event sponsored by UM Club of Greater Detroit
any net proceeds go to the scholarship fund
Our next Monthly Meeting will be held on THURSDAY, February 12, 2015
(I guess Brian, Seth and Ace are out)
NO MEMBERS OF PRESS ALLOWED at this event.
at Laurel Manor, 39000 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia, MI 48150. This is a special Dinner Event. Our featured speaker this month is bestselling author, writer, public speaker, and college instructor, John U. Bacon. Along with John, our special Master of Ceremonies for the evening will be former U of M running back and host of “View from the Backfield”, Jamie Morris. After the program, John will be available for book sales and signings.
The cost for the event is $35 per person (general seating) or a Table of 8 (reserved seating) @ $260. Cost includes full dinner buffet with soda, beer and wine included in the cost. A cash bar for mixed drinks will be available.
Doors will open at 5:30 p.m., followed by dinner, and our speakers.
Payment is available by advance sales only!!!
Register at https://www.umclubgreaterdetroit.org/events/Feb2015meeting, please click the "Register Now" button. Credit card and Paypal payments are accepted.
Please Register no later than 5:00 PM by Monday February 9th(**one week from now).
So the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs have mastered marketing to an extent I could not even believe. They've started a new uniform design marketing campaign called "Smell the Change."
The new Saturday jersey is amazing. It's bacon themed. We're talking a red shirt with Pigs spelled out and bacon underlining it. We're talking white pants with bacon piping down the legs. We're talking a gray hat with a slice of bacon as the logo. Bacon. Bacon bacon.
And we're not stopping there. They have a gray shirt with the bacon logo on it for $18. For just $4 more, we're talking $22, they'll sell you the same shirt that smells like bacon! For up to 10-15 washes! CAN I GET A DOZEN NOW?
Three and Out kept getting pushed down my priority list until just recently. Despite the fact that I live in Florida and don't really wear socks very often, when I came across the following text, I knew I had to have these...
But before the players do any of those things, they stand in line at the equipment managers’ window to get the gear they deem most important. It’s not the $257 helmets or $330 shoulder pads or even the $150 jerseys.
Nope. It’s the $4 socks. But not just any socks. Twin City socks—the thickest you can find.
Center David Molk, at the front of the line, handed me a pair. They are so dense, you could wear them as slippers around the home—or fill them with water.
“Best part of being a Michigan football player,” Molk said, holding up a pair, “is these socks.” Every one of his teammates—and I mean every one—agreed with that assessment.
At dinner Molk approached linebacker Jonas Mouton, who was enjoying a huge helping of pretty much everything.
Molk asked Mouton if he knew where his Twin City socks had gone.
“I don’t know, man,” Mouton replied, taking a bite out of his drumstick and chewing very slowly. “Go see Big Jon.” Falk, that is, the equipment manager.
“It’s dinner,” Molk said. “He’s not here.”
“Go see him tomorrow,” Mouton said, picking up a roll.
“I want them now.”
“Guess you’ll just have to wait, then.”
After Molk turned and walked to the back of the buffet, ticked off, Mouton leaned forward and said, “I’m wearin’ ’em.”
Just a little googling reveals a huge number of cuts, styles, etc. from Twin City. So my question to the board is: does anyone know what kind the players get that are supposedly so good? If not, I would settle for a product review from anyone who has bought these, including the style they got and whether they lived up to expectations set by the description in the book. Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Yes, my first thread on the MGoBoard is about socks.
Please hurry football season, etc., etc.
[Ed-M: You can haz it too.]
The beauty of digital content, delivered right at midnight. Let the zero hours of sleep begin...
Apparently the Big Ten Network's website is running a poll to determine which Big Ten team has the "best home-field advantage". Popularity contests do not good data sets make, so I figured I'd apply a lot of counting and a little math and see what I came up with.
- For each Big Ten team, I tallied up their total wins over the last 11* years, and seperately tallied how many of those wins came at home.
- I ignored nonconference games. Those will naturally boost home winning percentages as you invite the baby seals to get clubbed at your house, and play home-and-homes against teams that might actually beat you.
- I wanted to compare how well a team did at home compared to how well it did on average, rather than just totalling home wins and saying "golly, Ohio State must have the best home field advantage because they won at home a lot". Well, unfortunately, they won on the road a lot too, so it doesn't tell you much.
- Of course, the inverse of saying a team has a "Strong home field advantage" would be to say that same team "Sucks on the road". I'm looking at you, Indiana.
*I had planned to look at the last 10 years, but made my spreadsheet a big too large and went on my merry way entering in data. I was all done by the time I realised my mistake and I saw no reason to discard the 1999 season just because it was one more than I had planned to look at.
First, and just for the record, here's your overall Big Ten winning percentages for the last 11 years:
|Rank||TEAM||WINNING %||Home Wins||Home Wins Rank|
Yeah, I know. I don't like it any more than you. Anyhow, as you can see, there's not a lot of difference between a team's overall rank and its rank in terms of raw number of home wins. A bad team is a bad team at home or on the road, and ditto for a good team.
Surely there must be something to the fearsome reputations to such locations as Beaver Stadium and the Horseshoe though, right?
At first, I tried expressing home field advantage as the percentage increase of home winning percentage over total winning percentage. However, I found that this simply weighted the home success of bad teams much higher. Instead, I totaled the number of wins each team had at home, subtracted the number of wins each team had on the road, and averaged over 11 years to yield a number I'm calling the Expected Increase in Wins at Home (EIWH). In other words, every year each team plays 4 Big Ten home games and 4 Big Ten road games. How many more wins, on average, does a given team expect to claim at home than it will on the road? The results are as follows:
The results have some suprises. Iowa, a slightly-above-average team overall, earns an average of one more win at home than it does on the road, as does celler-dwelling Indiana. Indiana has only won five Big Ten road games in the past 11 years. Iowa has a reputation as a tough place to play, especially at night, but the Indiana results are inexplicable.
On the other end of the spectrum, Illinois has only earned 16 of its 30 victories at home, which makes for an interesting contrast with Indiana in spite of the two school's proximity at the bottom of the overall standings. Strangest of all, the feared Horseshoe in Columbus grants a very modest advantage to the hated Buckeyes. They have less of a home field advantage than such teams as Northwestern (a school which, from my personal experience, barely fills half its stadium with home fans) and Minnesota (who played in the sterile Metrodome for all of the period of this study).
What's the message here? It seems that the level of hype attached to particular stadiums has little relation to the advantage those stadiums grant to the team playing there.