Gholston. 3 games. announced after Wisconsin.
I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
Site note. Had some issues getting and converting the game this week—my UFR process is byzantine—so UFR will be delayed until Thursday/Friday. It's a bye week, be chill.
Reminder. This is what Michigan wore on Saturday:
I hadn't seen a good shot of the sleeves, which miraculously manage to make the whole ensemble seem even dumber-looking. If you run across a picture from this game in five years you are going to laugh at the clown uniforms like people laugh at that one year a bunch of teams wore stormtrooper shoulders.
The MZone points at a prescient slippery slope prediction and says get used to it. Michigan's the first team to get their Arena League on twice in one year—even the pro combat victims only have to put up with it once.
How does this happen again? There will be a fuller discussion in the UFR of this, but it is absolutely maddening to see MSU time those double-A-gap blitzes with Molk's head going down and never get a check or read in their face. Molk on this:
"They did jump our snap count," Molk said. "They knew us, they knew how we played and how our plays were going to start."
Michigan State's Trenton Robinson originally told The Wolverine on Saturday his team could anticipate Molk's snaps because he bobbed his head down, then back up before he hiked the ball. …
Molk said Michigan recognized this during the game, but could not adjust because of the crowd at Spartan Stadium.
"Making an adjustment came down to our ability to communicate, and with the crowd noise, it sort of covered that," he said. "It puts us into a tough situation, and something we have to react to, and we weren't ready to react. They got us, no doubt."
During the game? They've done this the last three years! For Michigan to have no answer to the instant A-gap blitz into the fourth quarter is a massive, inexplicable coaching failure. Not once did Michigan block that, not once did they bring Molk's head up to reveal the blitz and then check into another play. There was no one in the center of the field for a dozen snaps and Michigan didn't use this at all.
Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme. Downside: it's been replaced with the "Michigan State was tougher" meme, which even Molk is repeating. I guess that's the effect of an offseason in which every other word out of Hoke's mouth was "toughness." I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing MSU outcoach Michigan for the fourth straight year. It's not toughness when no one has an angle to block the same linebacker five times.
Boo-boo, line edition. Via a pouty-looking WCBN sports director hanging out in Sweden:
Taylor Lewan limping around campus with a giant boot on his left foot/ankle. Looks uncomfortable.
Somewhere on the coaching film there is evidence Gholston swept the leg. Of this there can be no doubt.
Obligatory Gholston-Dantonio statement. Anyone who's surprised that MSU is ham-fistedly taking a page from the Gene Smith playbook by declaring Saturday's events an "isolated incident" in an attempt to keep a starter on the field hasn't been paying attention. Dantonio's established a pattern. Ending a kid's hockey career with a sucker punch doesn't get you kicked off the team, every year there's a posse of 20 guys getting together to beat up some engineers, etc. etc. etc. This is the way he wants his program. End of story.
Bielema don't care. I've been annoyed with the program's public reaction to the above, possibly because it seems like they're lying through their teeth for better PR. This doesn't make me right, it just makes me annoyed. In contrast, Bret Bielema is a guy who gets his digs in:
"We'll do our talking with our pads and we'll do it between the whistles."
This is the only guy in the league who was able to call Tressel the asshat he was instead of going with that tragic hero/tragedy business that Carr and Dantonio did or refusing comment like everyone else. He also runs up scores like there's no tomorrow—it's clear he's something of an asshat himself, but these days I'll take any public figure who says what he thinks instead of what someone says he should think because it looks prettier in the paper.
Ain't hearing you about a deranged prosecutor. In the aftermath of the personal-foul-fest over the weeked the WSJ assembled their number-crunching team and came up with a list of the dirtiest rivalries in college football as measured by personal fouls of a late/unnecessary hit variety. A number are expected. One in particular is not:
|RIVALRY||PER GAME||BIGGER OFFENDER|
|Duke-North Carolina||5.2||N. Carolina 69%|
|UCLA-Southern California||4.8||UCLA 54%|
|N. Mexico-N.Mexico St.||4.6||N. Mexico 65%|
|Michigan-Michigan St.||4.0||Michigan St 80%|
|C. Michigan-W. Michigan||3.8||Western 58%|
|Brigham Young-Utah||3.6||Utah 61%|
|NC State-North Carolina||3.4||N. Carolina 59%|
All of those are competitive series save North Carolina bludgeoning Duke annually. Maybe they're just mean dudes at UNC—they're the only team to show up twice.
Of course, this pretends the personal foul stuff is a two way street, which it isn't in certain cases. On a per team basis your winners are:
So… yeah, UNC hates Duke a lot. Either that or it's impossible to not get personal fouls for unnecessary roughness when you've got a lot of illegally acquired future NFL players and they've got eleven mewling kittens.
The fresh take NOTline*. Magazine writer Chris Jones came up with a fresh take that really adds to the sporting zeitgeist: you shouldn't say "we" when you are identifying the team you root for because you are not on the team. Awesome, dude. Thanks. For your troubles SBN's Andrew Sharp effectively compares you to Whitney.
Sharp has ten reasons a fan might break out the we but doesn't hit the reason I do it periodically: it is a convenient linguistic trick. If I am discussing the Michigan-Michigan State game and wish to refer to the teams by words shorter to read and type, I can either continually re-introduce the team names and briefly refer to whichever one is the most recent antecedent as "they." That's potentially annoying and confusing. The other option is to dump them entirely in favor of "we" and "they," which clearly indicate who is who while preventing constant repetition of already established facts—that we are indeed talking about Michigan and Michigan State.
It would take a fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this, which is why someone who works for a newspaper or magazine writes this column every three months.
Trouba: pretty good. Hockey 2012 D commit Jacob Trouba is good, first round good. As of late he's pushing his way into the top half of the first round:
Defenseman Jacob Trouba (U-18 U.S. national team development program): He is most likely to land in the top 10 picks and could crack the top five if he keeps progressing. He's 6-1 and 170 pounds, and he can skate well, fire the puck with authority and show a physical presence.
Boo Nieves, LW, Kent HS
Nieves has rocketed up the charts after showing off his stuff with USA at the Ivan Hlinka on top of several favorable viewings last season. Nieves is a skilled, offensively productive center who has the potential to grow into his body. He has great hands and displays a real high level of skill. He also has better then average skating, utilizing a smooth stride that provides him with a top gear when required.
He's still not in ISS's top 30.
Comment truth. Let me pull this out from the depths of the game column comment thread:
With our personnel, I think most people would want Rodriguez running the offense. They would just want him to stay far, far away from the defense.
The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down - on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration. …
[discussion of last year's game vs this year's game with focus on field position and yardage]
So reality is this: Because Rodriguez was defensively incapable, he lost his job. In turn, Hoke was hired and he brought in Mattison, a guy who has proven - along with having a more experienced secondary - to be one of the best hires in college football. He also brought in Borges, who isn't the proper fit for our offensive talent. It's not his fault and as has been stated, won't be a problem in 2 years time. But this year, we're going to have to suffer through another flawed season, which to me is incredibly frustrating given that a spot in the Big Ten title game is there for the taking.
That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me. Shades of gray exist.
Etc.: Basketball ranked 20th by Rivals. Smart Football on combining quick passes with runs and screens—this is like extending the zone read concept to linebackers downfield. Michigan Monday in case anyone thinks the Sparty == Dirty meme is restricted to homers. Lake the Posts also jumps in with outrage(!).
Gholston. 3 games. announced after Wisconsin.
Take away the shoulder stripes and that uniform is slick. Keep the armbands too.
Other than that, 80%?
It's the stripes that get them into bumblebee/clown territory.
Comments/suggeestions /concerns don't carry weight anymore... AD Imperius will do what he wants when he wants.
M Tradition is defined through Brandon's corporate, "gotta keep the dollars flowing in" mantra...
Neg bang or Troll me, let's face it, he's got the whole program in his hands.
DB's theme song:
Wu Tang is hip hop at its purest and finest. I would think DB is more of a Master P guy.
EDIT: I hadn't seen this video in a while. If DB were to actually watch it, I wouldn't be surprised if he would get a few marketing ideas from it.
Speaking as a Michigan alum whose A2 years were early to mid-90s, I can say with certainty that current students (regrettably) have not experienced Michigan sports as most other alumni have. You haven't seen powerhouse programs. You haven't seen spontaneous parties on South U. You haven't seen a Final Four. You haven't seen a Rose Bowl. You haven't seen a Heisman. You've seen a losing (but now improving) football team, a rebuilding bball program (thank you JB) and fake-retro jerseys.
Frankly, I'd roll with your post as simply "different opinions", but you make the bizarre statement that the ND game was ALL CAPS AWESOME and that the rugby jerseys were a part of that atmosphere. Then, you go on to say that the away bumblebees were "even better". Well, if the "atmosphere" was so great for ND, it was equally bad for MSU...and the jerseys were part of that.
Just don't forget that "most people" (largest living alumni in the world) are much more familiar with the history of Michigan athletic success than you are. You may call us "fogies" or "dipwads", but I call us people who know better. You might have loved the Halo, but we don't need to wear it.
The uniforms really were fantastic...way better looking than the home set. People complaining about them need to go back to eating fiber and watching The Mentalist.
Honestly, I hate any change to our uniform that isn't bitsy (say, piping). The winged helmet, maize pants, and blue or white shirts are as iconic as any uniform in sports. Why would we mess with that ever? Do the Yankees break out "throwbacks"? No, because they've worn the same damn uniform for the better part of a century, just like us, and it has remained timeless and classic, just like us.
Or should I say "just like us...til now"?
Pretty much what I said BEFORE the ND game.
The players certainly didn't think they looked like clowns. As I mentioned before, Doug Karsch said the players were completely psyched up when they got back into the locker and saw the new uniforms hanging there.
but the players are wrong.
How can someone be wrong about their opinion? They're not wrong--you just disagree with their opinion.
when it comes to taste. Anyone who likes Nickelback or Twilight or those uniforms is wrong.
Taste seems a very relative space, with no definitive right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Taste is taste because it's taste.
then we can't say David Foster Wallace is objectively better than Dan Brown. Which is horrifying.
It may be horrifying to you (the definition of horrifying also being relative), but a person is not wrong/incorrect if they happen to prefer Brown to DFW.
Because "culture" stuff isn't just about "do I enjoy this?" The reason DFW is better than Dan Brown isn't just because DFW writes great prose while Dan Brown writes in crayon. It's because art/culture/whatever you wanna call it is supposed to edify and contribute to human development and all that nonsense. The problem with the "it's all just a matter of opinion" viewpoint is that it robs culture of its ability to be something more than entertainment. A person who thinks Dan Brown is better than DFW is missing the point, and a culture that thinks there's no difference between the two is really missing the point.
But definitions of art, culture, human development, and entertainment are also relative.
Beliefs about what culture is and should be, what art is and should be, what human development is and should be, and what entertainment is and should be vary extensively based on peoples experiences of them, and are by no means set ideas. So how can a person be wrong in their beliefs if there is no paradigm of correctness?
(2+2 might not equal 4 if a person believes that the definition of 2 signifies 7. For them 2+2 = 14, that is if they believe 14 means what we assume 14 to mean, which is IIIIIIIIIIIIII units of measurement)
There is no truth.
This is very much a tangential thought, but what the hell: There is a tribe in Vietnam (I think) that only has number words for what we would call "a few" objects (say coconuts) and "many" coconuts. They have no other numeric system. They don't distinguish between numbers like 21 and 23, both in practice and the abstract, b/c to them both amounts fall into the "many" category.
That tribe is going to LOVE Nickelback.
They hate Nickleback.
And that's why they'll never put a man on the moon. Is that wrong? Ask others above...
But does the abilty to accomplish complexities such as putting a man on the moon deem one culture (for lack of a better word) more "right" or more "correct" or more "advanced" than another? I'm not so sure.
It seems to me that people just sleep, eat, shit, and fuck (I should say most people, because there are always outliers - AC Green, I'm looking at you). That's our common human bond. That's what we do. And I think I could get my grub on more efficiently and get my thrust on more pleasurably if I wasn't aware that at any moment space junk could crash down and impale me. Or that my phone wasn't low on batteries. Or that there weren't voices in the wires telling me to burn things. Perhaps the simpler things are the better? Perhaps food tastes better, sleep is more profound, shits are feistier, orgasms are more exploding? Perhaps life is better lived without knowing 2+2 is supposed to = 4?
I'm inclined to think that life in a hunter-gatherer society would be shorter, of course, but probably much more satisfying (certainly per moment, so to speak, but maybe even in total). We've managed to create a world for which we are in many ways not wired to function.
I agree with you. Die young and leave a satisfied corpse.
But the real question is: How can all this be related to Borges's 4 and 1 call?
I know. His call was relative. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. And it didn't.
You're sort of stuck at Level I of deconstructionism, it sounds. It's really great that you've imbibed the notion of relativism and that you can spit it back out. Maybe in a few more years you can manage to actually incorporate some complexity and flexibility into your thinking.
Wild guess: you're a graduate student in a literature department, yes?
Not sure why you're bringing up culture but you realize that some people don't read every book for edification right? It may be that someone reads a book to be entertained and gets their culture from somewhere else. No where did he say there was no difference and shouting down anything that happens to offend your sensibilities would result in a great culture wouldn't it?
And someone trying to justify being grumpy about a football jersey by bringing up David Foster Wallace and Dan Brown is reaching waaaaaaaay too hard. Football uniforms aren't works of art and cultural touchstones...they're just uniforms.
In this case, they are very cool looking jerseys (made even better by the white pants). The people who like them seem to be generally be the young and hip (though I am only debatably young and in no way hip), while the people complaining about them seem to complain about every damn thing (music, piping, logos on a hockey jersey, volume, damn kids on your lawn).
Generally speaking, when you (in the generic sense, not necessarily the poster to whom I am responding) get outraged over every change that ever gets made, it makes it much easier to simply dismiss your opinion as "Old man yells at cloud."
No one "hip" actually likes those uniforms. If they say they do, they're being ironic. That's how they keep their "hip" cred.
And I'll add that while I may have once been known to yell at clouds, they're looking a lot more agreeable to me these days. Until Brandon gets a hold of them and designates a "throw-back cloud special event" and decides to add clown stripes to them, too.
To recap: anyone who says they like the uniforms worn on Saturday is either a) wrong; or b) pulling your leg, in the way that only the truly ironically hip can.
anyone to anyone. That IS a matter of personal taste. But anyone that thinks Dan Brown is a better writer than David Foster Wallace is WRONG--they just aren't holding another equally valid opinion. They are wrong.
To use a relevant football example--you can prefer and want to see Devin as our QB over Denard. But if you were to say Devin is a better football player than Denard, that is not an equally valid personal opinion. You would be wrong.
EDIT: these negs are funny. Another example: I'd rather watch "The Hangover" any day of the year over "Schindler's List." That's personal preference. But if I said that the Hangover was a better movie than Schindler's List?" Wrong again.
I think there are shades of grey here. I'm admittedly not that smitten with Schindler's list, but by comparing two films across starkly different genres, I think there's an interesting subject here. I could argue, if I wanted a fight, that The Hangover is as successful a comedy as Schindler's List is a drama - it's perceived as "lower" art because it's a comedy, which we somehow equate to being a less valuable medium.
So, for instance, comparing Dan Brown to Wallace is similar - someone who doesn't like post-modernist literature could definitely side with Brown - I wouldn't go so far as to say I think Brown is better, but think Wallace is sort of a mess.
Maybe the correct thing, then, is to compare Brown to...Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose". Both are historical fiction murder-mysteries steeped in Biblical analysis.
The only difference is that one totally sucks.
The point I'm trying to make however is that preference is distinct from objective standards. A musical example: say someone says they don't particularly care for Radiohead. I get that, some Radiohead (Kid A) is pretty tough going. Perhaps they enjoy Green Day or Fall Out Boy or someone of that ilk far more and express that. That's totally fine. It's a personal preference. But, if they say, "Fall Out Boy is a better band than Radiohead" that is not a point of disagreement, it is simply and objectively wrong. In every way, Radiohead are better musicians than Fall Out Boy, and the fact that some people don't like to listen to Radiohead is irrelevant to that fact.
I think the uniforms would look best if we put honest-to-god pieces of shit on top of the helmets at the start of every quarter. Large, Rex Ryanian turds plopped right on the center of the helmet.
That's just, like, my opinion, man. You really can't critcize.
De gestibus non est disputandum
never had to listen to Nickelback.
I would like to put a stop to this discussion right now. Its one thing to tax my brain with back-and-forth about whether opinions can be right or wrong and whether popular culture has no taste through the example of literature, but breaking out old dead languages is taking it to a new level! Foul! Foul!
need to go back to listening to Nickelback and watching Transformers movies.
Everyone who doesn't like the uniform changes is just an old crusty fuck at heart. Lightning bolts would be sweet on those unis too!
unis, etc., so I don't think I qualify for the more fiber crowd (and I don't even know what the Mentalist is), and I think these unis were terrible.
I think you forgot your sarcasm tag.
I don't believe in saying "we." I don't care much if other people do it, but I don't do it myself. I'm not on the team and never was. I am not part of a "we."
What's YOUR deal? We lost the game. ;)
"I" even have a hard time referring to "myself" as "I" because "I" don't know exactly who "I" am. "I" am always changing, so maybe "I" should really refer to "myself" as "we."
I agree completely. We probably shouldn't be used when referencing a team unless the person making the reference is part of said team.
"We ran the ball well."
You making blocks out there now?