I don't know if there are any other threads like this, but it is now as relevant as ever. The question is: What, exactly, IS Michigan "tradition"? As a lifelong fan of the University of Michigan, I have honestly not witnessed much in the way of "tradition". One half of a national championship in my lifetime does not merit much "traditon" talk, especially if that lifetime has now covered FORTY FOUR football seasons. This thread will be a serious discussion of this so called "tradition", all are welcome to participate, and hopefully it will cover more than "Best fight song", or "most wins in history", or "Eleven National Championships"(ten of which hardly anybody alive can remember). I will present my own opinions, some research, and I intend to enlist the help of some friends from other forums. This thread will also cover Michigan's latest "Flight to Futility"--as I present an unprecedented, candid (not to mention exclusive) year long trek, which I follow this Michigan team as they prepare themselves for an historic march toward becoming the first Michigan team in history to lose to Ohio State, and then lose their bowl game FOUR YEARS IN A ROW!!

The tradition that Michigan has is running an outdated offense year in and year out.

This thread will be a serious discussion...


Zip Goshboots leading a "serious discussion".

I gotta see this.

I made this argument a year ago in the infamous "Michigan is NOT elite" thread. While I believe they are one of the elite 10 programs, I still believe much of what you said Zip.

Most of the "greatness" of UM football came before we were alive. Outside of 97, there have been too many years of not living up to the hype. Sometimes I think UM settles for BT titles too much and their sights should be on NCs. The recent bowl records and the Rose Bowl record is inexcusable for a program viewed as one of the elite ones.

When you think about it, 10 of the 10 1/2 National Titles came before we were born. The All Time Wins is "mostly" due to Michigan being one of the first to play college football and their dominance of a handful of schools in the beginning of the sport. I give them credit for always having good teams, maintaining that level, and keeping themselves in the national picture. But, the cracks in the armor need to filled before they split too far.

I HATE ZIP GOSHBOOTS!

Do you realize how many absolutely horrible teams Michigan had before we were born? Probably not, since you don't seem very well acquanted with history.

Oh baby boy. I love it when I get an undisputable way to prove someone wrong, and here it is.

Going into this season Michigan had the highest all-time winning percentage at .744.
We'll go with the 1980 season to start tracking the general "since I was born" theme for you. Starting in 1980 and going through today Michigan has a .760 winning percentage which means they've been better since you were born than they were before you were born.
They haven't closed out seasons nearly as well as they did in the earlier years, admitted, but in your lieftime they have actually improved their overall winning percentage.

It is amazing that the day after UM gets bitchslapped again by USC in the Rose Bowl that we get the "winning percentage" argument.

Oh baby boy. I love it when I get an undisputable way to prove someone wrong, and here it is.

Going into this season Michigan had the highest all-time winning percentage at .744.
We'll go with the 1980 season to start tracking the general "since I was born" theme for you. Starting in 1980 and going through today Michigan has a .760 winning percentage which means they've been better since you were born than they were before you were born.
They haven't closed out seasons nearly as well as they did in the earlier years, admitted, but in your lieftime they have actually improved their overall winning percentage.

...as they forged their way west. Also a couple of wins in there against Ann Arbor H.S. and Great Lakes Naval Station. You remain regional powers and legends in your own minds...cue the Carly Simon...la-la-la...

Jethro, Michigan wins football games. They consistently beat the shit out of 9 of the big 10. What Zip goshboots is asking is where are the National Titles to prove you are hte best in the country? A school with the resources and academics Michigan has should be able to lure the recruits and coaches that could play for a title once every 5-10 years. Either Troy Smith is REALLY good like Vince Young to the Big 12, or Michigan coaches are REALLY bad.

I don't think Tradition and National Championships are one in the same. You can have Tradition without being dominant.

Notre Dame has tradition, when is the last time they won anything? Alabama has tradition, when have they won anything?

The uniforms, fight songs, stadium, the legends and the wins all speak for themselves. The players carry themselves on and off the field to good things. No, they are not churning out titles, but they do have tradition. A lack of titles means a lack of elite status, but it doesn't mean a lack of tradition.

As for tradition, let's talk national titles. Goin back to 1936, the first year of AP, Michigan has 2. Here are some other numbers, which will include UPI/CNN-USA Today/BCS Titles (which came about in the 1950 season):
Minnesota: 4
Texas: 4
Nebraska: 5
Oklahoma: 7
Notre Dame: 8
Ohio State: 5
USC: 7
Alabama: 7
Miami Florida: 5
LSU, Florida St, Tennessee, Penn St, Pitt, and Army: 2
Friggin' MICHIGAN STATE: 2 (THREE if you count UPI and AP as separate titles in 1952).
My spotty research indicates that 29 teams have won national championships since 1936. The research didn't separate AP and UPI (except for MSU in '52), and doesn't take into account the ersatz championships, such as Iowa winning some goofy NC in '58.
But, more importantly, how many of the years UM did not win were they truly in CONTENTION for the NC late in the year? Not many. Yes, we had the early
'70s run, and '87 (last second loss to Minnesota after 9-0 start), but think about what "tradition" should imply.
To me, it implies a whole lot more than 8-4 or 9-3 every year.
More to come.

that still isn't "tradition"

you are talking about performance, which has nothing to do with traditions.

Tradition is built on rivalries that capture a nations attention.
Michigan has that with Ohio State. Aside from losing five of the last six to the Buckeyes, let's examine other facets of this great rivalry.
Michigan, under Bo, was 5-4-1 against the buckeyes. However, for arguably the three best teams Bo had, in the early 70's, UM did not go to a bowl game. Why? they either lost to or tied OSU. Bo established a bit of dominance over Woody when Woody completely lost his mental faculties.
Fast forward to the Cooper years, the ones Michigan fans point to and beat their chest over.
Well, I believe four times Cooper brought undefeated teams into THE Game, and lost. Meanwhile, the UM teams that beat him were mostly 2,3, or 4 loss also rans playing in their "Super Bowl". But the bottom line is that Cooper had the Buckeyes IN CONTENTION for the NC those four times, and even in '97 the Bucks were a one loss 4th ranked team.
Of course, even when Bo beat Woody, he usually came up short on New Years Day, winning only twice. One of those losses was to STANFORD on a last second field goal, ruining a SURE NC and an otherwise undefeated season.
I know the old saying: "They are only big games when you lose them", but can it not be said that part of Michigan's "tradition" is laying an egg on the biggest stage, especially when many, if not all, the marbles are at stake?
I believe the only two Rose Bowls Bo won were by teams that already had two losses, making those victories fairly inconsequential.