UM Football: An Old-Timer's Historical Snowflake Perspective
I hated the outcome of Saturday's game as much, if not more, than any MGoAlum/blogger/fan. I've been disturbed by the general pessimism in its wake even more. Not because it is necessarily unwarranted, but because a lot of it reminds me of pitchfork and torches mentality. I'm probably older than most here (except Herm) and have seen pretty much everything and anything happen in a Michigan game, both good and bad. With the exception of the '97 team, every year has been frought with both. I saw the '69 (yes, I was 4 yrs. old) toppling of Woody's unbeatens. I watched Michigan teams that went 10-1, 10-0-1 and 10-1 get snubbed in '72, '73 and '74. I was enrolled when the '84 team only outscored the opposition by 14 total points and went 6-6. People were screaming for Bo's head. Two years later, we had a Big 10 Championship. I watched the RR years end with a 15-22 record and the cupboard left bare. Then came Hoke. So far, 11-2 (Sugar Bowl win), 8-5 (Outback Bowl loss) and 5-1 this year, so far. The cupboard isn't bare, it is fully stocked with young talent. The record is better than the recent past and better than some of Bo or Lloyd's squads. The team is young. Mistakes have been made by both players and coaches. But prior to the season, I'm willing to bet any of us would have said 5-1 is a good position to be in at this point in the season. Michigan still has 6 guaranteed opportunities to play for victory and likely a Bowl game as well. I'll be watching every one of those opportunities with a discriminating eye and a Maize and Blue heart. I hope you do the same. GO BLUE! EDIT: Yes, I also have paragraph formatting issues.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:12 PM ^
You were only 4 in 1969? Hell, you are not that old.
There was a guy on here recently that starting watching games in 1960.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:18 PM ^
I was 4 in 1969 and I'm young.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:41 PM ^
And sometimes I feel a little bit old around here, given the general lack of level-headedness.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with emotional control.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^
Emotion is why people - and especially men - love football. I know that may sound sexist, but men are socialized to not show much emotion, but they can when it comes to sports. I think they love football because they aren't required to have as much emotional control as usual. I know I like football because I get to express certain emotions that are normally limited to men, like competitiveness and a certain amount of aggression and anger.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:29 PM ^
Can I get a hug? Or an armwrestling match?
October 14th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
How about both?
October 14th, 2013 at 10:49 PM ^
Internet awkwardness! *walks out of room*
October 14th, 2013 at 9:23 PM ^
My parents were married in 1969, and I was born 9 years after that. In other words, that's bordering on old for me.
The point remains maybe that, at least according to Sagarin and even Massey numbers, there is not a game still that is unmanageable. There are some in which we would be decidedly not be the favorite, but not by a lopsided margin.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
According to Massey, we match up as follows -
| M OFFENSE | OPP DEFENSE | OPP OFFENSE | M DEFENSE | |||||
| IND | 24 | 104 | 80 | 12 | 77 | -65 | 15 | |
| MSU | 24 | 10 | -14 | 63 | 77 | -14 | -28 | |
| NEB | 24 | 53 | 29 | 21 | 77 | -56 | -27 | |
| NW | 24 | 52 | 28 | 35 | 77 | -42 | -14 | |
| IOWA | 24 | 27 | 3 | 72 | 77 | -5 | -2 | |
| OSU | 24 | 37 | 13 | 9 | 77 | -68 | -55 |
October 14th, 2013 at 9:57 PM ^
My formatting sucks, so I will just translate it. We should win the game versus Indiana, have close games with Northwestern and Iowa, need some luck with Michigan State and Nebraska, and will probably lose to Ohio State.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:04 AM ^
I like Massey, he brings objectivity into it. That sounds like three more wins to me. I hope this board is braced for 8-4.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:26 AM ^
Wasn't 8-4 or 9-3 a relatively common pick before the season? I thought 10-2 personally if things really went our way (we got the bounces, so to speak) but that looks unlikely now.
October 15th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^
I believe so, or it's at least what I expected. People forget how early it is in the rebuilding job.
October 15th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
Far and away, the top two picks were 8-4 and 9-3, as I recall. Even using the Massey preseason projected probabilities, which are based on history and don't necessarily mean much going forward into a season, would have estimated a 9-3 record.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:23 PM ^
He had to watch Bump Elliott's squads go 47-37-2.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^
I was 10 in 1969. I'm older.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
But you look good for your age, guyski.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
The first Michigan game I watched was the 69 miracle and it made me a Michigan fan for life. I was 18. It's amusing watching some of the revisionist history portrayed around here.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:55 PM ^
That last sentence just doesn't sit well.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:23 PM ^
And I share it.
But certainly some things need to be fixed. Watching the DVR, first play. M lines up in standard I-form, PSU in a 4-3. M then re-sets to tackle over. PSU immediately reacts and brings the 8th man down. No problem.
Glasgow, Bryant, and Schofield TRIPLE TEAM the DT. Yes, two of them move on to other blocks, but the play starts with 3 helmets into one guy's head. Glasgow ends up on no one, and that's a problem because DaQuan Jones is left completely unblocked. In fact Kalis pulls and runs right in front of him... Jones gives him a pat on the small of his back as he goes by to kill Fitz. Jake Butt is leading from the H-back position and gets destoyed in the hole by the LB (he's a true freshman, hard to blame him). Doesn't matter though, because Toussaint is already down.
On the plus side, Lewan holds his block. And Gallon completely decleats the safety.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^
It's the right thing to do.
/couldn't resist
October 14th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
...Cookies...
October 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^
I am almost as old as you. I still remember crying for ages when Michigan lost to Woody in 1975. I tend to take a broader historical view of things rather than a "what have you done lately" perspective. But Saturday's loss hurt for me more than most. I'm not entirely sure why. But I think it was more the way it happened and how it fits the whole season rather than just the fact that it was a loss. I said it in another post: I really want Hoke's tenure to work. The way this season has been going, I am very worried.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:22 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:30 PM ^
Are you serious with this "country club coach" shit? Explain to me how this describes anything that Hoke has done since he's been here.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
He had a great regular season record: 234-65-8, .775 Pct. His Bowl record was less than stellar: 5-12, .294 Pct. Bo was loved because of HIS love for Michigan and dedication to creating exceptional young men, who continue to represent Michigan. I had the privilege of hearing him speak several times at fundraisers and university functions. I would have run through a brick wall for him. Hoke has many similar attributes. That is where his legacy will be built, if there is to be one IMO.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
Broski, you just did yourself in. In one sentence you ask for concrete examples of why Hoke is like Bo, and then in another you say Hoke is a country club coach without giving any concrete examples. Pretty crappy post by you my friend.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 11:30 PM ^
I'm going to hook you up. I see that you are having problems with reading comprehension so here is a site where you can learn that skill along with a few others. If you have any questions don't be afraid to ask!
http://www.jumpstart.com/parents/games/reading-games
October 14th, 2013 at 9:22 PM ^
Well I must say reading this makes me feel more optimistic when looking at it more in regards to our total history. But still, there are a lot of things that needa fixin'
October 14th, 2013 at 10:46 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 10:37 PM ^
I'm a few years older than you, and you're right, the internet very often is "knee jerky and mean." Weren't most people predicting an 8-4 or 9-3 season this year? Somehow, as the wins mounted that got all skewed in the minds of some. Michigan probably will lose another 2, 3, even 4 games this season. That's bound to happen with this many young, inexperienced players starting, but it's no reason to panic.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
I don't remember a recent loss with so many opportunities to win. The barrage of mistakes was unbelievable. I expected losses this season. I braced for loss before this game. The way it happened was the problem. We have played down to the level of every team we have faced in this soft stretch of the schedule except for the opener. I never expected that.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:38 PM ^
win..but it just seemed bound to happen. We have been flirting with a bad outcome for weeks now. Its over with. They are young. It'll all be okay. As OP pointed out, we are stock piling young studly dudes. They will get it together, but maybe not til next year. Meanwhile, we'll go 9-3 ish.. Have faith and patience.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
Love the new avatar mum!
October 15th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
I am going for the more "mature" look. I just don't really want to give up the beer.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:28 PM ^
There is a helpful adage that goes along with this post. Since I am older than the OP, I figure that qualifies me to give sage advice. Here it is: Things are never as good as you think or as bad as you fear.
Like everyone else, I look at last week's atrocity and wonder how we will win more than one or two games left on our schedule. But things are never as bad as I fear, just as they have not proven to be as good as I thought.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:40 PM ^
I certainly don't recall people screaming for Bo's head after the 6-6 season. Fans regularly questioned his play-calling even in the best years, but no one was foolish enough to suggest he be replaced. I believe your memory belies you--if not, you were hanging out with idiots at the time. Any comparison of Bo and Hoke is a disservice to Bo--at least at this time. A comparison to Lloyd would be more apt.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
I'm too young to remember it myself, but I have heard/read from others that there were indeed people who wanted Bo gone after 1984. From what I gather, most fans weren't ready to go that far but there was a sense that Bo might be losing his fastball. Fortunately the '85 team put that notion to bed.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:00 AM ^
as I was there--it being the first UM-OSU game I had missed since 1967. And I stand by my assertion that there was no groundswell, and those few who may have been suggesting he had lost his "fastball" were (ridiculously) small in number....and were, clearly, idiots. No one in my circle ever made any such allusion. I say this as one who respected Bo as a great coach, but never deified him.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 10:26 PM ^
I think one of the major differences though was for the most part we CRUSHED lesser opponents and didnt look back. Yes, his bowl game record sucked and yes we "only" went 5-5 against OSU (how cute that we used think that sucked at one time) and MSU was "little brother" in every sense of the word.
From 1970-1979 (my formative years plus first two years at U of M) we went 96-16-2 and were ranked #1 in the county during 1971, 1976 & 1977 and #2 at one point in 1974, 1975 and 1978.
Yes Bo had his critics but that was largely cause the bar was set at SEC-level regular season dominance. Absolutely nothing like we've experienced around here since 1997 & 2006. Face it we've been a shining sea of above average football for a long, long time.