i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
- Member for
- 5 years 18 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 days 4 hours ago||To clarify,||
"Boats'n'Hoes" is not an effort to take away from "The Victors" or any other traditional song played by the Michigan Marching Band.
We see the song as a vehicle to drive unparalleled interaction between students, alumni, faculty, and fans worldwide.
|4 days 13 hours ago||Looks like a temporary conflict||
between their tactical headline-grabbing function and their long-term institutional propaganda function.
I wonder if the concussion narrative could continue to gain traction, regardless of what facts show, once ESPN decided it was no longer in their long-term interest to flog it?
|4 days 13 hours ago||Logged in||
Never forget; never forgive.
|5 days 13 hours ago||Update.||
Now that's more like it.
|5 days 14 hours ago||Is AIRBHG||
part of a package deal with Rudock?
|5 days 14 hours ago||You have violated||
every rule of the time-space continuum:
|5 days 15 hours ago||I hope||
this is a thing.
Per post below, establishing Pantone 7406 C sounded more like historical reconstruction than negotiation.
It would be interesting to hear the full story on AD incorporation, or not, of UM Brand Standard. This would spare cranky old-timers such as myself the sight of the by-now habitual neon highlighter depiction of UM school colors.
I hope you are right.
|5 days 15 hours ago||Don't tuck your shirt||
inside your underwear.
Even though things don't feel as secure that way.
This will also keep your underwear from showing above the cumberbund on your tux pants.
|5 days 15 hours ago||I doubt||
it is the Pantone 7406C apparently painstakingly reconstructed from the fabric patches laid down for all time by the special committee of the University Senate in 1912.
If any debate exists, it should be around why we aren't using the Official Brand Standard Maize already established.
|5 days 15 hours ago||I assume||
all that is where this comes from.
Doesn't look like there is any room for debate. It doesn't seem the AD is bound by this in any way.
The decisions on uniform(z) colors must be coming from somewhere in the AD, independent of the UM Style Guide and the swathes from 1912.
|6 days 10 hours ago||Sort of nice||
considering the snake-oil we pulled on Ferentz.
Maybe he's relying on Delaney to put the kabosh on it.
|6 days 10 hours ago||Damn.||
That's exactly right.
+1 for "Dr. Bronner's."
|1 week 7 hours ago||No more||
|1 week 7 hours ago||Nobody||
has had a black-and-white TV in 30 years, so the rationale for white jerseys is gone.
Let teams wear their real colors.
If there is a clash of colors, say, with Delaware or Cal-Berkeley, then I vote for this:
|1 week 1 day ago||"Trampling on tradition"||
I got that vibe the first time he banished "the proudest uniform in college football [Bo]" for some merchandising-driven eyesore and called it a "throwback jersey."
|1 week 3 days ago||Well,||
I like it.
BTW, "Capitalization" is not a proper noun, is it? I think your FORUM topic is incorrectly capitalized, per you.
Now, what else can I bitch about?
|1 week 3 days ago||Harbaugh||
has changed the tide of the rivalry.
|1 week 3 days ago||I could see||
the 1969-74 ones.
MVictors has suggested this one as well (MVictors 12-2-11), although maybe in jest:
BTW, in answer to those who say Bo derived the stickers from Woody, the same article has the following:
|1 week 3 days ago||Amen!||
Bring back "Green Bay Gold" ( = "maize").
|1 week 3 days ago||"It's not a beauty pagent out there."||
Nothing says "Lytle would play" like:
|1 week 3 days ago||You mean||
|1 week 3 days ago||I like the ones||
without the wolverines on them. There's no way you can make sense of the wolverine likenesses from more than 6 inches away; they just clutter the visual.
|1 week 3 days ago||'84||
wasn't the greatest of years anyway.
Although it would be only slightly below average by the standards of the last seven years.
|1 week 3 days ago||I find||
a plethora of there/their, its/it's, 've/of ("would of helped") to keep the technicians hopping.
In order to keep a lower profile, I find myself turning down most of these opportunities.
|1 week 3 days ago||I think there is||
a lack of clarity in the concept of "rules" like this.
I think that inflammatory, contentious or rude comments are frowned on in general, whether they pertain to religion or what-have-you.
My understanding of MgoFAQ is that even a polite and informative advocacy, say, of Obama's or Gingrich's farm policy as it relates to natural turf in the B1G would be subject to scrutiny under "no politics" because of the destructive potential of partisan political discussion in general; but religion, not so much.
I remember discussions here of Tebow's advocacy of For The Family (I think it was called) that went into supreme court cases and other examinations of when the practice of religion veered into political advocacy in the direction of political coercion, and clearly different world-views were heard, and I don't recall that anything got truly ugly or hateful; it was a test that the MgoBoard weathered successfully. But I understand how this could go wrong.
Edit: I also recall now that the whole thread was deleted in the end. So in practical terms, "No Religion" is somewhat real at the moderator level, I think, back in 2009 or whenever that happened.
I think there is FAQ discussion about being a shit-head in general; IMO this is where attention should be when it comes to blog citizenship.
|1 week 3 days ago||Beat me to it.||
That's what I get for commenting at the end of Page 1.
I would just edit my own comment to acknowledge your priority, but that shoots my carefully crafted formatting all to ... a very dark place.
|1 week 3 days ago||Edit.||
Apologies to the one up-vote.
The above skirts the edges of a political grievance, which is contra to FAQ statute.
See below, there is no FAQ statute contra discussion of religion, although several assert one with religious fervor. It is clearly a perception and perhaps irreversable usage.
I would choose to avoid inflammatory comments in general although not all truthful statements are popular.
But if you move the argument from religion to politics, there is an actual statute there. Naughty Naughty.
|1 week 3 days ago||"no politics/religion rule."||
Actually, more an informal convention than a rule. Don't expect to find "no religion" in the FAQ.
So supplement your reading of the FAQ with a healthy dose of lurking if you want to be safe. Lots touchiness lately.
|1 week 3 days ago||"Taste||
|1 week 3 days ago||He just got here.||
Don't be trying to retire Harbaugh already.
I say he sticks around twice as long as Paterno, with no scandals, and as a 120-year-old man, is still bouncing and rolling around on the turf to show proper shotgun snap lace-alignment and release technique.
Meanwhile, 3 generations of Harbaughs will be ready and waiting to take over if and when.
Only then will it be time to have the succession discussion.