"The University of Illinois is also in turmoil. The university sports an Interim Chancellor, an Interim Athletic Director, and an Interim Football Coach; the game will be played at Soldier Field, making this an Illini Interim Home Game."
"There's a certain level of confidence and composure he brings to the court," said sophomore forward Aubrey Dawkins, who played the bulk of his minutes as a freshman while LeVert sat on the end of the bench in a sweat suit. "When you know you have a player like that on your team of that caliber, it's just like, we're in his hands and he can do a lot of things for this team. It's a comfort. It's nice."
"I just really wanted to see him in a game and I loved what I saw," Beilein said. "He was active. He's got a motor. He's got some things he's got to work on. He doesn't have the strength to (play) the way he'd like to in the Big Ten yet, but that's what we're going to work on in-between (games) without inhibiting his ability to play the next game."
Hello old 48. Michigan will un-retire Gerald Ford's #48 and make him a legend jersey type thing guy. Unfortunately, these days centers are not allowed to wear #48, so it'll be some defensive guy. They'll hand it out this fall:
"We're honoring Desmond Howard now every year with one of our players (senior receiver Roy Roundtree) who really deserves it," Hoke told the station. "We're going to do the same with Gerald Ford's jersey here this year."
If I can make a request (I cannot) could this not be Jordan Kovacs? Or, like, anyone who has established themselves as a guy with a particular number? Kovacs is 32. Roundtree is 12, except he'll be 21 this fall, and that will negatively affect how he's remembered because he won't be consistently one thing. This may be a crazy argument. It is my argument, though, so I say I'd rather have Kovacs keep 32 and have everybody who wears it after him remind me that once we had a really good walk-on safety.
The legends patch thing is good for honoring past legends but switching numbers up makes it hard to create new ones. I hope they start using them as recruiting incentives instead of flipping seniors to new numbers every year. Also the patch should be subtler.
Somewhere, Kevin Sampson sobs quietly onto his Scrooge McDuck pile of flip phones. The NCAA's increasingly anachronistic texting ban is no more…
"R U interested in our school? Our facilities are gr8!"
A text message reading along those lines might appear on cellphone screens of basketball recruits starting Friday, after a new NCAA rule takes effect allowing college coaches to send unlimited text messages to players who have completed their sophomore year of high school.
Coaches also will be able to make unlimited calls to those recruits under the new legislation.
…if you are a men's basketball recruit. Also, coaches can call players whenever they want… if you are a men's basketball recruit. Basketball's trying to chop out pages of annoying rules minutiae so they can focus on the comically oversized bags with dollar signs on them that many players tote from class to class.
Whitmer's coach is quoted in the above article worrying about an avalanche of phone calls his kids will have to field, so let me reissue a suggestion: the NCAA should allow recruits to have a nonbinding commitment to a school that prevents them from taking officials and coaches other than the one they've committed to from contacting them. Even without that, that's a good decision I hope they generalize to more sports.
File under "yes, please."Smart Football details a reverse-type play that Gus Mahlzahn is a fan of that I wouldn't mind seeing added to Michigan's playbook:
Seems like a great way to mix up the speed option look Michigan ran a lot of last year without forcing Denard to make a pitch decision. Malzahn and Dana Holgorsen are running it a lot… it could be a decent idea. A diagram:
It even works without tight ends, which we don't have.
But a four-team deal certainly presents no opportunity to the Stony Brooks of college football. The champions of the Sun Belt, Mid-American Conference, Conference USA and Western Athletic Conference (should it survive) never will make that cut. The Mountain West and even the Big East would be long shots.
Football, greedy and decentralized, doesn't care.
Meanwhile, the rest of college sports give the little guys a chance to do it on the field. It gives life to the overachiever stories that are a large part of what makes sports compelling.
…those teams are now in BCS conferences if you consider the new-look Big East a BCS conference, which you probably shouldn't. A four team playoff does occasionally let in the champions of those leagues, should those champions actually seem like a worthy contender. If it's a "long shot," Forde notes earlier in his own column that the last time a Stony Brook-type interloper made the CWS it was 1986, when the regionals were literally regional. Hypothetical Four Team Playoff has a better record of including outlying provinces than the college world series. Just because TCU isn't a have-not anymore doesn't mean they weren't when they rose to prominence, and the minnow drought in the CWS is an argument in favor of a more streamlined field.
I will say this: if you are going to do the thing where everyone gets a chance no matter how likely it is they get their heads beaten in, Forde's system is a good one. It's a twelve-team field with 11 champions—more likely 10 since the WAC is dead—and one or two autobids. Byes, homefield, etc. The only objections you could level would be Think Of The Children arguments about missed class and too much football that evidently don't apply at any other level of the sport.
Dennis Dodd made this same argument. In short: since Boise State and TCU are now in power conferences, no one outside a power conference can be relevant. Mmmm self-defeating argument.
Etc.: North Carolina troubles are even more troubling now that a totally fake class has been exposed. Could this be the straw that finally causes the NCAA to annihilate someone? Probably not.
While I hear your argument for the legends jerseys going to newer/younger players, I respectfully disagree.
I think a player should have to earn that jersey through their on and off the field actions. Period. There's too high a chance that some highly touted kid out of high school will get the jersey and then flop (on or off the field... hello Boubacar Cissoko), effectively disgracing the jersey they've been awarded.
I would vote the jersey be awarded to a deserving senior. Yes, it would be less of a recruiting tool, but it would still be one... one with much less chance of losing its meaning by being worn by an unproven talent. (And, if reserved for seniors, it might be incentive to stay another year rather than going pro?) Plus, if that senior has worn a different number his first 3-4 years, then his orginal number can still become a legend some day, whereas, if he gets the legends number from day one, he'll never have a separate number to some day become a legend on its own (in the rare instances that even a deserving senior will be that good).
Tyrone Butterfield has "disgraced" the #1 jersey for all those who have worn it since? It's a number. I think it'll survive. And I never thought less of AC because of Butterfield's greatest play being a drop.
But we're not talking about one Butterfield situation. But if you give the number to a frosh, half the people who wear it won't end up being stars, likely, and it just won't be a big deal anymore. You don't want to look at a list of legends jersey players and have to say "who?" After half of them.
Exactly. First, it's not just a number... it's a specially designated legends jersey (and it sounds like, in certain instances, a formerly retired number). When Butterfield wore it, it was a number, and not a specially designated jersey, so your argument doesn't really fit.
Second, as WolvinLA2 points out... I would bet a significant percentage of this board doesn't know who Tyrone Butterfield is. Exactly what you don't want in a Legends Jersey Awardee.
If he honored the player, was a good student, did the homework and reported on the legend of the player to the team and public, would he be a "disgrace"? (Your words). It's meant to honor the player by making the number public and in use. No one forgets what the number means when Shawn Crable or whoever wears 2. NOT wearing it...that's how people forget.
And relly, that you see Butterfield as an exception proves the rule- most times you can tell who is going to be good. In all their assigning of the #1 after AC they only "got it wrong" once.
But what if they weren't a good player, did their homework and represented the university well? What if they flunked their classes and got arrested? We don't know that stuff before they get here, which is why we can't just give it to a freshman. Like the poster said, what if Tate was given a legends jersey? What about Kevin Grady? Or Dann O'Niell?
You don't know much about how a recruit will be as a player or as a person when they first show up, so it's too early to honor them with something like that. We know Kovacs is going to represent Michigan well this year. We don't know the same about Joe Bolden. I have no reason to think Bolden will do anything bad, but I didn't have any reason to think that about Tate or Grady or O'Neill or Stonum or Cissoko either.
A veteran player has never gotten into trouble? Had Will Campbell ever given any indications he might get arrested with his track record? You don't know what may happen with Kovacs....and he's a great kid, but hardly qualifies for your standard of great player.
The funny thing is, Tate probably wouldn't have been given a special number as a freshman, because he wasn't that special a recruit. But he would have under your system, after he had a great year, and people thought he was the savior. Unless you're saying only seniors get it, in which case we're back to might as well just retire them, or we're stuck with an annual rotating basis of numbers were no one can ever be the next "legendary" number, because you're always looking or the next guy to fill the slot.
One of the major points was to keep the numbers in circulation, so you're not running out of numbers to wear, or recruit. Your method, they might as well remain retired.
Quick...how many people have worn 2 since Woodson?
Or 21 since Howard? Do you still say "who?" when you see the number? That's kinda what the patch is for, because you'll never say who....the name is on there. If only superstars wear it, the patch is going to get awfully crowded.
If you want to tell me that now #21 has some more special significance than #1, go ahead....but they just thought Roundtree was good enough for 21 but not 1. Tell me which number has more meaning to Michigan.
did not infact ask to wear #21? I dont recall anybody saying he wasn't "good enough" to wear #1, maybe someone did and I'm not aware of it. It's not the numbers that mean the most, it's the players......current and old. Let's try not to give them any indication that they're just not "good enough". Unless your the coach......in that case, sorry Mr. Hoke
I'm not sure he asked for it, but there was a prior relationship with Howard, so #1 might not have been of interest.
I'm actually being contrary to those who say someone has to be worthy of wearing the number. Because I don't think Roundtree is going to go down as one of our all time greats, but he's certainly worthy enough to wear the number. People have actually said players who aren't good enough "disgrace" the legacy. And I'd say that people who wore it after in no way change how we feel about the people who made it legendary to begin with.
I've read about four articles online about dusting off #48 and I've had time to think about it, and I've concluded that I don't think its a good idea...at least, not for this number in particular. Honoring the Legends, Desmond/Harmon/etc, is a good idea. But this one situation I think should be left alone. If he was just a great player that went on to other things, that's one thing, but becoming our President, having his number retired in the manner it was...I just think that this one should be left untouched.
There's my two cents.
“If worms had machine guns, birds would be afraid of 'em.”
I think all of the 5 retired numbers should be left alone. Put up a Memorial Wall or something to left people know the history behind them, but keep them out of circulation. We've had a lot of great players, Chuck, Desmond, AC, Harbaugh, etc etc. But what those 5 (technically 7) did was set themself apart from just being another great player. We're going to have another Heisman winner, so that kind of takes Woodson and Desmond out of being super-special. We'll have great receivers and great QB's, so there goes AC and Harbaugh. On the flip side I doubt we'll ever have a player do as much for the team as Tom Harmon did, or have an entire family commit and all be great players, we'll probably never see another 12-time letter winner, or see someone give as much to Michigan Athletics as Bennie Oosterbaan did. Really the only retired number someone could equal is to be President, and that's not exactly a walk in the park either.
If you're doing nothing, how do you know when you're finished?
But what those 5 (technically 7) did was set themself apart from just being another great player.
Do you honestly believe that not a single Michigan football player since 1956 is in the same class as those guys? The reason we stopped retiring numbers is because we were running out of them, not because those guys were better than everyone else who played after them. If we had known 60-70 years ago that football rosters would balloon to over 100 players per team, we'd have never retired any numbers in the first place.
I think you can make a case for keeping Ford's number retired because of what he did after his playing days. The rest, I see no reason for keeping under wraps. Their numbers were retired for purely athletic reasons and we've certainly had others who are worthy since then. Instead of arbitrarily saying "The guys before 1956 get retired numbers and the guys after don't," how about one set of standards for everyone?
That double-standard is definitely a good argument for un-retiring the numbers. It doesn't make a lot of sense that a school like us would only retire numbers of guys who played in the leather-helmet era. Are we really going to fault Charles Woodson for not kicking extra points or having a brother who was good at football? Are we really going to argue that the only primarily defensive player in college football history to win the Heisman falls short of the bar?
Also, maybe it's entirely a coincidence, but there's something slightly unseemly about the fact that we've only retired the numbers of white players, despite having had a number of outstanding black players (including two Heisman Trophy winners) over the course of our program's history.
I agree. And if you gave it to an incoming player - how do you determine who? The guy the coaches think will be the best? That makes an odd dynamic between that guy and the other also unproven players in his class. Especially if that guy doesn't end up being that good. What if the guy who gets a legend number is never good enough to play? Then it sits on the sidelines for four years and certainly loses it's appeal.
"Hey, Tate, what a great game against Notre Dame. We want you to wear number 48 for the next four years. It was President's Ford number. We know that you will do it proud."
If we were giving legend numbers to Freshmen in September of 2009, Tate would have been a very strong candidate - based on what little we knew of him at the time. Ends up, that would have been a huge mistake.
If you gave 48 to Kovacs (or Denard for that matter) you could be damn sure that they would honor that number by their on-field performance and off-field conduct.
I also dout that I would be all dazed and confused by seeing Kovacs wearing 48. Maybe for one play.
Yeah, I also don't buy the "if we wait until their upperclassmen to give them a new number, it will be too confusing" argument. Last time I checked, there are names on the jerseys. Plus, I think it will be well known who is being awarded the handful of legends numbers... it's going to be a big deal for an important player... I doubt anyone is really going to be, wait who got #21 during that big half time ceremony (or whtever).
No, that hasn't lost its appeal because it has been reserved for a great player. If Greg Mathews and Darryl Stonum had gotten the #1, and then Jerald Robinson got the #1, it would lose its appeal. Not to take anything away from those guys, but they weren't #1 material, even though they were 4 star receivers who were the highest ranked WRs in their class. When it only goes to someone "great" the appeal stays. When it starts to go to players who are "good" or who maybe don't even make it that far, it loses it.
Heck, is Roundtree good enough now? Is he going down as one of the great Michigan receivers? He wasn't even our best receiver last year....might not have been the second best. But that's the point - who decides what's "great enough?" What if Roundtree gets in trouble? Just "oops?" Campbell came out of spring working hard and there was talk of him being a leader. Then he was arrested. You never know. Who should get Ford's number? Kovacs? By your standards he probably isn't great either.
Picking what qualifies is completely arbitrary. And no two people will see it the same way. And your way turns down recruits that have always worn a number because they're just freshmen. It's honored by being worn...that's the point. To honor who made the number great, not who's wearing it. You don't need a player as great to do that. Though I still don't understand how 8 years of not wearing it is less buried than 4 years of a bench player wearing it. (And then most likely 8 years of it being worn, because as has been shown, they did a pretty good job figuring out who should wear #1 without waiting to find out.)
“There are no victims in this case,” Amendola said. “The only time there will be victims in this case is if you ... listen to all the arguments, hear the judge’s instructions, and you deliberate and you determine beyond reasonable doubt that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of all or some of these offenses.
I ain't no criminal defense attorney, but that's an odd way of putting it.
"All of the doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes."
I took a History/CAAS class that featured textbooks I had seen before, in 8th grade. The class was about 80% athletes. Including one genius who spent the class time trying to compare being a scholarship athlete to being a slave. I got the class through sheer luck of the drawn. I was surfing around on Wolverine Access going "I need three 3 easy humanity credits, oh you'll do nicely I think.". Turns out it was really easy. Also no final paper which was nice.
That's true - there are some real gimmes at U-M, and at any college. My BIL told me of a couple blow-off classes at MIT (yes, they do exist there, although they are pretty rare).
But the fact that 46 of the 54 classes in question were assigned to the head of the African-American studies department is a major red flag. If the dude is getting paid $12k per class, and he taught 46 of them over a course of several years, well, that's just crazy and an apparent pattern of shadiness (that's the technical term, right there).
And wow, this is way more sophisticated a scandal than the UGA basketball fundamentals class which consisted almost entirles of the men's basketball team.
For my privacy, my new username is "non-Oriental non-Andrew"
CAAS (although I guess they are now DAAS) seems to focus on keeping our athletes eligible as well. Our sports medicine program used to do the same, but the profs got tired of being a joke major and supposedly it's actually hard now.
Basically I'd argue most schools have a field, or at least a list of athlete friendly profs, they steer kids to. UNC's main crime seems to be that they didn't diversify their holdings and just had one bag man. If they'd been less greedy and spread things out, they'd be just like the rest of us.
It's not really shocking though. I mean if you're an athlete and have 4 hours of free time.
1. You can work to edit your History paper and get a B- instead of a C+.
2. You can watch film, perform better, and get drafted higher. Thus earning millions more in rookie salary (well pre 2012 NFL cap at least).
So it's not really shocking that a lot of athletes just want to keep eligible and schools cater to that. The system kind of rewards that thinking.
I'm not sure if you have done any actual reading about this scandal, but there are several of these classes where the listed professor of record for the class denies that they had ANY involvement in the class and say that their signatures were forged on the paperwork for said classes.
This is not just a few blow-off classes that they're talking about, these appear to be completely fabricated classes that were creasted for no other reason than to keep the pretense of academic eligibility amongst their athletes. I think when the details of this all start to come out, it will be quite shocking.
Yeah, this actually sounds worse than the infamous Jim Harrick basketball coaching and strategy class. That actually had a class, even if it was an unbelievable joke and only available for basketball players. It sounds like in some cases these UNC classes basically didn't even exist - no instruction or anything whatsoever - except to give them grades to keep guys eligible.
In fairness to the lawyer, Sandusky is facing a mountain of evidence and was convicted in the court of public opinion long before this trial got underway. Representing that guy is a suicide mission. He should have copped a plea and tried to get the judge to let him serve his sentence in isolation. By the time the jury deliberates for 15 minutes and rings up a guilty verdict, the judge will be itching to throw Sandusky into genpop at your friendly neighborhood supermax .
This lawyer, impregnated and married a former client of his. Said girl was 16 at the time of conception. I think the guy already suicided his own career.
Also Sandusky pretty much convicted himself in that Costas interview. He admitted to horsing around with the kids and then failed to deliver a strong "No" when asked if he was sexually attracted to children. His response was "I enjoy young people and love being around them". After that little gem he got around to saying no.
Sources are saying our opponent in the "early" B1G/Pac12 matchup will be a home-and-home with Utah, with the Big House hosting the first game in 2014 and the return trip to Salt Lake City in either 2015 or 2016.