August 12th, 2020 at 11:25 PM ^
More info, plz.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:27 PM ^
As if 2020 couldn't get any worse.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:21 AM ^
I'm actually not too bummed by this-- it gives me a reason to watch and root for the old UM players, especially the draft bound ones. Sitting out for Collins Paye etc would cost them millions.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:34 PM ^
Maybe Chris Partridge told him Shea Patterson still has eligibility and Lane is trying to get him to transfer back to Ole Miss.
August 13th, 2020 at 10:47 AM ^
The QBs were having a meeting and told Lane that Shea was at the golf course.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:39 PM ^
recruiting, has to be recruiting. I'm going with recruiting.
Please be recruiting.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:16 AM ^
I don't see how that's better than him looking at law schools
August 13th, 2020 at 4:28 AM ^
Ya recruiting our players that want to transfer and play this season.
August 13th, 2020 at 8:41 AM ^
Yep impaled it
August 13th, 2020 at 8:50 AM ^
Lane Kiffin has no shits to give. He probably said 'hey' to our coach on the way through and told him exactly what he was doing.
August 13th, 2020 at 11:20 AM ^
He was heard whistling Rocky Top, and mumbling the words Fight On.
Whatever the fuck you're up to Lane, stay in your lane.
I gotta say no one gets fired in spectacular ways and gets a new job faster than this guy.
August 13th, 2020 at 8:43 AM ^
That would be nice, especially since recruiting in person has been expressly forbidden for coaches due to the pandemic. I think that also applies to players in the transfer portal. Recruiting players on other teams not in the transfer portal is tampering. A double whammy that even Kiffin wouldn't do - not out in the open.
More likely is he is looking to poach someone else off of Michigan's staff.
August 13th, 2020 at 9:52 AM ^
"recruiting in person has been expressly forbidden for coaches due to the pandemic."
So are bag men, so is faking grades for classes but we all know the SEC does that extensively. Like they're going to obey a law or directive. pfffft! It's merely a suggestion for them
August 13th, 2020 at 11:01 AM ^
That makes more sense to me, thanks.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:42 PM ^
Kiffin has had an unhealthy Michigan crush since 2014 or before. It's time for a restraining order.
August 13th, 2020 at 8:42 AM ^
Ann Arbor...a raving beauty to some, a whore to others
August 12th, 2020 at 11:49 PM ^
Ole Miss trying to assess who they can poach off our current team if SEC plays makes total sense.
The Bama's and LSU's are set, but the middle to lower rung in the SEC will definitely be looking for transfers.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:09 AM ^
How true this statement likely is is both sad and scary.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:14 AM ^
B1G did it to themselves. Afraid of lawsuits and wanting to show their wokeness.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:24 AM ^
In two short sentences you were able to assign blame, belittle people, and use language intended to trigger a segment of people. If you can do all of that in two short sentences I bet an evening of conversation with you would be both uplifting and enlightening.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:55 AM ^
This decision will hurt the BIG with recruiting if the other conferences end of playing. There is no doubt about this.
They should have played the string it out as long as possible game and kept hope alive until the very end.
So my only complaint at this time is that they jumped the gun.
August 13th, 2020 at 6:52 AM ^
Or, instead of "playing the string out" they could make the decision as early as possible so as to give players (some of whom this season might be the last chance to play football) who want to play as many options as possible. But, I guess winning football games is more important than integrity and giving folks who are associated with you as many options as possible.
August 13th, 2020 at 8:27 AM ^
I like this thought, but I don't think it had anything to do with the reason. The decision was made in a vacuum, without input from the union-less players (or even explanation to them). If this was meant to benefit them in the form of possible transfer, they would have been informed.
August 13th, 2020 at 9:43 AM ^
Maybe. There remains the possibility of other conferences playing and the situation deteriorating and seasons ending early, entire teams getting sick/quarantined, etc. If they proceed to play, it may backfire on them. I could see the narrative being that the B1G got it right and they got it wrong.
August 13th, 2020 at 1:29 AM ^
I would have to say I'm a liberal libertarian. I have great debates with both my progressive and conservative friends. I'm friends with everyone I know, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Though I do find my progressive friends can get a bit edgy and a bit mean if you don't agree with something they believe in. May be I don't know many extreme conservatives. I probably would not like them anyways.
August 13th, 2020 at 1:43 AM ^
You sound like a reasonable open minded person. What are you doing here?
August 13th, 2020 at 5:54 AM ^
Libertarianism is astrology for men.
August 13th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
I'm stealing that. Libertarianism is a great ideology for people who can't think anything through to its conclusion. Free-dum!
August 13th, 2020 at 10:30 AM ^
If someone calls themselves a Libertarian they are 1 of 3 things:
1) An actual libertarian (very rare)
2) A Republican who thinks they're woke and likes weed (common)
3) Someone who isn't political enough to know what they believe so they mislabel themselves (common)
August 13th, 2020 at 1:23 PM ^
Or they're just fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Like a huge segment of the population is. That's the closest political label in the current age that applies.
You don't have to espouse extreme anti-government views, and there isn't a card to carry.
August 13th, 2020 at 1:38 PM ^
THIS. A party of this would be where I would be.
August 13th, 2020 at 2:52 PM ^
Except libertarians aren't "fiscally conservative", because for many societal problems (public health, education, utility infrastructure etc.) it's actually much more cost-effective to have the government provide an acceptable baseline service than the Ayn Rand fantasy.
Being "fiscally conservative" and socially liberal is probably closer to being an old-school New England Republican. But there aren't any votes for that in Jesusland.
August 13th, 2020 at 3:45 PM ^
The problem with being "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is most people who espouse that view generally stay topical around the "I don't like paying taxes but am ok with gay marriage" level of thought.
If someone is "socially liberal" that generally includes providing for a social safety net and helping the old, sick, poor, and disenfranchised (not specific to voting). Those liberal positions require you spend money. If we were to go back to the start of time and eliminate the policies and actions that have resulted in the inequitable statuses of people currently, then I guess it would be easier to square that circle. But we can't. So, when massive inequities stemming from the war on drugs, red lining, pollution,and decades of racial and economic inequities arise, you can't just say ok NOW we should fiscally conservative. Acknowledging a problem is the first step. But there usually isn't a serious second step after that from the FC-SL crowd.
Fixing the massive incarceration problem we have from the war on drugs (among a bunch of other things)? Can't just let people out of prison and wipe our hands clean and say "ok we're good, your communities will be better off now." There have been mentions of "restitution" from the Libertarian Party over the years as a way to account for the consequences of those policies, which would require spending. Including helping minorities get into the legal pot business where they have all but been completely shut out by big corporations now making a lot of money. Not doing so would require they acknowledge stuff got screwed up but they don't really want to solve it.
Infrastructure that cut neighborhoods apart and still don't provide mobility in low income areas of major cities (Wisconsin was doing this under Walker)? That's going to take money. Industry isn't going to build their own public busing system. Equitable distribution of healthcare resources? Again, that costs money. The Libertarian Party is all for free market operation that has proven inadequate. Education? Our current system is falling behind but the answer being "fiscally conservative" and cutting funding to schools that are already getting whacked by budget cuts or opening it up to the free market which just makes inequities worse, isn't a serious answer. Climate change? Libertarians acknowledge it but don't want the government to spend money on it. So... Exxon and BP will fix it themselves? The answer isn't always just free market, less taxes, and more jobs.
Heck, look at broadband access. Comcast and other providers have fought local government efforts to build their own infrastructure to provide affordable fixed broadband in their regions (like Chattanooga) not because they were going to build and provide their own, but because they were going to lose customers whom they had barely provided for in the first place. This isn't just "poor inner city minorities" either, they want to do this for rural areas as well. Comcast and Charter are essentially practicing dualopolies, having split the country up so they don't compete with one another. Universal broadband access is socially liberal. It's not solved by fiscal conservatism.
My point is, fiscally conservative but socially liberal is akin to "both sides." On the surface people nod their head and say "o yeah, that sounds reasonable/I can identify with that" but it rarely addresses serious issues that require nuance and acknowledgement of the practicality of things. Acknowledging our incarceration problem is great. Now tell me how you plan to fix it and not accounting for the number of heads in a prison, but the social and economic consequences it brought on over 50 years and how we make up for it.
August 13th, 2020 at 5:20 PM ^
This and several previous posts about the idea of “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” are smart and well informed. Thank you for redeeming a small part of humanity for me, Marvin.
August 13th, 2020 at 11:37 PM ^
I would typically get a headache from such a complex world view being as I am one of those "marry whoever you want just keep your hands out of my pockets" type, but I like this post a lot. Good job on this.
The dismissal of the FC-SL crowd as just a pack of surface-scratching rubes is a bit lazy, though. There are many of us who would classify as classical liberals that do understand the balance. Many of us moderate, New England-style Republicans believe in the private sector, which is a big issue for modern liberalism. The overarching point of classical liberalism, if that is what you truly believe, is people are better off when they are making their own decisions and spending their own money, hence the FC-SL piece.
The government should not have it's hands in everything and should not be picking winners and losers based on ideology. It absolutely should step in to ensure a fair playing field (to your point about the marijuana business, as well as other instances of the Wall Street-backed having a large advantage over Main Street). It should ensure we all get a shot; but we all must take our own shot. No victim cards. In a perfect world, I guess.
August 14th, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
I don't look at it as a complicated world view, more that a lot of things are interconnected. Change policy in some random thing, there's probably another 2 or 3 things that will significantly change because of it.
I don't mean to imply that all the FC-SL people are rubes, just that it's confusing because they often don't explain how those 2 things square. My first post was neither sufficient nor all-encompassing to the level of a social scientist, economist, or philosopher. But my point is being FC-SL is hard to fully flush out because there are inherent contradictions within it.
I know what you mean by New England Republicans. I just moved back from Boston after 6 years working for a very successful firm that paid extremely well (I was support staff so I gain no credibility from their success). Partners are paid over $750k (a lot are millionaires) and 1st year consultants are paid $200k. A non-insignificant number of them are NE Republicans that live out in the very wealthy suburbs and commute into the inner core of a pretty wealthy city. The would prefer paying less taxes but are supportive of MassHealth (government sponsored health insurance), infrastructure and public transportation (The Big Dig and the T), and general social services that provide for a better baseline. As I said, they'd prefer to pay less taxes but by making their taxes work more efficiently, not just cutting programs. So they are fiscally conservative to a degree, but not to the degree of letting free markets run everything and continually dropping taxes for the wealthiest Americans because they know some spending is required to help and address systemic issues.
It should ensure we all get a shot; but we all must take our own shot.
Good line, I like it. I'd argue that ensuring everyone gets a shot requires a lot more than providing for just the bare minimum. Enterprise will not invest in poor people to a significant degree. That fixed broadband example I mentioned, that was because poor and rural communities don't make Comcast/Charter a lot of money. They won't build that infrastructure out so how do we give a kid in rural Missouri learning from home the best chance to succeed when he can only use a parent's cell phone network to take virtual classes this fall? Or a kid in urban Detroit whose parent doesn't have a data plan to connect to Zoom calls? Industry lives quarter by quarter, year by year. Governments, if ran well, provide for long-run opportunities by providing the groundwork for future advancements (space program helped science and technology companies of today, Eisenhower's interstate program, rural electrification, etc). Raising emissions standards, building hydro-electric dams, and investing in things that aren't currently money making enterprises while providing for a better standard level of society is what good governments should do. That's a socially liberal position and requires spending. They shouldn't pick winners and losers within an industry, but we can't rely on industry to take the long view and provide for certain aspects of life. Exxon knew of pollution consequences back in the 70s. BP skimped on safety standards and polluted the Gulf. Coal companies, if not for strict regulation, would still be dumping slurry into water ways in the Appalachia region. GM started an EV program in California back in the 80s (we moved out there so my dad could work on it) but didn't need to produce an EV until almost 20 years later because we kept buying SUVs that got 16 MPG. Banks didn't lend to black families and refineries in Louisiana dumped in predominately black areas because it was cheap and they could get away with it.
I'm not saying government fixes everything or should be in every aspect of life. Just that when people say they're socially liberal, that comes with a built in level of government intervention (to fix past private and government intervention) that requires spending to a degree or oversight. As you said, in a perfect world we wouldn't need it. But a perfect world has never existed and we can't, going forward, act as though our past does not predicate a significant aspect of our present and future.
August 17th, 2020 at 4:57 PM ^
I think you described it perfectly. Perfect example being rural high speed internet. It's not worth it to the private company to bring the good stuff to the sticks, so as Americans, our tax money steps n to make sure the sticks get it. Amtrak, airlines, healthcare, etc. all need to be done this way.
The private sector will always be more efficient, and efficiency is a great way to manage the "wants", but an overall quality of life ("needs") will almost always need some subside or oversight. And you are right; that costs money.
There is a lot of distrust between the public and private sectors that need to be fixed, but I think you are 100% right in what balance needs to be struck.
Thanks for the chat, sorry to be late on the reply.
August 13th, 2020 at 4:50 PM ^
Cake Or Death is right on.
August 13th, 2020 at 4:54 PM ^
Hi my name is Haji and I am FC-SL.
I tend to end up voting Libertarian because the two main parties are corrupt and too powerful and tend to speak in black and white terms which we all know while listening to them that those approaches to governing a country of 340 million are just absurd.
So here we are again and I can't vote for big government Biden/Harris (potentially much bigger if this empty vessel allows himself to be pushed around by the socialists) and my other option is well, you know, who is moderately childlike and can't stop playing twitter fights with hollywood.
So I am stuck with Jo Jorgensen and a few other 'not possibles' but maybe some of you might like what she has to say. https://jo20.com/
Looks like Justin Amash has endorsed so she might be more left leaning than right, which is fine... just stay close to the middle Jo, our country needs people who want to compromise right now. I doubt we will get that but one can dream.
August 13th, 2020 at 10:25 AM ^
People like uminks continue to show again and again how they literally aren't able to feel empathy, use logic, and continue to resort to conspiracy theories to explain life
August 13th, 2020 at 10:13 AM ^
Closing during a pandemic has nothing to do with wokeness — which, btw, is itself a good thing - and everything to do with public safety. Whereas people like you just want to jeopardize the health of young and old people for the sake of your own entertainment (while masking it as a statement about character and liberty). If you don’t believe in what this university stands for, and has always stood for, go move to Texas or Mississippi, where you can champion backward-ass yahoos who prioritize football over public health. I’m sure they’re making prudent and forward-thinking decisions. You’re the problem.
August 13th, 2020 at 4:35 PM ^
That sounds like "If you don't believe what I believe, go back to where you belong." Maybe you could be in charge of immigration for a certain administration. Mmm.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:11 AM ^
First phase of a new coaching search. I think after what the B1G and Michigan president and AD did to him, he is through with Michigan. He will not be here in 2021 and will be an NFL coach. There is no guarantee that Michigan will be playing football in 2021, and Harabugh probably just says fuck this, I want to coach football. I guess some of you who are pissed at Harbaugh for not winning the B1G will be happy.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:16 AM ^
If Harbaugh ever needed an excuse to go back to the NFL, Covid-19 is quite the convenient one.
Kiffin was probably there to kick the tires on Paye, Nico, and Evans.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:24 AM ^
Harbaugh isn’t leaving. He would put his son out of a job. Harbaugh is a grandpa now also because Jay had a kid not long ago.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:50 AM ^
He would just give Jay a job at his new place.
August 13th, 2020 at 1:05 AM ^
For sure! I really think Harbaugh is really pissed not coaching. I'm still betting 80/20 he is gone by next March to the NFL. No spring football will really get his goat and there is no guarantee there will be a 2021 season. But bad orange man may be gone, so things may open up if Biden wins?
August 13th, 2020 at 4:41 AM ^
I think you're on to something regarding a potential Biden win helping. As Steve Deace recently intoned via Twitter:
"As of today, latest #coronavirus data in nation of 331 million people: .014% Americans hospitalized 0.7% Americans active case. Median death age (78) same as U.S. life expectancy. Why is ANYTHING closed/cancelled/shutdown?"
IHMO, the destabilization and fear-mongering from both economic fallout and the "pandemic" has the ulterior motive of unseating Orange Man (at any cost). My quarter says our Governor and Mr. Schlissel may likely have had strategic discussions about the ramifications of shutting down since he is openly no fan of Trump.
An older Freep article revealed the following:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/10/05/mark-schlissel-trump-emails/734717001/
'Schlissel told his predecessor, Mary Sue Coleman, that he was “overwhelmed with uncertainty” by Trump’s victory and said it was “unlike anything I’ve ever lived through. I am torn on recommendations for appointees since I can’t imagine lending one’s name to a Trump administration,” Schlissel wrote.'
The B1G is committing a slow, unwitting suicide and it's football program will be detrimentally affected for a long, long time, I'm afraid. Recruiting will take a big hit in the short run, and making up ground and getting recruits to trust the B1G will likely take much time.
August 13th, 2020 at 8:38 AM ^
QAnon has invaded MgoBlog. Fitting.
August 13th, 2020 at 10:36 AM ^
I feel like quoting Steve Deace, especially in a political context, should be an auto ban