It was like he was going out of his way to make it clear RR wasn't part of their little club. I like Harbaugh, but that was disgraceful. RR doesn't deserve that. It'd be like thanking Martin right after Hackett, just to make a point of not thanking Brandon. (Although Brandon would certainly deserve it more than RR.)
This hatred for RR is so petty and pathetic. It's like the girl that makes the all-boys wrestling team and they bully her into quitting, then mock her the rest of the year. Get the F over yourselves.
And no, getting arrested and putting your QB's life in jeopardy don't count. They still got mentioned, and RR is the only one of the three who didn't deserve to be fired.
Not only did he not desert SF, he was flat out fired. It wasn't even a mutual separation. It was 100% team decision, 0% Harbaugh decision.
But to your point that the length of the contract isn't necessarily important, he signed a five year contract at Stanford and left after four seasons. In 2005, he signed a four year extension with San Diego and left two years later. It happens.
I could see him leaving Michigan for the NFL. If he has a great run here, accomplishes everything he wanted to accomplish, and the perfect situation presents itself in the NFL...I could see it happening. But that last part is the key. I don't think he plans to leave, and I don't think he's going to be listening to offers every winter. But let's say Chuck Pagano retires in six years and the Colts offer Harbaugh full control of football operations. Harbaugh might be tempted to work with his old college QB again, especially since he'd probably be the best QB in the NFL by that point. He's not going to go to a dumpster fire like the what the Raiders/Bears/Jets/etc are this year, but if one of those rare situations when a good team needs a coach, he might listen. Especially if he's done what he wants to do at Michigan and knows he's leaving them in good hands, with somebody like Wheatley ready to take over. And if that's the case, I think it'll be something the fans can understand and respect. It'll be more of a Woodson-esque departure("thanks for everything, good luck at your next job") than a Henson-esque departure("now we're screwed! WTF, dude") from a fan reaction perspective.
If three teams are tied, they break divisional ties first. If two teams are in the same division, they use the normal two team tiebreaker between them first and then whoever comes out ahead is entered into a normal two team tiebreaker with the team in the other division. Same with four or more teams, they will narrow it down to one team per division first.
It gets more complicated if there are teams from three divisions...head to head usually does not apply(one team has to sweep or have been swept by the other two), so they go to conference record and then common games. That's where it really gets weird, because the next tiebreakers are strength of victory and strength of schedule(which involve every game being played the last week of the year) and then you get into net points scored. Remember back in 1999 when Green Bay and Carolina were trying to run up the score on their opponents because the net points tiebreaker could've come into play? Carolina was playing New Orleans, and I'll always remember Ditka(in his last game as coach) going for two just for the hell of it.
A very old term. An outdated term, in fact. You will rarely, if ever, hear a medical professional use that term. The notion of concussions having classifications has gone the way of the dodo bird as we've learned how impossible it is to accurately classify them. Now, a concussion is a concussion. Saying he had a mild concussion is like saying a woman is mildly pregnant.
What, exactly, are you smoking? The team doctor specifically said that there were no fractures or broken bones, and didn't say anything more than there were injuries to several ligaments. At this moment, there is absolutely no reason to think he can't recover and play football again at a high level.
Preparing these young men for life after Michigan is significantly more important than a game. If a player is willing to sacrifice their long term future, they can, but that is THEIR choice. If they want to stick to a certain position because that is the best thing for them at the next level, the coaches damn well better respect that.
He had 31 passing attempts and 69 rushes the entire season. It's not like it'd be difficult to find somebody to take his place. How about Tate Forcier, who was starting ahead of Denard anyway.
At the same time, I don't know why we would have redshirted him. It's not like anybody knew how good he would be, or thought he would ever be starting. Tate was expected to be a four year starter at the time, and you had to figure they would find somebody better than what Denard looked to be in 2009 by the time Tate left. Saying we should've redshirted him is just 20/20 hindsight rubbish.
Braxton is on pace for 1,526 yards this year. He probably finishes in the 1300's somewhere(I haven't looked at their schedule), which would leave him in the neighborhood of 2000-2100, which is about where Denard was after two seasons. And he'll probably be running more in his last two than Denard has, since he won't have the coaching change that Denard did. If Braxton stays healthy, he'll have a very good shot at Denard's records.
What the hell are you talking about? Who said ADD isn't a learning diability? It was said that ADD is over diagnosed, which is true, and that most people who are diagnosed with ADD do not actually have learning disabilities - BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ADD! In fact, ADHD was directly called a "terrible disability" - for those who actually have it.I don't know what part of that you misunderstood, but please be more careful about such things in the future.
Worse? No. I'd be lying if I said quarterbacks of color got "worse" criticism, just as you are lying when you say it.
Obviously the two quotes you gave were disgusting. But those same people would still be ripping Henne or Navarre or any other white quarterback. They'd just be saying they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, couldn't hit water from a boat, etc.
Let's not confuse the issue. Denard's criticism may sometimes be directed at his race, but that is a far cry from criticizing him because of his race. The distinction does not matter when you're discussing what kind of sorry excuse for a human being would say such things, but it is very important in the discussion here.
Agreed on the player choker whose name I will not type. The less he's mentioned around here, the better.
Indeed, he was quite the opposite, having been BENCHED at Maryland.
I'm glad Wiscy is struggling, perhaps karma for the Wilson not-cheating-but-it-feels-like-cheating last year, but I actually don't mind guys like O'Brien using this loophole. He wasn't going to play at Maryland, why not reward him for graduating in three years and let him go somewhere he can play. I know there's no way to legislate against the Wilson types while allowing the O'Brien types, but there should be.
I imagine Sweetwaters is less local because they're better, more successful, and like you mentioned there's more than one. Gives them a chain-restaurant feel for those that don't know any better. Sad, but true. Oh well, they're the ones missing out on vastly superior coffee.
Dish has definitely lost the benefit of the doubt. We've seen them lose other networks recently, while BTN has not left any other providers as far as I know. I have a hard time imagining Viacom and BTN conspiring to screw Dish in favor of every other company in the country.
This is unquestionably on Dish.
What part of "today's game" did you have trouble with? In case you're unaware, it's no longer the 70s. Ergo, what happened in the 70s no longer qualifies as relevant to a discussion about today's game.
That's true, but the point was that this offense doesn't prepare you for the NFL. That means most players that have NFL aspirations aren't going to want to play in it. And this is a valid point, even if guys manage to develop enough to get to the NFL despite playing in that offense.
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what the problem here is. I've seen a lot of people use the argument that because of this, if Ohio or Penn State wins the division title but the second place team goes to Indy and wins the conference, it means a team will win the conference without winning the division...but that's true either way, obviously.
If Ohio is 7-1 and Wisconsin is 6-2, Wisconsin is the 2nd place team in the division. If they win the conference championship game, that means a 2nd place team won the conference championship game. Why is this acceptable if Wisconsin is given a phony division title, but not acceptable is Ohio is given the division title? The standings will remain the same - Ohio one, Wisconsin two. (At least until Ohio inevitably vacates all wins.)
I mean, who got the Pac 12 South Division Title last year? USC or UCLA? Does anybody care? I know I don't. It's not going to change the fact that the second best team in that division played in the conference championship game, even if UCLA was given a paper division title. Does the Pac 12 even award "Division Titles"? Why does the B1G award Division Titles?
Either way, to me it makes the most sense that the Division Title is given to the team that has the best record in the regular season. It's a regular season thing. The Conference Championship is a postseason game, so they're ineligible for that. When the Division Champion is ineligible, they send the second place team instead. Miami (YTM) was given a Big East Co-Championship despite being ineligible for postseason play(I looked up the first banned team winning a conference that I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, and it's entirely possible that others were not given an official Conference Championship).
This is just my opinion, but if you have the best record, you're the Division Champion, even if you're ineligible to play in the postseason. That's not "rewarding" them for cheating any more than allowing them to win games when they score more points than their opponent, even though they're ineligible to play in the postseason.
So a 6-6 UCLA team playing against Oregon and getting smoked is acceptable, only if UCLA is given the title????
This changes NOTHING. If Ohio or Penn State has the best record in the division, the second (or, theoretically, third if Oho & Penn State finish first and second) is going to the B1G Championship game. Who cares if the "division title" goes to the ineligible school in first place or the eligible school in second/third???
I just don't get your point about UCLA, at all. I don't even know if the Pac 12 gave the title to USC or UCLA, and it doesn't matter. UCLA was going to play in the title game regardless. And it's the same this year with Ohio & Penn State.
I was hoping to name a team that nobody else has said. 2001 Tennessee fell early, as did 75-76 Oklahoma, and 07 Oregon. (Oregon is the most underrated team in this discussion - as somebody else said, if Dixon stays healthy he wins the Heisman Trophy in a landslide on his way to a National Championshp. And that was a GOOD Michigan team they embarrassed in the Big House, The Horror aside.)
But yes, that 2002 Iowa team. That's the one I thought would slip through the cracks here. They beat Michigan 34-9 in the Big House. At the time, that was the bigget loss Michigan ever suffered in the Big House. Bigger than FSU in 91. (It was since surpassed by the aforementioned 07 Oregon team.) They did lose to Iowa State, inexplicably. But they went undefeated in the Big Ten, because due to scheduling they didn't play the eventual National Champion Ohio. (Compared to Iowa's 34-9 beatdown in AA, Ohio beat Michigan 14-9 in Columbus that year.) Also, Iowa played in the Orange Bowl because Ohio had the Big Ten's automatic bid (both were 8-0, Ohio was better in the non conference) and played in the National Championship game. That left Iowa as an at large, and the Orange Bowl got to pick before the Rose Bowl. (Since they lost Miami, which was the #1 team in the title game.) That was when they added the rule that's still in place, stipulating that when a bowl loses a team to the title game they get first shot at any other team from the same conference. (I defend the BCS more than most, but they're definitely reactive as opposed to proactive. That rule should've already been in place.)
Anywho, this is a tough question to quantify. This seems to have turned into a "Most Dominating Performance Against Michigan" question, which isn't necessarily the same thing as "best team" they've played. And there's also the issue of weighing what they did against Michigan compared to what they did that entire season(which holds back the 2006-07 USC team, as they lost games they shouldn't have that year, and also the Iowa team I mentioned)...and even bigger picture, what the players did in the NFL has been brought up several times. But that's an issue of "most talented" vs "best" team, which also aren't necessarily the same thing. If you're just talking about the most talented, one team that will (rightfully) never get mentioned is the 2007-08 Florida Gators. They were talented as hell - they won the National Championship the year before AND the year after and had loads of NFL talent. But they disappointed that year during the season and, of course, lost to Michigan. But there's no denying the talent on that team.
For me, it's 1991 Washington or 2003 USC. Both were loaded with talent, had the dominating seasons the talent suggested they should have(ironically, they both only won a split National Championship - although USC's split was only on a technicality, one poll was obligated to vote for LSU), and both convincingly beat very good Michigan teams. I might go with Washington just because they were undefeated(USC lost to an average Cal team in OT) and probably looked a little better against Michigan.
EDIT: A team that nobody named? 1984 BYU. They won the National Championship, FFS!
I'd say the most likely reason is a disciplinary issue, but team rules as opposed to a legal thing. Being late for curfew is a good guess. The best guess, of course, is that we won't find out from Hoke.
The point isn't incorrect, you just missed the point, I believe.
The WILL or JACK linebacker is, for all intents and purposes, the end in a 3-4 defense. When the QB reads him, he's not reading anybody else. Which was the point that you seem to have missed: the QB is reading one player, not two.
No, he's right. The QB reads the DE and the DE only. The LB doesn't enter into the equation until after the QB makes his decision. This is as simple as I can make it:
The end has two choices, take the RB or the QB. The QB has two options, keep it or give it to the RB via handoff or pitch. As you can see, each of the QB's options are directly linked to one of the end's choices. The QB reads the end, and makes the decision to keep it or handoff/pitch it. Nothing the LB does would alter that decision, because the ball can't end up in the hands of whoever the end is going after. And most of the time, the LB is going to be reacting to what the QB does anyway, so obviously the QB can't read someone who's reading him.
Running the ball is pretty much always a one read and go, for RBs too. You don't have time to do anything more than that if you're going to gain any yards. Passing the ball is where youmake multiple reads. Even then, for some mobile QBs(like Vick when he was at VT), you read one receiver and if he's covered you run.
No redshirts at service academies, no. (They each have a prep school where some students will go for a year if they're not ready to play.) Four years to play four years, and then they're off to serve our country for another four years.
Really a shame this young man got hurt. I can't even imagine how much he and his family were looking forward to playing in the Big House.
Just speaking for the B1G, like many others said, it's been one week. Let's calm down a little. Plus, at the end of the day, all but 2 won. One team lost to the best team in the country and the other had the most chaotic offseason in the history of athletics, including losing 10 of their best players in the frees leading up to the season. Yes, some of the other games were close. That's because the talent gap across college football of closing, which brings me to the second point.
Before I can answer where the B1G stands among other conferences, I would need to see how the other conferences did. I know many teams struggled. Pittsburgh lost to Youngstown State(by 14). Maryland nearly lost to William & Mary, as did Wake Forest to Liberty. Stanford barely beat San Jose State, Cal did lose to Nevada and Colorado did lose to Colorado State.
I think this would be a better conversation to have after all the non conference games are played, and we look at all conferences instead of just one.
"argument is beyond weak. Every single team in the B10 (save NU maybe, I honestly don't know) has the same standards for football players as the SEC: pass the NCAA clearinghouse and you are in, with very few exceptions. I guess it's harder for us to get JUCO transfers but that's about it."
No truth here whatsoever. Except for maybe Vanderbilt, every SEC school is easier to get into than every B1G school. I'm not saying this to defend the B1G or say that's why they're struggling, I'm just saying it because it's the truth. The same goes for the PAC 12 and nobody says they're struggling. There is a big gap between the B1G/PAC 12/ACC at the top and the Big XII/Big East. Then there's an even bigger gap between those two and the SEC.
First of all, read the OP again. Well, not so much "again" since you probably didn't read it entirely in the first place, but you get my point. Nowhere does it state that Michigan lost to Alabama because they're a bunch of cheating cheaters who couldn't get out of a paper bag without cheating. In fact, quite the opposite, it says exactly what you did - Alabama won because they're the better team. The stuff about Alabama playing fast and loose with the rules was simply stating that Michigan will not be Alabama because they're not going to do that.
And secondly, Alabama pushes every boundary and tests every rule that the NCAA has. There's plenty of proof of that. And the fact is that every school/team/coach/player/person in the world - college sports, pro sports, and every day life - who pushes every boundary and tests every rule...is also breaking rules left and right without yet getting caught. Alabama has been caught several times in the past, and they will again. To say it's not happening because "there's no proof" is just naive.
We could definitely play Arizona(supposedly they promised Rich Rod a game against Michigan in the near future when they hired him), but that's not a replacement for Notre Dame, and it'd probably be a one time game in Ann Arbor instead of a home and home.
If they're going to add Arizona, I'd rather it be sooner than 2018 to increase the likelihood that Rich Rod is still there. (My guess is he's either fired or leaves for a better job by then.)
The 2003 game wasn't as ugly as the 2007 game, but the 2007 game is just one of those games you try to pretend never happened. The 2003 game still haunts me. Such a frustrating game, from barely having the ball in the first half before the second half comeback, actually recovering an onside kick with 2 minutes left, but come up just short. They could have and should have won that game...and if they did, they probably play Oklahoma for the National Championship that year instead of LSU. They may have even been ahead of USC in the human polls and could've prevented a split title with a win.
In his defense, he never came close to offering the job to Harbaugh or Miles. And the thing you claim we're "pretending" is actually, you know, the truth. You make it sound like he had hundreds of choices, got turned down by all of them, and ended up with Hoke by default. Nobody knows where Hoke was on the list(he certainly was ahead of Harbaugh and Miles since, again, you're lying to yourself if you think they got offers), but if he wasn't at the top he wasn't far from it either. He chose him, he didn't back into him.
But go ahead and keep telling yourself DB is horrible if it helps you sleep at night. I look forward to the nonsense that gets pinned on him, like when he was called cheap for not sending the Banner to Dallas....despite the fact that it would both be cheap and be unprecedented for Michigan as they don't take the banner to road games. Yes, I am aware that these people were just mad that DB robbed them of the chance to rant and scream about how he's destroying Michigan's traditions by taking the Banner on the road.
Michigan's schedule is actually full in 2014 too...and 2015. Two open spots in 2016.
And if the game is that far away, I wouldn't assume it'll be a meaningless cakewalk. I think Norm Chow is going to do some good things out there.
To me the only question was whether or not Taylor Lewan would be the third captain. That would've been cool to see, not many juniors get that honor and he's certainly worthy, but he'll have his chance next year.
Also, I believe "Kovacs!" would make a great title for the inevitable movie made about his life. It's a better story than Rudy.
There were easily as many people saying Poggi would go to Alabama as there were people saying he would go to Michigan. Green is in the same boat. It's very rare to get a consensus in recruiting before the player makes an announcement, and neither Poggi nor Green at all quaifies. What the "conventional wisdom" is will vary based on what people you're listening to, so obviously that kind of information is going to be inaccurate much more often than it's accurate.
How does "I just don't see how hashing and re-hashing everyon's opinion is going to do anything other than cause more stomach aches." lead to "your standard for what is worthy of discussion is that it should ultimately to lead to consensus,"?
Look beyond the raw number of yards and touchdowns. The 66% completion is good but not great, but 10.3 yards per completion? That's neither good nor great, or even average. And the fact that they're throwing so many short passes makes the 66% completion even less impressive. Without actually seeing him play, that's about the stat line I'd expect from a three star QB.
"Jeez, dude. The lack of evidence against the guy is bordering on overwhelming."
Fixed your post.
I'm not asking for a video of him doping. But is it too much to ask for a positive test, or a credible first hand witness, any physical symptom of doping...something. Anything. Just one piece of tangible evidence that he cheated. It doesn't exist. I think that says it all.
It amazes me how people can say with such certainty things that are so uncertain, so unproven, and so...well, false.
There's no proof Armstrong doped. If he had doped, it would have been proven. There would be, at the very least, circumstancial evidence. There is nothing, whatsoever, to suggest that he doped.
And before people start talking about how him giving up means he's guilty, just stop. That's nonsense. He's been worn down by a witch hunt operated by people who do not abide by laws or due process. He's fighting a fight he cannot win. USADA was going to continue to pursue him no matter what he did. He had nothing to gain - given that he's already retired, public perception is all that could theoretically be changed at this point, and it's safe to say the vast majority of people either blindly declare him guilty or realize that there's no evidence against him. He's better off, as he said, focusing on his family and his foundation.
"If I was being accused of something I didn't do, I would NEVER..." blah blah blah. Sure you wouldn't. Did you know that 25% of people who are exonerated by DNA evidence CONFESSED to the crime that they didn't commit after being worn down by relentless (and, in most cases, unethical and/or unlawful) interrogations? Lance Armstrong has been worn down by a system designed to make it next to impossible for him to clear his name. His choices were to continue fighting a fight he cannot win, with almost nothing to gain, or give up and focus on doing whatever it is that he wants to do with his life. I don't blame him for choosing the latter.
I don't know about you, but I like to see some evidence that something is the truth before I declare it as such. And, as you probably know, there's yet to be one single shred of credible evidence that Lance cheated. As in, literally, none. No positive tests, no credible first hand witnesses, no obvious physical signs of cheating.
And I don't know about you, but I would try to destroy people who lied about me, too.
Yes, this makes Michigan's path to the National Championship more difficult. Whenever you have to play more games, your path is more difficult. Michigan's path was made more difficult by the B1G expansion that brought a Conference title game. A few years ago, Michigan's path was made (marginally) more difficult by the addition of a 12th game. A long time ago, Michigan's path was made more difficult by the addition of bowl games.
However, that does NOT mean Michigan's chances are reduced . You see, under the current BCS format, Michigan has to get in the top two to play for the National Championship. In a four team playoff, Michigan only has to get in the top four to play for the National Championship. In an eight team playoff, Michigan would only have to be in the top eight! Think back to that very same 2006 season you mentioned - if there was a four team playoff, how would that have changed things? Michigan would have had a shot at the title. In one semifinal they would've played, ironically, Florida - the top that was the benificiary of Michigan being robbed of a rematch. (Ohio State would've played either USC or LSU in the other semifinal.)
Similiarly, a four team playoff would've given Michigan a chance at the National Championship in 2003. They would've played USC, while Oklahoma played LSU...ironically, that's exactly how the bowls matched up, except the winners (USC and LSU) would've played the next week. And since Bo was hired in 1969 there's at least eight other seasons in which they would've been included in a four team playoff, but in only one of those seasons did they finish in the top two and play for the title.
Yes, it's possible that they wouldn't have won the title in any of those ten seasons, and it's possible a playoff would've actually cost them their 97 title(don't look at me like I have three arms! Somebody could've got hurt in the extra game...) But it's also possible Michigan could've won nine National Championships in the last four decades.
You're right, a four or eight team playoff might (and will, eventually) hurt Michigan's chances to win the National Championship in some years, when they're one of the top two teams and lose before the final game. In those years, you're free to say I Told You So. But what will you say in the years where Michigan is ranked 3rd or 4th and wins the National Championship? (And they will, eventually.)
My point is that you can't say one system universally makes it easier to win the National Championship. One gives you an easier path, the other provides more opportunities. Which one is better for Michigan (and any individual school) will vary from year to year.
This reminds me of their Board member who was mad they weren't notified in advance of the charges because, if they were, they could have "avoided this mess."
It's the kind of thing that...look, if you really think about their situation, it becomes understandable. Most people would feel the same wa in their shoes. (Especially Paterno's family - every single person here would do exactly what they've done, and you're lying if you claim otherwise) But nobody's going to think about that, and comments like that just look and sound very bad. But either way, I really doubt that's the only thing he said that day. Too bad we can't reserve judgment until we read more.
Not that any of it will change the fact that he enabled child rape for at least a decade...
While, yes, it is true that Les Miles was never going to get hired as it was in 2007, all the OP would have to do is amend the question to "What if Bo was still alive in 2007, meaning Les Miles was hired?" And yes, Les WOULD have been hired if Bo was still alive at that time, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
It's interesting to think about. That means Mallett, Boren, and Arringston stay. Possibly Manningham too, although I believe he would still declare for the NFL draft regardless. We're probably looking at a typical Lloyd kind of season in 2008, 9-10 wins and a January non-BCS bowl. I think we take Sparty, but the Ohio losing streak probably continues for another year, before we take them in 2009 during a 10-11 win season with a BCS bowl at the end. It's hard to project beyond that without knowing how he recruits, especially at QB(I'm assuming Mallett leaves after his junior year in 2009), but there's no reason to think we wouldn't have played for the National Championship last year against Alabama...setting up a rematch in Dallas to start this season. Boy, that'd be something.
I actually like thinking about "What if?" questions, but apparenly most don't...
Sorry, but there's nothing in the OP that changes the fact that this is none of the NCAA's business and they're still overstepping their bounds and punishing innocent people.
Imagine if one of the people running this fine blog were found to be guilty of the crimes that Sandusky was convicted of, and other people running it were covering it up. Now, imagine Red Berenson deciding that, as punishment, all members of this blog lose access to the internet forever. That's essentially what happened here. Not only is the Sandusky scandal not in the viscinity of the NCAA's jurisdiction(for many reasons), but the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime...because they're not punishing ANYBODY who actually committed a crime! If it was found that the people in charge of the blog were actually running a pedophile ring, would that make it acceptable for Red to ban all members of the blog forever? Of course not. Obviously, legally and morally, the latest developments at Penn State make things far worse and far more difficult to stomach. But as far as the NCAA's involvement, this changes nothing, because it still has nothing to do with them.
If it turns out the pedophile ring included recruits who were drawn to Penn State because of the access they'd have to little boys, or if it included coaches or players on other teams who were throwing games because they were given access to little boys...then we can talk. Because at that point, unlike right now, NCAA rules would have been broken. Unlike right now, they'd have grounds to punish Penn State, and hopefully they would permanently shut down the football program.
I know this will be an unpopular statement, but that's often the case for cold, hard facts.
I agree with this. Notre Dame was the only team that won every game they played that season, including a victory over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. (For those wondering how Alabama wound up with a claim to begin with, at the time the Coaches cast their final vote before the bowl games. I cannot attempt to explain why Alabama claims this title, but that is how they ended up #1 in a poll.)
It's certainly an interesting discussion, but at the end of the day, IMO Notre Dame was clearly the National Champion in 1973. And they would have been even if Michigan went to the Rose Bowl and destroyed USC.
If we want to give Bo a National Championship, I think his 1985 team might have as good a claim as the 73 team. (To be clear, I'm not saying the 85 team was better than the 73 team...) That was the only time he finished ranked #2 in the polls. Our only loss was that famous 1 vs. 2 game in Iowa, along with the godforsaken 3-3 tie in Illinois(I can still see White's fumble when I close my eyes.). Oklahoma was selected National Champion by virtually every selector that season, but unlike Notre Dame in 73, they had a loss - at home, to Miami, by 13 points. They won the title by beating the only remaining undefeated team, Penn State, in the Orange Bowl.
If you want to do the common opponent comparison thing, there were two: Minnesota and Nebraska. Oklahoma barely beat Minnesota 13-7, while Michigan destroyed Minnesota 48-7, both in Minnesota. Oklahoma beat Nebraska 27-7 at home while Michigan beat them 27-23 in the Fiesta Bowl.
I'm not saying they should claim the title in 1985, but I think it'd be as legitimate a discussion as the hypothetical 1973 title.
Recent Comments
This hatred for RR is so petty and pathetic. It's like the girl that makes the all-boys wrestling team and they bully her into quitting, then mock her the rest of the year. Get the F over yourselves.
But to your point that the length of the contract isn't necessarily important, he signed a five year contract at Stanford and left after four seasons. In 2005, he signed a four year extension with San Diego and left two years later. It happens.
I could see him leaving Michigan for the NFL. If he has a great run here, accomplishes everything he wanted to accomplish, and the perfect situation presents itself in the NFL...I could see it happening. But that last part is the key. I don't think he plans to leave, and I don't think he's going to be listening to offers every winter. But let's say Chuck Pagano retires in six years and the Colts offer Harbaugh full control of football operations. Harbaugh might be tempted to work with his old college QB again, especially since he'd probably be the best QB in the NFL by that point. He's not going to go to a dumpster fire like the what the Raiders/Bears/Jets/etc are this year, but if one of those rare situations when a good team needs a coach, he might listen. Especially if he's done what he wants to do at Michigan and knows he's leaving them in good hands, with somebody like Wheatley ready to take over. And if that's the case, I think it'll be something the fans can understand and respect. It'll be more of a Woodson-esque departure("thanks for everything, good luck at your next job") than a Henson-esque departure("now we're screwed! WTF, dude") from a fan reaction perspective.
It gets more complicated if there are teams from three divisions...head to head usually does not apply(one team has to sweep or have been swept by the other two), so they go to conference record and then common games. That's where it really gets weird, because the next tiebreakers are strength of victory and strength of schedule(which involve every game being played the last week of the year) and then you get into net points scored. Remember back in 1999 when Green Bay and Carolina were trying to run up the score on their opponents because the net points tiebreaker could've come into play? Carolina was playing New Orleans, and I'll always remember Ditka(in his last game as coach) going for two just for the hell of it.
"Team first. Always." leads to Penn State.
At the same time, I don't know why we would have redshirted him. It's not like anybody knew how good he would be, or thought he would ever be starting. Tate was expected to be a four year starter at the time, and you had to figure they would find somebody better than what Denard looked to be in 2009 by the time Tate left. Saying we should've redshirted him is just 20/20 hindsight rubbish.
This is correct. That kid didn't deserve to be treated the way he was just because his dad killed five hookers.
The correct end to "And this is the same school that..." is "...hired Bobby Knight."
Which makes this story significantly less surprising, though no less disgusting.
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what the problem here is. I've seen a lot of people use the argument that because of this, if Ohio or Penn State wins the division title but the second place team goes to Indy and wins the conference, it means a team will win the conference without winning the division...but that's true either way, obviously.
If Ohio is 7-1 and Wisconsin is 6-2, Wisconsin is the 2nd place team in the division. If they win the conference championship game, that means a 2nd place team won the conference championship game. Why is this acceptable if Wisconsin is given a phony division title, but not acceptable is Ohio is given the division title? The standings will remain the same - Ohio one, Wisconsin two. (At least until Ohio inevitably vacates all wins.)
I mean, who got the Pac 12 South Division Title last year? USC or UCLA? Does anybody care? I know I don't. It's not going to change the fact that the second best team in that division played in the conference championship game, even if UCLA was given a paper division title. Does the Pac 12 even award "Division Titles"? Why does the B1G award Division Titles?
Either way, to me it makes the most sense that the Division Title is given to the team that has the best record in the regular season. It's a regular season thing. The Conference Championship is a postseason game, so they're ineligible for that. When the Division Champion is ineligible, they send the second place team instead. Miami (YTM) was given a Big East Co-Championship despite being ineligible for postseason play(I looked up the first banned team winning a conference that I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, and it's entirely possible that others were not given an official Conference Championship).
This is just my opinion, but if you have the best record, you're the Division Champion, even if you're ineligible to play in the postseason. That's not "rewarding" them for cheating any more than allowing them to win games when they score more points than their opponent, even though they're ineligible to play in the postseason.
So a 6-6 UCLA team playing against Oregon and getting smoked is acceptable, only if UCLA is given the title????
This changes NOTHING. If Ohio or Penn State has the best record in the division, the second (or, theoretically, third if Oho & Penn State finish first and second) is going to the B1G Championship game. Who cares if the "division title" goes to the ineligible school in first place or the eligible school in second/third???
I just don't get your point about UCLA, at all. I don't even know if the Pac 12 gave the title to USC or UCLA, and it doesn't matter. UCLA was going to play in the title game regardless. And it's the same this year with Ohio & Penn State.
So, why, again, doesn't it make sense?
Drats! Conflabit.
I was hoping to name a team that nobody else has said. 2001 Tennessee fell early, as did 75-76 Oklahoma, and 07 Oregon. (Oregon is the most underrated team in this discussion - as somebody else said, if Dixon stays healthy he wins the Heisman Trophy in a landslide on his way to a National Championshp. And that was a GOOD Michigan team they embarrassed in the Big House, The Horror aside.)
But yes, that 2002 Iowa team. That's the one I thought would slip through the cracks here. They beat Michigan 34-9 in the Big House. At the time, that was the bigget loss Michigan ever suffered in the Big House. Bigger than FSU in 91. (It was since surpassed by the aforementioned 07 Oregon team.) They did lose to Iowa State, inexplicably. But they went undefeated in the Big Ten, because due to scheduling they didn't play the eventual National Champion Ohio. (Compared to Iowa's 34-9 beatdown in AA, Ohio beat Michigan 14-9 in Columbus that year.) Also, Iowa played in the Orange Bowl because Ohio had the Big Ten's automatic bid (both were 8-0, Ohio was better in the non conference) and played in the National Championship game. That left Iowa as an at large, and the Orange Bowl got to pick before the Rose Bowl. (Since they lost Miami, which was the #1 team in the title game.) That was when they added the rule that's still in place, stipulating that when a bowl loses a team to the title game they get first shot at any other team from the same conference. (I defend the BCS more than most, but they're definitely reactive as opposed to proactive. That rule should've already been in place.)
Anywho, this is a tough question to quantify. This seems to have turned into a "Most Dominating Performance Against Michigan" question, which isn't necessarily the same thing as "best team" they've played. And there's also the issue of weighing what they did against Michigan compared to what they did that entire season(which holds back the 2006-07 USC team, as they lost games they shouldn't have that year, and also the Iowa team I mentioned)...and even bigger picture, what the players did in the NFL has been brought up several times. But that's an issue of "most talented" vs "best" team, which also aren't necessarily the same thing. If you're just talking about the most talented, one team that will (rightfully) never get mentioned is the 2007-08 Florida Gators. They were talented as hell - they won the National Championship the year before AND the year after and had loads of NFL talent. But they disappointed that year during the season and, of course, lost to Michigan. But there's no denying the talent on that team.
For me, it's 1991 Washington or 2003 USC. Both were loaded with talent, had the dominating seasons the talent suggested they should have(ironically, they both only won a split National Championship - although USC's split was only on a technicality, one poll was obligated to vote for LSU), and both convincingly beat very good Michigan teams. I might go with Washington just because they were undefeated(USC lost to an average Cal team in OT) and probably looked a little better against Michigan.
EDIT: A team that nobody named? 1984 BYU. They won the National Championship, FFS!
(Yes, I'm kidding.)
I lol'd. Well played, sir.
I'd say the most likely reason is a disciplinary issue, but team rules as opposed to a legal thing. Being late for curfew is a good guess. The best guess, of course, is that we won't find out from Hoke.
If you had read that - any of it - you would know that it didn't sound like that.
Of course, that assumes an ability to understand what you read.....
Fact stating =/= excuse making.
First of all, read the OP again. Well, not so much "again" since you probably didn't read it entirely in the first place, but you get my point. Nowhere does it state that Michigan lost to Alabama because they're a bunch of cheating cheaters who couldn't get out of a paper bag without cheating. In fact, quite the opposite, it says exactly what you did - Alabama won because they're the better team. The stuff about Alabama playing fast and loose with the rules was simply stating that Michigan will not be Alabama because they're not going to do that.
And secondly, Alabama pushes every boundary and tests every rule that the NCAA has. There's plenty of proof of that. And the fact is that every school/team/coach/player/person in the world - college sports, pro sports, and every day life - who pushes every boundary and tests every rule...is also breaking rules left and right without yet getting caught. Alabama has been caught several times in the past, and they will again. To say it's not happening because "there's no proof" is just naive.
You must be either blind as a bat or the most naive person on this board.
I received simliar texts. My response was always the same: 49-7
That was the final score of the 2011 Capital One Bowl, Alabama vs. Michigan State.
We could definitely play Arizona(supposedly they promised Rich Rod a game against Michigan in the near future when they hired him), but that's not a replacement for Notre Dame, and it'd probably be a one time game in Ann Arbor instead of a home and home.
If they're going to add Arizona, I'd rather it be sooner than 2018 to increase the likelihood that Rich Rod is still there. (My guess is he's either fired or leaves for a better job by then.)
To me the only question was whether or not Taylor Lewan would be the third captain. That would've been cool to see, not many juniors get that honor and he's certainly worthy, but he'll have his chance next year.
Also, I believe "Kovacs!" would make a great title for the inevitable movie made about his life. It's a better story than Rudy.
There were easily as many people saying Poggi would go to Alabama as there were people saying he would go to Michigan. Green is in the same boat. It's very rare to get a consensus in recruiting before the player makes an announcement, and neither Poggi nor Green at all quaifies. What the "conventional wisdom" is will vary based on what people you're listening to, so obviously that kind of information is going to be inaccurate much more often than it's accurate.
How does "I just don't see how hashing and re-hashing everyon's opinion is going to do anything other than cause more stomach aches." lead to "your standard for what is worthy of discussion is that it should ultimately to lead to consensus,"?
Look beyond the raw
Exactly.
Look beyond the raw number of yards and touchdowns. The 66% completion is good but not great, but 10.3 yards per completion? That's neither good nor great, or even average. And the fact that they're throwing so many short passes makes the 66% completion even less impressive. Without actually seeing him play, that's about the stat line I'd expect from a three star QB.
"Jeez, dude. The lack of evidence against the guy is bordering on overwhelming."
Fixed your post.
I'm not asking for a video of him doping. But is it too much to ask for a positive test, or a credible first hand witness, any physical symptom of doping...something. Anything. Just one piece of tangible evidence that he cheated. It doesn't exist. I think that says it all.
It amazes me how people can say with such certainty things that are so uncertain, so unproven, and so...well, false.
There's no proof Armstrong doped. If he had doped, it would have been proven. There would be, at the very least, circumstancial evidence. There is nothing, whatsoever, to suggest that he doped.
And before people start talking about how him giving up means he's guilty, just stop. That's nonsense. He's been worn down by a witch hunt operated by people who do not abide by laws or due process. He's fighting a fight he cannot win. USADA was going to continue to pursue him no matter what he did. He had nothing to gain - given that he's already retired, public perception is all that could theoretically be changed at this point, and it's safe to say the vast majority of people either blindly declare him guilty or realize that there's no evidence against him. He's better off, as he said, focusing on his family and his foundation.
"If I was being accused of something I didn't do, I would NEVER..." blah blah blah. Sure you wouldn't. Did you know that 25% of people who are exonerated by DNA evidence CONFESSED to the crime that they didn't commit after being worn down by relentless (and, in most cases, unethical and/or unlawful) interrogations? Lance Armstrong has been worn down by a system designed to make it next to impossible for him to clear his name. His choices were to continue fighting a fight he cannot win, with almost nothing to gain, or give up and focus on doing whatever it is that he wants to do with his life. I don't blame him for choosing the latter.
I don't know about you, but I like to see some evidence that something is the truth before I declare it as such. And, as you probably know, there's yet to be one single shred of credible evidence that Lance cheated. As in, literally, none. No positive tests, no credible first hand witnesses, no obvious physical signs of cheating.
And I don't know about you, but I would try to destroy people who lied about me, too.
This is half true.
Yes, this makes Michigan's path to the National Championship more difficult. Whenever you have to play more games, your path is more difficult. Michigan's path was made more difficult by the B1G expansion that brought a Conference title game. A few years ago, Michigan's path was made (marginally) more difficult by the addition of a 12th game. A long time ago, Michigan's path was made more difficult by the addition of bowl games.
However, that does NOT mean Michigan's chances are reduced . You see, under the current BCS format, Michigan has to get in the top two to play for the National Championship. In a four team playoff, Michigan only has to get in the top four to play for the National Championship. In an eight team playoff, Michigan would only have to be in the top eight! Think back to that very same 2006 season you mentioned - if there was a four team playoff, how would that have changed things? Michigan would have had a shot at the title. In one semifinal they would've played, ironically, Florida - the top that was the benificiary of Michigan being robbed of a rematch. (Ohio State would've played either USC or LSU in the other semifinal.)
Similiarly, a four team playoff would've given Michigan a chance at the National Championship in 2003. They would've played USC, while Oklahoma played LSU...ironically, that's exactly how the bowls matched up, except the winners (USC and LSU) would've played the next week. And since Bo was hired in 1969 there's at least eight other seasons in which they would've been included in a four team playoff, but in only one of those seasons did they finish in the top two and play for the title.
Yes, it's possible that they wouldn't have won the title in any of those ten seasons, and it's possible a playoff would've actually cost them their 97 title(don't look at me like I have three arms! Somebody could've got hurt in the extra game...) But it's also possible Michigan could've won nine National Championships in the last four decades.
You're right, a four or eight team playoff might (and will, eventually) hurt Michigan's chances to win the National Championship in some years, when they're one of the top two teams and lose before the final game. In those years, you're free to say I Told You So. But what will you say in the years where Michigan is ranked 3rd or 4th and wins the National Championship? (And they will, eventually.)
My point is that you can't say one system universally makes it easier to win the National Championship. One gives you an easier path, the other provides more opportunities. Which one is better for Michigan (and any individual school) will vary from year to year.
While, yes, it is true that Les Miles was never going to get hired as it was in 2007, all the OP would have to do is amend the question to "What if Bo was still alive in 2007, meaning Les Miles was hired?" And yes, Les WOULD have been hired if Bo was still alive at that time, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
It's interesting to think about. That means Mallett, Boren, and Arringston stay. Possibly Manningham too, although I believe he would still declare for the NFL draft regardless. We're probably looking at a typical Lloyd kind of season in 2008, 9-10 wins and a January non-BCS bowl. I think we take Sparty, but the Ohio losing streak probably continues for another year, before we take them in 2009 during a 10-11 win season with a BCS bowl at the end. It's hard to project beyond that without knowing how he recruits, especially at QB(I'm assuming Mallett leaves after his junior year in 2009), but there's no reason to think we wouldn't have played for the National Championship last year against Alabama...setting up a rematch in Dallas to start this season. Boy, that'd be something.
I actually like thinking about "What if?" questions, but apparenly most don't...
Sorry, but there's nothing in the OP that changes the fact that this is none of the NCAA's business and they're still overstepping their bounds and punishing innocent people.
Imagine if one of the people running this fine blog were found to be guilty of the crimes that Sandusky was convicted of, and other people running it were covering it up. Now, imagine Red Berenson deciding that, as punishment, all members of this blog lose access to the internet forever. That's essentially what happened here. Not only is the Sandusky scandal not in the viscinity of the NCAA's jurisdiction(for many reasons), but the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime...because they're not punishing ANYBODY who actually committed a crime! If it was found that the people in charge of the blog were actually running a pedophile ring, would that make it acceptable for Red to ban all members of the blog forever? Of course not. Obviously, legally and morally, the latest developments at Penn State make things far worse and far more difficult to stomach. But as far as the NCAA's involvement, this changes nothing, because it still has nothing to do with them.
If it turns out the pedophile ring included recruits who were drawn to Penn State because of the access they'd have to little boys, or if it included coaches or players on other teams who were throwing games because they were given access to little boys...then we can talk. Because at that point, unlike right now, NCAA rules would have been broken. Unlike right now, they'd have grounds to punish Penn State, and hopefully they would permanently shut down the football program.
I know this will be an unpopular statement, but that's often the case for cold, hard facts.
I agree with this. Notre Dame was the only team that won every game they played that season, including a victory over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. (For those wondering how Alabama wound up with a claim to begin with, at the time the Coaches cast their final vote before the bowl games. I cannot attempt to explain why Alabama claims this title, but that is how they ended up #1 in a poll.)
It's certainly an interesting discussion, but at the end of the day, IMO Notre Dame was clearly the National Champion in 1973. And they would have been even if Michigan went to the Rose Bowl and destroyed USC.
If we want to give Bo a National Championship, I think his 1985 team might have as good a claim as the 73 team. (To be clear, I'm not saying the 85 team was better than the 73 team...) That was the only time he finished ranked #2 in the polls. Our only loss was that famous 1 vs. 2 game in Iowa, along with the godforsaken 3-3 tie in Illinois(I can still see White's fumble when I close my eyes.). Oklahoma was selected National Champion by virtually every selector that season, but unlike Notre Dame in 73, they had a loss - at home, to Miami, by 13 points. They won the title by beating the only remaining undefeated team, Penn State, in the Orange Bowl.
If you want to do the common opponent comparison thing, there were two: Minnesota and Nebraska. Oklahoma barely beat Minnesota 13-7, while Michigan destroyed Minnesota 48-7, both in Minnesota. Oklahoma beat Nebraska 27-7 at home while Michigan beat them 27-23 in the Fiesta Bowl.
I'm not saying they should claim the title in 1985, but I think it'd be as legitimate a discussion as the hypothetical 1973 title.