As someone old enough to remember the late Bo and Moeller teams as well as Carr, boy do I second your appreciation of Harbaugh's remarkable consistency at winning easy when he's supposed to win easy. It seemed like all of the pre-Harbaugh coaches, including Bo in the 80s, had at least one game a year that was either a head-scratching loss or a head-scratchingly hard fought win. Unless I'm missing something, I think Harbaugh has kept that to a minimum outside of that Army game.
""Rich Rod's teams improved every year" is, IMO, an absolutely horrible defense of his tenure. First, it's true only because the program absolutely cratered during his first year, so there was nowhere to go but up, and then improvement came so slowly that 7 wins in year 3 was still "improvement."
Second, it overstates the amount of progress that the program was making towards being competitive in the Big Ten, which was almost none at all. Once the 2010 team started playing the meat of their Big ten schedule, they were HORRIBLE. Not competitve. Even the losses which finished with somewhat respectable final scores were just the result of garbage-time scores made after the game was out of reach (for example: MSU was leading 31-10 after 3 before winning 34-17; Iowa was leading 28-7 after 3 before winning 38-28; Wisconsin was leading 24-0 at halftime and 34-21 after 3 before winning 48-28; OSU was leading 24-7 at halftime and 37-7 after 3, which was also the final score). Michigan was a team that the good teams in the Big Ten could put away early in the third quarter. And of course, it took a three-overtime victory over 6-6 Illinois just to become bowl eligible, so Michigan could get its ass kicked 52-14 by Mississippi State.
After three years of building the team to his liking, Rich Rod had raised Michigan to the level of Rutgers or Indiana in a good year. It was time for him to go, even before you consider how much more functional the same group of players looked under Hoke the following year.
If Michigan loses to Iowa, I think there's a good chance the Big Ten is shut out entirely, especially if Bama beats Georgia. I don't think a one-loss Michigan or Ohio State is getting in ahead of an undefeated FSU, or a one-loss Georgia, Alabama or Texas, or maybe even a one-loss Washington.
That's my gut, too, though if Bama, Michigan, Washington, Texas and FSU all win, the committee is going to be in a hell of a spot. There's no way a one-loss Georgia moves ahead of Michigan or Washington. So that leaves two spots for four teams: unbeaten FSU, and one-loss Bama, Georgia and Texas. Even if you're willing to put in two one-loss teams ahead of unbeaten FSU, which two? Georgia ahead of Bama, who just beat them? Georgia ahead of Big 12 champ Texas, who actually beat Bama? It seems surreal that Georgia could be left out entirely, but I think there is a chance.
Because I think conference championship games, and the CFP, are stupid (if I had my way, Michigan and Washington would be on their way to the best Rose Bowl in years), the perverse part of me kinda wants to see the ultra chaos scenario of Bama, Oregon, Texas, Louisville and, yes, Iowa winning next week. That would result in no unbeaten teams and eight one-loss teams (most of whom lost only to each other) vying for the four playoff spots. In that case, the field would be, I think:
1. Oregon
2. Texas
3. Bama
4. Georgia
No one would be happy! Especially not one-loss Washington, Ohio State or Michigan.
I don't REALLY want Michigan to lose to Iowa next week, nor do I think it's remotely likely. But this scenario would also feature the Big Ten being punished, in a very tangible way, for the existence of Iowa football. Which does seem fitting.
Right. The Big Ten is an unincorporated association, and for diversity purposes, unincorporated associations are the citizens of every state in which they have a member. In other words, though headquartered in Illinois, the Big Ten is a citizen of Michigan (and every other state with a Big Ten member). Which means there's no basis for diversity jurisdiction, AND that the Big Ten has no argument that it's not subject to jurisdiction in Michigan state court.
Cranking up my old-guy energy to agree, hard, with the sentiment that the national championship is a joke (as are the playoffs). I'm old enough to remember when even the AP and the UPI called their season-ending number 1 team the "mythical" national champion, and it was better that way. Back then, there was a recognition that if you finished number 1, it was through a combination of (1) having a very good team AND (2) having a very lucky season where things broke your way in all 3 or 4 games you might conceivably lose. That's still how it works, for the most part, with the playoffs, except we've allowed ABC/ESPN/Fox etc. to drain all of the charm out of the sport (and force the kids to play several more games each season) in the name of a "real" national championship that's no more meaningful than the old poll-driven champions but has ruined the bowl season outside of the playoffs.
In short: grumble grumble, eliminate the playoff, go back to traditional bowl games and mythical national champions, embrace a system in which 20 or so teams can finish the season with a bowl win that feels like something.
Funny you mention that, because I just went into their new location for the first time yesterday. It's MUCH smaller than their old space on Liberty, and their collection seems to have suffered for it (especially their classical collection). It is indeed a shame.
I'm not entirely sure that the growth has been that extreme? UM's 2022 total enrollment was 51,225, with 32,695 undergraduates (MSU has like 39,000 undergraduates and 50,000 total, so the big difference is in the undegrad/grad mix). I think UM has been hanging around that 30,00 undergrads/50,000 total for the last several decades.
One data point that might be worth considering: the Michigan Science Olympiad for middle and high schools is almost always dominated by public schools from Ann Arbor, Northville, Troy and Grand Haven (of all places).
Agreed on the Ann Arbor Public Schools; they're good enough that the limiting factor on student achievement is going to be the student's talent/drive, not the school itself (and they have freakishly good performing arts programs, if that's an interest). Really doesn't make sense to pay for private schools if you're in that district.
Every single example you give works just as well if you substitute "drinking buddy" for "subordinate sleeping with the boss." Yes, favoritism sucks. It is also impossible to eliminate the possibility of favoritism via policy. The solution is not to ban personal relationships between co-workers, romantic or otherwise. It's too insist that people act professionally and not let personal feelings play an inappropriate role in work situations.
And that's a profoundly paternalistic way of thinking. I can see its wisdom when you're talking about the teacher-student context, but I really struggle with applying it to full-grown adults. Because at a certain point, you are literally just telling the subordinate - the woman in this case - that no, she doesn't know her own mind, she's not REALLY consenting to this. Why in the world is that something we should want employers doing?
The bit about him firing her is a red herring, because that's what sexual harassment laws are for. You don't need to also ban workplace romances in order to deter or punish that behavior.
I mean, that EXACT idea - that workplace relationships should always result in one of the parties resigning - is why anti-fraternization policies were largely abandoned in the 80s and 90s. Because when those policies were still in effect, it was almost always the woman who resigned. Those policies were profoundly sexist in application and pretty sexist in conception (based, as they were, on the idea that allowing women, and thus the potential for romantic encounters, into the workplace would be inherently destabilizing). They're not getting better with time, now that a new generation of prudes is demanding (again) that workplace romance be strictly forbidden.
There's already a robust legal infrastructure to deal with superiors who abuse their position to pressure or force subordinates into sex - that's what sexual harassment law is for, in part. There's no need to completely ban workplace romances, too. Based on what we've seen so far, it sure seems to me that the most objectionable thing about Schlissel's behavior was that he was cheating on his wife. That's her business; it's not mine, and it's not U of M's, either.
Logged in for the first time in forever just to second this. If you can't enjoy this season - even if you think we're probably going to lose next week - I don't know what to tell you. I cut my teeth as a Michigan fan during the late Schembecler/Moeller/early Carr years. This season looks exactly like what a GREAT season back then used to look like. Heck, back then we also had to accept that the season was probably going to end in disappointment - if not with a loss to OSU (and Bo lost to OSU plenty), certainly with a loss in the Rose Bowl. But we still enjoyed the season! It really is possible!
No one HAS to let a loss to OSU ruin an otherwise really fun season. That's a choice. Don't make it!
Recent Comments
Now that you mention it, "Army of the Potomac" would be a fantastic team name.
As someone old enough to remember the late Bo and Moeller teams as well as Carr, boy do I second your appreciation of Harbaugh's remarkable consistency at winning easy when he's supposed to win easy. It seemed like all of the pre-Harbaugh coaches, including Bo in the 80s, had at least one game a year that was either a head-scratching loss or a head-scratchingly hard fought win. Unless I'm missing something, I think Harbaugh has kept that to a minimum outside of that Army game.
""Rich Rod's teams improved every year" is, IMO, an absolutely horrible defense of his tenure. First, it's true only because the program absolutely cratered during his first year, so there was nowhere to go but up, and then improvement came so slowly that 7 wins in year 3 was still "improvement."
Second, it overstates the amount of progress that the program was making towards being competitive in the Big Ten, which was almost none at all. Once the 2010 team started playing the meat of their Big ten schedule, they were HORRIBLE. Not competitve. Even the losses which finished with somewhat respectable final scores were just the result of garbage-time scores made after the game was out of reach (for example: MSU was leading 31-10 after 3 before winning 34-17; Iowa was leading 28-7 after 3 before winning 38-28; Wisconsin was leading 24-0 at halftime and 34-21 after 3 before winning 48-28; OSU was leading 24-7 at halftime and 37-7 after 3, which was also the final score). Michigan was a team that the good teams in the Big Ten could put away early in the third quarter. And of course, it took a three-overtime victory over 6-6 Illinois just to become bowl eligible, so Michigan could get its ass kicked 52-14 by Mississippi State.
After three years of building the team to his liking, Rich Rod had raised Michigan to the level of Rutgers or Indiana in a good year. It was time for him to go, even before you consider how much more functional the same group of players looked under Hoke the following year.
If Michigan loses to Iowa, I think there's a good chance the Big Ten is shut out entirely, especially if Bama beats Georgia. I don't think a one-loss Michigan or Ohio State is getting in ahead of an undefeated FSU, or a one-loss Georgia, Alabama or Texas, or maybe even a one-loss Washington.
That's my gut, too, though if Bama, Michigan, Washington, Texas and FSU all win, the committee is going to be in a hell of a spot. There's no way a one-loss Georgia moves ahead of Michigan or Washington. So that leaves two spots for four teams: unbeaten FSU, and one-loss Bama, Georgia and Texas. Even if you're willing to put in two one-loss teams ahead of unbeaten FSU, which two? Georgia ahead of Bama, who just beat them? Georgia ahead of Big 12 champ Texas, who actually beat Bama? It seems surreal that Georgia could be left out entirely, but I think there is a chance.
Because I think conference championship games, and the CFP, are stupid (if I had my way, Michigan and Washington would be on their way to the best Rose Bowl in years), the perverse part of me kinda wants to see the ultra chaos scenario of Bama, Oregon, Texas, Louisville and, yes, Iowa winning next week. That would result in no unbeaten teams and eight one-loss teams (most of whom lost only to each other) vying for the four playoff spots. In that case, the field would be, I think:
1. Oregon
2. Texas
3. Bama
4. Georgia
No one would be happy! Especially not one-loss Washington, Ohio State or Michigan.
I don't REALLY want Michigan to lose to Iowa next week, nor do I think it's remotely likely. But this scenario would also feature the Big Ten being punished, in a very tangible way, for the existence of Iowa football. Which does seem fitting.
Right. The Big Ten is an unincorporated association, and for diversity purposes, unincorporated associations are the citizens of every state in which they have a member. In other words, though headquartered in Illinois, the Big Ten is a citizen of Michigan (and every other state with a Big Ten member). Which means there's no basis for diversity jurisdiction, AND that the Big Ten has no argument that it's not subject to jurisdiction in Michigan state court.
Cranking up my old-guy energy to agree, hard, with the sentiment that the national championship is a joke (as are the playoffs). I'm old enough to remember when even the AP and the UPI called their season-ending number 1 team the "mythical" national champion, and it was better that way. Back then, there was a recognition that if you finished number 1, it was through a combination of (1) having a very good team AND (2) having a very lucky season where things broke your way in all 3 or 4 games you might conceivably lose. That's still how it works, for the most part, with the playoffs, except we've allowed ABC/ESPN/Fox etc. to drain all of the charm out of the sport (and force the kids to play several more games each season) in the name of a "real" national championship that's no more meaningful than the old poll-driven champions but has ruined the bowl season outside of the playoffs.
In short: grumble grumble, eliminate the playoff, go back to traditional bowl games and mythical national champions, embrace a system in which 20 or so teams can finish the season with a bowl win that feels like something.
Funny you mention that, because I just went into their new location for the first time yesterday. It's MUCH smaller than their old space on Liberty, and their collection seems to have suffered for it (especially their classical collection). It is indeed a shame.
I'm not entirely sure that the growth has been that extreme? UM's 2022 total enrollment was 51,225, with 32,695 undergraduates (MSU has like 39,000 undergraduates and 50,000 total, so the big difference is in the undegrad/grad mix). I think UM has been hanging around that 30,00 undergrads/50,000 total for the last several decades.
One data point that might be worth considering: the Michigan Science Olympiad for middle and high schools is almost always dominated by public schools from Ann Arbor, Northville, Troy and Grand Haven (of all places).
Agreed on the Ann Arbor Public Schools; they're good enough that the limiting factor on student achievement is going to be the student's talent/drive, not the school itself (and they have freakishly good performing arts programs, if that's an interest). Really doesn't make sense to pay for private schools if you're in that district.
Every single example you give works just as well if you substitute "drinking buddy" for "subordinate sleeping with the boss." Yes, favoritism sucks. It is also impossible to eliminate the possibility of favoritism via policy. The solution is not to ban personal relationships between co-workers, romantic or otherwise. It's too insist that people act professionally and not let personal feelings play an inappropriate role in work situations.
And that's a profoundly paternalistic way of thinking. I can see its wisdom when you're talking about the teacher-student context, but I really struggle with applying it to full-grown adults. Because at a certain point, you are literally just telling the subordinate - the woman in this case - that no, she doesn't know her own mind, she's not REALLY consenting to this. Why in the world is that something we should want employers doing?
The bit about him firing her is a red herring, because that's what sexual harassment laws are for. You don't need to also ban workplace romances in order to deter or punish that behavior.
I mean, that EXACT idea - that workplace relationships should always result in one of the parties resigning - is why anti-fraternization policies were largely abandoned in the 80s and 90s. Because when those policies were still in effect, it was almost always the woman who resigned. Those policies were profoundly sexist in application and pretty sexist in conception (based, as they were, on the idea that allowing women, and thus the potential for romantic encounters, into the workplace would be inherently destabilizing). They're not getting better with time, now that a new generation of prudes is demanding (again) that workplace romance be strictly forbidden.
There's already a robust legal infrastructure to deal with superiors who abuse their position to pressure or force subordinates into sex - that's what sexual harassment law is for, in part. There's no need to completely ban workplace romances, too. Based on what we've seen so far, it sure seems to me that the most objectionable thing about Schlissel's behavior was that he was cheating on his wife. That's her business; it's not mine, and it's not U of M's, either.
Logged in for the first time in forever just to second this. If you can't enjoy this season - even if you think we're probably going to lose next week - I don't know what to tell you. I cut my teeth as a Michigan fan during the late Schembecler/Moeller/early Carr years. This season looks exactly like what a GREAT season back then used to look like. Heck, back then we also had to accept that the season was probably going to end in disappointment - if not with a loss to OSU (and Bo lost to OSU plenty), certainly with a loss in the Rose Bowl. But we still enjoyed the season! It really is possible!
No one HAS to let a loss to OSU ruin an otherwise really fun season. That's a choice. Don't make it!