Who should wear Ron Kramer's #87 Saturday?
Just like I posted a thread last week on who your #47 should be, who do you think should wear Ron Kramer's #87 Saturday?
He will become the 3rd Michigan Football Legend. A 2-time All-American in football in 1955 & 1956. Kramer also played basketball and track at Michigan. He was a team captain in basketball. Kramer was the scoring leader in both football in basketball, he collected 9 varsity letters in 3 sports which was the maximum at the time due to freshmen not being eligible.
Kramer passed away at age 75 on September 11, 2010- the day of the Michigan-ND game. In that game, Denard Robinson rushed for the longest TD run in ND stadium- 87 yards. Ron Kramer's number was #87.
I think a really good choice would be either Jeremy Gallon or Devin Funchess. Funchess may be a knee jerk reaction to last week's performance, but Kramer once was quoted saying he "hopes another great young player wears #87 at Michigan someday".
September 13th, 2012 at 9:10 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:11 AM ^
In all seriousness, though, I wouldn't mind if Funchess gets it. I think having legends numbers for all four years could really get kids motivated to become early leaders on the team. I see them less as a reward and more as a motivator.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:11 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
Nah, I think Kovacs should get Ford's number. Something about it just makes more sense.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:11 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:12 AM ^
Devin Gardner
September 13th, 2012 at 8:38 PM ^
choice.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:20 AM ^
but has anyone considered Hopkins? He does a lot of dirty work that goes unnoticed. He also was a good sport about the position change and I think the coaches respect that.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^
I actually like that a lot. Is he allowed to wear 87? Jersey number rules always confuse me.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
Yes, he can. Any player wearing a pass eligible number (which 87 clearly is) can line up at any pass eligible postion (which fullback definitely is) without having to report as eligible to the officials. So, while highly unorthodox for a FB to wear a number in the 80's, it's absolutely legal.
For the most part when it comes to uniform numbers, while there is a list of what positions should wear what number range, it's more of a suggestion as pretty much anyone can wear any number. The only real issue is players wearing 50-79 and 90-99 have to report as eligible on every offensive play they're in a pass eligible position.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
It was my impression that there isn't any tackle-eligible rule in the NCAA; if you have an ineligible number, you're ineligible, forever and always. That's the reason you never hear it announced in college football, although you hear it in the NFL all the time.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^
I'm more going off of high school and NFL rules (at least when I was in high school and ran a few tackle eligble plays myself as #67), so you are partly correct. In the NCAA, if I'm not mistaken, numbers 50-79 cannot declare themselves eligible no matter what, but 90-99 still can. Of course, this still has no effect on a receiver designated number playing a backfield position, but good catch on that nonetheless.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
How were we able to get Jake Long eligible for that one pass play in the bowl against Florida? I assume he was still wearing #77.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
I don't remember that play and can't a video of it, but if he wasn't the first player to touch the ball after the pass was made, then he is allowed to catch the ball.
September 13th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
See also: Glanda, Jareth
September 13th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
Backwards pass.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
Have we ever had a fullback wear a number in the 80s? Since I'm already asking questions of people who know more than me...
September 13th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
According to the Bentley Historical Library roster database, two players whose position was listed as "FB" have worn numbers in the 80s. Robert B. Westfall (1939-41) wore #86, and Leo Schlict (1951) wore #87.
A variety of other backs have worn numbers in the 80s, including the fabulously named Hercules Renda (1938-39, #85) and Ron Kramer himself (who was listed as E-HB in 1956, his senior season). But no back of any sort has worn a number in the 80s since positions were assigned standardized numbers (I'm not sure when this happened in NCAA football, but the NFL created the eligible/ineligible receiver number distinction in 1952 and implemented the more or less modern categories of numbers in 1973).
September 13th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
Do players wearing 90-99 have to report as eligible in the NCAA? It was my impression that this range was always "eligible" numbers - offensive linemen can't wear them, but eligible receivers can without reporting. I know several teams have TEs and WRs that wear 90-99, and it would seem like a pain for them to report on every play that they're in the game.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^
ooooh a Fullback wearing 87 would look really really cool! good idea
September 13th, 2012 at 9:32 AM ^
That's what I was thinking and it would also offer an excuse to throw to him, which I think is a part of his game that has been overlooked. I would love to see him on more flare and wheel routes.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:54 AM ^
I always liked the fullback coming out of the backfield on a wheel route. I remember when the Lions ran that play to Corey Schlesinger back in the day.
Okay, now get off my lawn.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:26 AM ^
I saw a writer tweet something about how Kramer's family would like to see Craig Roh wear the jersey, which I have no problems with.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:26 AM ^
hopefully its DFunch....
September 13th, 2012 at 9:27 AM ^
This guy has been through a lot since he got to Michigan. Flopping positions, RR, GERG and he's stayed all in the whole time.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:04 AM ^
True, but he's also never done much on Main Street.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
Or another way to split them: make Roundtree wear 27 and Funchess 81
September 13th, 2012 at 9:34 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
What if he wore 47 on the front and 87 on the back?
September 13th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^
On the helmet numbers if they brings them back for the Bowl Game.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:42 AM ^
Can someone clarify this for me? So does Jake Ryan wear #47 from now on or was it just 1 game? I have not quite figured out this legends jersey thing.
I feel like the patch on the Jerseys is a bit guady and makes it look clutter but maybe that is just me.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:02 AM ^
Foreva eva?
September 13th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
neva seems so long indeed
September 13th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
Hopkins or Roh are both good options.It's a shame nobody really successfully goes out for two sports anymore. Kelvin Grady was the last to sort of do it, but he was a star at neither. If any player were a big part of both teams, they'd be a shoe in.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:45 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:45 AM ^
So, are these legend jerseys a 1-time thing? Are they rotating on a weekly basis? Will we honor Gerald Ford or something next week?
I can't keep track of all these marketing gimiks that Dave Brandon is throwing at the wall (like shit) just to see what sticks.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:54 AM ^
Our AD is a marketing and financial genius!
September 13th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
The jersey thing isn't that complicated, and I doubt if DB came up with it all on his own. He's honoring Michigan legends, fergodsakes.
The player keeps the jersey number, period. It doesn't change every week, and I'm pretty sure stays put until the player graduates. It's really not that complex.
EDIT: Also, why the FUCK is everyone so opposed to our athletic department making money? Look at our recent renovations: stadium, scoreboards, Crisler, Yost...all that shit costs money. Plus the revenue supports other programs. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything, so STFU.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^
They are the same people who threw a fit when Michigan renovated Michigan Stadium in 2007.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
Nobody is opposed to our athletic department making money. But there are two questions: the tradeoff between money and dignity, and the tradeoff between short-term profits and long-term value.
We could sell the naming rights to the stadium, without a doubt, and make even more money. But it wouldn't be right for such a storied program to play in Dominos Field at Little Caesars Stadium or something like that. At some point, the class and dignity of the program is worth more than a moderate financial gain. It's a matter of individual opinion whether things like wearing 6 different jerseys in one season or unretiring numbers get close to this line, but they're at least part of the discussion.
Also to be considered is whether the emphasis on short-term profits hurts the long-term value of the program. Schools like Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas have a lot of intangible value associated with their program's image as a traditional power. You can look back decades at star players from each of these schools, wearing more or less the same uniform that today's players are wearing, and feel a connection. Retired numbers are part of that. I remember going to Michigan Stadium when I was nine years old and seeing Tom Harmon's name in the program as a number that would never be worn again, and wondering what it would have been like to see him play if he was so good that no one would ever be worthy of wearing #98 again. That is a mystique that nouveau riche programs don't have, and it's certainly worth something (even if you only care to look at finances). It's also a matter of individual opinion whether seeing that number again with a jersey patch explaining its history is a better or worse way of recognizing our program's tradition, but again, this must be part of the discussion.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
You have officially lost it if you think Michigan would EVER sell the rights to ANY building they own.
Go up and ask a college kid or the average fan who has their number retired and they can't name them all of them or any. This is a great way to let their legacies live on instead of being in a display case. People will see the patch, and do research if they don't know.
I'm not that sure if #98 should be worn either. I think Michigan should paint a big number 98 on one of the luxury boxes. Sort of like how Jackie Robinson's #42 is painted on the wall at Comerica. No name, just the number.
That is one number I'm not sure if we'll EVER see a player as good as Harmon, so I don't think it should be worn. It should be put up somehwere where everyone can see it.
September 13th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
kick extra points, or maybe play a little defense, then I think it fits.
September 17th, 2012 at 3:31 PM ^
I'm not suggesting that Michigan should or would sell the naming rights to the stadium. I only brought that up as an example of one extreme to illustrate that "it makes more money" shouldn't be a complete justification for new AD initiatives (As "ND Sux" implied).
September 13th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^
September 13th, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^
Kozan?