I wanted so badly to forget my own words from two weeks ago: "Michigan can't beat anyone this year." But they couldn't even win this week when so many people were trying to hand them the game. The Spartans tried to shoot themselves in the foot, but the Wolverines wouldn't have it.They needed the help of the officials to convert on State's first turnover. But after that, they refused to make the most of Sparty's mistakes. It looked like the "bigger brother" was trying to carry on the tradition of keeping "little brother" in the game. "Oh, you'll fumbled the ball to us again? Here you go, 3-and-out, have the ball back. Miss a 50-yd field goal? Don't worry, we'll field it, take it at the 10 and then go 3-and-out. Woah, our defense forced a 3-and-out? Here you go, 2-and-INT. You missed another field goal?! Ok, we'll just go 3-and-out again. That should leave our defense nice and gassed for you. Hey, you ran for a 64-yd TD in one play, good job! And we'll just tie it up before halftime."
"Now in the second half, we'll take the lead, but then continue to go 3-and-out even if you keep missing field goals. And if you need any extra scores at the end, we'll just throw some more picks for you." It's just ridiculous. That's all there is to say.
Standings
| This Week | W | L | (Overall) |
| A True Blue Husker | 14 | 12 | (131-57) |
| Dr. L | 17 | 9 | (126-62) |
| Kenny Pickett | 16 | 10 | (126-62) |
| The Guvna | 16 | 10 | (126-62) |
| The Rev | 18 | 8 | (126-62) |
| Chief Justice | 17 | 9 | (125-63) |
| O-knee-der | 16 | 10 | (124-64) |
| Tornado Beast | DROPPED OUT | ||
Schedule
Thursday, October 30
7:30 PM ET #23 S. Florida at Cincinnati
Saturday, November 1
12:00 PM ET Northwestern at #17 Minnesota
12:00 PM ET W. Virginia at #25 Connecticut
12:00 PM ET Wisconsin at #21 Michigan St.
12:00 PM ET Miami (FL) at Virginia
12:00 PM ET Michigan at Purdue
12:30 PM ET Kansas St. at Kansas
12:30 PM ET Auburn at Mississippi
2:00 PM ET #18 Tulsa at Arkansas
2:00 PM ET E. Michigan at W. Michigan
2:30 PM ET Pittsburgh at Notre Dame
3:00 PM ET #14 Missouri at Baylor
3:30 PM ET #8 Florida at #6 Georgia
3:30 PM ET #15 Florida St. at Georgia Tech
3:30 PM ET #24 Oregon at California
3:30 PM ET Clemson at Boston College
3:30 PM ET Duke at Wake Forest
3:30 PM ET Iowa at Illinois
6:00 PM ET #20 Brigham Young at Colorado State
7:00 PM ET Tennessee at S. Carolina
8:00 PM ET #1 Texas at #7 Texas Tech
8:00 PM ET Nebraska at #4 Oklahoma
8:00 PM ET #13 TCU at UNLV
9:30 PM ET #10 Utah at New Mexico
33 comments:
At least you haven't given up 70 to mid-level Texas teams yet.
At least you haven't lost to a mid-level MAC team yet!
It is, then, a draw
Hardly, add that to losing to an FCS school. And both of them occurring in the Big House.
And then there's the publicity. The country hardly blinked when Nebraska lost to Texas Tech. Whereas everyone knows who Appalachian St. is now because: a.)it was huge b.)the final play was repeated over and over in college football montages and all the "Vote for the Pontiac Game-Changing Performance Play of the year" ads and c.)national anchors referenced it throughout the season and will continue to mention it (though less often) for years to come.
And guess what! Michigan is already on wrong side of two Pontiac Game-Changing Performances of the week this year . . . in consecutive weeks!
It was 70 to 10!!! 70! Seven. Ty. And on my wedding day no less!
P.S. I am too lazy to sign in and use my name.
Now you're merely reiterating old points. We can repeat our statements and add exclamation points ad infinitum, but it does absolutely nothing to support an argument. And even if it was on your wedding day, at least you didn't have to watch it happen and were otherwise distracted/preoccupied that entire day as well as the following week.
Yes, 70 is bad. But in the end, it's still a loss to a conference opponent (a conference where teams run up scores). It's not the same as losing to teams that really should have no business playing on the same field.
Good golly, this isn't debate class. And by the way, we spent the 07 season getting crushed by mid-level teams. We gave up 76 to Kansas. It took from 1984-1998 to give up 76 to Kansas. This was the team of the 90's, just a decade removed from being the undisputed* best college football team of the modern era, surrendering 11 touchdowns to the Jayhawks just years after surrendering 10 to Texas Tech. Texas Tech can't score 70 on UMass! I do not wish to be rude, but one cannot look only at how far down one has fallen. One must also look at from how far up one fell.
*Based on no less than three polls of the American public and the esteemed opinion of one Mr. Todd Blackledge.
P.S. Are we still friends!
John Navarre? I'll take Ryan Mallett!
Doctor L
Remember the good old days of Elvis Grbac? Now that was some good Michigan football!
I never thought I'd see the day when Nate tries to convince Mark that Nebraska is worse than Michigan and Mark tries to convince Nate that Michigan is worse than Nebraska. It's great entertainment fellas, keep it up!!
Was worse. WAS. We are on the upswing, I hope, because I can't stand another year like last. And Michigan will get better. But consider this, it may not be with RichRod. A lot of times, and Nebraska and UNC basketball come to mind as cases, when you're trying to rebuild a program or replace a legend, sometimes it takes a few coaches. The first replacement is more of a cleanser, letting the team bottom out. Eventually the right guy has to come around. It is a long hard process, believe me. Personally, I handled it my closing my eyes and picturing our three Sears trophies! I suggest picturing DH diving in the end zone against Notre Dame or striking the pose against the folks from the south.
I have to work.
Nate: True, this isn't debate class, but the principle remains the same. "Shouting" your argument does nothing to convince anyone of anything. And the only "mid-level" teams that might have "crushed" Nebraska in '07 were Ok. St. and A&M. The Aggies . . . that's a tough one (though they did beat Texas last year), but all of the other losses came to ranked opponents (except for Colorado, but that's a rivalry game). Also, Texas Tech has been known for their shootouts all decade long; they also put up 70 on TCU in '04.
Furthermore, we're talking about the winningest program in college football. You can't fall from much higher than that! And just because the Wolverines didn't win 3 national championships in the 90's doesn't mean they haven't been consistent national contenders for a very long time. We're also talking about dashed hopes here. In 2006, Michigan fans thought they were on their way out of a slump. When Hart and Henne decided to come back for 2007, everyone had national title hopes in mind. Then they lose on opening day to an FCS school. You can't fall any farther than that. And at least when Callahan brought in the West Coast offense, Nebraska could still trounce some people like W. Illinois 56-17. Rodriguez brings in the spread and Michigan can't beat anyone . . . including Toledo! Think about it, the winningest program in college football can't pull off a convincing win against anyone, even in their huge, storied, home stadium.
P.S. We are indeed still friends. :)
Dad: I'd certainly take Ryan Mallet and I've mentioned that in a previous post. My point is simply that Steven Threet makes John Navarre (who made us groan week after week) look like the good old days. When really, Tom Brady, Brian Griese, and, of course, Elvis Grbac are the actual good old days of modern Michigan football.
Would this be considered vicarious living or vicarious death?
At least you are both good at picking the whole of college football. Thanks to consistently average picks and a surge out of left field from the radical lawman, I find myself in the basement of this contest. Oh well, I view this only as the regular season, and the bowls will come.
Go Red Wings!!!
We may have started well under Callahan, but his west coast offense was reduced to nothing by his fourth season. We went downhill with him. At least Michigan is starting at the bottom. And Colorado is not a rivalry...they just think so.
And lastly, we may have beaten our MAC team, but we surrendered 610 yards and 40 points. In Memorial Stadium, no less. Agh, the horror!
And that's just on the field. Callahan destroyed the culture of Nebraska! He dispensed with the famous walk-on program (which killed practice reps and destroyed depth), alienated former players and coaches (and even called Osborne a crusty old bleep), and tried to turn us into a business, NFL style. He also got rid of the tough, blue-collar, Midwestern work ethic and burned every bridge he could find. And now he's in there...(brush, brush, brush)...with our son*!
*Brett Favre in NYJ
While I do appreciate the significance of Callahan's effect on Nebraska's program (largely because of your blog last year and other conversations we've had), you're now expanding the scope of the "debate." We obviously don't know what RichRod's overall impact at Michigan will be yet. Therefore, making any sort of comparison at this point is impossible. If Michigan turns things around and wins the conference next year, perhaps then I'll say, "You're right, Nebraska fans really do have it bad." But right now, through the '07 and '08 seasons, the disappointment and embarrassment awards go to Michigan.
By the way, I also appreciated the "What about Bob?" reference. :)
Whatever. You were getting embarassed in the Big House years ago (Syracuse '98, Illinois several times) Nebraska was untouchable in Memorial Stadium. From 1991 to 2002, Nebraska lost just twice at home. In 2004-2007, they lost half a dozen times to mediocre teams. Furthermore, and I don't mean to insult, Michigan has been good (save for 97) for years. Nebraska was dominant under Osborne in the 90's. Over 40 years, the teams were equal in success and tradition. But before their falls, Nebraska had much more recent success. And one more thing, Michigan has always been known to kind of sleepwalk at home against cupcakes. Nebraska was known to cause cupcakes to pee their pants before the game (I realize this metaphor isn't perfect). So while losing to App State and Toledo are really bad, it is not as unexpected as it would be for other teams. Thus, I don't think it is difinitive that Michigan has had a worse fall than Nebraska.
I have just been struck by the absolute absurdity of this argument. I'm going back to the World Series. Fight on Phils!
Are you boys both still going to sit at the same table at Thanksgiving? Or will I need to separate you?
Put him by the creamed corn!
I want to know why Mark can be so adamant about Michigan's failures, but when I say anything bad about them he rolls his eyes at me, starts to say something but then shuts up, and then gives me that "you're not worth talking to look." By the way....creamed corn? No way. Not on thanksgiving! Don't you know about the hot chili pepper scalloped corn casserole? Sorry, I digress.
So now all you've got is "whatever" and patronizing. As Indiana Jones would say, "Now you're getting nasty." Though there are things I could say, none of my comments have made any jab at your team or its successes. And I'm not going to get into any of that now because it's not helpful and mainly irrelevant. If you want to continue to debate the issue, then fine. We're both stubborn football fanatics and so be it. But stay on the issue. You can discredit Michigan as much as you want, but you can't change the fact they are the winningest program in college football (yes, I'm reiterating my point only because you ignored it the first time around), that they went into the '06-'07 bowl season at #3 in all the polls and started off a promising '07 season in the most humiliating fashion possible. And one more year later, they're just terrible and creating even more negative, historical footnotes. Nebraska simply did not disintegrate that rapidly. I get the brownie . . . at least for right now.
Because I do it out of frustration; you do it just to get a rise out of me.
You can't just claim to win the argument. I claim to win it too. I say we settle on comment number 3. And that is what I meant by creamed corn, that chili con carne whatever business. I prefer to sit by the turkey and dressing, thank you, preferably with a view out the window, unless it is cloudy and then I don't care where I sit, just so long as it isn't at the kiddy table.
Did I mention we hadn't lost to Kansas since the LBJ administration? Missouri since 78?
I spent my childhood dreaming of playing USC, and when we finally do, we're lousy. How displeasing! I cannot go on!
Here's some more to chew on. Nebraska was the dominant team in it's conference. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99...the best team. When the Big XII formed, we were the bell cow. Now, dog meat. Michigan shared the top spot with Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin. Overall, the two programs are very similar in terms of all time wins (#1 and #4) and long-term success (approx. 40 consecutive winning seasons, 30+bowl games). But in recent history, 10-12 years, Nebraska was clearly more dominant. And, Michigan hasn't bottomed out yet. It is still conceivable that they could make a bowl game. Unlikely, but conceivable. Until you have felt the pain of watching Thrifty Car Rental Bowl Week and not seeing your team participating, for the first time in your lifetime, you cannot touch my pain. Brownie ala mode!
And another thing: How would you like it if the Big Eleven disolved and was replaced by some ghastly new mega-conference run by the great state of Texas and they took away your rivalry, your most cherished game, and stuck you playing Colorado each year after thanksgiving. Sheesh! Goodbye OSU-Michigan, hello Iowa. Pathetic. I'd like to have a good talking to with the knucklehead who dreamt up this monstrosity (pardon my spelling, I'm on a rant) known as the Big XII. Never mind that when the Big 8 ended, it was the best conference in the history of the world, with 4 top 10 teams who all won 10 games, including their bowls. I'm surprised they didn't name it Texas et al.
I really have to get back to work!
And what about the Blackshirts. A tradition 40 years old. Michigan's defense is just called the Michigan defense. Or sometimes Swiss cheese. The Blackshirts have been called the pink shirts and the Black skirts, and deservedly so. Our once proud tradition is currently in limbo.
And another thing. During the 90's, no less than 5 born again Christians worked on the coaching staff at Nebraska. Our leadership was one that could be looked up to, respected, esteemed. Then all of that was taken away. (Did I already make this point?) Not only did we lose all of our football acumen, we lost our dignity.
That, my good man, is what the legal system refers to as a mountain of evidence. Scrap the brownie, I want the whole pan!
You suggest we "settle on comment 3" and then go on three more tirades (one with another very nasty jab)? And yet again, you're expanding the scope of the argument beyond the issue. You can't argue that Husker fans had worse disappointment and embarrassment going from '02 through '04 than Michigan is experiencing now from '06 through '08. Nebraska had passed their heyday and were already experiencing statistical regression. They brought in Callahan to turn around the 7-7 season of '02 and an unranked finish, even though Solich got Huskers back up to #18 in '03. As I've already said, the '06 season and '07 pre-season elevated hopes for Michigan fans to a point higher than they had been in almost 10 years. You can't expect Nebraska to maintain that kind of dominance forever. Does that mean you have to see the Callahan "era" coming? No. But when you think your program is finally progressing and you lose to App. St. one year and Toledo the next, that's a lot of disappointment in just two seasons. Your point about Michigan fans not yet experiencing a winter without seeing Big Blue in a bowl was the one point in there that was actually relevant. But we all know it's coming.
The ONE point? I believe I have been slapped with a glove, monsieur. And frankly, I thought the Swiss cheese comment was funny. I only kid because I care.
By the way, do you think TB will still have the volcano tomorrow?
I'm not saying your other points don't matter. They simply have little to no bearing on the discussion. Nothing I've said has belittled your program. Yet you insist on making this about how inferior Michigan's program is to Nebraska's. I'm simply trying to say that I have a very legitimate reason to be disappointed and embarrassed with my team's recent performance. I don't know how well you take it when people take pot shots at your team when they're down, but I don't find it humorous.
They'd better have the volcano or it just won't be worth it!
I thought we were comparing which program was further down. Potshots should help your cause. And I hate it when people take potshots, such as Black Shirts, and that was my point.
Perhaps the Swiss cheese thing was harsh. How do you feel about Munster? Parmesan? Goat?
I know how to settle this once and for all. NU and Big Blue should schedule a home-and-home series a few years down the road, once we're both back to national prominence. Well, actually that would settle nothing, but the uniforms sure would contrast nicely.
Wow! This was fun for a while, but I feel like it's getting a little too mean for even my blood. Creamed corn is sounding better all the time, and I definitely know who will sit by it. "And he shall have no pie."
Wait, you're not sticking me by the corn and taking away my pie, are you? That would be unjust!
I have merely been arguing two facts. Nebraska is clear and way the greatest football program (if not sports franchise) in the history of the world, and thus their decline is worse.
But, as I realized while brushing my teeth last night, this is possibly the dumbest argument two people have ever engaged in. A better question for discussion is why in the Sam Hill ESPN puts USF and Cincy on my TV on a Thursday. Sheesh.
I'm out like the mohawk hairdo.
Post a Comment