Just now on PTI they showed the clip of Novaks flagrant foul. Wilbon then went on to say that no matter what Novaks intent was he was reclass and should be suspended. I think this is way overboard. It was obviously a hard foul but not deserving of suspension.
Mike Wilbon calls for Novak to be suspended.
What does Charlie Weis think?
Spelling is not my strong suit my apologies.
Sorry. You must not enjoy your whippings courtesy of the Grammar Gangsters.
You would think a board full of people who love pointing out errors would understand that grammar =/= spelling.
and spelling are not equal, correct. However, spelling is within grammar. So more like
do you now, or do you ever want to, go to UM? Spelling is sort of important. At least it used to be. Especially on the application.
Twitter txt app sez no! LOL! U only nd 2 get ur pnt acrs f u wnt 2 b acptd.
Zack Novak's new motto on the court. Or maybe it should be "40 minutes of reclassness".
*Think Narduzzi's "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness" quote for proper context.
Well I think Wilbon should be suspended
Honestly I can see the argument there. He was going for the ball, but that was a very dangerous play.
BraveWolverine730 calls for Wilbon to be suspended for being a moron.
don't you mean moran?
"Contestant 102, your word is Moran."
"Could you use it in a sentence?"
"Get a brain, Morans."
Wilbon is one.
Good thing no one cares what Mike Wilbon thinks.
but I wouldn't have argued if he was tossed from the game. We can't really judge intent, but it was a pretty hard foul that didn't get close to the ball.
Just like most helmet-to-helmet hits in football, Novak's foul was rightfully called an "intentional" foul, but at the same time, it should be chalked up to two athletes running at different angles at full speed on a collision course.... sometimes "violent" outcomes will occur no matter what the intent was.
A foul... sure.
Suspended... no. Save that for the fights and when a player bltantly grabs a guy mid-air and changes his direction during the foul
"Stop that. I know what you're doing. ... Be an analyst. Don't be a douchebag. You know I went for the ball." - Zach Novak
T-sizzy hath spake.
Double post courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department.
Mike Wilbon has an established anti-Michigan bias.
I just tend to ignore whatever he says.
Wilbon has to say crap like that to keep people watching his show. After all, he does have a pretty cushy gig at ESPN, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to lose it. Besides, he is a Chicagoan; even though he somehow managed to get into NW, he was probably an Illinois fan growing up.
In other words, he is probably conditioned to see Michigan as his "biggest rival." Welcome to the club, Wilbon. Please take a ticket and visit the waiting area on the left.
That wasn't a normal foul. If anyone commits that foul in a pickup game, there's going to be a fight. If that happens in the NBA, it's an ejection and game or 2 suspension.
He may not have intended to hurt him but the foul was carried out in such a way that there was a high likelihood the guy would get hurt. In contesting like that, you're not only responsible for intent, you're responsible for the result. I don't think he should be suspended but I think an ejection would have been a defensible decision.
The NBA has gone soft, but I don't think they've gone THAT soft. They probably would have labelled it a flagrant foul, but I highly doubt it would have warranted an ejection.
Go back 20 years or so and fouls like that were commonplace in the NBA. You NEVER gave up a layup if you could clobber the guy.
I basically agree on your second point. The NBA's cracked down on hard fouls like Novak's enormously in the wake of Artest going into the crowd at the Palace. The biggest thing the people in the league office are trying to avoid is fights erupting from hard fouls. Fouls that were acceptable as a matter of course in the 80s and 90s are now receiving game bans.
Novak's foul was right on the edge of a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 (automatic ejection). It didn't seem to have the malicious intent of most flagrant 2s (youtube "flagrant 2" and you see some really dirty plays, about half of them involving Andrew Bynum) but the fact that Novak made contact at the height of elevation would make them take a hard look at it.
that Novak jammed on Northwestern. I mean, who wouldn't be?
It depends on intent. The NCAA and big 10 only look at that. You don't get sanctioned for a tough foul by itself.
I don't think Novak intended to hurt anyone.
No one gets suspended for making a play between whistles. I could see it if he punched someone after the whistle cough* Tom Gholston
who is Tom Gholston?
EDIT- Did he punch Kenny Dewens or Troy Willfork?
thanks. I thought we were having fun with broadcasters saying the wrong names...
Anyone have a link?
I'm of the belief that I don't think that Novak was going for the ball. Or at the very least thought he could get to it. There's no way you can convince me he thought he was going to be able to block that. However, he was just trying to deliver a hard foul to prevent an and-one. He was not intending to hurt anyone. If there's no intent for harm I don't think there should be a suspension. I could see someone making a somewhat reasonable argument for a one-gamer, but I personally think that would be unnecessary and undeserved.
...but he says this about a lot of things, so take it for what it's worth. I personally believe Novak's foul is not worth a suspension, but as it involved Michigan and was against a Michigan player, of course Wilbon mentions it, right?
That was awesome. I wonder how much of that was real.
It's basketball. If he can't watch a hard foul, then he can close his eyes. What does his fat ass know about basketball anyway? He went to Northwestern!
Mike Wilbon makes a lot of dumb comments. He has proven to me that he not very good at his job.
This I actually disagree with. Much like Colin Cowherd, Steven A. Smith, Jim Rome, Skip Bayless and a handful of others, Mike Wilbon's job is not to be knowledgeable or insightful about sports. His job is to be polarizing and to take a strong (often extreme) stance on an issue to make it newsworthy. If Wilbon said, "Novak has a hard foul that resulted in an intentional foul" no one would care. But when he takes it a step farther and takes an extreme stance, fans either strongly agree or strongly disagree, they talk about it, and it makes Mike Wilbon's existence relevant.
If you listen to sports talk radio, almost every "sports" personality does this. The reality is, there is only so much sports to report, and saying stuff that everyone agrees with gets you nowhere. Unfortunately, stirring the pot is the name of the game at ESPN nowadays, and also unfortunately, it works.
Look, we have a big thread about it. And it wouldn't surprise me if some Arkansas blog is saying "See, Wilbon agrees that that asshole Novak should be suspended for his cheap shot on our guy."
Fuck Wilbon, and fuck ESPN. ESPN is slowly dwindling away and they have to say things that get people talking ( Skip Bayless, Cowherd ). If they didn't televise games I would never watch ESPN.
Although I share your sentiment, there's really not another game in town so I don't see how they're dwindling. Until there's another network that shows national sports 24/7 (and does so effectively), ESPN can show whatever they want and people will watch it. And as much as those talking heads piss people off (myself included) millions of poeple still tune in.
I said the same thing when MTV started showing Real World episodes. I said that if they keep showing these stupid shows instead of music videos, they'll go out of business. Now you can't find a music video on MTV to save your life, Teen Mom 2 runs 16 hours a day and it's more popular than ever.
I think eventually people will start to stream t.v through devises other than cable thus choosing what to pay for, not cable companies choosing for you, ( packages ). Maybe one day we can just pay for certain games we want to watch instead of paying for six ESPN channels that I don't even watch half the time.
Not disagreeing with you, but essentially what you're saying is his job is to cater to people with a 30 second attention span. More power to him.
Of course. Wilbon hates Michigan.
The fact Wilbon felt Michigan hoops was relevant enough to warrant a mention on his show -- whether in a good light or not -- is a good sign and shows that the media is starting to take notice. Let's face it, he most likely wouldn't be talking about this play if it had occurred in a Western KY vs. Middle Tennessee St. game.
Wilbon is a known Michigan hater! He went to Northwestern and has Block M Envy
If he didn't need to be classy for the image of Michigan, he could totally follow Suggs and call Wilbon a douchebag
But he has openly admitted to hating Michigan and I think this statement was a result...
Who's Mike Wilbon?
And why should we care? We know Novak is not a creep and didn't intend to hurt anyone. As long as Beilein is OK with Novak and the Big Ten doesn't get involved, it's non-issue.
Any man, when talking about the frozen four last year, who says "Well I'm always happy when Michigan loses" and doesn't back that up with any reasoning besides "I went to Northwestern and hate Michigan." doesn't get any credibility in my book.
He would. Douche.
And always will be a moron.
It's not Zack's fault he can't jump as high as the other player from Ark. He is clearly going for the ball and with the intent to ensure that there is no three-point play. Frankly, I absolutely love that play and have no problem with it what so ever. It was a close game, they should earn those points from the free thrown line and the end result was two missed free throws which is further justification that it was the right play at that time.
It looked way more viscous in the 30 replays’ they showed because it was slowed down and the kid spent a significant amount of time on the floor while being checked out by the doctors. Bang Bang play with no intent to hurt anyone...Zack Novak is very close to becoming my favorite Michigan Basketball Player, Ever!
I can't help but think of a recent thread on the board about how so many B1G schools consider Michigan a rival and/or have some disdain. Interesting how to us Northwestern is just...Northwestern. They (or at least Mike Wilbon), on the other hand, feel the need to have some degree of contempt towards Michigan.
think that the reason for novak coming up short was due to the guy facepalming him. I know it was a self defense reaction on his part but i thought that it is the reason Novak came up so short. That being said I beleive the right call was made and what is done is done just because it looked bad does not mean the intent was bad. The refs seen a replay and made the right call. If they thought it was worth a game he would have been thrown out.
Does anyone know where there is video of the foul? I have searched but can't find it.
ESPN owns the SEC network, so they have a horse in the race. I do not care what their minions' opinions happen to be on a given day.
Wilbon embarrasses me, particularly in his willingness to excuse any sexual scandal facing an athlete (his comments about Kobe and Big Ben in particular).
Michigan is not despised by the average NU student. Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Sparty are all bigger rivals. They like to beat Michigan, but it's more mutual admiration than anything.
I think Wilbon's irrational hatred of Mochigan comes from growing up a fan of Illinois, which is under the false impression that Michigan is its biggest arch nemesis.
Michigan is definitely disliked at the same level as MSU and Wisconsin. We got up for Michigan even more than those two. There are pictures of 54-51 in multiple places in the facility and the game ball from 1995 still hangs in the equipment area by the locker room.
a little help anyone
Mike Wilbon would call for Christ, The Pop and Mother Teresa to be suspended if they wore Michigan uniforms.
I like both he and Tony K...but one subject you can't get an objective opinion is Wilbon and Michigan.
I heard Michael Wilbon KILLED 5 HOOKERS
If Dr. Seuss were to write a rhyme about Wilbon and his insipid cohort they would undoubtedly be named Douche 1 and Douche 2. If their gig at ESPN doesn't work out, they could write for the Free Press.
Mike Wilbon can suck my dick
What a joke. I get fouled harder playing basktball at the ymca.
meet rolling donut. Good example of a once-serviceable sportswriter turning into a self-important t*rd.
If the Ark. player hadn't shoved his forearm ( I think it was his forearm) into Novaks throat on the way up first, nothing would have happened. It may have even been a clean block.
I've seen very similar fouls that have resulted in no ejection or suspension. I can't recall a similar kind of foul that did, though they're very likely has been. And I don't give a crap about Wilbon. As others have pointed out, he's a professional polarizer.
But let's face it – if a guy from MSU or Ohio had done the same exact thing to a Michigan player, there would be some people here calling for a suspension. How many? I don't know, but it's hard not to look at these things through Blue-colored glasses.
Mike Wilbon probably also thinks that Cundiff's field goal was good.
I'm sure if he wasn't a UM player, wemay have felt differently about the foul. That said, it wasn't nearly as bad as some other fouls that don't lead to suspensions, and considering nobody made a big deal about it after the game, my sense is that it has run its course. But if Novak does get suspended, then so be it. Wilbon doesn't deserve any credit for it, though, if it happens.
I actually like Wilbon,but he is completely wrong...He wouldn't of even hit the guy in the head if the Arkansas player didn't push off with his left arm going up to the hoop......Total bull shit....Come on Wilbon..
I was watching that actually and found it ridiculous. I think don't think it looked intentional, at the speed that kid was flying it's not unfathomable that Novak missed the timing and missed the ball.
kornheiser made an ass of himself tonight, too, when he compared JoePa's failures in the Sandusky scandal to Woody Hayes punching the Clemson player, saying something to the effect that they both madea mistake late in their careers, and Hayes's punch is all but forgotten now just like JoePa's "mistake" will be forgotten in 10-20 years.
Like Novak said, he wasn't going to give him an easy bucket. Novak clearly went up to contest the shot, I do not think there was any intention whatsoever to elbow him in the head. Novak is a pure hustler that gives 110% on every play. That play is a prime example of the effort that he gives every game.
He is a douche anyway.
Mike willbon is an asshole and should be fired