in.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||But every team will have a path.||
And the "best" team should be able to show it by winning their conference championship.
If you make the definition of "best" metaphysical enough, no form of knowledge known to man will be enough to detect whether a team is the "best" or not.
I am happy enough leaving "best" to the theologians so that we can at least determine the identity of something resembling the definition of a "champion."
|1 year 31 weeks ago||It has been||
observed and commented on for decades that if you are a member of a dissident (anti-war, ecologist, etc.) organization, the people advocating bombings or other violent acts are usually, almost always, the FBI infiltrators.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Did the FBI||
offer to help them do it?
|1 year 31 weeks ago||There's a term for this:||
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Michael Vick||
may be a good person to explain the fallacies in that argument (although not to do with his primary line of work).
|1 year 31 weeks ago||cigarettes?||
|1 year 31 weeks ago||This nation||
has largely banned lead-based paints and use of asbestos in building insulation, which you mentioned indirectly (or did you -- "environmental contamination") as being analogous cases of long-term continous exposure. So one way or another, these sources of long-term risk were banned; is it your argument that CFB will not end up the same way, or just that civil action for liability will not be the medium for banishment? If the former, do you think it will eventually happen?
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Well,||
now he's somebody else's problem.
And I wonder of his shit will work for a national audience. I am quietly hoping he gets barbecued.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Useful link||
despite the SEC homerism. I had to look to check, and yes, there is a chart of total revenues that is the sum of expenses and profits charted above::
All this aside, it seems to me that M has been successful for 130 years without the clown suits, Arbie's ads on the hockey uniforms, and $4.00 water. I understand the clown suits better after reading this:
A hammer looking for a nail?
As for not bringing the band:
"Brandon says the game will create a lot of buzz around Michigan football at the start of a crucial season." -- It has done this.
“One of the driving forces behind everything we’re doing is to enhance the experience of our student athletes,” -- not so sure not bringing the band does this.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Well||
I think Hoke has changed the tide on the rivalry. Hell people in Ohio are starting to believe him. Never in a million years I would have thought that. Selling Michigan jerseys is a good start.
BTW, are we bracing for some kind of appalling clown suit football uniform for this specialty game?
|1 year 32 weeks ago||"The going-for-it-on-4th-and-3-meme . . .||
is nice, but it's not what drove the vitriol."
When you look back on the carping people were doing during the last Carr (DeBord) years, I think that Scheme and 4th-and-3 were both part of the critic's composite picture of an approach that played not to lose more than it played to win. This was both here and over at MgoBrew, at least. Predictability was half the complaint and losses following conservative play to nurse small leads was the other.
Even thought the focus after the RR hire was on the aggressive sowing of confusion and game-theory RPS choices in the spread offense, I think that the idea of losing a game after punting from the opponent's half of the field was still a part of the negative collective memory that Brian and other UM bloggers hoped to move away from. That and the ominous direction of demographic and other trends at the time pointing toward SEC dominance in a dystopian future, in the event that B1G teams continued to rely on superiority of manpower alone to win games.
I think Brian legitimately thoughtat the time that the Hoke hire was a deliberate return to the good old days of pre-RR, which to him meant both the predictability of play-calling and dysfunctional conservatism in game management imputed to the old school of coaching by him and others. The relative importance of the two aspects of the old school may have become clouded by the arguments over "the spread won't work in the Big Ten." But I think both aspects were important to the people who yearned for a change from the Carr years.
I think Brian truly thinks we have gotten a new deal with Hoke, and his change of heart couldn't be more clearly stated than this:
|1 year 32 weeks ago||"Im really pizzed about this..."||
Is this a play on "pizza?"
|1 year 32 weeks ago||That was at the now-defunct Omni in Atlanta.||
The organization for BB games is probably something other than the MMB, maybe operating under a title like "pep band."
I was at GA State U. at the time, and the GSU pep band was invited to play for free plus a hat and a shirt with the "M" logo (it wasn't "split.")
Despite my distaste at the fact that the UM pep band wasn't brought down for the games, I talked my friends in the GSU pep band into smuggling me in with them. I am a professional cellist, but I had 6 weeks experience on trombone from a summer class in Brass Methods, which was enough to get me through the trombone part to "The Victors (an M-fan-in-Diaspora's dream-come-true)" and "Tequila."
I eventually wore the hat and the shirt out.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Yes but||
Michigan has had success in athletics before they came and since. Michigan does not need to latch on to the fame, or infamy, that attaches to UM athletes that sources from outside the athletic activity itself. President Ford doesn't have a number retired in football because he was president. Several people believe that Michigan basketball should judge the merits of people who came through the program solely with respect to them as Michigan basketball players. As Judge Broomfield said at the Gandhi trial in 1921, "the law is no respector of persons, and is interested only in their character with respect to the law."
The place for acknowledgements concerning highlighting issues in modern collegiate sports, within the African American community and inner cities in general, and being caught up in the zeitgeist of the time is in TV specials, books, possibly college courses, and in all other media that discuss cultural history, anthropology and sociology, but possibly not the ceiling at Crisler, where many people still also have a memory of the long, painful hangover that was a part of that surreal trip through the eye of the cultural hurricane. The Fab Five, ultimately, did not necessarily help solidify or strengthen the hold of Michigan basketball on the planet, and people will differ on whether they want to remind themselves of what the Fab Five era did to the program.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Just because:|
|1 year 33 weeks ago||and that made me think of . . .|
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Or||
just post the url and let someone else do it.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||The comments||
on the Matt Hayes article aren't very friendly to him.
Cause for pause: one commenter picked out this Matt Hayes opus from 2009 as evidence that his work fails to stand the test of time.
All this aside, I still don't think you can go wrong regarding Myer with the deepest suspicion.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Is this still||
from the '79 MSU game?
For some reason I get a feel that it's older, like maybe OSU in '74 (or was that with Joe Paterno?) or '73. How long did they wear the yellow jackets?
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Couldn't believe my ears||
when I heard the "Devin Gardner Camping" vid begin with the opening horn lick from Dusty Springfield's "You don't have to say you love me." Sadly, it was over before the DS vocal enters.
For those who are interested, here is the studio version from YouTube (no video):
and, I believe, a live performance from 1967 (wretched sound, hence I gave the studio version first):
These would be good lyrics for a documentary on U-Alabama recruiting practices.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Although||
maybe it's time to raise the posting threshold to 14,000 points just to be sure.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Seconded.||
Bette Nesmith Graham:
Apparently, LiquidPaper(r) smudged the ink when used on photostatic copies (?!).
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Certainly||
they would flip to M the minute a slot in Hoke's recruiting class became available.
How are the UM T-shirt sales going in Columbus?
|1 year 40 weeks ago||"Problem||
Is it just me?
|1 year 41 weeks ago||It was||
an isolated event; football emerged from 3- and 4-loss seasons (out of 9 games) for this high point between 1948 and the coming of Bo (1968 was a two-loss year, but featured the 50-14 waxing by Woody and his failed attempt for 2 at the end of the game), and then went back.
UM BB was in the NIT repeatedly in the early '70's, while Bo had us showing up undefeated and untied to the OSU game five years in a row. Bo only won one of those OSU games before losing in the Rose Bowl to Stanford. I still have nightmares about it.
Football-wise, almost the most satisfying stretch was destroying OSU's MNC hopes on an almost annual basis in the '90's, as Woody once did to us.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Original wisdom||
via an alternative source:
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Deserves embed:||
btw: 15 likes, 9 dislikes.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Here goes:|
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Do you mean||
Oops, now I find this from IMDb's "Memorable quotes [sic.]" from Blades of Glory:
At least the Bathroom Buckeye didn't film using a bottle.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||I think||
I ended up here by accident while looking for the official UM football site. I was a lurker starting toward the end of the '07 season, and was here for Brian's lengthy dispute of the Harbaugh allegations and the impressive (un-moderated?) thread of comments that followed. I finally signed up shortly after the '09 season to comment on a thread about historic uniforms.