WTKA Roundtable 2/17/2017: On Trolls and Trohls

image

[Patrick Barron]

Let’s see what did we discuss: Well this hadn’t happened yet but…

It was discussed.

    Also:
  • What do you do with trolls? Ignore them, or make them the joke.
  • NCAA’s associated persons rule will lock IMG, other power school coaches out of college jobs. Legislating against capable people getting jobs because they may be good at those jobs is as petty as it is stupid.
  • Harbaugh vs The World: Harbaugh is winning—how can the NCAA block him from showing it to his players. The world that is.
  • Athletic departments and how they police themselves—Colorado example brought up because MSU is too near and too ugly for rivalry ha-ha’s.
  • Wisconsin—Liked the man-to-man-ups and the chance to get a marquee win with Koenig not around to shoot the Badgers out of a hole.
  • What gets Michigan into the dance? Is it 9-9? 10-8? Because Kenpom thinks we can go 10-8 now.

You can catch the entire episode on Michigan Insider's podcast stream on Audioboom.

Segment two is here. Segment three is here.

THE USUAL LINKS

Comments

Jota09

February 17th, 2017 at 10:48 AM ^

Sometimes there are reasons for things that ate legitimate. Teske being on the bench is one of them. He can play spot minutes against certain teams, but he was abused bad last night. Might have even damaged his confidence.

theytookourjobs

February 17th, 2017 at 1:32 PM ^

I was in the camp of wanting to see more Teske.  I burned the camp down after last night.  Kid has a lllllllllooooonnnnnnggggggggg way to go before he's ready.  Hopefully they can make him competent for next season.  Last night looked like he'd never played bball before

theytookourjobs

February 17th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^

and Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd and the like.  People that purposely piss others off to engage a response.  The definition of trolls I guess.  Also disappointing that people like that are allowed to make a living doing it, and that institutions like ESPN, the Freep, Domino's Pizza, Toys R Us and so on give trolls a platform to spew from.

The Fan in Fargo

February 17th, 2017 at 2:32 PM ^

So pathetic I know. I'l tell you what is also a little wrong. Listening to the commentary of the owner of this site. I appreciate that I'm allowed on here and have been let back on for voicing my non political correct opinions. Brian Cook just stick to running blogs and not being on the radio. Damn man! 

CR

February 17th, 2017 at 3:21 PM ^

...Mo Bamba, I would RS Teske next year and retain Donnal. Then play Austin Davis as Center # 2,3. That gives UM two soph eligible centers in the follwoing year.

Bigs tend to develop more slowly, as a general rule. And while I don't have a grasp of how Davis or Teske will progress, I think that gives each the maximum opportunity.

tlhwg

March 6th, 2017 at 10:07 AM ^

That said, the hiring issue that he's taking about (and was discussed on the podcast) is a tough one.  On the one hand, HS coaches must have a way to get promoted, i.e., hired at a FBS program.  On the other hand, if a HS coach C is hired at an FBS program F after/during a player(s) P at C's school, and P ends up signing with F, in most cases it's undeniable that .  There are actual known cases of programs offering a HS coach C a job just to get a player of C's.  

So because of this I think the NCAA needs a nuanced solution (not, e.g., doing just like Brian said: this is capitalism... so anything goes!).  And I think that something like the NCAA's proposed rule is actually a good good one: you can't sign a recruit at a high school up to 2 years after you hire his coach as an analyst.  If you actually hire the high school coach to be one of your 9 coaches, then the rule doesn't apply.  The reasoning is: if you hire a coach to be one of your 9 coaches, it's clear that the coach is more important than the recruit.  If you're just hiring the coach as one of the unlimited analysts that programs can afford, then (1) it's not obvious that the coach is more valuable to the program than the player; and (2) wealthier programs who could afford to hire more analysts would benefit more than less wealthy programs, which would exacerbate the already unfair advantages that some (wealthier) programs have.  The fewer the unfair advantages in college football, the better the parity and so the better the product.