Because it's Michigan and it's April. I went through 22 of them, and I got out as soon as I could. Here in northern California, as I write it's 85 and there's not a cloud in the sky. (Of course, in February it easily could be 65 and not a cloud in the sky.)
So Coach had a seminal moment when he had to dispose of baby-related waste? I guess that makes sense. It was an "inseminal" moment that resulted in a baby in the first place...
When I lived in Westwood briefly back in the 70s, I was walking down the street one Saturday morning. A very tall, thin young guy was walking toward me. We nodded to each other as we passed. It was Kareem, and he was wearing a blue tee with "Michigan" emblazoned across it in maize.
I have a story about that. First semester in law school I read a case in contracts in which the plaintiff sued a cosmetic surgeon for failing to properly fix a scar on the palm of his hand. Surgeon transplanted skin from his hip. In time, it grew hair. Issue: Did plaintiff contract for a hairless palm?
I was laughing about this in the dorm pub one evening. I related the case, and when I finished one of my fellow students stuck out his hand and said. "You mean like this?" Sure enough, the palm of his hand had hair growing because the skin had been taken from his leg. I was embarrassed, to say the least. Partly because the guy's wife as with him, partly because the guy, a recent Rhodes Scholar, subsequently become the attorney general of a Midwestern state.
As for me, I dropped out and went on to have an utterly unsuccessful career.
Yost might be cold enough for ice to be kept cold enough to play hockey, but that drafty barn the team played in before Yost allowed ice to form on the spectators and drifts to form under the bleachers.
Yeah, well I grew up there, and there's nothing like 4-foot drifts in April and ice well beyond the pier--some years, in fact, to about 20 miles out or one-third the distance to Chicago.
Geez, BOLEACH7, you must be almost as old as I am. I've bled maize and blue since 24-12 in 1969. I've been trying to sort out my state of mind, and I haven't yet put my finger on it exactly. Not sure I'm "at peace," but I do realize M is unlikely to win another national championship (literally) in my lifetime (given my prospects for survival). So maybe this is what I'm feeling: a mix of calm and gratification stemming from the knowledge that I lived to see it, and that shortly it will be time to care no longer. Until then I'll still care, but without the anxiety, frustration, and embarrassment we've all endured for too many years.
Allow me to quote from M-Dog’s spot-on assessment and reinforce key points for emphasis:
“We regularly beat up on an overmatched Big Ten, which makes us over-confident in our approach ... heading into the bowl game.
When we meet teams with better talent—which happens often because we tend to be overrated by beating up on the Big Ten—we don't have any kind of game plan in place that can give us an edge. We just think we can do what we did all season what ... worked great in the Big Ten. When it doesn't, we are caught flatfooted with no well-rep'd Plan B ready to go.
The most disappointing thing is that there have been very few cases where our talent level was so far behind that we couldn't have made adjustments necessary to win.
That we have not had more of these kinds of adjustments ready to go, adjustments that we are capable of, is the reason that we have lost so many bowl games we could have won.”
Why don’t we plan for them? Why do the coaches “think we can do what…worked great in the Big Ten” and win bowl games against much better-balanced offenses and stacked boxes on defense?
(1) We've typically been the slower team. Except for AC, Desmond, and a few others, we've never had a track team out there.
(2) We don't adapt to grass quickly enough (it takes a week or more to get our "legs").
(3) Growing up in Michigan and living in California, I have always remarked on how "slow" the spring-like weather here makes me feel. I really suspect that arriving in Cali for the Rose Bowl (and elsewhere for other outdoor bowl games) tends to make guys relax and lose their edge.
(4) The only "descendent of Bo" who was inventive and willing to take chances was Gary Moeller. Carr was more like Bo--very conservative, very risk-averse. Bo always said, when you pass, three things can happen, and two of them are bad."
(5) Michigan has always been easy to prepare for. In the '70s, early in Bo's tenure as head coach, you could sit in the stands and predict, as I did, every time the called play was a pass. How? Easy. Run plays were executed out of the I, pass plays out of split backs (for max-protect. It wasn't till Mo and Lloyd that M learned how to throw screens). Recall the SC players saying when Lloyd and Braylon lost in the Rose Bowl that SC's defense knew what play was coming every single time? Michigan is predictable and uninterested in finesse.
(6) Even when we know what's coming, we don't have an answer. Iowa knew Stanford was going to throw to McCaffrey, but they couldn't contain him. He ran wild. And Stanford had been doing that since the early '70s.
Undoubtedly there are additional reasons, but I'm too tired to think of them. I hope I'm surprised, but I think the game will be another typical Michigan Rose Bowl. (If you read about the '98 Rose Bowl game, you'll see that Lloyd understood he couldn't win by running the ball alone. He knew Griese would have to beat Wazzu with his arm. On three occasions, he beat the defense deep (twice to Tai Streets, once to Jerame Tuman). Three plays produced a 21-16 win.
Yes. It's the innate conservatism in a program that relies psychologically on "tradition" to bolster its confidence and banish insecurity. The insecurity is rooted in fear of looking incompetent, unserious, or foolish. Let's get over ourselves and have fun.
This. It's been 47 years since I dropped out of law school, after spending my undergrad years thinking that was all I wanted to do. Mind you, I have friends who became lawyers and who are terrific people. But not everyone emerges a better person.
First bit of advice: Have your daughter read the decisions in case books in torts, civil procedure, contracts, property, and tax law. If she can focus and retain enough detail to discuss the 30 cases she'll have to read each week, she'll be fine. If, like me, she finds them lengthy, complex, and boring, she should re-consider law as a profession. I was simply unprepared to absorb the technical detail well enough to process it.
Second: The point about "thinking like a lawyer" is apt. If your daughter completes law school, many others in her life--especially her life partner--will find her thinking maddening. (They will also find maddening her insistence on precision and clarity in the use of terms.) Legal "logic" is often illogical by any other standard: ethical, practical, mathematical, literary, historical, scientific, etc. At the very least, she should study the legal reasoning section of the LSAT and figure out why the right answer is right (and the others are wrong). If she never gets the hang of it before she takes the test, she's going to have a tough time in law school.
Third: Most law students profess to hate law school, but most graduate and become lawyers. The ones who love it usually do well, go on to clerk for appellate judges, and become law professors. Everybody else becomes a lawyer. And becoming a lawyer means...
Fourth: Pushing a lot of paper. The day-to-day tasks of legal practice are very bureaucratic. As noted above, it's not at all like it is on TV. Much more like on Breaking Bad, but not nearly that exciting. Take time to observe lawyers outside the courtroom. It'll be a sobering experience.
Fifth: For me, the best thing about law was jurisprudence--the philosophy of law. When I was at Stanford, none of this was available (the faculty was too small). In grad school, I had a classmate who went to Harvard. After the first year, he studied nothing but jurisprudence--courses with titles like "Philosophy of Law during the Ming Dynasty." Even I found Con Law and Criminal Law intellectually stimulating. But after that, I lost interest. If that's what appeals to your daughter, she'd be better off getting a PhD in the philosophy of law.
Lastly: Be careful what you wish for. The better a student does in law school, the greater the temptation to join one of the big corporate firms in a major city. But the work you do there can kill a person mentally and emotionally. One of my Stanford classmates was a Harvard grad, a very smart woman, She spent the first 10 years of her career working 60-hour weeks on a single case, defending asbestos mining companies against brown lung claims by workers. When I saw her at that point, she looked like she had aged 30 years.
We need good, idealistic, dedicated lawyers. We don't need more of the sort most law grads become. Until law schools start teaching students something besides the law and how to think like a lawyer, things won't change.
Actually it's the King's English now, Charles being on the throne.
And there's nothing wrong with using a plural verb with the first person. After all, we say "*we* are," don't we? Michigan is--we is? We are--Michigan are?
Is he known to be a UM fan? Is that why the OP posted about him? I went to law school with an Eric Roth who was a fellow alum, but he's several years younger than the screenwriter. Is the topic relevant to anything UM-related??
Jesse Owens, Jessica Lang, Twiggy, Gregory Peck, Yvette Mimieux, Sally Struthers, Dom DeLuise, Alan Ladd, Jr., Mike Farrell, Alan Alda, Paul Newman, William Rehnquist, Milton Friedman, Michael Murphy (actor), Michael Murphy (Esalen founder), William F. Buckley, Jr., Dan Rather, Chief Mangosuthu (Gatsha) Buthelezi, Nicolas Ardito Barletta (president of Panama), Richard Lamm and Jared Polis (governors of Colorado), some Senators and quite a few Members of Congress.
Yes, and at least some insiders might be betting on him and not on Putin. There was a report that Belorussian strong man Alexander Lukashenko and his family fled to Turkey. If true, not a vote of confidence in Vlad.
Amen to that. Fifty years too many of watching our alma mater's teams play well when not expected to win and play poorly when they're expected to win. I'll never understand why this seems to be true across all sports and all my years.
Now *this* is what I call *perspective.* It might sound like the trite (and often irritating) admonishment that "it's not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game." But it's more profound that that.
Excellence is something to which we ought to aspire in many aspects of our lives. But we can't guarantee we'll achieve it. Sometimes our hard work and refusal to quit will bear fruit, sometimes they won't. The University should uphold the standard of excellence in all activities it affords its members. All they (and we, as alumni) can do, though, is prepare well, work hard, and not give up. We won't always come out on top. I'd much rather we play well and accumulate fewer (abstract) points than play poorly and still win. Winning isn't everything and it surely isn't the *only* thing. We can remain true to our shared love of excellence in all things--and hence our emotional connection to Michigan--by focusing less on where we've come out than on how we got to where we are--and on how we will get to the next milestone in our lifelong journey and quest.
It's not a "switch" so much as it is a matter of getting yourself into the right frame of mind even before the game begins. It's taken me years to get more "Zen" about the whole experience--from the days of letting a wall destroy my TV remote to "sitting with" my pain and anger. Even now I will simply stop watching the game if it begins to bother me (I check the score occasionally and turn it back on if we've regained the lead). I repeat the mantra that football was only one element in my college experience; that I didn't play at Michigan (and couldn't have); that I had little in common with the players when I was there and have less (owing to age, dstance, and experience) now; that everything else in my world remains unchanged and I don't need Michigan winning to make my life complete; that in a couple of days--at most, a week or two--a loss (like a win) will be just another (rapidly receding memory); and, above all, that it won't be long before I don't have to concern myself with Michigan football at all--or anything else, for that matter.
So, turn off the TV; allow yourself to feel the pain and disappointment, but merely "observe" your frustration and anger; breathe in deeply, exhale and blow them away from you; watch as they melt into nothingness.
Yes, for the 53 years I've been watching, Michigan has more often than not played down to its competition--performing well when an underdog, miserably when favored (for at least three quarters--too late for a furious comeback to overcome the initial deficit). It's a psychological problem and is rooted, I suspect, in a culture in which people are encouraged to believe you've already made it simply by being in a maize and blue uniform. Teams play as if they ought to win just because they show up. No sense of having to fight for every inch and every point.
Maybe the football team ought to be coached by one or more of the academic departments...
Yes, Chekhov, a.k.a., Walter Koenig. Forty years ago, I took an acting class in which he was the instructor. He asked me whether I had ever considered becoming an actor. Fortunately for the world, I never did, before or since.
In what dialect of (I presume) English is the author of the vanshilparikh.com piece written? Is this an example of "international English"? Or is it an obscure sub-dialect of Minnesotan? The minds of inquiring dialectologists want to know.
Saw Rogers jogging the other morning. Didn't look like he was ready to retire. He's a lot bigger--taller, heavier, better developed--than I would have guessed from seeing him on TV. Clearly looks like a pro football player.
I understand and appreciate your reluctance. I would just say that the show actually delivers a pretty astute analysis of both Ukrainian politics and Ukraine's relationship with Russia. The scene in the last episode in which the president has an imagined enounter with Ivan the Terrible is so spot on it was almost uncanny in its prescience.
And before Yost--i.e., in the early 70s--there was whatever they called that unheated barn with the ice rink. We wanted fights to break out just so we could jump up and down and yell to get warm.
Exactly, Team101. I was at that game 47 years ago, on the 40-yard line a few rows up from the sideline. Like every other student in the stands, and like many other fans, I was dismayed at the Big Ten's decision and felt Michigan got shafted. I was a senior, and after two decades of watching the Rose Bowl from my cold, damp, and gray hometown, I really wanted to go to Pasadena for the game. Over time, though, I've come to view the outcome differently. Although the UM players were understandably disappointed, Ohio State was the better team that day, and the better choice for the Rose Bowl. The conference got it right.
Recent Comments
Because it's Michigan and it's April. I went through 22 of them, and I got out as soon as I could. Here in northern California, as I write it's 85 and there's not a cloud in the sky. (Of course, in February it easily could be 65 and not a cloud in the sky.)
So Coach had a seminal moment when he had to dispose of baby-related waste? I guess that makes sense. It was an "inseminal" moment that resulted in a baby in the first place...
When I lived in Westwood briefly back in the 70s, I was walking down the street one Saturday morning. A very tall, thin young guy was walking toward me. We nodded to each other as we passed. It was Kareem, and he was wearing a blue tee with "Michigan" emblazoned across it in maize.
Brilliant, Diego!
I have a story about that. First semester in law school I read a case in contracts in which the plaintiff sued a cosmetic surgeon for failing to properly fix a scar on the palm of his hand. Surgeon transplanted skin from his hip. In time, it grew hair. Issue: Did plaintiff contract for a hairless palm?
I was laughing about this in the dorm pub one evening. I related the case, and when I finished one of my fellow students stuck out his hand and said. "You mean like this?" Sure enough, the palm of his hand had hair growing because the skin had been taken from his leg. I was embarrassed, to say the least. Partly because the guy's wife as with him, partly because the guy, a recent Rhodes Scholar, subsequently become the attorney general of a Midwestern state.
As for me, I dropped out and went on to have an utterly unsuccessful career.
Yost might be cold enough for ice to be kept cold enough to play hockey, but that drafty barn the team played in before Yost allowed ice to form on the spectators and drifts to form under the bleachers.
Anything and everything written by John LeCarre.
Speaking of Detroit, how can anyone overlook Elmore Leonard? Get Shorty?
Yes--I second Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The protagonist ("the girl") is fascinating and the plots are intricate.
A fine sci-fi flick!
We used to yell "sniper" if we picked the QB off...
Yeah, well I grew up there, and there's nothing like 4-foot drifts in April and ice well beyond the pier--some years, in fact, to about 20 miles out or one-third the distance to Chicago.
Geez, BOLEACH7, you must be almost as old as I am. I've bled maize and blue since 24-12 in 1969. I've been trying to sort out my state of mind, and I haven't yet put my finger on it exactly. Not sure I'm "at peace," but I do realize M is unlikely to win another national championship (literally) in my lifetime (given my prospects for survival). So maybe this is what I'm feeling: a mix of calm and gratification stemming from the knowledge that I lived to see it, and that shortly it will be time to care no longer. Until then I'll still care, but without the anxiety, frustration, and embarrassment we've all endured for too many years.
Allow me to quote from M-Dog’s spot-on assessment and reinforce key points for emphasis:
“We regularly beat up on an overmatched Big Ten, which makes us over-confident in our approach ... heading into the bowl game.
When we meet teams with better talent—which happens often because we tend to be overrated by beating up on the Big Ten—we don't have any kind of game plan in place that can give us an edge. We just think we can do what we did all season what ... worked great in the Big Ten. When it doesn't, we are caught flatfooted with no well-rep'd Plan B ready to go.
The most disappointing thing is that there have been very few cases where our talent level was so far behind that we couldn't have made adjustments necessary to win.
That we have not had more of these kinds of adjustments ready to go, adjustments that we are capable of, is the reason that we have lost so many bowl games we could have won.”
Why don’t we plan for them? Why do the coaches “think we can do what…worked great in the Big Ten” and win bowl games against much better-balanced offenses and stacked boxes on defense?
Conservativism (football), arrogance, stubbornness.
Yeah, Eng1980, I was at that Rose Bowl, too.
Hey, I was born in 1952, and I'm not your grandfather! (My paternal grandfather was born in 1880...)
Which one? Hickory? Keelo, maybe? Yellow? Probably not Pipestone, Love, or Lemon.
(1) We've typically…
Yes:
(1) We've typically been the slower team. Except for AC, Desmond, and a few others, we've never had a track team out there.
(2) We don't adapt to grass quickly enough (it takes a week or more to get our "legs").
(3) Growing up in Michigan and living in California, I have always remarked on how "slow" the spring-like weather here makes me feel. I really suspect that arriving in Cali for the Rose Bowl (and elsewhere for other outdoor bowl games) tends to make guys relax and lose their edge.
(4) The only "descendent of Bo" who was inventive and willing to take chances was Gary Moeller. Carr was more like Bo--very conservative, very risk-averse. Bo always said, when you pass, three things can happen, and two of them are bad."
(5) Michigan has always been easy to prepare for. In the '70s, early in Bo's tenure as head coach, you could sit in the stands and predict, as I did, every time the called play was a pass. How? Easy. Run plays were executed out of the I, pass plays out of split backs (for max-protect. It wasn't till Mo and Lloyd that M learned how to throw screens). Recall the SC players saying when Lloyd and Braylon lost in the Rose Bowl that SC's defense knew what play was coming every single time? Michigan is predictable and uninterested in finesse.
(6) Even when we know what's coming, we don't have an answer. Iowa knew Stanford was going to throw to McCaffrey, but they couldn't contain him. He ran wild. And Stanford had been doing that since the early '70s.
Undoubtedly there are additional reasons, but I'm too tired to think of them. I hope I'm surprised, but I think the game will be another typical Michigan Rose Bowl. (If you read about the '98 Rose Bowl game, you'll see that Lloyd understood he couldn't win by running the ball alone. He knew Griese would have to beat Wazzu with his arm. On three occasions, he beat the defense deep (twice to Tai Streets, once to Jerame Tuman). Three plays produced a 21-16 win.
Yes. It's the innate conservatism in a program that relies psychologically on "tradition" to bolster its confidence and banish insecurity. The insecurity is rooted in fear of looking incompetent, unserious, or foolish. Let's get over ourselves and have fun.
This. It's been 47 years since I dropped out of law school, after spending my undergrad years thinking that was all I wanted to do. Mind you, I have friends who became lawyers and who are terrific people. But not everyone emerges a better person.
First bit of advice: Have your daughter read the decisions in case books in torts, civil procedure, contracts, property, and tax law. If she can focus and retain enough detail to discuss the 30 cases she'll have to read each week, she'll be fine. If, like me, she finds them lengthy, complex, and boring, she should re-consider law as a profession. I was simply unprepared to absorb the technical detail well enough to process it.
Second: The point about "thinking like a lawyer" is apt. If your daughter completes law school, many others in her life--especially her life partner--will find her thinking maddening. (They will also find maddening her insistence on precision and clarity in the use of terms.) Legal "logic" is often illogical by any other standard: ethical, practical, mathematical, literary, historical, scientific, etc. At the very least, she should study the legal reasoning section of the LSAT and figure out why the right answer is right (and the others are wrong). If she never gets the hang of it before she takes the test, she's going to have a tough time in law school.
Third: Most law students profess to hate law school, but most graduate and become lawyers. The ones who love it usually do well, go on to clerk for appellate judges, and become law professors. Everybody else becomes a lawyer. And becoming a lawyer means...
Fourth: Pushing a lot of paper. The day-to-day tasks of legal practice are very bureaucratic. As noted above, it's not at all like it is on TV. Much more like on Breaking Bad, but not nearly that exciting. Take time to observe lawyers outside the courtroom. It'll be a sobering experience.
Fifth: For me, the best thing about law was jurisprudence--the philosophy of law. When I was at Stanford, none of this was available (the faculty was too small). In grad school, I had a classmate who went to Harvard. After the first year, he studied nothing but jurisprudence--courses with titles like "Philosophy of Law during the Ming Dynasty." Even I found Con Law and Criminal Law intellectually stimulating. But after that, I lost interest. If that's what appeals to your daughter, she'd be better off getting a PhD in the philosophy of law.
Lastly: Be careful what you wish for. The better a student does in law school, the greater the temptation to join one of the big corporate firms in a major city. But the work you do there can kill a person mentally and emotionally. One of my Stanford classmates was a Harvard grad, a very smart woman, She spent the first 10 years of her career working 60-hour weeks on a single case, defending asbestos mining companies against brown lung claims by workers. When I saw her at that point, she looked like she had aged 30 years.
We need good, idealistic, dedicated lawyers. We don't need more of the sort most law grads become. Until law schools start teaching students something besides the law and how to think like a lawyer, things won't change.
Actually it's the King's English now, Charles being on the throne.
And there's nothing wrong with using a plural verb with the first person. After all, we say "*we* are," don't we? Michigan is--we is? We are--Michigan are?
Is he known to be a UM fan? Is that why the OP posted about him? I went to law school with an Eric Roth who was a fellow alum, but he's several years younger than the screenwriter. Is the topic relevant to anything UM-related??
My random ones (in random order):
Jesse Owens, Jessica Lang, Twiggy, Gregory Peck, Yvette Mimieux, Sally Struthers, Dom DeLuise, Alan Ladd, Jr., Mike Farrell, Alan Alda, Paul Newman, William Rehnquist, Milton Friedman, Michael Murphy (actor), Michael Murphy (Esalen founder), William F. Buckley, Jr., Dan Rather, Chief Mangosuthu (Gatsha) Buthelezi, Nicolas Ardito Barletta (president of Panama), Richard Lamm and Jared Polis (governors of Colorado), some Senators and quite a few Members of Congress.
Yeah, I'm old.
Yes, and at least some insiders might be betting on him and not on Putin. There was a report that Belorussian strong man Alexander Lukashenko and his family fled to Turkey. If true, not a vote of confidence in Vlad.
Amen to that. Fifty years too many of watching our alma mater's teams play well when not expected to win and play poorly when they're expected to win. I'll never understand why this seems to be true across all sports and all my years.
Now *this* is what I call *perspective.* It might sound like the trite (and often irritating) admonishment that "it's not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game." But it's more profound that that.
Excellence is something to which we ought to aspire in many aspects of our lives. But we can't guarantee we'll achieve it. Sometimes our hard work and refusal to quit will bear fruit, sometimes they won't. The University should uphold the standard of excellence in all activities it affords its members. All they (and we, as alumni) can do, though, is prepare well, work hard, and not give up. We won't always come out on top. I'd much rather we play well and accumulate fewer (abstract) points than play poorly and still win. Winning isn't everything and it surely isn't the *only* thing. We can remain true to our shared love of excellence in all things--and hence our emotional connection to Michigan--by focusing less on where we've come out than on how we got to where we are--and on how we will get to the next milestone in our lifelong journey and quest.
It's not a "switch" so much as it is a matter of getting yourself into the right frame of mind even before the game begins. It's taken me years to get more "Zen" about the whole experience--from the days of letting a wall destroy my TV remote to "sitting with" my pain and anger. Even now I will simply stop watching the game if it begins to bother me (I check the score occasionally and turn it back on if we've regained the lead). I repeat the mantra that football was only one element in my college experience; that I didn't play at Michigan (and couldn't have); that I had little in common with the players when I was there and have less (owing to age, dstance, and experience) now; that everything else in my world remains unchanged and I don't need Michigan winning to make my life complete; that in a couple of days--at most, a week or two--a loss (like a win) will be just another (rapidly receding memory); and, above all, that it won't be long before I don't have to concern myself with Michigan football at all--or anything else, for that matter.
So, turn off the TV; allow yourself to feel the pain and disappointment, but merely "observe" your frustration and anger; breathe in deeply, exhale and blow them away from you; watch as they melt into nothingness.
And the late Chuck Hughes of the Lions, in Detroit versus the Bears, October 24, 1971. I was listening to the game on the radio.
Yes, for the 53 years I've been watching, Michigan has more often than not played down to its competition--performing well when an underdog, miserably when favored (for at least three quarters--too late for a furious comeback to overcome the initial deficit). It's a psychological problem and is rooted, I suspect, in a culture in which people are encouraged to believe you've already made it simply by being in a maize and blue uniform. Teams play as if they ought to win just because they show up. No sense of having to fight for every inch and every point.
Maybe the football team ought to be coached by one or more of the academic departments...
Yeah, well I got that look from Dom DeLuise at a screening on the Fox lot...
Well, I still think of Dennis Franklin as young...
Yes, Chekhov, a.k.a., Walter Koenig. Forty years ago, I took an acting class in which he was the instructor. He asked me whether I had ever considered becoming an actor. Fortunately for the world, I never did, before or since.
Ok, this is a waste of time. I'm turning it off.
And can't stop a fake punt...
Except for Loveland, can't catch or throw, either.
Defense isn't tackling. Quit running past guys!
I was there. We lost. Never wear white pants.
As a percentage of games played in each color? I'd like to see the evidence.
Me, too. They've gone and sealed their fate. Should have gone with blue or maize. :-(
Appalachian…
30.5 points?
Appalachian State...
In what dialect of (I presume) English is the author of the vanshilparikh.com piece written? Is this an example of "international English"? Or is it an obscure sub-dialect of Minnesotan? The minds of inquiring dialectologists want to know.
Saw Rogers jogging the other morning. Didn't look like he was ready to retire. He's a lot bigger--taller, heavier, better developed--than I would have guessed from seeing him on TV. Clearly looks like a pro football player.
That's it. I'm turning in my alumni card and turning off the TV.
That "maize" is the most awful yellow I've ever seen. It looks like (old, faded) school bus yellow.
Oregon gets the yellow right (and it's not "highlighter" yellow--there's no hint of green in it).
I understand and appreciate your reluctance. I would just say that the show actually delivers a pretty astute analysis of both Ukrainian politics and Ukraine's relationship with Russia. The scene in the last episode in which the president has an imagined enounter with Ivan the Terrible is so spot on it was almost uncanny in its prescience.
And before Yost--i.e., in the early 70s--there was whatever they called that unheated barn with the ice rink. We wanted fights to break out just so we could jump up and down and yell to get warm.
Way too much red in the stands, and not concentrated in a few sections.
I took acting lessons from "Chekhov" (Walter Koenig) in 1976. He was passionate about acting. I wasn't...
You realize, right, that Hankwitz is a Michigan Man? Played for Bo from '69 - '72.
Exactly, Team101. I was at that game 47 years ago, on the 40-yard line a few rows up from the sideline. Like every other student in the stands, and like many other fans, I was dismayed at the Big Ten's decision and felt Michigan got shafted. I was a senior, and after two decades of watching the Rose Bowl from my cold, damp, and gray hometown, I really wanted to go to Pasadena for the game. Over time, though, I've come to view the outcome differently. Although the UM players were understandably disappointed, Ohio State was the better team that day, and the better choice for the Rose Bowl. The conference got it right.
+1 for spelling "orangutan" correctly.