Basketball Snowflakes

Submitted by acnumber1 on

  Quote of the night, from Coach: “We scored a beautiful 56 points.”

Home win in front of HARBAUGH targets.  Nice work.

MGoBoard
Basketball

Muttley

January 18th, 2015 at 12:24 AM ^

 

 

Michigan Wolverines          
STARTERS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS
Ricky Doyle, F 10 1-2 0-0 0-0 2
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman, G 26 4-7 1-3 0-0 9
Caris LeVert, G 38 7-19 2-4 2-3 18
Derrick Walton Jr., G 40 4-11 4-6 2-2 14
Zak Irvin, G 37 1-6 1-4 3-5 6
BENCH MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS
Mark Donnal, F 11 0-2 0-1 0-1 0
Max Bielfeldt, F 19 2-6 1-3 0-0 5
Aubrey Dawkins, G 10 0-2 0-2 0-0 0
Kameron Chatman, G 9 1-3 0-0 0-0 2
TOTALS   FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A PTS
    20-58 9-23 7-11 56
    34.5% 39.1% 63.6%  

 

I count zero for the missing players.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

acnumber1

January 17th, 2015 at 10:51 PM ^

As far as i know snowflakes do not equal Muppets.

Snowflakes indicate a place to discuss what unfolded.  I remember all too well numerous snowflakes threads after disasterous outings on the gridiron.   And I think after wins as well.

If my understanding is incorrect perhaps this thread shouldn't have been created...but that quote had to be highlighted one way or another.

Joined: 10/19/2009

MGoPoints: 18807

justingoblue

January 18th, 2015 at 3:20 AM ^

The original Snowflake Rule, from our very own BiSB (I hope this link works, guess you'll have to trust me or go looking in the second mod sticky otherwise).

http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/64129/1708415

I have unilaterally implementing a new rule. Well, I guess the rule isn't NEW so much as it just hasn't been enforced. Either way, it's a thing now, and it's called the Snowflake Rule. The Snowflake Rule is simple: threads that just repeat the same stuff everyone else is thinking are not thread-worthy. Here are some ways to know if you are in violation of the Snowflake Rule:
  • Your thread title begins with the words "My thoughts on," "My opinion regarding," or "What I think about"
  • You cover a topic tat has been covered multiple times on the board or on the front page
  • The evidence supporting your post's hypothesis is entirely (a) opinion and/or (b) empty, high-level, tautological statements like "Denard is fast"
  • Your conclusion is something either obvious or completely opinion-based, like "we will be better if the blockers block people" or "Kalis should play because I think he'd be better." Or, as a totally hypothetical example, "Denard should run because Denard is fast at running." 
Bottom line: posting a unique take on things is perfectly acceptable. If you want to post about a proposed defensive alignment or scheme that will allow the line to get better penetration? Knock yourself out. Want to demonstrate why Denard should run more by providing an analysis of past running QBs or of Michigan's success based on various run/pass ratios? We'd like to read it. But posting your take on a common question will get your thread pulled like something from a Weezer song.

Joined: 11/16/2010

MGoPoints: 29741

LSAClassOf2000

January 17th, 2015 at 11:27 PM ^

Even in better football times, at least for as long as it has been a formal thing, we've had snowflake threads for football win or lose. We never really organized a similar treatment for basketball, but it is an easily transferrable concept in that regard and such threads do help keep the "hey look at me and my totally unique insight" factor down on the board. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130608

Tater

January 18th, 2015 at 12:12 AM ^

Considering the increased expectations of the fanbase, "snowflakes" for tonight are appropriate.  I did mine in the main thread, but here are my main points:

Every scholarship player should be back next year except LeVert, who is still slotted as a middle first round pick by many.  Duncan Robinson should provide the shooting that this team is missing so badly.  They found a way to win a game they would have found a way to lose a few weeks ago.

Next year looks great and I am not giving up on this one yet.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Indonacious

January 18th, 2015 at 2:31 AM ^

I have a weird (totally unfounded) feeling that levert will come back despite his draft status. To be honest, none of coach b guys have set the league on fire including those who he played with (Burke thjr Glenn stauskas mcgary...not to say that they won't but just they haven't yet) and I think he may end up wanting to get his degree.

Joined: 01/03/2012

MGoPoints: 16597

OccaM

January 17th, 2015 at 10:46 PM ^

MAAR is decent. Donnal is welp status. If we can get a solid win against Rutgers and pull an upset against Wisco, I kinda feel like we might have a slim chance at making the NCAA. 

 

Meh. 

Joined: 11/10/2014

MGoPoints: 9158

CorkyCole

January 17th, 2015 at 10:49 PM ^

Currently watching the BTN Big Ten Elite show on the 2013 runner up team. Loved the win, but there is definitely something missing from the team this year. I will say though that I really liked to see MAAR do his thing tonight. He's definitely an addition to this team, and I'm excited to see what he's made of once he grows some confidence and realizes he can really help this team.

Joined: 06/13/2011

MGoPoints: 4498

Newblue7

January 17th, 2015 at 11:44 PM ^

This team is young, but so have the last few years teams. I believe the struggles lie in the aptitude of not being able to bring in elite talent last year, and seems to be the same in 2015.

Joined: 02/18/2014

MGoPoints: 52

NJblue2

January 18th, 2015 at 2:34 AM ^

I like that they have fight, it's just sad that they have to fight so damn hard every time against everyone. I'm pretty nervous about the Rutgers game, since it's on the road and they're playing well.

Joined: 08/08/2010

MGoPoints: 30972