Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 5 years 29 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 weeks 21 hours ago||college admission has gotten so competitive||
I graduate from Michigan in 2000. I was accepted no problem (as an out-of-state student). I am pretty certain though that I would not get into U of M on my first try today. I had good grades but certainly no 4.0. I graduated with a 3.6 (a mix of mostly As, A-, B+, with a few Bs), albeit from a well reputed/competitive high school (perhaps that elevated the value/worth of my grades). I was in the top 20% out of a class of 1400 people. I also took a lot of advanced electives in high school (i.e. physiology, anatomy, neuroscience, etc., while many people took gym and gym 2). I received a 28 on my ACT, although at the time, I do not think that test scores held as much value. I applied at a time when they still had that silly point system that got bounced after the Supreme Court case. APs/SAT IIs, etc. was just starting out around the time I was graduating from high school so I really did not have any of those behind my belt. I did not have much extracurriculars behind my belt but I did work (sales, counselor) since I was 14. In 1996, when I applied, I think my numbers were good enough, based on my admission stats (got into Michigan, Berkeley, Boston College....wait listed at U of Chicago, Northwestern), but these days, there is no way I get into these schools, especially as an out-of-state student.
It seems that these days getting into well reputed schools, including Michigan, has become extremely extremely difficult. These days articles about kids being under extreme pressure, spazzing out, spreading themselved too thin are all too common. I don't recall doing too many all-nighters in high school. It seems that in order to make oneself attractive to admission committees, you have to be the president of this club and that club, be on varsity, compete in math/science competitions, while getting straight As, and having plenty of APs, SAT IIs and the likes behind your belt.
4.0 and 29 ACT score, along with extracurricular/good recs, to me sounds pretty solid. You don't have that much to lose. You migh as well apply. You never know. Perhaps something will resonate with an admissions officer in your essays, recs, etc. Michigan supposedly takes a look at the application as a whole, according to its admissions office, and does not reject stricly on scores (unless the score is really bad, which in your case is not an issue...29 is a pretty respectable score). A number of posters on here seemed to imply that your ACT score needs to be higher in order to have a good shot. I disagree. I think a 29 is pretty respectable and based on that graph that one of the posters put up, you seem to have a pretty decent chance. I suppose a higher ACT score could not hurt, but with everything that you have behind your belt, unless it is a ridiculously uber competitive year for out of staters (nothin but 4.0, 36 ACT applicants), I would think that you would, in the very least, get on the wait list. I would be shocked if you were flat out rejected with your grades, ACT score, APs, etc.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Personally,||
I am rooting for Peyton, just so I don't have to listen to idiot reporters argue (an idiotic argument) as to which Manning is the better QB (simply because Eli happens to have 1 more SB than Peyton). Any reporter, even suggesting, that Eli is the better QB (even post season), should be put on the first one-way space flight to OGLE-TR-56b.
|12 weeks 6 days ago||I don't think the question is that stupid.....although||
I am not sure if it warrants a thread.
I would say the blame really rests on the performance of this year's team, which in turn rests with the coaching staff, by they way they (ill) prepared the team and by their opposite of smart, at times clueless, playcalling. The recruits don't need social media/disgruntled fans to understand that a five-loss seasons is simply unacceptable at a school like Michigan, and that when something stinks, usually the coaches' heads are on the chopping block. You are expected to perform year in year out as a school like Michigan, and when you fail to meet expectations, the seat gets hotter. That is pretty intuitive.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Watching Gallon and Dileo making plays makes||
me wish that they had a few more years of eligibility. Gallon can make crazy plays and Dileo is just a, generally speaking, reliable receiver, sort of an Avant type in that he catches most things thrown his way. That being said, I think we will be doing ok with Butt and Funchess at TE and I hope that Darboh and Chesson develop well. Chesson has already shown flashes of great potential.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Brandon was saying that this is still a fine season (although,||
with the Iowa loss and what likely will be a major spaking by OSU, I am not sure if he can say it now with a serious face) to save his face. He hired Hoke et al., and does not want to look like a gump for the hire. That being said, he seems like a bright guy and, I am certain, he realizes that we suck and that, perhaps, there may not be any improvement with the current dirty dozen of coaches. Like I said previously, I cannot imagine him standing behind Hoke et. al. with another 7-5 season, or a several more seasons of 7-5/8-4. With the bowl game, we will likely finish 7-6. I hate to admit it, but Dantonio/Narduzzi are infinitely better than what we have at Michigan right now, and that is just not right.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||I am not sure if it is as bad as ND was under Big Tuna||
, certainly the defense is better, but it ain't looking rosey. I have to think that another 7-5 season, or a couple of 8-4 seasons, with repeat losses to MSU, OSU, and Hoke will be on a major hot seat, if not sent packing altogether. I know that Brandon is a stubborn SOB, and that he firmly believes in Hoke, but he is also a busines guy and, if we continue to seriously underperform, it will affect ticket/merchandise sales, and I would like to think that is something that Brandon will not be all too pleased with.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||Does not surprise me...||
The level of offensive impotence on this team is absolutely staggering. Other than that first drive, NU defense (just like just about everybody else) completely shut down our offense. It was so painful watching the offensive effort. We could not convert a 3rd down to save our life, Gardner was eating dirt, per usual, overthrowing/underthrowing receivers while on the run as he was getting blitzed, etc. etc.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||umm||
Do you still like the play calling after you looked at the film?
“Yeah. There’s not even a question about it.”
Either Hoke is completely clueless about offense, or he is trying to avoid, essentially, throwing Borges under the bus.
His response to the following question seems to suggest that he may, in fact, be clueless.....
Does it get to a point where you can’t or shouldn’t run play action from certain sets?
“Certain sets, maybe. I think you’re right.”
Duuhhhhh......Come on man. You are the head coach of a major program...you need a reporter to tell you that your offensive coordinator is making some dumb decisions. Oh, wait, you liked all the play calling after you looked at the film.
|16 weeks 5 days ago||I agree with Danillhor, in that||
I think that Hoke should get at least 5 years. He inherited a team with a very very depleted o-line reserve. People will say that RR showed improvement, but that was a smoke screen. First of all, there wasn't much of a offensive line under RR's helm. It was Denard that made up for the lack of an o-line. He saved RR's behind a number of times, and most Ws came against weaker competition. MSU, OSU, Miss St, blew us up. Any solid teams beat the snot out of us. No to mention, the defense was abysmal under RR, and that was not getting better but progressively worse. So no, I do not think that had we kept RR, we would get better. With Denard gone, it would have been just as bad, if not worse, considering how pathetic the D was under RR.
Let's face it. The MAIN problem with the teasm is the o-line. The o-line now is mostly red shirt freshmen, most of whom have not played college ball. Their bodies are not ready and, clearly, mentally they are not ready. The o-line struggles were pretty evident early on. How can anyone expect Devin to do anything. Every game, almost every play, the guy is on the run because he has the opposing D on his heels. He may not be the best QB, but I am not sure what people are expecting him to do when he is getting swarmed on virtually every play because his o-line and supporting crew (TEs, RBs) can't block worth a damn. I heard some people calling for golden boy Shane to get the call. I don't think he would fare any better. If you have hardly any time to set your feet, because you're going to get mauled, your performance will be the opposite of good. Last year, with a servicable/decent 0-line, Gardner was infinitely better. That is why the expectations were so high for him. The o-line is really THE main problem with this team. It affects play development, it affects defensive performance (the longer our d is on the field, the less effective it becomes).
I am not sure if the lack of o-line performace is squarely on the coaches or if it is, in part, the fact that these are young guys who are still learning, developing physically, and have very little to no college game experience. It is probably a combination of both.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||You put any other QB behind the current o line||
and the sack numbers would be so ridiculous it would make the qb look like his legs were bolted to the field, a bowling pin ready to get taken out. Were you watching the same Akron and UConn games I was? Their defenses were getting penetration on pretty much every snap. It is as if the middle of the line was a gaping hole.
When given adequate time, Gardner can make great throws. Case in point was the ND game. For whatever reason, the Irish did not blitz as much as Akron and UConn and Gardner was able to do his reads and made a lot of nice throws. Look at his completion percentage for ND, 63%, with 4 TDs and only one INT, which incidentally happened because the WR totally missed his assignment. The you look at his numbers for Akron and UConn, where he was running for his life on virtually every play, Akron 53%, UConn 47%. The o line cannot pick up the blitzes, leaving Gardner scrambling on every play. I don't care how good you are. If you are constantly throwing on the run, have zero time to set your feet/ make adequate reads, you will turn the ball over.
Have you seen the A&M o-line? They are a wall. Manziel has all day to throw it. You put golden boy Manziel behind the very porous Michigan line, and all of a sudden he won't look all that special, and it has nothing with respecting his throwing ability. They guy won't have enough time to make his reads before he gets burried into the dirt.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I totally agree||
I think a bigger issue than Devin is the offensive line. When a QB can hardly set his feet because he has a bunch of dudes blasting through the gaping holes in the line that is supposed to give him some time to set his feet and make reads on pretty much every play, well, then, not sure what people are expecting. The only reason why Devin has not eaten dirt/turf more, and gets sacked only 3-4 times per game thus far, is because he is fast. Not all the interceptions and fumbles are entirely his fault either. He has shown in camps actually to be very accurate but when you're scrambling for your life because you have the entire defensive front on your heels, some of the throws you make (on the run) may be a bit underthrown. Again, one has to take Devin's bad performances in the Akron and UConn games in light of the fact that Akron and UConn (against our offensive line) looked like Michigan State, one of the best defenses in the country. If we don't figure things out with the o line by the time we play MSU, we'll be a dead fish in the water. I watched the MSU/ND game and their D is fast, big, and likes to blitz blitz blitz, not to mention that they have pretty decent corners, to take away the pass.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||What is the difference between the Mich o line and Limburger?||
Nothing really. They both have holes and stink.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||I feel like perhaps the part of the reason why Devin||
is not playing up to expectations is because he has really been frazzled by opposing defenses, which, in very large part, falls on the o-line. I mean, the o-line has more holes than Swiss cheese. You look back at ND, Akron, and UConn, and you see Gardner constantly on the run; the pocket does not implode, there simply is no pocket. All-consensus the-opposite-of-good teams like Akron and UConn are making the Michigan o-line look like high school JV and, consequently, Gardner has been spending a lot of time eating turf. I am not really sure what exactly the issues are with the o-line. Is is simply a matter of inexperience? Is the o-line too slow? Too weak? How is it possible that Akron's D-line which, on average, weighs 50-60 lbs. less is shredding our o-line? I feel that, perhaps, if Gardner had a better line, that gave him more time, he would not force some of those throws on the run. I am not sure how the o-line woes can be remedied, if at all. Can someone replace Miller at center?
|24 weeks 1 day ago||I personally like San Antonio.....||
in particular because of all the historic sites in and around the city. There are five old beautiful missions around, including the Alamo. Not to mention that San Antonio has a ton of art museums. Now Dallas, I don't get that one. It's downtown is sort of non-descript. Other than the aquarium, and the art museum, there is really nothing to do there. Granted, I spent only two days in Dallas.
That being, I am not sure if I would want to actually live in San Antonio. It is fun for a visit. I find most of the big towns in Texas sort of of the non-descript massive crawling suburbia types.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Again||
#80 all time in total career points;#51 all time in total career blocks;#59 all time in total career rebounds;#79 all time in total career steals....and all this despite all the injuries. The career totals in the four aforementioned categories considered together are enough, imo, for Webber to get in. He is almost in the top 50 all time in two categories and top 80 all time in two others and again these accomplishments are even more impressive considering his injuries
|24 weeks 3 days ago||I disagree||
Perhaps his PPG would have been even higher had he played, which would only bolster his candidacy. If I understand you correct, you are assuming his PPG would have been lower if you factored in all those missed games, correct? PPG aside, Webber is #80 in all-time career points, #51 in career blocks, #79 in all-time steals, 59th all-time in rebounds. As you said, he missed out about 3-4 seasons and was not always 100% when he did play, so in light of that, these rankings are pretty darn good. Like I said, I do not think that he is a first ballot/slam dunk HOFer; I simply disagreed with the wholehearted statement that he is "in no way a HOF player".
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Appearance in All-Star games is a poor indicator||
of talent....they are chosen by fans.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Totally disagree with "No way he is a HOF player"......||
For PPG, Webber is ranked #43 all-time, ahead of guys like Clyde Drexler, Moses Malone, Tim Duncan, Spencer Haywood, Garnett, Gail Goodrich, Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, etc., #52 all-time for RPG, #53 for blocks, and all that is especially impressive considering he was hampered by injury for a large part of his career. He may not be a first ballot, no brainer, type of player, but he is HOF worthy on his numbers alone.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Webber should get in.....||
Many probably would not consider Webber a first ballot, for some of the reasons you mentioned - short prime (5X All-Star), no championships, average in the playoffs, - but on numbers alone, I think many would agree that he should eventually get the nod. He has very strong career numbers - 20.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.2 apg - and an impressive peak production. I think his career numbers would have been even greater, and perhaps he could have won a championship, had he not been slowed down by that bad knee injury in 2002. Despite that, like I said, his numbers are very strong and he should, eventually, get into the hall. Grant Hill and Alonzo Mourning are another two players whose super star potential and a very strong early career derailed by injuries/health issues. Mourning will probably eventually get in but I am not sure about Hill.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||I am actually more concerned about the RB situation...||
Granted, ND supposedly has a solid defense, but from what I've read, the RB was pretty much Gardner. Who was the last really productive back at Michigan, Mike Hart? I hope that Fitz can get it going as well as Green and that Michigan continues to recruit well at RB. Hopefully once the O-line gets a little more experience under its belt, Fitz will get into a groove. We have at least three (warm-up) games, to get the O-line clicking and give some carries to Fitz and Green. The evening game at Penn State should be interesting.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||I will be taking that football, thank you....||
|25 weeks 4 days ago||Ahh, I was not aware that he had a boo boo....||
Have not been as plugged in this season as my 1-year old keeps me busy on the weekends. I just remember from last season, when Funchess broke through the first level of defenders and bolted down the field for the end zone it usually resulted in a TD. The guy is 6'5", almost 240, with a nice vertical, so most safeties are like smurfs trying to take on Andre the Giant.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||What about Funchess?||
The dude is essentially a HUGE WR. He allegedly runs a 4.6-4.7, which is pretty darn fast, especially for a guy his size. He can pretty much out-jump any corner/safety. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to watch the ND, so I am not sure if they utilized him very much on the offense, but I don't see why could not be used as a deep threat from time to time.
|28 weeks 5 days ago||Brian Kelly after his overrated team loses AGAIN to Michigan||
|28 weeks 6 days ago||Both sound like really solid kids, not just good||
football players with a lot of potential on the field. They both come from very families, they are grounded, focused on both football and academics. I really with the the best, both on and off the field.
Here is a nice little interview with Jehu:
|30 weeks 4 days ago||Ok Leo....so who is it, Michigan or ND?||
|30 weeks 5 days ago||Doogie Jeter....||
and then there is this.....derp
|32 weeks 19 hours ago||I am pretty excited abou the potential of||
the Braden-Kalis duo, and about the o-line in general. Kalis and Braden, in particular, are very very large human beings who also happen to be pretty athletic and have pretty good football smarts. I know that they will be relatively fresh to the college game but I have a good feeling about the o-line. At least four of the first five games seems to be total tune-up games (and, personally, I don't think that ND will be that good either). Once they get past the newbie-starter jitters, that o-line wil be humming along just fine.
|32 weeks 2 days ago||Ben Braden's light morning warm up before the real workout||
|38 weeks 2 days ago||For an undergraduate degree, I'd say||
go with Michigan. I do not think the extra $20-$30K that you would have to dish out for Harvard is worth it. For graduate school, perhaps, but for undergrad, naahh. If she does well at Michigan, does well on her standardized exam (MCAT, LSAT, etc.), she will be extremely competitive as far as grad schools go, or the job market if that is her path. Admissions to graduate/professional programs/internships/fellowships these days are much more about the name/reputation of the undergrad institution. Now, a Michigan grad with a 3.2 is obviously not going to be as competitive as a Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton, but a Michigan grad with solid grades and test scores will be just as competitive, imo. I am of the opinion that for undergrad, you should save your money, go to you respective public university, work your tail off, do well, and you'll have no problem with grad schools. I know plenty of people that went to Cal States, the UCs (not including Berkeley and UCLA), U of Texas, UNC, UVA, that got in to some of the best med schools, law schools, Ph.D. programs, grad programs in architecture, MBAs. They just kicked ass in undergrad, did well on their respective tests, had some extra curriculars, and did just fine.