That was the 1995 loss to Maine in the frozen four. The one where ESPN ran out of satelite time and insead of being able to watch the third overtime they went ot some goddamn golf tournament. Before we could find a working radio the game was over and twenty minutes later they showed the game winner on sportscenter. That was the most crushing loss I've experienced as a Michigan hockey fan. Both of them we should've won. Both we didn't. But that Maine loss... man... it still pisses me off.
besides ensuring that Michigan and Ohio State play every year, that both are still in the Big Ten, that the Maize and Blue go up against the Scarlet and Gray, that the Block "M" and Script "Ohio" appear on the field, that the games are played in the Big House and the Horseshoe, that the bands play Carmen Ohio and the Victors, that the fans care about the outcome, that the players care about the outcome, that the game is still on national television, that the anticipation of playing your rival make the work week impossible to concentrate on, that the smack talk between the fan bases never ceases, that the teams still run out of the Tunnel at separate times, that we still remember the games that have gone past and dream about the ones in the future, that you still root for anyone playing OSU, that no matter who is coaching Ohio State he's still the devil, that if you beat OSU it makes your season worthwhile, or that you still cheer just as loud for Michigan to beat OSU if we're 3-8 or 11-0?
But since you bring it up, and as I've already mentioned in comments below, Bama and Auburn hated each other so much they didn't play for 40 years. So when they feel like playing, you're right, it's the last week of the regular season. And talking with Bama and Auburn fans I don't get the impression they care at all when they play. they just hate one another. The final score is what is important. If someone goes to the SEC championship game, it's a strawberry on the icing on the cake. But the cake and its icing remain delicious.
The Iron Bowl is the Iron Bowl because of who plays in it. Not because when it is played. And that will remain true of The Game if or when the Big Ten decides to move it.
Look, my position is that there's no right answer here and I'm looking for positives. Glass half full, etc. Regardless of what happens, I just don't see this as the end of the world.
Auburn and Bama weren't split up, like Michigan and OSU are being. If Michigan and OSU end up in the same division, this whole argument is irrelevant. What we're dealing with is two powers getting split, and that's the best available comparison.
I asked the writers of Roll Bama Roll that same question about Auburn, and they told me it doesn't matter when they play. They just hate one another. They hated each other so much they didn't play one another for 40 years.
I'm at a loss as to why this got personal as well, but I'm the guy responding to Brian twice calling my opinion "the dumbest fucking thing" he'd ever seen a Michigan fan write. At a certain point you get tired of it. I'm not mad at Brian having a different opinion than me, I'm upset that he couldn't express his own opinion without being insulting and demeaning.
Tennessee and Bama are/were two annual powers who have a horrible, hate filled rivalry that was set on a particular date. These are real, comparable institutions with passionate, downright crazy fanbases. I use them as an example of the type of passionate fanbases that were and are affected by change, change exactly like what Michigan is going through. My point is, these two schools experienced what Michigan may experience and came out fine. That is my point. Their rivalry remains vivrant and passionate. Splitting them up wasn't the end of the world. Take it FWIW, but it's certianly a better analogy than Ole miss/MSU or the oregon schools (especially since they don't have a championship game yet).
As to your other point, no, I am not for changing this. I wish the Big Ten had stayed at ten schools and we weren't having this debate. But we did. We are. And that can't be undone. So I'm looking at this from a practical standpoint. Change is coming and there's little we can do about it. I'm suggesting that this isn't the end of the world and we try to embrace the core tenant of the rivalry, that the two school hate one another.
This isn't as bad as it could be and we don't know how this will eventually shake out. Maybe the conference realigns in five years. Maybe it doesn't. But no matter what, the Game as we know it is going to change.
I've talked with Bama fans, Auburn fans, and Tennessee fans about the effect of moving their rivalry games, and to a person everyone has said they STILL hate each other. Your argument that they MUST play at the end of the season for the hate to remain palpable is just nonsense:
Would it matter less as an October game to be followed by three or four more? Necessarily yes. Is that the worst thing in the world? Yes.
I find it intersting that you site two rivalries that pale in comparison to Michigan Ohio State or Tennesse Alabama. The Vol Bama match up is so much more appropriate. Traditionally, Tennessee and Bama traditionally met on the 3rd Saturday in October, but they don't any more. Hell expansion put them in different divisions. That hasn't changed the importance of that game to Tennessee or Bama fans. They still hate each other, and the game still matters.
Personally, I don't care where Ohio State falls on the calendar as long as we play them in a conference game. The important thing is that we play them, not when we play them. If the teams end up in the same division and The Game remains unchanged, I'm fine with that too. The Big Ten has made that decision already, and regardless of what it is, we'll all have to live with it.
But what is ironic, at least to me, is that you were one of the great champions of expansion and a championship game. You promoted it with your personal understanding that your world view wouldn't be changed. The world would revolve around your concept of the Big Ten. It doesn't work that way, and any catostrophic change like conference expansion has consequences for everyone. Including Michigan. You got exactly what you ordered, but now you're complaining about the fine print you refused to acknowledge was there.
Lastly, your lack of tolerance for other viewpoints is really, really stunning. In every argument there are at least two sides, and usually more. There are plenty of hard core Michigan fans who believe something different that you do on this subject. Your complete disregard for their opinions, and in fact disdain for their opinions, insults the very nature of what many Michigan alumni hold dear, that whether you agree with it or not everyone's opinion is valuable.
Instead, you've decided that your point of view is the only one there is. Not only is that one of the dumbest positions you've ever taken, it's insulting to many other Michigan grads and fans. But then again, you've made clear that you don't care what other people think.
I never realized MGo had been taken over by Fox News. Say hi to Glenn Beck for me, Brian.
To say that the Championship teams from Alabama and Florida are winning because they're massaging egos is a gargantuan stretch. Saban and Meyer are reputed to be two of the hardest nastiest sumbitches on the planet come football season. I don't think the "they keep talent" happy line holds water when you think about the number of 4 and 5 stars riding the pine on both sqauds. To the contrary, they make those kids compete. The difference seems to be kids buying in to the competition. They WANT to compete. Many of the Michigan flameouts, all the way back to Carr, seem to revolve around players expecting their position to be handed to them because of what they did in high school. Before we start saying how much better Carr was at handling these players, remember, he would literally throw transfer papers at players and some of them took him up on it.
Maybe some of the players Michigan has targeted and recruited aren't as mentally prepared for D1 football and the demands that entails. But I don't think you can say that Bama and Florida's approach is to codle people and that's why they win. That's way too much of a stretch.
Ware is one of the least informed analysts on the WWL. I'd listen to Mark May reading the phonebook before I'd listen to anything that comes out of Ware's mouth. He's the Joe Morgan of college football.
If the sumamries I've read are on target, only the off the skate goal and the over the boards d-man clear make sense.
The rest range from meh (cages/shields) to ridiculous. The idea that a team has to clear the zone on a delayed penalty is a pretty drastic change to a rule that isn't broken. The Miami goal wave-off was the result of a referee not doing his job rather than the rule. As stated above, if he legitimately lost site of the puck, he has to blow to the whistle. But changing the rule in response to a ref screwing that up is a bad idea. Likewise, the clear the zone proposal on a delayed penalty makes little sense. It would end up delaying the game more than speed it up and serves no clear purpose. Possession of the puck is, and has always been, logical. The offending team has possesion and by virute of possession a chance to advance the puck into an offensive posture, blowing the whistle stops that. For the team going on the PP, they have the opportunity to play 6-5 and capitalize until they surrender the puck. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Pretty quick release, nice footwork to set a throw. If he can complete those quick slants and rollouts with regularity, man, RRod did even better recruiting QBs than we gave him credit for.
This question is solely about seat assignments.
How are they determining where you sit? Are there a pile of unused seats at the top of the bowl? I know you're not going to get anywhere near the middle of the field. I'm just curious how they're determining priority, and where they're stuffing people.
Thoughts? Insights?
"demise of print media -> restructuring of "news" distribution -> "access" for all"
In the long run perhaps "access for all" may occur. But I doubt it. People in possession of information are always attempting to regulate how that information is distributed and who gets the first crack at it. Look at Schembechler hall under Lloyd.
I disagree that Bloggers are mostly or solely aggregators of information. For the most part they are sources of commentary that provide new aggregation as a by-product of their desire to comment on the news. Frankly, it's hard to put together all the news that's fit to print or post. It's much easier to pen a 1000 diatribe that scour the internet for good information to provide to everyone.
The transition your seeing is that Blogs are beginning to provide the news rather than the other way around. newspapers, for all their faults were the original aggregators. They lost their way when they focused on commentary rather than news. Now things are going in the inverse direction. Blogs provide news now instead of just commentary. Look no further than MGoBlog's coverage of Lloyd's replacement and the bumbles and stumbles prior to RichRod. Mgoblog was a destination for information rather than commentary, whereas prior to this sure you'd show up for a UV but you really came here for Brian's writing and commentary.
What's happening is that blogs with the ability to fill that void in information are beginning to do so. But a lot of sites that don't have the time or energy to do so are dealing with fewer resources to comment on.
What you'll ultimately see is the same limited access to information (probably less), just different people/sites/aliens delivering it.
You summed up a portion of my point in your last paragraph, but not all of it. Your link above to my article doesn't work so I'll provide it here. We're losing more than you think, but that's not to say that gap won't be filled. From my piece:
"In the end, what path will bloggers take? Will they become more specialized, more compartmentalized, more professional? As Graham Filler of The Rivalry, Esq., pointed out, blogs may well start bringing in campus reporters, hockey, baseball, football and other specialists to comment and provide insight on a limited part of their coverage spectrum... Blogs are now breaking the news. Scooping the press. Getting out commentary and analysis before anyone else. Somehow, blogs have adapted before the changes in the media have really hit home."
People will still be there to ask questions in the long run, I have no doubt of this. But those who ask the questions will change, and that will be dependent upon the universities who allow access to ask those questions. I know you disagree with this, but I think a lot of the information we take for granted will shrink during the transition before it finds its new outlet. It's the period of change I was focusing on, not the long term.
Also, comparing UFR to post-game columns doesn't fit.
"When has a newspaper ever published an honest assessment of a player's performance? I'm not talking single-sentence 600 word columns written by provocateurs here, I'm talking something along the lines of UFR, if less obsessed:"
While you may not agree with the style, someone calling out a coach or a player is the same in newsprint as it is in a box with a Vidler link. The phrases "torched," "beaten badly," "mistake filled," etc... routinely pepper print accounts of Michigan games. Anything describing Steve Brown in spring practice makes ample reference to his horrific 2008 season. UFR is unique in its thoroughness, but not unique in taking coaches and players to task. You're right, I've never seen a column as direct or complete as UFR in discussing a player. But that's not to say a newspaper doesn't tell it like it is because they don't print Sheridan=DEATH.
Does anyone have a clue what Ortmann is doing in this play? Dorrstien's on his ass, molk almost looks like he's pulling and Ortmann's five yards up field. Something ain't right.
I'd be curious about the impact former LB coach steve Szabo had. I
was a big fan and was dissapointed he was let go. He only had two years
at Michigan and his first full time Linebacking class was supposed to
be the Hill/Weathspoon/Fitz/demons class. He had pretty good NFL
connections from what I recall, so I'm somewhat sceptical that he
wasn't too good a recruiter at that position.
Linebacker
recruiting took a dive up till 2007, but the 2008 class for linebackers
prior to transfers and clearinghouse issues was pretty good. Also
wasn't Mixon a 4*?
I'm curious how the constant shift in
coaches has affected recruiting that position as well. What is it three
new linebacker coaches in four to five years? That can't help.
Anyone got any thoughts on Szabo and shuffle since Herrrrrrrrrmannnnnnn left?
That's one of the saddest photos I've ever seen. Think about the two kids in that photo. Both were (eventually) accepted at outstanding schools. Both had tremendous futures ahead of them if they could just walk a straight line. Hand, unfortunately, decided to go looking for love in all the wrong places. Slocum, well, he walked out.
But that photo has so much joy and hope, and to know the end result four years later is just crushing.
Recent Comments
That was the 1995 loss to Maine in the frozen four. The one where ESPN ran out of satelite time and insead of being able to watch the third overtime they went ot some goddamn golf tournament. Before we could find a working radio the game was over and twenty minutes later they showed the game winner on sportscenter. That was the most crushing loss I've experienced as a Michigan hockey fan. Both of them we should've won. Both we didn't. But that Maine loss... man... it still pisses me off.
I needed an extra for the game and managed to get a seat right behind my season tickets.
AFLAC!
besides ensuring that Michigan and Ohio State play every year, that both are still in the Big Ten, that the Maize and Blue go up against the Scarlet and Gray, that the Block "M" and Script "Ohio" appear on the field, that the games are played in the Big House and the Horseshoe, that the bands play Carmen Ohio and the Victors, that the fans care about the outcome, that the players care about the outcome, that the game is still on national television, that the anticipation of playing your rival make the work week impossible to concentrate on, that the smack talk between the fan bases never ceases, that the teams still run out of the Tunnel at separate times, that we still remember the games that have gone past and dream about the ones in the future, that you still root for anyone playing OSU, that no matter who is coaching Ohio State he's still the devil, that if you beat OSU it makes your season worthwhile, or that you still cheer just as loud for Michigan to beat OSU if we're 3-8 or 11-0?
But since you bring it up, and as I've already mentioned in comments below, Bama and Auburn hated each other so much they didn't play for 40 years. So when they feel like playing, you're right, it's the last week of the regular season. And talking with Bama and Auburn fans I don't get the impression they care at all when they play. they just hate one another. The final score is what is important. If someone goes to the SEC championship game, it's a strawberry on the icing on the cake. But the cake and its icing remain delicious.
The Iron Bowl is the Iron Bowl because of who plays in it. Not because when it is played. And that will remain true of The Game if or when the Big Ten decides to move it.
had to +1 that.
Look, my position is that there's no right answer here and I'm looking for positives. Glass half full, etc. Regardless of what happens, I just don't see this as the end of the world.
Auburn and Bama weren't split up, like Michigan and OSU are being. If Michigan and OSU end up in the same division, this whole argument is irrelevant. What we're dealing with is two powers getting split, and that's the best available comparison.
I asked the writers of Roll Bama Roll that same question about Auburn, and they told me it doesn't matter when they play. They just hate one another. They hated each other so much they didn't play one another for 40 years.
There's your answer.
I'm at a loss as to why this got personal as well, but I'm the guy responding to Brian twice calling my opinion "the dumbest fucking thing" he'd ever seen a Michigan fan write. At a certain point you get tired of it. I'm not mad at Brian having a different opinion than me, I'm upset that he couldn't express his own opinion without being insulting and demeaning.
Tennessee and Bama are/were two annual powers who have a horrible, hate filled rivalry that was set on a particular date. These are real, comparable institutions with passionate, downright crazy fanbases. I use them as an example of the type of passionate fanbases that were and are affected by change, change exactly like what Michigan is going through. My point is, these two schools experienced what Michigan may experience and came out fine. That is my point. Their rivalry remains vivrant and passionate. Splitting them up wasn't the end of the world. Take it FWIW, but it's certianly a better analogy than Ole miss/MSU or the oregon schools (especially since they don't have a championship game yet).
As to your other point, no, I am not for changing this. I wish the Big Ten had stayed at ten schools and we weren't having this debate. But we did. We are. And that can't be undone. So I'm looking at this from a practical standpoint. Change is coming and there's little we can do about it. I'm suggesting that this isn't the end of the world and we try to embrace the core tenant of the rivalry, that the two school hate one another.
This isn't as bad as it could be and we don't know how this will eventually shake out. Maybe the conference realigns in five years. Maybe it doesn't. But no matter what, the Game as we know it is going to change.
I've talked with Bama fans, Auburn fans, and Tennessee fans about the effect of moving their rivalry games, and to a person everyone has said they STILL hate each other. Your argument that they MUST play at the end of the season for the hate to remain palpable is just nonsense:
I find it intersting that you site two rivalries that pale in comparison to Michigan Ohio State or Tennesse Alabama. The Vol Bama match up is so much more appropriate. Traditionally, Tennessee and Bama traditionally met on the 3rd Saturday in October, but they don't any more. Hell expansion put them in different divisions. That hasn't changed the importance of that game to Tennessee or Bama fans. They still hate each other, and the game still matters.
Personally, I don't care where Ohio State falls on the calendar as long as we play them in a conference game. The important thing is that we play them, not when we play them. If the teams end up in the same division and The Game remains unchanged, I'm fine with that too. The Big Ten has made that decision already, and regardless of what it is, we'll all have to live with it.
But what is ironic, at least to me, is that you were one of the great champions of expansion and a championship game. You promoted it with your personal understanding that your world view wouldn't be changed. The world would revolve around your concept of the Big Ten. It doesn't work that way, and any catostrophic change like conference expansion has consequences for everyone. Including Michigan. You got exactly what you ordered, but now you're complaining about the fine print you refused to acknowledge was there.
Lastly, your lack of tolerance for other viewpoints is really, really stunning. In every argument there are at least two sides, and usually more. There are plenty of hard core Michigan fans who believe something different that you do on this subject. Your complete disregard for their opinions, and in fact disdain for their opinions, insults the very nature of what many Michigan alumni hold dear, that whether you agree with it or not everyone's opinion is valuable.
Instead, you've decided that your point of view is the only one there is. Not only is that one of the dumbest positions you've ever taken, it's insulting to many other Michigan grads and fans. But then again, you've made clear that you don't care what other people think.
I never realized MGo had been taken over by Fox News. Say hi to Glenn Beck for me, Brian.
To say that the Championship teams from Alabama and Florida are winning because they're massaging egos is a gargantuan stretch. Saban and Meyer are reputed to be two of the hardest nastiest sumbitches on the planet come football season. I don't think the "they keep talent" happy line holds water when you think about the number of 4 and 5 stars riding the pine on both sqauds. To the contrary, they make those kids compete. The difference seems to be kids buying in to the competition. They WANT to compete. Many of the Michigan flameouts, all the way back to Carr, seem to revolve around players expecting their position to be handed to them because of what they did in high school. Before we start saying how much better Carr was at handling these players, remember, he would literally throw transfer papers at players and some of them took him up on it.
Maybe some of the players Michigan has targeted and recruited aren't as mentally prepared for D1 football and the demands that entails. But I don't think you can say that Bama and Florida's approach is to codle people and that's why they win. That's way too much of a stretch.
If the sumamries I've read are on target, only the off the skate goal and the over the boards d-man clear make sense.
The rest range from meh (cages/shields) to ridiculous. The idea that a team has to clear the zone on a delayed penalty is a pretty drastic change to a rule that isn't broken. The Miami goal wave-off was the result of a referee not doing his job rather than the rule. As stated above, if he legitimately lost site of the puck, he has to blow to the whistle. But changing the rule in response to a ref screwing that up is a bad idea. Likewise, the clear the zone proposal on a delayed penalty makes little sense. It would end up delaying the game more than speed it up and serves no clear purpose. Possession of the puck is, and has always been, logical. The offending team has possesion and by virute of possession a chance to advance the puck into an offensive posture, blowing the whistle stops that. For the team going on the PP, they have the opportunity to play 6-5 and capitalize until they surrender the puck. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Thanks for that Brian. I'm going to go throw up now.
Dave
Maizenbrew.com
Does anyone have a clue what Ortmann is doing in this play? Dorrstien's on his ass, molk almost looks like he's pulling and Ortmann's five yards up field. Something ain't right.
Anyone?
I'd be curious about the impact former LB coach steve Szabo had. I was a big fan and was dissapointed he was let go. He only had two years at Michigan and his first full time Linebacking class was supposed to be the Hill/Weathspoon/Fitz/demons class. He had pretty good NFL connections from what I recall, so I'm somewhat sceptical that he wasn't too good a recruiter at that position.
Linebacker recruiting took a dive up till 2007, but the 2008 class for linebackers prior to transfers and clearinghouse issues was pretty good. Also wasn't Mixon a 4*?
I'm curious how the constant shift in coaches has affected recruiting that position as well. What is it three new linebacker coaches in four to five years? That can't help.
Anyone got any thoughts on Szabo and shuffle since Herrrrrrrrrmannnnnnn left?