I guess the OSU gear is more provocative on principle, but better "Michigan man" move would be MSU or other directional Michigan U, right?
I used to fret about the "or" designation. But the RB and HB slots on this chart translate to: One of these guys or all of these guys will be lighting it up. All game.
This is all I can think of from the promo shot...
One word: Fireworks!
Can we get some highlights from the Drake game?
I have to agree.
At the same time, when was the last time you saw Minnesota in position to deliver a hit with bad (intimidating?) intentions (and UM essentially have to take it)?
Agree with "deserve" versus "earn" points above.
Would add that I'd change downgrade my "yes" vote to "probably" (if given the option) due to his public comments on the matter.
This argument surely won't carry the day on 11W.
It would not even get a whiff of the laugh test in any court of law - should it even be assigned.
I'm happy to compare notes against a Torts outline and the real world in 2014.
This is quality irony.
I'm glad that Penn State has returned to its iconic look, which has been shown to be an almost monstrous example of idolatry - or at least testimony to willful (blind?) ignorance.
Hackenburg is PHENOMENAL at one-score comebacks when his counterpart throws 5 picks. Get on board...
I tried really hard to outdo this... But you win. This may even NAIL IT.
My cynical prediction is that Indiana is not even mentioned in any ESPN analysis of the gladiator-esque nature of all SEC tilts.
Appreciate the emphasis on gameplay, but they are an SEC team with alphabetic superiority. Don't think so much!
Did not see the game, but this is all kinds of no good. Can anyone else fill in the blanks on this?
Before you started this thread, I was going to suggest he was nearing the gotta-fire-on-principle zone due to this quote:
"I think this team can still win a championship," he said. "I really do, but we've got to play much better and we have to support each other as we do it."
I sincerely try to avoid comments as to terminating someone's employ. None of us rarely seem to be close or inside enough to really know...
But - come on. This guy is way passed house money. They are not just regressing - it's a freefall.
He violated the terms/conditions of his license to be in the stadium (i.e., ticket) after passing/hearing [I'm guessing here] numerous posted/announced warnings against entering the sideline and field of play. That scenario - which he created - is rife with panic and confusion and being subdued by an arguably conventional physical reaction (i.e., grabbing and tackling) is arguably a foreseeable consequence.
Can you articulate: (a) his right to enter the field of play; or (b) how any other right was somehow violated by an act that was a foreseeable reaction to the sequence of events that he set in motion?
I mostly agree.
I'm ambivalent on new/alternate uniforms (to each their own), but when the "look" is clearly in the zone of looking edgy for edgy's sake, you have to wonder whether the sponsor is at all interested in the client. And - Adidas seems to consistently be in the head-scratching zone.
This is awesome. Lead by example on and off the field.
Gripe about imperfections tomorrow. The offense looked like a freight train and the defense... Man, the offense looked amazing!
Are we not going to comment on the choice of footwear by the (hopefully) guest at County?
That's MY bike, PUNK!
Ulcer: Postponed another week.
Those precious, record-setting yards...
Nice touch with Samuel redemption.