Hopefully irrelevant. Normally the first-string quarterback going down with an injury rumored to be a broken leg—it's "serious" according to the Free Press—is time for PANIC(!). But when it's Nick Sheridan in question… eh. I wasn't planning on seeing Sheridan under center this year except in trauma-induced flashbacks, and I don't think losing some practice time is going to seriously impact his performance unless he gets bitten by a radioactive spider in his downtime.
However, the mere reminder that weird injuries happen is an ominous reminder of what coule happen once Forcier's spindly physique hits the field. All hail quick rhythm passing and a much improved offensive line.
The least correct thing. If you ever need a scale on which to measure truth and need labels for the extremes of that scale, "Mel Kiper's opinion of Carson Butler" should be the label for the bad end:
"Butler is going to block and get the job done there," Kiper said. "(Teams want) a guy who can block. You have to secure the edge. These 3-4 teams you're going up against, you have to be able to handle, (and) you handle with a blocking tight end. Carson Butler as a late-round pick for those types of teams would have some value."
WTF. No, wait. Mere letters are insufficient. I need a panda for this.
Kiper is now dead to me. In Mel Kiper's world, Carson Butler is useful as a blocker, Michigan State wide receivers can go a week without one of them ending up in prison, and candy tastes like ashes. I've always thought Kiper was sort of useful, but how can anyone take him seriously after that? Or after "Curtis Painter is a top-ten draft pick"?
Fourth-liners. The Daily reports that Ben Winnett is questionable for the weekend and the Scooter Vaughn experiment is unlikely to be repeated, leaving Luke Glendening, Danny Fardig, and Brandon Naurato on Michigan's fourth line.
Impact of this on Michigan's chances in the tourney: minimal. I did like Winnett more than the options to replace him, but that may have been residual prejudice about his NHL draft slot (too high, apparently) rather than anything that happened on the ice. Naurato's actually scoring at a higher clip.
Call for assistance. User Bleedin9Blue is embarking on a study of recruiting rankings and requires some extra hands. If you've got some statistical or database know-how and are interested in such a project, I'm sure he'd appreciate any assistance.
Twitterin'. Where Pete Carroll goes recruits and coaches follow, so Rich Rodriguez is now extraordinarily boring on Twitter. Check it:
Good work done at practice today. Watching film with the Coaches. Go Blue!
That's pretty much the extent of things: we practiced today, I am doing something, I occasionally capitalize something strangely, "Go Blue!" I count two posts without exclamation points so far, and no revealing personal details like "boy I miss OMC." As far as comedy value goes he's got nothing on Tim Brewster, who twitters like someone making fun of Tim Brewster:
JUST OFF THE FIELD FROM PRACTICE #1....GUYS SHOWED GREAT ATTITUDE AND EFFORT TODAY!
EACH GUY CONTROLS WHAT HE BRINGS TO THE TABLE EACH DAY ATTITUDE, EFFORT, TOUGHNESS AND PASSION NOT TAUGHT BUT BROUGHT!
WINNING ON AND OFF THE FIELD EACH AND EVERY DAY IS WHAT CREATES A CHAMPION!
TRY FIGHT BEST WIN indeed.
You can thank the NCAA for your insight into Pete Carroll's musical taste and Tim Brewster's FIGHTBRAIN: by shutting down texting they've sent coaches scrambling for another avenue via which to communicate with recruits. Twitter's broadcast nature means it should remain legit, and coaches' neverending desire to get a leg up on their competitors should keep the erratically spelled tweets flowing forevermore.
"My intent is to coach the game from the field That is my intent. Okay? As (Bill) Parcells said years ago, I reserve the right to change my mind, but that is my intent. I talked to people at the collegiate level and pro level, from Andy Reid right on down. By a very, very large majority, almost everyone I talked to were overwhelming thinking I was thinking way outside the box."
This passage is much, much funnier if you pretend Charlie Weis talks like Truman Capote.
Spiderman was created when he got bit by a radioactive spider. Look, that may have made sense when I was a child but it doesn't now. It's like the writers seemed to think the mode of transfer of radiation was somehow important. Spiderman would have just ended up radioactive and could just as easily become the Hulk--another guy created by radiation. While it makes little sense that David Banner's radiation sickness would only manifest when he was angry, I can accept, in the framework of the comic, that he mutated into a super hero. I understand that it was after WWII and everyone was all "ack look what we did to Japan and now Russia's gonna do that to us!!! and !!! but also eleven!!" so there's going to be some fear of radiation and scientists but that's no reason to get all sloppy. Wolverine was created by the government and the military industrial complex--fine. Superman was born that way--great. Wonderwoman was... raised by the Valkyries... Amazons? Anyway, I hated how they depicted her invisible plane like a weird plexiglass thing in the TV show. Cat Woman's dead body was possessed by the soul of cat--perfect. I just don't buy being bitten by a radiactive spider turning someone into a Super Spider thing.
I'm not sure if/what is the official story, but here's my 2 cents:
The spider was exposed to radiation, causing its DNA to mutate. DNA mutations changed the spider's venom into a virus-like venom where the virus attacks peter parker's human cells and just so happens that the spider DNA combined with his human DNA in a way that gives him spider like abilities. Since animals, fungi, and plants share hox genes(genes that are used in development patterns), it's not so crazy that he would get those spider-hairs on his limbs and fingers, similar to a spider having hairs on its legs. It's also possible that this could lead to a gland or something that produces spidey webs. As for the spidey sense......yea i got nothin
If you continue to read the comments, Carty is becoming angry with Dave.
It is interesting to point out that he directly addresses Dave and says that he used the term "liar", when in fact he did not. (Unless he considers Dave's abbreviation of the course name Sports and Daily Life in Ancient Rome - SADLIAR - as somehow using the term "liar.") A guy named Ed on the comments is the only one who used the term "liar."
It seems like Carty might try to censor Dave's use of facts, reasoning, and ethics to make his argument rather than a blanket negatively connotated statement to hamper a respected Professor's reputation.
I've offered you a fair amount of leeway on the site, but you need to check yourself. I'll have to do so. Don't throw out a term like liar when A) it's wrong; and B) you're well outside the tone we allow here. The university did indeed provide detailed statistics on enrollment in John Hagen's classes for us.
That's your warning.
Dave & Jim - more detailed response tomorrow, right now I've got some family time."
It seems to me like his warning was meant to be directed toward the commenter Ed (who called Jim a liar) not to Dave (who is spectacularly well-spoken). I could be wrong, but that's the only way Jim's warning makes sense to me.
Not necessarily. There's also the desire to write and to publish that writing one way or another, and that's not dependent on an adoring fan base. His career at the Ann Arbor News probably prepared him for having hordes of people disagree with him, so I doubt the negative comments on his blog are anything new. In fact, he may even enjoy having a direct, immediate avenue for responding to critics -- something he didn't really have in the newspaper.
I've always said that if I was an NFL scout/exec. I'd randomly throw Kiper a line on a draft prospect that was so completely bogus, nobody with any real scouting ability would buy it, just to mess with him. That must be what happened here, there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION!
I know no one cares about this, but anyone else a huge Capote fan? Don't see the Weis connection, but I really enjoyed that clip.
He touches on an argument that I have had with a lot of my creative writing friends over the years (I was an English major at UM).
Are creative writing masters programs/writers' workshops in any way aid one in becoming a good or great writer? I have always contended that all they do is provide a captive audience and a place for younger and older writers to gather and feel cutting edge. Isn't creative writing, as opposed to journalism, about synthesizing your own worldview - the one you alone develop - into a personal writing style? Just taking whatever inspiration comes to you and transcribing it for the world?
It just seems like the visual artists i know recognize that being a visual artist is almost entirely about innate creativity, while my creative writing friends act like it is some kind of ancient, learned discipline like medicine or law.