Post Game Late Night Open Thread

Submitted by M-Wolverine on
Smoke 'em if you got 'em, and crack open a tall cool one.

BlueDontBoo

January 11th, 2011 at 5:44 AM ^

But "I'm probably staying" doesn't mean anything to me. If I know anything its that coaches who are vague and unwilling to confirm that they are staying usually leave. JH would be the most recent and obvious example. Coaches usually either confirm they are content in their current jobs or beat around the bush long enough for everything to get finalized. I still feel Miles will be our coach. Just my 2 cents.

Undefined

January 11th, 2011 at 12:45 AM ^

Just had an argument with an SEC fan who insists that the SEC is by far the most dominant conference this season. The Basis of his argument? That SEC teams beat other SEC teams, and going 5-5 in bowl games doesn't matter.

 

So, so fired up.

Undefined

January 11th, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^

Disagree. They had one team that could qualify as dominant and we watched them tonight. The rest of their good teams didn't really have great showings against other conferences. I couldn't really name a dominant conference this season, I found the B1G, SEC, and PAC10 to be pretty close.

I would welcome a logical debate on it though, after the terrible one that just took place.

RickH

January 11th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^

Alabama beat Michigan State, who yes, beat Wisconsin but before they're run.  They got dominated by Iowa too.

LSU beat Texas A&M.  LSU was a top 5-10 team while Texas A&M was a top 30 team.  This should be expected.

Mississippi State beat Michigan, a team whose coach was 15-22 and just got fired with one of the worst defenses in the country as well as probably one of the youngest teams in the country.

In the end, the teams that won were expected to win.  They won big, but they also never let their feet off the gas pedals.

 

By the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate.  I'm tired of this stupid shit of conferences.  TCU is a great team, not a great conference, who cares?  Since when did a team have to control other teams as well to move up in rank?  The SEC HAS had very good teams recently who've won the BCS titles, but those teams are also known to cheat.  The SEC is good, but not this NFL-level conference where "Oregon is going to have a tough time tonight as they face their first SEC defense" shit.  

Unfortunately the culture is different there as well as the weather and education.  It sucks that they have all the pluses with no conscience.

WolvinLA2

January 11th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

OK - let's break it down like this.  I hate to do this, but it's not that close.  I think we can agree Auburn was better than Wisconsin.  Maybe not by a ton, but it would be hard to argue otherwise.  OSU beat Arkansas in their bowl, but barely.  We'll give it to OSU though, for the win.  Alabama killed MSU, no doubt there, Florida beat PSU, it was a close game but Florida won, and MSU beat the shit out of us.  So far, that's one close win for the Big Ten and the rest clearly in favor of the SEC.

The rest we need to guess on, but not many would argue that LSU was far better than Iowa, an 11-2 team against an 8-5 team, since that's probably our #4 against their #4.  That leaves Illinois (who would almost certainly get blown out by South Carolina) and NW who was probably on par with whoever is next in the SEC, Tennessee, Georgia or Kentucky.  We had three teams miss bowls, they had two, even though they have more teams than we have.

How exactly do you argue that after this season, the Big Ten is better than the SEC?  I'd like to hear your argument.

Undefined

January 11th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^

I wasn't really making an argument for the Big Ten being better, but I do appreciate you taking the time to post a response. I have been drinking a little, so you will also have to bear with me. I wasn't arguing that the SEC wasn't the best, and I never said I was. I was saying that I don't think they are by far the best, and I think what you said supports that. The SEC had 2-3 good teams and quite a few mediocre teams like every other conference. The 5-5 bowl record supports that. I don't know if I'm putting my best effort forward on the debate front right now, so I might just give up, but don't take that as me ending my opinion I'll probably have something more to say tomorrow when I'm more with it. I'll look forward to better answering your questions then though.

Senator Bluetarsky

January 11th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^

Can everyone here agree, just for tonight, that we despise that little weasel who would do anything no matter how despicable for even another fifteen seconds of public exposure?  Say "aye" if so.

AMazinBlue

January 11th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^

just to extend this mess and we lose all our recruits and toil in mediocrity for years, he officially becomes the dirtiest SOB in cfb.  Doing that to your Alma Mater is the dirtiest of pool.  That would definitely put him above Saban, or below, whichever is apppropriate.

seattleblue

January 11th, 2011 at 1:43 AM ^

If this is all turns out to be a ruse by LM, can we finally put the "Michigan Man" crap to rest? 

At that point, two Michigan Men (JH and LM) will have turned their back on the program in a very public way.  I have no problem with saying no to the job, but given the media frenzy you should message this privately and not add to the humiliation.

Senator Bluetarsky

January 11th, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

Depending solely upon seasonal timing, 1980's low crown cotton duck or wool solid blue with classic block 'M' and not one darn single marking otherwise.  Adidas can [assuage] my balls and, unfortunately, a U-M classmate, a 'Mr. V.,' has directly contributed to the scatol*gy.

/thanx spam filter

BluePants

January 11th, 2011 at 1:55 AM ^

Not cool really.  They've been pretty cool and have been respectful of us Mich fans stankin' up their message board, even going so far as to call out people disrespecting Michigan. Classy bunch, and I would never wish for another program's blog/board to go down as they try to deal with a coaching crisis.

AMazinBlue

January 11th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^

and you need to be able to convert 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 3.  The spread is generally ill-equipped for such tasks.  The OL is generally lighter and gets less of a push and the RBs are just too damn small and light.

I'm not beating on RR.  I have never been a big fan of the spread.  I like what the Pats do to spread out a defense, but he idea of a bunch of little fast guys running in "space" doesn't impress me and doesn't seem to beat teams with a bigger defense.

Auburn may spread the field but their versaion of the spread is big fast guys running over the defense, not little waterbug types trying to run around it.

RickH

January 11th, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^

You make it seemed like Oregon got killed because Auburn is so 'big and tough'.  The game came down to the last two seconds, with a potentially controversial call that caused a 37 yard run.  Not to mention an interception that would've prevented an Auburn touchdown.  I'm not Oregon got totally fucked over, they definitely had their chances and blew them with Barner running straight into trenches instead of a wide open corner of the endzone, but this game was close the whole way through and both sides have advantages.

AMazinBlue

January 11th, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

especially when that spread has 180lb RBs and 275-285lb lineman.  Oregon never controlled the LOS in that game and their defense had to save the day.  In the end, the bigger offense beat the finesse offense.  Chip Kelly certainly can't claim someone stole their signals this year.

Two years in a row, the tougher defense beat the faster offense.  I'm nt saying Danielson is right('the spread is dead'), but i'll bet on the bigger defense every time.

exmtroj

January 11th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

I've lost all faith in college football after this season.  Pryor, Newton, etc.  The sport is just a mess, and the NCAA is the biggest joke this side of Bud Selig.  Now, even if we win again, we'll have to wonder which players were on a payroll.  Just sad.

jmblue

January 11th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^

If it makes you feel any better, the truth is, college athletes have been getting paid under the table all along.  All the scandals that actually make the news are just the tip of the iceberg.

exmtroj

January 11th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^

Yeah, I know, but when it's just this blatant and out in the open, there should be a penalty.  Especially in the OSU case...how in the world can the NCAA rule the way they did?  At least in the past people had to hide how dirty they were, now there are zero consequences.  What does this teach kids?

RickH

January 11th, 2011 at 1:22 AM ^

True, but since I'm young I'm seeing it for the first time and it blows my mind how you rule that since some kids father took the money, supposedly (and we all know untruthfully) without him knowing, nothing happens to the school OR the kid?  Okay, leave the kid in school 'for the sake of his education' but you better be putting them on probation, taking scholarships, and banning them from bowls.  Not to mention this all came after Cam Newton was caught stealing laptops (a felony).

Again, I'm young but from a company/committee/whateveritis that promotes student-athletes, honesty, and integrity, this blows my fucking mind.

BlueTimesTwo

January 11th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^

What is the over/under on the number of years Fairley is in the NFL before he is arrested for seriously hurting somebody in a bar fight?  That guy really seems to like to hurt people.