• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2007 TSUN News

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
no statement which limits squaws and children from holding weapons:
Click to expand...

I'm convinced. However subsequent use of said weapons may have violated Section 7:


Slashing
SECTION 7. Slashing includes the following actions:
a. Swinging a crosse at an opponent?s crosse or body with deliberate
viciousness or reckless abandon, regardless of whether the opponent?s
crosse or body is struck.
b. Striking an opponent in an attempt to dislodge the ball from his crosse,
unless the player in possession, in an attempt to protect his crosse, uses
some part of his body other than his head or neck to ward off the thrust of
the defensive player?s crosse and, as a result, the defensive player?s crosse
strikes some part of the attacking player?s body other than his head or
neck.
c. Striking an opponent in any part of the face, on the neck, in the chest,
on the back, on the shoulders, in the groin or on the head with the crosse
(including its butt end), except when done by a player in the act of passing,
shooting or attempting to scoop the ball.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
So why do you think Michigan decided to sell out their own tradition and go with the West Virginia away jerseys? What was it the back to back losses to Appy State and Oregon, both teams that wear modern fad jerseys? Was it the 1-6 record in The Game since 2001 that made Michigan lose respect for themselves? Is it Michigan wishing they were like West Virginia? Is it Rodriguez wanting to stick it to the Man, letting them know that this program is going to be more about him than about Michigan?

What's next for Michigan, yellow jerseys like WVU used last year?

pitt07f.jpg


I wonder who the next traditional football program will be that decides to go with the modern fad thing with their uniforms:

Notre Dame? Penn State? Alabama? Nebraska? Tennessee? Oklahoma? Texas?

The Pittsburgh Steelers? The Dallas Cowboys? The Chicago Bears? The Green Bay Packers? The 49ers? The Colts? The Raiders?
 
Upvote 0
JohnLSU said:
So why do you think Michigan decided to sell out their own tradition and go with the West Virginia away jerseys? What was it the back to back losses to Appy State and Oregon, both teams that wear modern fad jerseys? Was it the 1-6 record in The Game since 2001 that made Michigan lose respect for themselves? Is it Michigan wishing they were like West Virginia? Is it Rodriguez wanting to stick it to the Man, letting them know that this program is going to be more about him than about Michigan?

What's next for Michigan, yellow jerseys like WVU used last year?

pitt07f.jpg


I wonder who the next traditional football program will be that decides to go with the modern fad thing with their uniforms:

Notre Dame? Penn State? Alabama? Nebraska? Tennessee? Oklahoma? Texas?

The Pittsburgh Steelers? The Dallas Cowboys? The Chicago Bears? The Green Bay Packers? The 49ers? The Colts? The Raiders?
Click to expand...
ohio state has tinkered with their unis twice under tressel...
 
Upvote 0
JohnLSU;1207041; said:
So why do you think Michigan decided to sell out their own tradition and go with the West Virginia away jerseys? What was it the back to back losses to Appy State and Oregon, both teams that wear modern fad jerseys? Was it the 1-6 record in The Game since 2001 that made Michigan lose respect for themselves? Is it Michigan wishing they were like West Virginia? Is it Rodriguez wanting to stick it to the Man, letting them know that this program is going to be more about him than about Michigan?
Click to expand...
First off, in case you missed it (which you must have) we already started putting stupid modern faddish designs on the away jerseys a couple years ago - it's just, you couldn't see on TV. Maize piping on the shoulders that went around back a la Miami. They put that on, maybe 2004 or 2005, can't exactly remember.

Second, RR had nothing to do with the design change; the design was approved before he was hired.

Third, there has never been a great deal of tradition associated with the specific design of the road whites. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different design changes for them besides just this one. They've ranged from changing the shoulder stripes, to removing them entirely, to adding a maize outline to the numbers, to replacing the shoulder numbers with a block M, to the piping, and now this. It's the home blues we don't mess with. The whites are open to tweaking.

Do the stripes look stupid? Yes. Are they a break with tradition? No. Does it have anything to do with RR? No - the contract with adidas was finalized well over a year ago. Last season we knew in advance that would be the final season with Nike....no doubt the design process got rolling way back then.
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;1207164; said:
Do the stripes look stupid? Yes. Are they a break with tradition? No. Does it have anything to do with RR? No - the contract with adidas was finalized well over a year ago. Last season we knew in advance that would be the final season with Nike....no doubt the design process got rolling way back then.
Click to expand...
What I find odd about the change is that Adidas also handles football apparel for schools such as Nebraska, Tennessee, and Notre Dame. I could see the change coming if Michigan had chosen to renew with Nike, as the ridiculous piping and neon trims have been creeping into all of Nike's designs over the past ten years, so in that regard it would actually be the norm for Nike. Adidas, on the other hand, were the ones that appeared to be doing more traditional designs.

EDIT: Checked out your blog. I like it. Keep it up. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dryden;1207167; said:
What I find odd about the change is that Adidas also handles football apparel for schools such as Nebraska, Tennessee, and Notre Dame. I could see the change coming if Michigan had chosen to renew with Nike, as the ridiculous piping and neon trims have been creeping into all of Nike's designs over the past ten years, so in that regard it would actually be the norm for Nike. Adidas, on the other hand, were the ones that appeared to be doing more traditional designs.
Click to expand...
Which was exactly my hope when I read about the switch away from Nike :( Nike is the king of stupid-looking uniforms no matter what the sport, so I thought that when Nike went away, so would the piping. Now I've got no choice but to lay the blame in the athletic department. At least with Nike's, as I mentioned, you couldn't see it on TV, so it was easy to ignore. I don't think that'll be the case any more.

My hope now is that the stripes are low enough to mostly blend in with the pants. We'll see how they look in action, I guess.
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;1207164; said:
First off, in case you missed it (which you must have) we already started putting stupid modern faddish designs on the away jerseys a couple years ago - it's just, you couldn't see on TV. Maize piping on the shoulders that went around back a la Miami. They put that on, maybe 2004 or 2005, can't exactly remember.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the piping was pretty bad. The worst UM uniform blunder I remember was the enormous shoulder patches that they showcased for the 2005 Rose Bowl. Extremely gaudy. Made them look like gay British naval officers.

michigan.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1206954; said:
I'm convinced. However subsequent use of said weapons may have violated Section 7:
Click to expand...

I think that each of those subsections address the use of the defending players cross. Still, nothing said about tribal weaponry.

Status: Unconfirmed.

I should note as a LAX player and fan, I'm hoping to be proven wrong here.

:oh:
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1206954; said:
I'm convinced. However subsequent use of said weapons may have violated Section 7:
Click to expand...

sparcboxbuck;1207186; said:
I think that each of those subsections address the use of the defending players cross. Still, nothing said about tribal weaponry.

Status: Unconfirmed.

I should note as a LAX player and fan, I'm hoping to be proven wrong here.

:oh:
Click to expand...

Slashing is deemed to be legal as long as you're naked.
Therefore, no foul.

Also, poking and gouging are OK under the same circumcisions........er, circumstances.

Tea-bagging a dead opponent was thought to be in poor taste, however, and frowned upon most sternly.

:io:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top