Football Display Case
I don't think they changed Les at all actually
national champs baby
Patrick Hruby is doing God's work.
first comment: "EVERY ATHLETE HAS ASPIRATIONS OF WINNING AND WE HAVE OUR FAVORITES BUT IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO OTHER STUDENTS ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS, TOO!"
stupid Pistons and their refusal to tank properly
rundown of Michigan's riser
needs moar usage
so much for that
This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
money has to go somewhere
I am only motivated by people who have no opinion about me.
the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
but I thought that draft was supposed to be incredibly loaded?
let the punishment fit the crime.
Ummm . . . I'd say it does. There's no post-season ban, scholarship reductions, or vacated wins. They're not exactly dropping the hammer on us (or, actually, we're not exactly dropping the hammer on ourselves).
Twitter - Recruiting Update: May 20
Using steroids for non-medical purposes is illegal and its clearly unethical in society at large. Being present while someone is stretching, while against the rules, is not illegal nor is it unethical.
ethical - conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct
I'd say that since this broke the rules of the coaching profession, it was unethical.
unehical, they would have had to knowingly break the rules.
And maybe they did know the rules and chose to break them, anyway.
We know what they said, but it isn't necessarily the truth.
I'm going to go out on a limb here; I think you just like to argue.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
Yes, not understanding that being on the field while players are stretching converts that activity from non-countable to countable is unethical.
I suppose, it's also unethical for Jake Long to get called for holding. I mean, holding does not "conform to accepted professional standards of conduct" for offensive linemen. I'm no coach but that's what the dictionary says so...I guess that means Jake Long is a cheating scoundrel.
Okay, let's go with the Long reference:
If he doesn't get caught, other players will call him dirty.
If he does get caught, his team loses 10 yards.
So technically, yes, he would be cheating. And he would be penalized when caught. Just like Michigan.
Long knows that holding is against the rules.
Yes . . . and?
The dictionary says it's unethical. Therefore, I guess it's unethical. Unless we're going to argue about what words mean in the dictionary. And that sounds pointless.
Correct and by your arguement he would be an unethical scoundrel.
So, is Nick Saban's practice of oversigning players ethical behavior? It's not against the rules. Therefore, O let's do it!
Long would have to deliberately hold. Sometimes it happens without your trying.
You're losing me, skunk bear. I think you're taking the Long metaphor a little too far. A split-second decision to hold or not to hold is much different than what happened at Michigan. There's a point where this metaphor breaks down, and you've reached that point.
for it to be unethical, it has to be deliberate. There must be intent. Michigan didn't know it was violating the rules. They discussed it with compliance. The rules are arcane. They made a mistake. But, they didn't "cheat".
And even so (whether it's "unethical" or not), the rules were broken and should be penalized.
'Round and 'round we go.
that I'm really arguing the punishment not the guilt. I see extenuating circumstances and believe that the "fact" that "everybody" does it is a mitigating factor.
But that "fact" that "everybody' does it is an anecdotal comment, not a studied, proven fact.
If Indiana doesn't do it, then dammit, I'd be a pissed-off Hoosier because that was a close loss.
The Michigan Athletic department benchmarked itself against other programs and found that their misunderstanding of the limitations of QC staff is not isolated unto themselves. It is studied, it is proven.
But, then again, we can't necessarily trust what they say because, as you've argued so convincingly, the University of Michigan is riddled with unethical people.
Did the study include questioning every other University in FBS?
And did I really argue that U of M is riddled with unethical people? Or did I just argue that unethical things were done (i.e. rules were broken)? I think it's the latter. You're putting words in my mouth.
OK, Mag. Backpeddle, it's the right move.
When you state that having broken a rule due to misinterpretation is sufficient basis for impeaching someone's ethics and that what the same person says isn't necesarily the truth, you're saying that person is an unethical person.
David Brandon and Mary Sue Coleman believe Rich Rodriguez but Magnus does not.
a) I don't know how to "backpeddle" but maybe you can teach me someday.
b) Going by the definition of "ethical", some of what happened within the University was unethical. If you're talking about what "ethical" means in your own mind, have at it. I can't change your perceived definition of the word.
c) And regardless, you're morphing your point - you said that I have argued that the University is full of unethical people. And I clearly did not say that. Having two or three people do unethical things (or break the rules) doesn't mean the entire University is full of shady characters.
d) I'm not saying Rodriguez or anyone in the AD lied. I'm saying that in situations like this, one always has to wonder how much of the truth is being told. There's a little bit of politician in every football coach, and I don't believe 100% of everything that comes out of a coach's mouth. It wouldn't be the first time that someone said "I didn't know the rule!" when that person did, in fact, know the rule.
Oh no, don't be humble. I don't need to teach you anything, you've got excellent technique. Clearly a natural.
But, you've convinced me; I've got it all wrong Magnus. It's super fun to be reign down jugdement from up this perch.
Unethicle, I say. UNETHICLE!
...and when discussions get this silly, it's time for me to get off the train.
See you next time, MCalibur.
a) I would actually agree with that, I see you as more of a "shuttle" type of guy.
b) This is the kind of circular argument I was talking about in our previous exchange. I'd say you are sort of backpeddling on this one a little bit, or maybe just being over technical. IDK.
d) I agree with that.
EDIT: This didn't thread properly, supposed to be above. Whatever.
I feel like we're a circle of friends of an addict and instead of giving him the intervention he needs, we keep enabling his addiction. Magnus is addicted to playing the devil's advocate on any controversial issue involving U-M football. If he has to post 600 times in one thread he will, as long as there is even one person left paying attention. It's at times like this that you just have to bite the bullet and ignore him. Responding to his never-ending, always-changing arguments just prolongs the pain.
I'm sorry. From now on, I'll kowtow to the popular opinion, just because everyone does.
I'll start bashing Lloyd Carr and Tim Tebow. I'll start saying that every Michigan recruit is going to be awesome because, by golly, he plays for Michigan. I'll start saying that it's okay for Michigan to break the rules, as long as some other programs are doing it. I'll start making meaningless comments like "Denard Robinson is awesome!" and "O let do it!" and I'll post pictures with various incarnations of FAIL so I can get pos-banged.
Yeah. The masses have it all figured out.
Couldn't help myself.
Then he wins...
Magnus, honestly, without addressing the substance of anything you've said in this thread, you should hang up the debating act. You are really, really not good at forming logical arguments. Please stick to football knowledge type stuff.
Magnus is a lastworder.
lastworders > closetalkers = uncle teds
"Do not disturb my circles."