T1B

Oh, the audacity!

I actually think it is kind of lame to put the Michigan score on the ring. If I were a player, not too sure I would like their stadium on my ring too. Oh well, gotta rack it though for the BODE call.

i don't think it's lame. they won a game in the country's biggest biggest stadium against the best historical program in the country [per winning percentage and actual wins]. those rings are, for the most part, conversation pieces, and 20 years from now more people are going to be interested in the win at michigan than they are the game against delaware.

i don't think it's lame.

My first reaction when I saw that was - bwahahaha!
My second reaction was - I can't believe they did that!
My third reaction was somewhere along the line of IndyFrisco's.

You make some solid points. I think adding the score and a picture of the Big House was a bit much, but it also pays some respect to Michigan considering they were willing to put an opposing team on their championship ring.

RACK the fuck out of that shit.

That day last year was the best day in the history of college football. OH, THE HUMANITY!

Solid

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:My first reaction when I saw that was - bwahahaha!
My second reaction was - I can't believe they did that!
My third reaction was somewhere along the line of IndyFrisco's.

Pretty much the same thing I did. Laugh, hmmm, lame.

Guys I have to disagree. When you are a lower level school, and I am including RICE in that grouping, your goals are sometimes different. At the same time the things you will be remembered for are also different. The SRs on that team already have two other NC rings. But what is the one thing that will get the most play? Beating Michigan.

10 years from now are you going to remember App St as a three time NC or are you going to remember the upset at Michigan? What about 20 years?

this definitely isn't the same thing as colorado putting the nebraska score on their big xii rings. they won a game AT michigan, and by them i mean a pretend college in the middle east.

I was going to comment that the ring endorses those that opine about the pedigree of U of M football....which it does....until the conversation drifts as to why they were on the schedule in the first place...

M Club wrote:this definitely isn't the same thing as colorado putting the nebraska score on their big xii rings. they won a game AT michigan, and by them i mean a pretend college in the middle east.

I think it's very similar actually. In both cases, it was the most memorable game of the season and the one the players (and fans) will remember for decades to come. If things had gone differently in the postseason (CU beats Oregon, NU beats Miami) and the Buffs would've had to split a title with Nebraska, they probably would've slapped it on their NC rings as well, lest anyone forget who the better team was that year.

Rack App State.

I don't fault them for doing it. It sucks that it was Michigan, but those kids didn't have a bigger win in their lives, and may never have a bigger win.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

M Club wrote:this definitely isn't the same thing as colorado putting the nebraska score on their big xii rings. they won a game AT michigan, and by them i mean a pretend college in the middle east.

I think it's very similar actually. In both cases, it was the most memorable game of the season and the one the players (and fans) will remember for decades to come. If things had gone differently in the postseason (CU beats Oregon, NU beats Miami) and the Buffs would've had to split a title with Nebraska, they probably would've slapped it on their NC rings as well, lest anyone forget who the better team was that year.

i actually don't think it's lame to put the score of the game with your rival on any championship ring. you get the best of both worlds: fake diamonds and a reminder you played your part in the rivalry. after all, people always use that tired line about preferring to go 1-10 with that one win against ______ rather than going 10-1 but losing to ______.

even though app state and michigan aren't relevant to each other - aside from this game - it's a great accomplishment for them to have gone into a traditional power's home and beat them. the ring is supposed to mark their accomplishments, and it does. i say it's more reasonable for them to stick that score on their rings than for someone like colorado to commemorate the nebraska game because colorado should feasibly win that game every other year, whereas only the most virulent michigan haters would expect app state to win a rematch with michigan.

Jsc810 wrote:App St should never have played Michigan, and they shouldn't be playing LSU next year. :x

Sorry, but that win will provide them justification for playing a D1 school every year....

The Seer wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:App St should never have played Michigan, and they shouldn't be playing LSU next year. :x

Sorry, but that win will provide them justification for playing a D1 school every year....

What JSC was saying....Michigan shouldve never scheduled AppSt. They only thing Michigan had over AppSt was history and a deeper roster. Talent was fairly equal on starting rosters.

If you are gonna schedule a D1AA team, might as well be a shitty one. The top teams in D1AA could hang with most D1 schools. The same is said for the top D2 schools against D1AA.

LSU is going to be in for a fight and the bengal tigers know this. Edwards is back at for another year at QB for AppSt and they return a lot.

MClub: Why do you think that ASU couldnt beat them again if they played this year? Michigan has a young team and ASU returns many key players.

M Club wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

M Club wrote:this definitely isn't the same thing as colorado putting the nebraska score on their big xii rings. they won a game AT michigan, and by them i mean a pretend college in the middle east.

I think it's very similar actually. In both cases, it was the most memorable game of the season and the one the players (and fans) will remember for decades to come. If things had gone differently in the postseason (CU beats Oregon, NU beats Miami) and the Buffs would've had to split a title with Nebraska, they probably would've slapped it on their NC rings as well, lest anyone forget who the better team was that year.

i actually don't think it's lame to put the score of the game with your rival on any championship ring. you get the best of both worlds: fake diamonds and a reminder you played your part in the rivalry. after all, people always use that tired line about preferring to go 1-10 with that one win against ______ rather than going 10-1 but losing to ______.

even though app state and michigan aren't relevant to each other - aside from this game - it's a great accomplishment for them to have gone into a traditional power's home and beat them. the ring is supposed to mark their accomplishments, and it does. i say it's more reasonable for them to stick that score on their rings than for someone like colorado to commemorate the nebraska game because colorado should feasibly win that game every other year, whereas only the most virulent michigan haters would expect app state to win a rematch with michigan.

I hear you. I'm not suggesting that CU's win over Nebraska was anywhere near as huge an upset as App St.'s. But there were definitely circumstances that justified those rings. CU was on a 9-game losing streak to NU heading into that game, including the last five by a combined 15 points. There was a lot of pent up frustration that finally got released. It was also the most points anyone had ever dropped on Nebraska, so it did have some historical significance at the time. (I still can't decide if I'm happy or sad that it's now the 4th-highest point total against the 'skers. It'd be nice to still have that distinction, but it also says a lot about how far they've fallen in recent years.)

Mr T wrote:MClub: Why do you think that ASU couldnt beat them again if they played this year? Michigan has a young team and ASU returns many key players.

michigan, along with most top 50 programs, should beat app state on talent alone. the only reason for a loss is coaching incompetence, which lloyd carr possessed a particular brand of. the guy just didn't care anymore. he wanted to quit after the 06 season but bo talked him out of it. the only passion he retained was in the way he scowled at the referees, and that was more an outlet for having to be there than for any sort of bad call. the guy spent about ten years NOT figuring out a way to slow down mobile qbs and letting his best players get so fat they could only play about 60% of downs. he coached so well that his best defensive player last year was a dipshit who couldn't think correctly about game situations. uh, hit troy smith when he's already on the bench drinking his gatorade? forget to block for the field goal that's going to spare you the humiliation of losing to app state?

but yeah, talent, which is the only reason carr never lost to a mac team. he should have.

10 years from now are you going to remember App St as a three time NC or are you going to remember the upset at Michigan? What about 20 years?

Dude, I hope I'm alive in 20 years. Hell I hope I'm still able to wipe my own ass by then and not be eating oatmeal for everymeal because I forgot to put my teeth back in.

Most fans will probably remember that win over Michigan more than the fact that they actually won the D-II title that year...seems appropriate that they put a little reminder of that accomplishment on there. I don't have a problem with it.

I'm sure some snobby blue bloods will pitch a fit that it is disrespectful but what are you going to do about it...write them an angry letter or protest? They beat Michigan fair and square and if they want to honor that occasion on the championship ring, that's their right.

Now, if they made a ring just for that win alone...that would be a different story.