September 29th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

Yes. The title is pretty damn inaccurate; I would bet there are other players he could have talked to besides Mike Hart who would feel differently. And the coaches would undoubtedly disagree that it's unimportant. But why let that get in the way of writing an article that Mikey desperately hopes raises some controversy?

He also has the most annoyingly nasal voice I've ever heard on the radio. At least he got a goddamn haircut.


September 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

Is it just me or does his picture look like the mugshot of a sexual offender?

Why is he even asking Mike Hart about it anyway? Mike Hart is an EMU through and through.

Six Zero

September 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

The Little Brown Jug is kinda like television, or hot water.  You just don't realize its value until you lose it.  Then you freak out because it's gone.  And once you get it back, you just return to neglecting it again.

Case in point:  October 8, 2005.




September 29th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

Yeah, that whole article kinda pissed me off.  I realize we've dominated lately, but I really hate dispairaging one of the oldest trophies in college football, and an historic rivalry with a fello Big Ten team.  Just seemed kind of tasteless.  There's so much history to talk about, why not focus on that?

Class of 1817

September 29th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

...but what a...

...can I call him a "maroon" and not get negged? Can we all agree on that as an acceptable jab?

As a Michigan fan, the Little Brown Jug means a lot to me, because it is one of the greatest Michigan traditions.

Probably doesn't mean much to casual Michigan fans. But, y'know, we all make our choices in life...



September 29th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

I am pretty sure that I would rarely browse over to WN if TomVH wasnt writing there.  Everyone else seems to be a cut below.  That is not a slam, it just is the way it is.


September 29th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

Has there been a Michigan player who has brought us so much joy and agony, simply with his mouth?

I respect the hell out of him as a player, but ....


September 29th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

The jug has clearly fallen in value. At one point it was such a focal point we had a bar named after it, it was the key trophy of the season, etc.  Now Minnesota is a game we don't consider a protected rivarly, a game we expect to win, and Minnesota is a team with a losing record against the Dakotas.

At this point I don't feel any special joy from having it.  We should have it, the sun should rise, etc.  I do feel a lot of pain when we don't have it.  


September 29th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^

I know and I still drink there.  My point was, can you imagine naming a bar after it today?  Half the fanbase (your potential customers) would have no idea what it is.  If you go to the Jug today they have to explain on the menu what the trophy is.  

If you were opening a bar today and trying to pick a Michigan sports theme, the Minnesota rivalry would not be the first one to come to mind.  


September 29th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^

I think it is extremely important - it's a symbol of a long-standing matchup in  the conference, and think of some of the people that have had the opportunity to carry  that thing around the field after a victory. It means quite a bit. 


September 29th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^

Did no one else notice the part where it says the Michigan and Minnesota are not neighboring states?

I mean I agree that they should just give the UP to Minnesota or Canada but come on, that's simple map reading skills!


September 29th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^

I guess technically Michigan borders Minnesota, when you get into lake boundaries and such:

Isle Royale is the key.  It's clearly close to Minnesota waters.

But anyway, what's all this "We should give the UP to Minnesota or Canada" crazy talk?  It's our prize for ceding Toledo.  (Kind of a win-win...)


September 29th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^

I think he's just saying that there's less excitement for winning it, and for that game in general, than other ones on our schedule. Does anyone disagree that we care more about Ohio, Sparty, and Notre Dame? Does anyone disagree that there's more excitement leading up to those games? Does anyone disagree that when we win the jug, the reaction isn't anywhere near what he described as Minnesota's reaction?

I love the jug - it's tradition and history (of us dominating the series) is everything I love about Michigan football. If you told me we'd never play for it again, I'd be pissed. But less pissed than never playing the game again. And I think that's what his point is.


September 29th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

I've met Rothstein and I think he's a nice guy. Generally, I enjoy his writing and there's value in a non-MICH person writing about Michigan. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I can disagree with an article without going ad hom...


September 29th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^

Even though we've won 36 of the last 39 meetings, it's still the best (regular season) trophy game in college football.  It's got history and a great story.  It was part of an actual Michigan/Minnesota game over 100 years ago.  How could you NOT like playing for that thing? 

It led to the rest of the Big Ten playing trophy games, the majority of which are beyond stupid.  Like Ohio State and Illinois playing for that turtle thing.   


September 29th, 2011 at 10:51 PM ^

I would respect the Illibuck Trophy more if they didn't mash the schools' names together in the most unimaginative way possible to name the trophy.  Maybe if they called it the Zaxxon Trophy.

The Wiki is great for the trophy:  "Ohio State's 2010 victory in the series was vacated as a result of the football team's use of inelligible players."


September 30th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^

you younglings (get off my lawn) I remember the 70s and how Bo was very focused on beating Minn and the jug. Minnesota was decent back then.

It is a must win over a historial rival, like the Red Wings must beat Toronto even though that is not much a rivalry any more either.