May 24th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

Apparently there is a Lloyd come of age crowd, maybe a Rodriguez come of age crowd, and a Bo / Mo come of age crowd, and the acceptability of helmet stickers runs along those lines.

My view, if the team thinks getting stickers for significant individual contributions to the team is something they want to do or try out - then it is OK by me.

We seem to be having a lot of tradition issues these past few days ... what a whiny lot we are.


May 24th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^

Stickers when your a freshman and as you start to contribute and make plays or start you get to take a sticker off. When your finished you would be recognized as a full fledged wolverine.

Section 1

May 24th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^

I see no particular reason to defer to the players.  Judging by some of their tattoos, I wouldn't let most of them decorate my bathroom, much less tamper with one of the University's most iconic brand images.


May 24th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^

You speak of the helmets as though they are your property.  If they belong to anyone, it's the people who wear them (and, in spite of the protection they offer, often get seriously hurt).  

I'm not a huge fan of the stickers, but if the players want them, I can't really argue.  Hey - at least in September, the helmets will be "clean." 

Section 1

May 24th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^

I'd never claim ownership.  It should never be a matter of personal ownership.  In fact I think I made it clear as to ownership:

one of the University's most iconic brand images.

You, on the other hand, speak of the helmets as though they are the current players' property.  ("If they belong to anyone, it's the current players.")  I'd reject that view, just as surely as you'd (correctly) reject anybody's claim that they were their "property."  And for that matter, some of the players have some rather idiosyncratic ideas about personal decoration:

I think I'd rather let the Athletic Department, and not the players, decide on the decorating.


May 24th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

I know it's tough for a lot of people to hear but Bo did make two mistakes in his lifetime.  The first was helmet stickers.  The second was his choice for breakfast on April 14, 1953.  He went with pancakes over the Denver omelet.


May 24th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^

It's an individual preference that will vary from fan to fan, and perhaps from generation to generation. I always liked them, but my serious UM football fandom began in 1969, Bo's first season. Those who "came of age" during the Carr years may well feel entirely differently about the way they look.

To suggest that they're contradictory to team values at the same time one is venerating an iconic, Hall of Fame coach whose entire approach was the epitome of "team-oriented" is nonsensical.


May 24th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^

You might be right.

I do hate the look of the helmet stickers first and foremost.  Everytime I see other teams with the stickers, I think it looks tacky and I'm grateful we don't use them.

Perhaps I was being lazy when I referenced the "team" quote above. 

Regardless of what Bo thought about the stickers, I personally believe that the stickers weaken the team concept.  I'm all for internal recognition among teammates and the coaches for great plays but I think that: (1) making it public; and (2) making it "permanent" (for the season) both place way too much emphasis on individual aspects over the team.  Also, it just seems petty to me -- as if players cared more about stickers than wins.  

I understand that other fans may disagree and ultimately it is probably just a matter of taste



May 24th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^

Well said, Don.  You're absolutely right.

I "came of age" during the Carr years, and I, personally, like a clean, uniform Michigan helmet.  I don't like stickers obscuring the design.

Since the fanbase is more heavily weighted toward the Bo generations, we might see that the stickers would be well received.

At this point, I say just keep the status quo.  Making a change might create a pointless problem with fans, whereas most are happy enough without them.

Section 1

May 24th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

No brand logos on the jerseys.  Less than 100 words of warning-label information on the helmet.  No flags, etc.  No "M" on the pants.  No Arby's patches.  No tribute patches.  I'm tired of all the clutter.  I don't want to do things the way they do them at Ohio State or Oregon State or Oklahoma State.

Some things we are stuck with, like an adidas 3-stripe logo, because they pay us about $7m a year.

No helmet sitckers, thank you very much.


May 24th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the helmet stickers, but this is not one of them.

The little Adidas logo is too much for you?  That is literally the only major aesthetic change (along with the stickers and the colors, which have changed at least three times since then anyway).  There are no Arby's patches or memorial patches. 

Flags?  Was it for the 9/11 game?


May 24th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^

Wins are all that matter in the end. Why not try out the stickers for a year or two. If they look awfull then they can just stop using them again.


May 24th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^


In all seriousness - we had helmet stickers for damn near 30 years under one of the damn near best college coaches of all fucking time.  Why the hate?  BRING THEM BACK.  DIG THEM UP.


May 24th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^

If the team wants them as a motivator how can one argue.
Personally, I would want to seperate ourselves from anything tosu does, which includes displaying individual rewards by way of helmet decals.


May 24th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

Bo knew what he was doing. There is a mental aspect to any game that goes beyond knowing how to play it and having physical skills. The stickers serve two purposes:

Lining up against a guy in a winged helmet covered with stickers could be all the more intimidating. It is not so much for player pride, but to get the opponent thinking.

It also serves as inspiration to the younger players who haven't got as much game time to work that much harder on the field.

So I don't care how the helmet looks. If the team wins, the helmet looks good.

Edit: This is a bit OT, but I want to add that Hoke's got the new commits excited; how cool is it that the guys who went to the Columbus football camp wore M hats? And in the words of one, wanted to "represent our school!" Our school! These are guys who haven't spent a day on campus as students, yet they're already imbued with Team!


May 24th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

Michigan employed helmet award stickers from 1969 to 1994 and went 238-61-8 (.775 winning pct).

Michigan stopped using helmet award stickers in 1995 to present and has gone 137-62 (.688 winning pct.)

From a lucky charms perspective, the math demonstrates that helmet stickers magically lead to more victories.

So roll out the helmet stickers with great fanfare and without further delay.




May 24th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

I started rooting for Michigan in 1969.  Unfortunately, that was the same year I graduated from High School.  (Get off my lawn!)  All that being said I hate the idea of helmet stickers from a purely aesthetic view point.  


Section 1

May 24th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

More schools have "discontinued," than are currently using, stickers:

Is it not pretty clear, that the helmets that are the best and most iconic designs, don't need stickers (Michigan, Texas, Navy, Oregon, UCLA, USC); and that the schools with the plainest and/or least traditional designs go for stickers to give themselves some interest?  (Michigan State - which changes its helmets every other year; Ohio State - whose helmet design dates back to 1968, and looks like it; Cal-Berkley - such a great school with such tacky football helmets; Georgia Bay Packers with their stolen G and their dog bones; SMU - still celebrating their Death Penalty with skull and cross-bone helmet stickers.)

We really don't want to be part of the "helmet sticker" set.