further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
don't know how many people on here ever read shaggybevo, but that site is hilarious. They have been irate with their athletic director and how similar he is to DB. They have mentioned him being DB on that site.
This is an article from the Austin American-Statesman that was published awhile ago. It's no longer up and requires a sub to read it so here is most of it that I found on shaggybevo:
The person most responsible for turning up the music, finding DJs and bringing fireworks to Texas athletic events is Felisa Israel, a striking brunette just under 6 feet tall with copper-toned skin, charisma and someone who, quite frankly, got a little freaked when the locals refer to her as ma'am. She's from LA.
Israel, who has a long background in working with NBA teams, had never really spent much time in Austin. She knew of Texas men's athletic director Steve Patterson from their days together at the Portland Trail Blazers.
When Patterson came to Texas in the fall of 2013, he saw what most Longhorns fans have known for years. The Frank C. Erwin Jr. Special Events Center has about the same dull, lackluster basketball atmosphere as the name implies.
No offense to the progressive former Texas regent, of course. So Patterson hired Israel to, as she said, "sprinkle some professional sports dust on what's going on here."
Welcome to Club Erwin. Patterson didn't want to know what was planned.
"They told me they had some good things coming and they wanted to surprise me," he said.
Israel went to work."The first thing that came into my head was how am I going to incorporate Kevin Durant's MVP speech?," Israel said.
The arena staff was incredibly helpful with some out-of-the-box ideas. What about lasers? What about video mapping, the hot new NBA craze? That's where an image is projected onto the floor to give it a three-dimensional look. Katy Perry used it during the Super Bowl. But Israel said 90 seconds of video mapping costs $100,000. Per game.
"I said let's get a $7,500 disco ball and start with that," Israel said.
A new pregame video featuring Durant, a darkened arena, lights bouncing off the mirror ball and some on-court pyrotechnics create a completely different environment lasting 2 minutes, 30 seconds.
"I think they've tried to embrace who we are. I think it's awesome," said Texas coach Rick Barnes, now in his 17th season. "
I know I appreciate it, and I know the players do." Patterson made a lot of die-hard fans nervous when he first took over in November 2013 because he suggested changes were coming. "Everyone's afraid of change. Everyone's afraid of the unexpected," Israel said.
Club Erwin is a prime example of Patterson's laser-like focus on improving customer relations and the fan experience. That's what Disney Institute officials stressed during their meetings with Texas administrators in Orlando, Fla.
"We can't control what happens on the field, but we can control how people feel," said Brent Centlivre, Texas' account manager at the Disney Institute.
"Even if it's a close game and we lost, did someone thank me for coming? Did someone say they appreciate me being here? "I'm going to remember how someone treated one
of my daughters as opposed to whether Texas won the game," he added.
Bringing fans back Reporters who cover Texas football games would be aghast at the scene in the Royal-Memorial Stadium press box. It now looks like a Wall Street trading floor, with dozens of computer workstations, dual monitors and more than 20 people smiling and dialing. The press box inside Bellmont Hall is now the home to "the largest customer service and sales team in collegiate athletics," said Bernie Mullin, CEO of The Aspire Group.
"It's not even close." Patterson initially signed a one-year services contract with Aspire to outsource Texas' ticket selling operations.
"Wabash Cannonball, March Grandioso, Texas Fight, that is not going away," Hank said. "We are not here to denigrate, ruin, get rid of the traditions that have made the University of Texas great. But you know what? Every tradition started somewhere." Israel has carte blanche to try new things this fall at Royal-Memorial Stadium.
As a self-professed "band geek," she smartly brings up ways to go about highlighting the Texas band.
"I definitely want to enhance it. I want to make it more fun, make them more of a presence than they already are," she said. School officials have already confirmed to the Statesman that Jet Pack Guy won't return in 2015. Trey Goldsmith, longtime marketing consultant for Mighty Fine Burgers, is excited about what opportunities lie ahead at Texas athletic events. "The fact they're willing to do a jet pack says to me they're willing to do almost anything," Goldsmith said.
Texas officials said they've budgeted $200,000 for Israel's consulting, paying the DJs, adding pyrotechnics and all the new extras at the Erwin Center.
good lord, she is the female lochdawgg. These people need to be banned from college athletics.
Look at their complaints about their AD in this thread. seems very familiar. http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/152451-Steve-Patterson-is...
I know Spike was definitely the feature yesterday, but Max wasn't really mentioned in the two recaps so I thought he deserved some extra praise. Not just for coming off the bench to grab two huge offensive rebounds, but also hitting the floor to grab a loose ball in the last minute. At that point I thought to myself "it's clear who wants to win this game more." That kind of grit got me off the couch to put in a workout and will probably get me through some extra hours at work this week. Thank you, Mr. Calves!
The latest NITology is out. However, it has NOT taken into account Michigan's win today.
Before the game, they were slotted as a 7 seed and would be heading to 2 Miami. Now, they could possibly be moving up to that top 7 line or maybe even a 6.
Another NITology that was released Friday has Michigan as a 6 seed heading to 3 Saint Mary's.
Again, that was before Michigan's win so they would be moving up to a mid or maybe a high 6 in that NITology.
After falling by 28 to Iowa at home to lose 7/8. From Omaha.com:
Under Miles, there are consequences for falling behind at home by 26 points at halftime and making up no ground in the next 20 minutes.
He banned Husker players from interviews, a policy that will continue throughout this week and perhaps beyond.
The players also need a new dressing area for practice.
The fancy locker room at Hendricks Training Complex — with its multiple big-screen TVs and pool table and smoothie bar and leather lounge chairs and heated towel racks and I-pod shower plug-ins — is closed.
“There will be chains on the doors locking it from the outside,’’ Miles said, “until further notice.’’
So where will the players dress?
“Good luck,’’ Miles said, glaring. “They’re creative.’’
Miles calmly rips into his team in the rest of the article, including a quip about fundraising to pay some fans back for their tickets today.
So after the win against OSU, I've decided to take my first bit of optimism about Michigan basketball this year and blow it way out of proportion. I'm asking the big question:
Can we make the tournament?
Obviously for this exercise I'm going to assume we don't win Big Ten Tournament, because if we do, we're in no matter what. So I'm looking purely at an at-large bid.
We are currently 14-13 after the win. But since we're not winning the Big Ten Tourney in this exercise, that means we have at least one more loss on our resume. This means we'll have to be a 14 loss team looking for an at-large bid.
So the first thing to look at:
How often do 14 loss teams get at-large bids?
To answer this I looked at every at-large team's record that has recieved a bid since 2007. The results are very interesting.
In only 2 years in that time span has team with 14 losses recieved an at-large bid.
19-14 Arizona was a 10 seed.
20-14 Marquette was an 11 seed
19-14 Tennessee was a 9 seed
19-14 Penn State was a 10 seed
19-14 USC was an 11 seed
19-14 Michigan State was a 10 seed.
Wow. I really wasn't expecting many 14 loss teams to have gotten at-large bids, and I was pretty correct except for 2011.
Looking at it, 2011 must have had an incredibly weak bubble if that many 14 loss teams made the tourney. I don't think we can expect that weak of a bubble this year, and it will be discussed further down in the post.
On the plus side since 2011, an extra 3 at large bids have been added, so it will be a little easier to make the tournament.
I bolded 2011 USC because I just wanted to point out their resume.
In 2011, USC had one win over a ranked team. That was an Arizona team that ended up being a 5 seed.
Of their loses, here are some notable ones:
23-11 Rider Broncos: Lost in the first round of the CBI
12-20 Bradley Braves: No post season tournament
11-22 TCU Horned Frogs: No post season tournament
19-13 Nebraska Cornhuskers: Lost in the first round of the NIT
21-18 Oregon Ducks: Won the CBI (they were 16-17 at the time of selection)
11-20 Oregon State Beavers: No post season tournament
Now that I looked at 14 loss at-large teams, I wanted to do the same with 13, to see what difference that extra loss makes.
How often do 13 loss teams get at-large bids?
Using the same time frame as before:
21-13 Arkanasas was a 12 seed
18-13 Oregon was a 9 seed
20-13 Michigan was a 10 seed
19-13 Arizona was a 12 seed
20-13 Maryland was a 10 seed
21-13 Minnesota was an 11 seed
20-13 Michigan was an 8 seed
19-13 Illinois was a 9 seed
20-13 South Florida was a 12 seed
20-13 Texas was an 11 seed
19-13 West Virginia was a 10 seed
20-13 Connecticut as a 9 seed
20-13 Villanova was a 9 seed
21-13 NC State was a 12 seed
So at least one 13 loss team every year I checked has gotten an at-large bid, with the most being 4 in 2012.
So after looking at historical precedent, we need to see how Michigan compares. As I said earlier, our record is 14-13 (7-8). If we're looking for an at-large, we're going to essentially be at least 14 loss team however.
Looking above, it's pretty clear that the odds are slim as it is, but if we lose another game we have 0 chance at an at large. This means winning out in the regular season. That would put as at 17-13 (10-8), with wins @ Maryland, @ Northwestern, and home vs Rutgers.
In conference, we would probably finish right in the middle of the pack, getting a first round bye. For Big Ten Tournament purposes, a 10-8 record, winning % wise, would be the 7 seed, so for simplicities sake I'll put us there, and leave everyone else where they are now.
In the first round we would play the 10 seed who also has a first round bye, which in this case would be Nebraska. We beat Nebraksa 58-44 in our only regular season matchup.
After that we would play the second seed, who has a double bye. In this case, that would be Maryland, although Purdue has the same conference record currently.
Then, assuming seeds hold, we would be playing the 3 seed in the semi-finals, which would be Purdue.
Finally, assuming a loss in the finals (since in this scenario we are not getting an auto-bid), we would probably lose to the 1-seed Wisconsin. Our final record would be 20-14.
So assuming all of this happens as layed out above, we would be 20-14 (10-8), which would be more wins than any of the previous 14 loss teams to make the tourney except for Marquette, who also had 20.
We would be 2-4 vs the RPI top 25 (both wins against Maryland), 4-10 vs the RPI top 50, 8-12 vs the RPI top 100, and 12-2 vs the rest.
We would also be 4-6 on the road, and 4-2 on a neutral site.
We currently have an SOS of 11 and RPI of 89, but both those would change depending on these results, mainly the RPI increasing.
Now it's time to look at the teams Michigan is competing against. According to Joe Lunardi, the last 8 teams in the tournament are:
17-9 Illinois Fighting Illini: 2-2 vs RPI top 25, 1 loss vs RPI 100+, 1-1 vs Michigan
16-11 NC State Wolfpack: 2-4 vs RPI top 25, 1 loss vs RPI 100+, 1-0 vs Boise State
17-9 St. Johns Red Storm: 2-6 vs RPI top 25, 2 losses vs RPI 100+
17-9 Stanford Cardinal: 0-3 vs RPI top 25, 3 losses vs RPI 100+
20-7 Boise State Broncos: 1-1 vs RPI top 25, 3 losses vs RPI 100+, 0-1 vs NC State
18-9 Cincinnati Bearcats: 3-1 vs RPI top 25, 3 losses vs RPI 100+
19-8 LSU Tigers: 1-1 vs RPI top 25, 3 losses vs RPI 100+
16-12 UCLA Bruins: 1-6 vs RPI top 25, 1 loss vs RPI 100+
Obviously keep in mind that the resume for Michigan is theoretical while these resumes are concrete, so more wins and losses will be added.
So after all of this typing and time I've wasted, what's the final takeaway?
Well, I'm sure you could have guessed this, but if Michigan wants to make the tourney, they're gonna have to win the Big Ten Tourney. Even assuming Michigan does finish out how I assumed above, Michigan would at best be a last 4 in type team, which does not bode well.
Also, this post is assuming that Michigan wins @ Maryland, which no team except for Virginia has done, so good luck with that. And expecting this team to win 7 straight for any other purposes besides me avoiding studying is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Reasons to be Semi-Optimistic
If you do want to hold out hope, however, here are a few things that might make you feel a bit better:
- A 14 loss team can make the tournament. It's happened before, so 14 losses isn't the kiss of death for an at-large bid. It makes it very tough however.
- The bubble isn't too strong. Granted, I don't think it ever is, but UCLA, for example, only has one less loss than Michigan, only has one RPI top 25 win, and is projected to be in the tournament.
- If Michigan finishes as assumed above, that would mean we would be 8-2 in our last 10 with an 8 game win streak. The committee likes to look at how you finish, and that's the best way Michiga could hope.
- Along those lines, the injuries to Walton and Levert. I know it's weird to think of those as positives, but they could be for Michigan's chances. Whenever a team suffers key injuries, the committee wants to see how they do without the missing players. If Michigan ends strongly, they can say the inuries to Walton and Levert were the cause for the poor play, and once the team had experience playing without those two, they finished very strongly.
- Our bad losses aren't THAT bad. Losing to NJIT and EMU are clearly part of Michigan's problems right now on the resume. But you saw USC's resume in 2011 when they made, and there are teams projected in the tournament right now with more losses than Michigan against sub RPI 100 teams, so the loses can be overcome.
- We'd essentially be a 13 loss team. I know this is weird because I've been saying we're a 14 loss team the entire time, but the Big Ten Tournmanet Final ends a few hours before the field is announced. By that time, the committe has most likely made their decisions, so while losing that game would make us a 14 loss team, the committee would be evaluating us as a 13 loss team. And you can see from past years, 13 vs 14 losses makes a big difference. We might get lucky and by the time that 14th loss comes, their minds will have already been made up, and if that's the case, it's good news for us.
Your Rooting Interests
If Michigan has any chance at an at-large bid, the following things are what you want to happen
- Win @ Maryland. While winning the next 7 is going to be hard no matter what, this next game @ Maryland is by far the most difficult. If we can somehow pull the upset, this gets that much more realistic.
- Root against all bubble teams, especially the ones mentioned above. For obvious reasons.
- Root for Michigan State or Indiana to get the 3 seed. At this point, we need wins against as many top teams as possible. Our most likely route in the Big Ten Tourney runs through the bottom half, against the 2 and 3 seeds. Of the teams left battling for those seeds, Purdue would be the least helpful for our resume, and they are currently the 3 seed. Root for Indiana or MSU to take that spot, as beating them would be a lot more helfpul and give us an extra RPI Top 50 or 25 win.
- Root for Penn State ad Nebraska. Their RPI ranks right now are 106 and 108 respectively right now. Getting them in the top 100 would be another benefit to our resume.
- Root for NJIT and EMU. Just to make our bad losses less bad.