landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
- Member for
- 6 years 25 weeks
|5 years 37 weeks ago||Helmets are the problem not the answer...||
The Freakonomics folks actually covered this type of thing from an interesting angle...that the helmets are the problem, not the solution. Not sure if I take everything they say to be true, but it's an interesting read/podcast.
|5 years 43 weeks ago||[email protected]||
[email protected] goes directly to the email the response came from. Or there is the online form at http://www.mgoblue.com/feedback/mich-feedback.html
|5 years 43 weeks ago||Cargo Shorts||
This is why cargo shorts were invented...
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Both Ways||
Honestly I saw some questionable calls both ways, which always happens in a sport that requires split second decisions like Basketball.
Plus I can't gripe about officiating when we have such poor shot selection, miss that many layups and give the other team so many offensive boards.
|6 years 23 weeks ago||Not NCAA||
There are a number of colleges that sell it, so it's not an NCAA regulation. There was a big debate about alcohol at TCF Bank Stadium when it was built. Every big ten school but Michigan and Minnesota prohibit it in general areas and sell it in premium seating I believe.
|6 years 23 weeks ago||I know one...||
I know 7 yoopers (none are in my family), but they don't frequent this board. Does that count?
|6 years 24 weeks ago||Shot Counts||
Is it just me or does it seem like the Wings have had a tendency to out-shoot their opponents and lose games over the past few years?
At least I recall seeing a number of times in the playoffs stats showing the wings out-shooting but losing, and watching the game the shots were usually much lower quality.
|6 years 25 weeks ago||Anyone who says stuff like that...||
Is someone I'm glad to have on the team. People who are motivated by being told "you can't" tend to deliver what they "can't do" more often then not.
|6 years 25 weeks ago||A couple of altitude things||
There are a few things that are missing in your analysis when it comes to altitude training. First and foremost is that living and training at altitude doesn't have as much of an effect as is commonly thought. The body's adaptive response that occurs from training at altitude is a hindrance to sea level performance. The ventilatory acclimatization that takes place is a minor negative, however the major problem is in the decreased intensity that follows from the lack of oxygen which depending on the person can lead to de-training. The ideal situation for including altitude in one's training plan is to live high (above 6000 ft) and train low (sea-level). (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/2/e3.abstract for one article, do a google on "Live High, Train Low" and you can get a lot more)
Additionally, looking at Colorado, there are big differences between athletes coming from say Denver versus athletes coming from the Arkansas Valley. Those in Denver aren't really living high enough for a major impact in RBC to be seen because the optimal range for altitude effects on athletes is about 2000-5000m (~6500-15000 ft). While those in the Arkansas Valley are higher, they can't train low, and would be coming from primarily smaller programs with less of a chance of being seen.