We're still up 30+ games all-time. It barely qualifies as a rivalry. They're on a nice little run because we did a(n overdue and necessary) reset after Carr retired.
They're still little brother—and a creepy one at that—and always will be. We have the better team, coaching staff, talent, program, and university. They have a good defense.
I'm hoping for a beat down if only because maybe it will be cathartic for people (and because they're fun), but if we somehow don't win, it's not some kind of harbinger of doom.
I know, I know, prove it on the field, yada, yada. We will, in time, I am sure. In the meantime, I hope maybe people can stop and smell the roses—er, uh, that was probably the wrong metaphor …
Particularly in combination with sensors, and if introduced incrementally, as several other comments have suggested about sensors. There's massive amounts of visual training data available and clear hueristics for use with sensors (has the ball moved ten yards). AI and technology in general could go a long way not only in solving the problem of determining first downs but many other otherwise difficult calls. What's more, they can start by simply providing “recommendations” with a confidence level to inform the referees, so it's not all or nothing.
Logically, if OSU remains #2, I'm not sure how you justify dropping Michigan at all. They lost on the road in double-overtime to the team ranked in front of them. The game literally could not have been closer without Michigan winning. So if Michigan was #3 before the game, how do you justify dropping them to #4 or #5, let alone behind a team they beat head-to-head.
The only way to justify that would be to say that someone else made such a decisive statement in their own games as to force themselves into the millimeter-wide space between OSU and Michigan.
Of course, logic doesn't seem to have much to do with this, so that's moot. And it does seem weird to have conference championships and then not have them count for anything. On the other hand, college basketball basically does this, so why not football?
I'd be cautious about reading too much into how they rank the teams this week. Even if Michigan stays in front of Wisconsin, Penn State, and Colorado, the committee may be looking for a team to make a statement in their conference title game. In which case they'll leap frog us the final week anyway.
In our past 24 games, we are a blocked punt returned for a TD, a failed third down conversion, and an unfortunate spot away from being 23-1, and 12-0 this year.
- targeting indicators include defenseless receiver
At the point of contact, it's also clear the ball beat the defender to the receiver. He's late. He pulls his arms in slightly, effectively turning him into a projectile.
I doubt very much it was intentional.
However, the rule, as written, provides guidance for determining intent, and based on that guidance, it was clearly targeting. One of the indicators, defenseless player, is satisfied (and the rule only requires one).
And then there's the “When in question, it is a foul” clause.
Based on the rules, I don't see how that can be overturned. Basically, the burden of proof, if you will, is on the defender. It's a poorly written rule, in my opinion, inconsistently enforced. But that was technically the correct call, per the rule.
In addition to being a selling point for recruting, there's a good reason WHY it's a selling point for recruiting and why it's relevant beyond football—it's what I think of as part of the Michigan experience. Athletics is part of being a well-rounded, complete, healthy human being, alongside intellectual and spiritual pursuits.
No one ranking can definitively establish our academic excellence, or lack thereof, but it's certainly a valid data point. When Michigan wins the national title this year, my pride in that accomplishment exists in the context of that claim to academic excellence. Without it, we're just another college football behemoth, albeit with the greatest fight song and helmets ever.
So I'd say, yes, highly relevant. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a major dimension of our rivalry with Ohio State (ranked 88th) is defined by winning for its own sake versus winning as a part of a larger mission to advance the state of human knowledge and understanding.
1. 2003—no need to explain this one. See SpikeFan2016's post.
2. 2000—same.
Big gap between these two and the rest.
3. 2006—Lost to OSU in the Game of the Century, no less, in the wake of Bo's passing. Then we lost in the Rose Bowl. Gut-wrenching.
4. 2011—This is a strange case. On paper, this is a better season in 2006, in that we beat OSU. But I was among those that experienced an ever increasing sense of foreboding as the season progressed, which mars my memory of it. The victory over ND was awesome, the bowl win, much less so. Also felt like a missed opportunity.
5. 2002—Why does 2002 not get more love? 10 wins, victory over MSU, bowl win, and #9 ranking. Comparable to 2004, 2007, and 2015.
2002 and 2004 are very close in my book. 2004 featured a win over MSU, a shared Big 10 title, and a trip to the Rose Bowl. But the bowl win (and the #9 ranking) tip the scales to 2002.
2007? I don't see it. The opening loss was one of the worst in college football history. Any time there's an upset, that games is mentioned. We beat MSU and ND and won a bowl game, but I don't think that outweighs that loss.
2015? About the only thing you can say in favor of 2015, outside of HARBAUGH! is that we won a bowl game. No rivaly wins and one of the most hideous losses of all time. The shutout streak was nice but in the end, it only serves to foreshadow the ensuing national titles.
Recent Comments
Please do not verb and/or definite-article my surname over this small-time grifter.
Sincerely,
The (One And Only True) Yoder
Oh, wow. You're not kidding. And Shea can throw on the run …
Yup. This fan based seems traumatized.
We're still up 30+ games all-time. It barely qualifies as a rivalry. They're on a nice little run because we did a(n overdue and necessary) reset after Carr retired.
They're still little brother—and a creepy one at that—and always will be. We have the better team, coaching staff, talent, program, and university. They have a good defense.
I'm hoping for a beat down if only because maybe it will be cathartic for people (and because they're fun), but if we somehow don't win, it's not some kind of harbinger of doom.
I know, I know, prove it on the field, yada, yada. We will, in time, I am sure. In the meantime, I hope maybe people can stop and smell the roses—er, uh, that was probably the wrong metaphor …
:goes back into hiding:
Well, it gave me an ulcer so … :D
But, okay, fair enough. I withdraw my nomination. Not sure how I missed that crucial bit of the criteria.
1986 Minnesota. We were 9-0, consensus #2, playing at home against 5-4 Minnesota.
Yup. This class is as good as H's best class at Stanford. Better if Shea's transfer goes through.
Particularly in
Yes.
Particularly in combination with sensors, and if introduced incrementally, as several other comments have suggested about sensors. There's massive amounts of visual training data available and clear hueristics for use with sensors (has the ball moved ten yards). AI and technology in general could go a long way not only in solving the problem of determining first downs but many other otherwise difficult calls. What's more, they can start by simply providing “recommendations” with a confidence level to inform the referees, so it's not all or nothing.
That's a helluva thing. Great job. :)
Logically, if OSU remains #2, I'm not sure how you justify dropping Michigan at all. They lost on the road in double-overtime to the team ranked in front of them. The game literally could not have been closer without Michigan winning. So if Michigan was #3 before the game, how do you justify dropping them to #4 or #5, let alone behind a team they beat head-to-head.
The only way to justify that would be to say that someone else made such a decisive statement in their own games as to force themselves into the millimeter-wide space between OSU and Michigan.
Of course, logic doesn't seem to have much to do with this, so that's moot. And it does seem weird to have conference championships and then not have them count for anything. On the other hand, college basketball basically does this, so why not football?
I'd be cautious about reading too much into how they rank the teams this week. Even if Michigan stays in front of Wisconsin, Penn State, and Colorado, the committee may be looking for a team to make a statement in their conference title game. In which case they'll leap frog us the final week anyway.
In our past 24 games, we are a blocked punt returned for a TD, a failed third down conversion, and an unfortunate spot away from being 23-1, and 12-0 this year.
Also in the rules:
- when in doubt, it's targeting
- targeting indicators include defenseless receiver
At the point of contact, it's also clear the ball beat the defender to the receiver. He's late. He pulls his arms in slightly, effectively turning him into a projectile.
I doubt very much it was intentional.
However, the rule, as written, provides guidance for determining intent, and based on that guidance, it was clearly targeting. One of the indicators, defenseless player, is satisfied (and the rule only requires one).
And then there's the “When in question, it is a foul” clause.
Based on the rules, I don't see how that can be overturned. Basically, the burden of proof, if you will, is on the defender. It's a poorly written rule, in my opinion, inconsistently enforced. But that was technically the correct call, per the rule.
In addition to being a selling point for recruting, there's a good reason WHY it's a selling point for recruiting and why it's relevant beyond football—it's what I think of as part of the Michigan experience. Athletics is part of being a well-rounded, complete, healthy human being, alongside intellectual and spiritual pursuits.
No one ranking can definitively establish our academic excellence, or lack thereof, but it's certainly a valid data point. When Michigan wins the national title this year, my pride in that accomplishment exists in the context of that claim to academic excellence. Without it, we're just another college football behemoth, albeit with the greatest fight song and helmets ever.
So I'd say, yes, highly relevant. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a major dimension of our rivalry with Ohio State (ranked 88th) is defined by winning for its own sake versus winning as a part of a larger mission to advance the state of human knowledge and understanding.
1. 2003—no need to explain this one. See SpikeFan2016's post.
2. 2000—same.
Big gap between these two and the rest.
3. 2006—Lost to OSU in the Game of the Century, no less, in the wake of Bo's passing. Then we lost in the Rose Bowl. Gut-wrenching.
4. 2011—This is a strange case. On paper, this is a better season in 2006, in that we beat OSU. But I was among those that experienced an ever increasing sense of foreboding as the season progressed, which mars my memory of it. The victory over ND was awesome, the bowl win, much less so. Also felt like a missed opportunity.
5. 2002—Why does 2002 not get more love? 10 wins, victory over MSU, bowl win, and #9 ranking. Comparable to 2004, 2007, and 2015.
2002 and 2004 are very close in my book. 2004 featured a win over MSU, a shared Big 10 title, and a trip to the Rose Bowl. But the bowl win (and the #9 ranking) tip the scales to 2002.
2007? I don't see it. The opening loss was one of the worst in college football history. Any time there's an upset, that games is mentioned. We beat MSU and ND and won a bowl game, but I don't think that outweighs that loss.
2015? About the only thing you can say in favor of 2015, outside of HARBAUGH! is that we won a bowl game. No rivaly wins and one of the most hideous losses of all time. The shutout streak was nice but in the end, it only serves to foreshadow the ensuing national titles.