History lesson 1962 -- the sequel (1964)

Submitted by bjk on December 10th, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Using Brian's revisit of the 1962 season as a point of departure, I ask, "what might you expect next after two disappointing football seasons in a row?," using 1962-3 as the historical parallel to our tribulations of 2008-9.

Here is collection of two Wolverine Historian tributes to the 1964-5 football team for those who might want to draw encouragement from the past.

1964-Michigan (Big Ten)

9/26 vs. Air Force (4-5-1) W 24 7
10/3 vs. Navy (3-6-1) W 21 0
10/10 @ *Michigan State (4-5) W 17 10
10/17 vs. *Purdue (6-3) L 20 21
10/24 vs. *Minnesota (5-4) W 19 12
10/31 vs. *Northwestern (3-6) W 35 0
11/7 vs. *Illinois (6-3) W 21 6
11/14 @ *Iowa (3-6) W 34 20
11/21 @ *Ohio State (7-2) W 10 0
1/1 vs. Oregon State (8-3) W 34 7 @ Pasadena, CA Rose Bowl
 

9-1-0

  235 83

You never know.

BTW, RE "styling," these away unis are my favorite. Call me a crustacean.

Comments

goblueritzy92

December 10th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^

You cannot even use this as an example because it's not like the coaching staff is the same. It is an entirely different situation. There is no proof that the same progression from season to season will happen now.

bjk

December 10th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^

The head coach is the same for all three seasons in both cases. Is it your point that the coaching staff '62-4 isn't the same as the coaching staff '08-10?

Or do you mean that '62 isn't Elliot's first year as is '08 for RR?

You're right, nothing "proven," except that two bad seasons don't automatically condemn you to a third one. If they did, then by the method of mathematical induction, all teams with two consecutive bad seasons would fail forever.

Your point about using historical parallels with caution is valid.

goblueritzy92

December 11th, 2009 at 12:04 AM ^

I'm just saying that because we did good after 2 bad seasons over 40 years ago doesn't mean that we will have a good one next year. Say, if you were going to use RR's progression at former schools, which has been used a lot here, then you would have a valid point.