The Black Knight Of Michigan Stadium Comment Count

Brian

Michigan Stadium before renovations:

michigan-stadium-before2Michigan Stadium (almost) afterwards:

image

Cork boat enthusiast, political speechwriter, "Save the Big House" founder, Yale grad, and Hero of Tiananmen Square John Pollack on this transformation:

It’s a lot different and ironically it looks a lot bigger from the outside and it feels a lot smaller from the inside. Going to games there over the last couple years, as the boxes have risen–they are so out of scale with bowl itself that it makes the bowl seem small. And that’s not positive.

Before, as you approached the stadium there was this sense of anticipation whether you’d been there 100 times or never had been there.  Because even if you knew what was coming, you walk in and this mighty bowl unfolds before you. Now you’re walking up to two corporate-looking structures and when you walk in the bowl is diminished because the proportions are all wrong.  Those boxes are literally monuments to self-aggrandizement and unfortunately they diminish the stadium. …

The university has greatly diminished the iconic stadium in the United States of America.

That's from an MVictors interview of the HOTS himself. "Corporate-looking." What does this mean? It means Pollack is a certain kind of leftist. As the renovations have gone up the level of concerned emails in my inbox has dropped to zero, as the structures are both attractive and, with Newsterbaan, part of a unified look for the athletic campus based on Yost that cannot get to Crisler soon enough. The stadium now looks like something other than a hole in the ground. But if you're so invested you could see Michigan Stadium as "the iconic stadium in the United States of America" you clearly aren't going to ever back down.

This site's been over this before, making the case for luxury boxes when a reasonable questioner—of the variety that seems not to exist any more—wondered what that case was. In short, extracting exorbitant amounts of money from relatively few patrons is better for everyone because those people are funding the modernization of the stadium and making the place more intimidating than it was before because instead of their silence we get the fairly significant acoustic benefits of the structures. Also maybe they won't yell at me to sit down as much.

The case against the boxes as made by Pollack is a breathtaking combination of delusion ("One of the great things about college football, especially Michigan football, is that it is a great public space—a place where autoworkers and millionaires can come together to cheer on their team") and arrogance ("Michigan doesn't need to keep up with the Joneses. We are the Joneses") that rests largely on the idea that Bill Martin, who seemingly thought about nothing but money during his tenure at Michigan, is getting the money wrong. A source close to the project has convincingly debunked these ideas in a detailed post on the renovations and a response to a mailbag question. Michigan has to renovate the stadium after years and years of Duderstadt-inspired neglect. They can pay for this renovation by adding a surcharge to tickets for 20 years or by putting in boxes that will do more than pay for themselves and set Michigan up to compete with the likes of Ohio State and its massive spending.

Meanwhile, the "grass roots" effort to stop the renovations is as natural as the turf they just put in. Allow myself to quote myself:

There was one loud, PR-savvy group with no grassroots support that employed disingenuous political rhetoric in an attempt to stall a project that it seems like the vast bulk of the fanbase supports. Three guys with impressive names and a website do not a movement make, and when you are persistently, uselessly annoying you shouldn't expect perpetual fruitless audiences. Not once in this process did Pollack attempt to measure the sentiment of the fanbase, or if he did the results he got back were disconcerting and quickly buried; "but but but Fielding Yost" is not an argument that sways anyone with decision-making powers, no matter how many newspapers it appears in.

Unfortunately, no one has undertaken that measurement; in its absence all we have to go on are the constant "I was by the stadium so I took 20 pictures" posts that pop up on message boards across the Michigan internet and the almost-unanimous excitement about the addition on practical, aesthetic, and auditory grounds.

As for the sanctified tradition we're tossing aside, here's a quote from MVictors's HTTV 2010 (buy now!) piece on the construction of the stadium I wish I'd seen earlier so I could have put it in every post I've made on the subject. It's Yost speaking to Bennie Oosterbaan after the dedication game in 1927:

Bennie, do you know what the best thing about that new stadium is? Eighty-five thousand people paid five dollars apiece for their seats -- and Bennie, they had to leave the seats there!

Comments

Michigasling

July 13th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^

since I have to watch the games from some distance, and on TV, this post clarified lots for me.  I admit I had some creepycrawly reactions to the idea of luxury boxes when I first heard about them, but if the big spenders don't want to mingle with the hoi polloi but are willing to pay so we of the humble hoi polloi can afford to sit down where it's fun, I'm okay with that.  Much better than what's happening in the new pro stadiums (at least in my current neighborhood), asking 30-year season ticket holders to ante up $20,000-$30,000 for the rights for the non-box tix they've had for years, and even then raising the ticket prices themselves beyond the budget of most of their fans, all to put up new stadiums those fans won't be able to enter. 

Thanks also for the history, that the stadium was built in a way that allowed for its expansion/improvement without having to tear it down every few years and start again from scratch. 

As for architecture, I've always been fond of brick.  IMHO, will look a lot better with the autumn leaves of A2 than plastic or glass. 

ijohnb

July 13th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^

If I was not told there was dissension regarding this topic, I would never guess that there was any reason for debate.  I guess that is part of the "maize and blue divide" that is being spoke of so frequently right now.  I think the renovations are awesome, like the awesomest thing ever aside from pizza.  It is interesting to hear that some people do not agree.

Engin77

July 13th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^

that Mr. Pollack is unhappy with the direction the country has taken, in general; and had hoped that Michigan Stadium could remain a shrine to his self-delusional class-free utopia. Sorry, Mr. Pollack, things don't work that way; if you're not moving ahead, you're falling behind. I only wish MVictors had asked Mr. Pollack his views on Big Ten expansion. That would have been good for a few chuckles.

Don

July 13th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^

And after that, his views on electricity, hot and cold running water, indoor toilets, and that internet thingie that's now on computers.

But, most importantly, ask him this: if he is such a Wolverine through and through, why did he not attend the University of Michigan? Since he gained admittance to Stanford, it surely isn't because he didn't have the grades or the board scores.

wildbackdunesman

July 13th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^

I have even heard people argue against the renovation based on the fact that there are 13 arches in length on each side as if the number is scientifically proven to bring bad luck.

Rasmus

July 13th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

October 22, 1927, 84,401 seats, Michigan 21, Ohio State 0:

1927 Michigan Stadium dedication game

For me, I stopped caring when they added the metal ring of 5,000 seats around the top in 1998. Before that, there was still the original thrill for the newcomer of not really grasping what it was until stepping out into it and realizing it is one freaking enormous hole in the ground. Once that deceptive feel from the outside was lost, then you might as well go the rest of the way and truly update the stadium, which the current project has done nicely, especially once the seats are changed out next year.

Don

July 13th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

I've never been able to see what the big deal is about an enormous hole in the ground. People continually talk about the old structure as though it was on par with the Pantheon or the Colosseum in architectural history, but it wasn't in any of the architectural history books I read. It was a very plain, utilitarian structure that had little noteworthy about it other than its size and simplicity. For some, size is everything in architecture, but that's a pretty constrained view of the field IMHO.

thethirdcoast

July 13th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

I am another that doesn't really see how a gigantic metal bowl in the ground was the end all be all of architectural, rather than functional, expression.

Personally, I find the design of the new stadium buildings very reminiscent of the Roman Aula Palatina built by Constantine in Trier, Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aula_Palatina

Both project an aura of order and strength, qualities that are ingrained in Michigan Football and the University of Michigan.

Don

July 13th, 2010 at 8:14 PM ^

Interesting historical antecedent. I have a friend who's a well-known local architect and he absolutely hates the expansion design, likening it to a Lions-eating-the-Christians sort of Roman colossus. For him, the purity of the old oval was everything. To each his own. While there are some aspects of the design I would have done differently, overall I think it's been handled very well. Especially in the use of the brick.

Not long ago I took my wife on a short driving tour of the athletic campus (where she never ventures) and she had not realized how central brick was in the overall look of the place, and understood for the first time how the material helps tie the stadium into the campus in a way it never was before.

She also thought that Schembechler Hall was an ugly, weird-ass building by contrast. I have to agree, notwithstanding the fact that it was designed by Gunnar Birkerts, one of the more world-renowned architects to have worked on UM buildings.

thethirdcoast

July 14th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^

...I would counter the "Lions-eating-Christians" argument with the point that Michigan has always been, and will always be a secular, public university. It makes sense that their planners may have been inspired by the Roman basillica, an archetype that was originally purposed as a secular, public gathering place.

I concur regarding the use of brick in the renovations. If strong athletic performance is a goal of all Michigan athletes then the Athletic Campus structures should also project an image of strength to inspire our competitors and give pause to our foes.

For an example of a disunified architectural presentation I would recommend touring the Central Campus Diag. The variety of styles can be refreshing, and it can be argued that such variety is a built expression of the University's open-mindedness and committment to excellence in many fields of endeavor. On the other hand, this disunity can occasionally make Michigan seem a smaller, less-influential instituition than it really is.

jmblue

July 13th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

The stadium was purely functional before this (and not even that functional, given the way we're all packed like sardines).  The only classy-looking part of the stadium was the original facade on the east side . . . which featured the same redbrick motif we now have in the two structures.  Otherwise it was just a bunch of sheet metal welded together.

M-Wolverine

July 13th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^

It was always impressive for newcomers, to only see a side, of a short building, and wonder how THIS was the biggest stadium in America...then get inside, and be amazed how much bigger it was than their home field.

But it in no way was valuable enough, or important enough to denigrate in any way the beautiful job that was done on the Stadium (and as someone else said, was kinda moot the day they put up the extra seats, and the ugly iron work that supported it...and the Halo).

umchicago

July 13th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^

it was and still is.  the beauty of the old stadium was that it was so unassuming from the outside - what 30-40 feet high?  but when you stepped inside, you were 2/3 of the way up and seemed very much like a lilipution (sp?).

i can still hear angels every time i step in...

BlueDoug

July 13th, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^

Hey folks - they spent a QUARTER BILLION dollars on these suckers. Let's wait until September and see what the average fan will get out of it. My guess is - nada, zip, zero. Just think what the average fan could have gotten if they had spent half of that amount on us. You can say that these palaces will be self supporting, but I'll believe it when I see it. My prediction is that within three years they will start passing the cost to us.

cutter

July 13th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^

Blue Doug - In the FY 2011 UM Athletic Department Budget, you'll  see that while $235M were spent on the stadium renovation, nearly $90M came from gifts and donations.  The debt servicing figure for FY 2010 (which ended last 30 June) was $147M and is projected at $144M by the end of FY 2011.  The total debt service payment for FY 2011 will be $9.23M with $2.85M going to principal.

In the meantime, the gifting to the Michigan Athletic Department for FY 2010 came out to over $19M and is projected to be around $20M in FY 2011.  The vast bulk of those sums come from revenue for PSDs, premium seating and the suites ($16.41M in FY 2010 and $18.33M in FY 2011). 

The revenue from these sources would have to decrease anywhere from 40 to 50 percent before you get to a level equal to the debt servicing costs.  I suppose that scenario is possible, but upon mature reflection, you might want to rethink your prediction that costs will be passed onto people buying tickets in the bowl section (I think this is what you meant by "us").

Also keep in mind that the athletic department has a reserve in the maintenance fund of around $35M that has been built up since 2003 when Bill Martin took over.  Its essentially a rainy day fund and it could be used as a possible resource if things were really to go south.

I suppose average fans will get a few things out of this--better concessions, a bit wider seating, more places for disabled fans to see the games, better restrooms and an aesthetically fresher place to watch a football game.  If the more affluent fan base is willing to gift the athletic department $20M per year for some luxury seats in order to defray the total cost, I'm for it.

Engin77

July 13th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

the budget was about a quarter billion dollars, but it's not like Bill Martin drove to Wal-Mart and bought the $249,999,999 Made-in-China stadium expansion kit. A great deal of that money went to local construction workers: welders, bricklayers, glaziers, electricians, carpet layers and more. The remainder went to buy steel, brick, mortar, glass and wire from suppliers. All this at a time when not alot of new home construction was happening; those jobs and orders kept some heads above water.

GustaveFerbert

July 13th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^

nada, zip, zero, then you neglect to understand that the average fan got the infrastructure upgrades that were necessary regardless of whether they added the potential for additional revenue....

I think most "average" fans understand that you need to invest back in the infrastructure of your "house" so that you get a return on your investment for many more years.  Maintaining things cost money, so to suggest that there would not have been necessary expenses is just plain silly.

And more to the point, it is equally naive of the STBH folks to regal in the past and neglect the future in the process.  Had UM not made some upgrades and looked to compete with the future then it continue to look to the past and think of better days while the rest of the world passes us by. 

Moreover, of course the outside looks larger - because it is... and if the bowl looks smaller, it is merely because one chooses to focus ones perspective on that.  Much like the pictures with Brian's post - the stadium is not that much smaller in the updated version - it is merely the perspective.  There is nothing that could have been added to mollify the STBH folks, except perhaps a statute of themselves in the plaza.

 

M-Wolverine

July 14th, 2010 at 2:19 AM ^

Infrastructure improvements for the average fan? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm kinda keen on the idea of huge chunks of concrete not falling on my head due to Stadium decay.

cutter

July 13th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^

I was driving cross-country and stopped in Ann Arbor for a day.  I walked around all the new athletic fields and structures, including Michigan Stadium.  Its changed a lot--and for the better--since 1978.

I always though the stadium was function first and not very aesthetic.  There were no plaza and the entire structure was surrounded by chain link fence thirty-two years ago.  There were a lot of bare beams visible from the outside due to the earlier expansions and it really wasn't an impressive site from the outside.  Once you go in, it was different, of course, but it only had any real personality when there were people in it.

Now, of course, its much different and much more manicured.  The plazas have been added (I suppose they didn't offend Mr. Pollock's sensibilities since his family has a brick there) and the brick and iron fence goes around the perimeter instead of the chain link.  I like the way the structures look on the east and west sides--it actually give the stadium a much more imposing look on the outside.  Clearly, there will have to be something done to the endzone areas and getting an upgraded scoreboard will help--perhaps an atrium like they have at Lambeau Field (which was modelled after Michigan Stadium).

I've been in luxury boxes before at a few different venues--Fedex Field outside Washington, DC and Jobing.com Arena near Phoenix, AZ.  Luxury boxes are okay, but if I'm at an event in person, they will never replace a great seat near the action.  I'm looking forward to going to Michigan Stadium this year now that I live in Maryland and can drive to Ann Arbor for a game.  The last one I was at was Notre Dame 2003 and I missed the first touchdown of the second half waiting in line for the portajohn.  Hopefully, those days are gone.

If you look at the FY2011 Michigan Athletic Department Budget, you'll note that the amount of debt on the project is about $147M--and this is on a project that was supposed to cost around $235M.  See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-10/2010-6-X-17.pdf and go to Page 4.  That says a lot about how popular this project was amongst the individuals and organizations which support Michigan and contribute their money to the athletic program with total gift income in FY 2010 coming to $19.3M with projections at $20.9M in FY 2011.  Would that have happened if the "Save the Big House" renovation plan had gone forth?  I seriously doubt it.

saveferris

July 13th, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^

What they did was build a monument to a past age.  It's a microcosm of the breakdown that we've seen of the financial system that we've seen over the past couple years, with Wall Street overreaching, America going into debt, and the taxpayer having to bailout the fat cats......It's not so surprising because sports are always a microcosm of larger society.

Yes, 20 years from now when we're all living in scattered villages of cardboard shanties and eating catfood, we'll look in wonder and awe at Michigan Stadium before the Fall of America.  Dude's a touch on the dramatic side.....

umchicago

July 13th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

i was skeptical about the renovations; even more so after i saw the initial drawings.  but i must say, i am pleasantly surprised at the result.  they did a great job of blending in the brick and mortar; unlike the eyesore they call soldier field here in chicago - though the amenities are great there.

M-Wolverine

July 13th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^

And still isn't.  But that's a talk for another time.

Me, with the Stadium, I was always a proponent of boxes.  Make money in a way that doesn't detract from the gameday experience. And that's just easy money.  Egalitarian?  Egalitarian is everyone getting a chance to go and see the games.  If some rich guy or corporation wants to pay big bucks not to get rained on so I can still go to the game, because they don't have to jack up the ticket prices to obscene amounts?  That's fine with me.  Prefer being in the bowl anyway.  Enjoy paying thousands of dollars to watch it on tv so I don't have to.  I find the people who cry about the class warfare of it all are usually the lower class rich...enough money that any seat license isn't a problem, but not so much that they can afford they're own suite.  So they feel like the rest of us unwashed masses by being separated...but never caring if the people who ARE on a budget and want to still go see the games are priced out of the bowl.  Yeah, real concerned about their common man.

As for the design, when they first came out with the specs, I was kinda...eh.  Didn't hate it, wouldn't cry about it, wouldn't protest it...but I wasn't oooohhhing or ahhhhhing.  But, am I the only one, who thinks they're fairly different from those first released drawings...and a million times better?  I think maybe originally they had planned a lot more glass, less brick, and at least drew clear glass, rather than a lot of the blue tinted stuff they have.  So they not only matched my hopes, they exceeded them.  I don't know what they could have done to make it any better.

Well, other than not painting those new seat numbers next year...I'll give up my quarter inch of seat to make sure we squeeze as many fans as possible into that place.  Keep Tennessee and Penn State and everyone from trying anything stupid. But I'm not going to win that one, or even try.

corncobb

July 13th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^

Having invested a year and a half of my life being a part of constructing the new addition, I have to say I have never been anything but proud of Michigan for taking this much needed step. I am all for nostalgia, but this transition is one that allows Michigan to compete at another ever-escalating level. The structures, although way out of my pay grade, will amplify the voices of the everyday fan and make us actually sound 108,000 strong. Our experience getting a $9 pretzel, taking a leak, or making it to our seats will never be easier.

I venture to think that the nay-sayers are envious, more than anything. The old have's vs. the have not's type of thing. It isn't about aesthetics with these people. Do they really cherish a piss trough? Or a 15 minute wait for a Coke? Come on.

In any event, I am proud at what we built. I looked at the brick being installed by Crisler: Classy. I have seen the numerous family bathrooms: Thoughtful. I have also seen many of the 398 HDTV's all over: Perfect.

This place is going to amaze everyone. I hate to gush on and on, but I am fricking excited to hear this place in full effect. See you there soon. Go Blue.

Kilgore Trout

July 13th, 2010 at 8:19 PM ^

It will be interesting to see how the final product (with aisle widening and all) really does for helping the flow in and out of the game.  I am on the aisle in row 41 and listening to the people bitch on the way up at the end of the second quarter kills me.  Why people don't realize that there are 50 rows above them emptying and everyone can't just "go" is beyond me.  Here's to hoping this helps that problem.

blueinwinston

July 13th, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^

I know OSU wen through their big stadium renovations, but I don't remember the timeline.  I believe it was around 2000 to the tune of $194 million.  What would be interesting is to see how their revenue has changed since then, especially in light of the article that came out recently that Brian mentioned about OSU out-spending nearly every B10 school.  He thought the numbers were wrong, perhaps they weren't.  In other words, is there any link between renovations and kicking a$$ (as OSU has done throughout the 00s)?  Maybe adding a few luxury boxes allows you to spend coin on other things, attract new talent, and win.  That's a stretch, I know, but the added revenue surely can't hurt.  At the very least, the renovations to the Big House will allow us to keep up with the ever-increasing $$$ spending race that is college football.  

MGlobules

July 13th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

makes you a leftist hell will freeze over. He's just another swinging dick from what I can tell.

The thing waren't pretty to begin with--it was just very very large. And I say that as a guy who grew up in A2 and looked at it from a lot of angles over the years, and loved it for the ungainly thing it was. It ain't pretty now, either, and I wish they HAD done something inspired with it, but who is surprised that didn't happen? Only Pollack--the fake crab in the sushi.

[email protected]

July 14th, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^

Mr. Pollack may have grown up in A2, but so have many other people, I grew up in A2, but also attended Yale and came back to A2 to finish my medical training at Michigan, and have attended home football games at the Big House since the 1970's and still have season tickets. So, I feel a strong connection to Michigan from 

Mr. Pollack went to Stanford, not to Michigan or Yale.  Nor did he do any post-graduate studies in Elm City or A2.  He just has parents, who have lived in Ann Arbor since his childhood, and he seems to cling to his nostalgic memories of Michigan Stadium as a child.  I am sure Fielding Yost, III also has strong childhood memories of Michigan Stadium as well.  It is hard to let those memories go, but to move forward and gain the benefits of the new, you do.

Michigan had a classic old university hospital, which was replaced in 1986, and I watched the old hospital be torn down in 1988.  No one would question that the new hospital complex is vastly better for patients and staff.   The renovated Michigan stadium also many new advantages, which cannot be denied.

Now, Michigan and Yale have many past common football traditions.  The Yale Bowl, built in 1914, capacity 61,446 has been the home for the Bulldogs for nearly a hundred years.  Yale has had two Heisman winners (Larry Kelley 1936 and Clinton Frank 1937), whereas Michigan has three Heisman winners (the list is well known to any good Michigan fan).  During the 60's - 80's, Michigan and Yale and OSU shared the Miami, Ohio as the source for their football coaches.  Of course, Woody Hayes coached there before moving over to OSU, and had assistant coaches including Bo Schembechler and Carm Cozza, who would move on to coach at Michigan and Yale, respectively.  Carm and Bo were both well known for their fierce defenses and grind'em out, ground offenses.    Carm's coaching record was 179-119-5, and Bo's record was 234–65–8 (oh Woody's record was 238–72–10) -- all pretty decent, and hard acts to follow. 

Here is the current image of Yale Bowl:

Yale Bowl

 

The Yale Bowl was partially renovated in 2006, finishing just in time for the opening game in the Fall, 2006.  Its stone-concrete neogothic facade was actually initially treated with acid to simulate aging, but ultimately needed significant repairs in 2005.  No luxury suites, but Yale does have the huge Coxe Cage nearby for pre-game festivities.  As the first bowl stadium, it inspired the design of Michigan Stadium, along with the Rose Bowl and Los Angeles Memorial Colliseum - pretty good company.  

Oh, btw, Harvard's Stadium - horseshoe shaped, and holding only 30,323 (but once held as many as 57,166), probably inspired the larger, horseshoe-shaped Ohio Stadium, which holds now 102,329.  Harvard stadium also has no luxury suites; while, Ohio Stadium clearly has an ample supply after its recent renovation.    

Michigan Stadium has gained some metal superstructure in order to provides its super-sized capacity.  We all know one real reason for the renovations are to increase its capacity above that of Beaver Stadium of PSU, and regain the name of the Big House of the USA.  Michigan's capacity was dropped from the highest one after ADA suit by the infamous Vietnam Vet's group, who claimed Michigan did not meet the requirements for wheelchair-bound fans.  

Mr. Pollack, who went to Stanford, is obviously proud of the recent renovations of Stanford Stadium for the disabled, which was downsized in capacity from 85,500 in 2006 to hold only 50,000, in order to bring the fans closer to the action.  

 

Perhaps, Mr. Pollack's real motive is his need to exercise his gift of gab to influence the Regents and decision-makers at Michigan to do things their way - even if he has no direct connection with the University of Michigan.

I like the design of the new Michigan Stadium, and have seen the renovations progress over the last two years, and feel it is turning out splendidly.  I agree with above supporters that the jobs and money infused into the SE  Michigan economy come at an opportune time after the decimation of big 3 auto layoffs and downsizing.  I also like the fact  that the new Michigan Stadium  offers some cover and shelter for many fans, who have had to brave the blustery and sometimes cold Michigan weather.  

There is no mistaking the fact that the Ivy League walked away from big-time collegiate football in the late 1970's lead by Bart Giamatti and Derek Bok, who decided that TV money, football scholarships and NCAA's rules posed too much of a threat to academic integrity.  However, Michigan and OSU are the epitome of big-time, Big 10 football.  By comparison, Stanford and Cal-Berkeley have only recently had regained strong football teams to rival those teams of UCLA and USC.  However they never failed to strut their elitist ego in common man clothes.  Mr. Polllack wants Michigan to spend the money where he wants, not where it will benefit the football teams and the fans as a whole.  

 I look forward to attending the Michigan - Connecticut game this fall.  Perhaps, it would have been more appropriate, if the game was Michigan - Yale, but I don't think most people would stomach Michigan playing an Ivy league, I-AA team.  Nonetheless, they may have their hands full with the Huskies of Storr, CT.  Mr. Pollack can watch it on television from his parent's home, and I will gladly take his extra tickets for the games.  

iannoronha

July 14th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^

I realize you disagree and will dismiss this comment as more of the moronic drivel against using Ohio State as a measuring stick for Michigan (since this appears to be the one area in which your otherwise respectful consideration of alternative view points is abandoned), but allow me to register my futile opposition. I attended many games at Michigan Stadium; I won't again. My loss I realize, but c'est la vie. Go blue.