In that case we're screwed when we enter Big10 play. Air Force is actually pretty decent team (they won 10 games last week) but, still, their defense should not hold a major program to field goals.
I have been living in LA for over five years and, in my many many years of driving all over the US, I have never encountered so many inconsiderate d-bags. No one signals. People will cut you off with inches to spare. People absorbed in their cell phones standing still when light turns green and when you gently nudge them with a honk after 10 seconds of no movement they give you the middle finger. Ugh!!!
It was a very easy class. It certainly did not hurt that Randy was about the most chill professor (and, overall, just a really nice guy with plenty of interesting stories) that I encountered over the course of my undergrad and grad studies.
I ended up with two Ws on my transcript because i was truly scared these two classes would wreck me GPA. I should have bailed early on. P chem was a bruiser from the start. I think the test averages were in the low 40s in that class.
One of the best first basemen to play the game and he has to wait this long to get in? Stats wise he is a no brainer, and that is not even taking into account the fact that he played a big chunk of his carer in the Astrodome and missed a lot of playing time because of injuries/health decline. Raines should have been in a long time ago.
The silver lining is that he barely missed out so he should get in next year.
Speaking of next year, it will be interesting to see if Pudge makes it. No positive test but Canseco pretty much called him out.
Citing USNWR is not a good strategy, considering that it is about the only ranking in the world that has USC ranked higher than U of M. Do not get me wrong, USC is a great school but, speaking strictly academic wise, Michigan is much better. Just look at the rankings of individual graduate programs. In law, medicine, dentistry, IT, engineering, social work, business, public affairs, etc. etc., Michigan outranks SC. Something like 90% of Michigan's graduate programs rank in the top 15 nationally. Michigan is one of the leading research universities in the world, etc. USNWR factors in stuff like alumni donations, and we all know that schools can totally game USNWR by submitting bogus or, at the least, inflated graduation and/or employment figures. Again, not implying that USC is not a great school, just that you have to take USNWR with a grain of salt. For whatever reason, perhaps because of heavy marketing, it somehow became THE ranking in the US. Most of the reputable global rankings of universities (which tend to be based, typically, purely on academics) i.e. The Times, ARWU, CWUR, QS World University Rankings, have U of M in the top 25 globally. You want to look at national ranking systems, UNWR is the only one that has USC ahead of Michigan. Look at Forbes, Washington Monthly, etc. Michigan is way ahead of SC.
It is pretty ridiculous that he is being kept out of the hall because some nincompoop voters assume that, in the language of Ted Wells, it is more probable than not that Bagwell roided because he was a big guy, even though there is not a shred of evidence vis-a-vis Bags. He was always a stocky guy. His health naturally declined over the course of his career and, in fact, he missed a substantial amount of playing time because his body simply was in decline as he grew older.
For 7 years and never owned a car. There is so much to do in and around DC (festivals, concerts, museums, etc) that you really don't need a car. Whenever I wanted to get in a hike in Shenandoah, I would rent a car for $30 for the day. I lived in Adams Morgan so having/maintaining a car would have actually been more of an inconvenience rather than a convenience.
Having lived and worked in DC, I concur with your assessment. You can find modest/down to earth peeps in DC but, especially in the legal and lobbying industry, there is a plethora of a-holes. After Germany and Los Angeles, I think DC must have the largest concentration of German automobiles, mainly BMW and Mercedes, in the world.
Three of them are pretty hot....the other two are not too shabby either...
That being said, on a serious not, UCLA is in many respects like Michigan. It does not have as storied of a history in terms of football like Michigan does, but it is an elite institution as far as academics go, the athletic dept has a ton of $$$, the sports facilities on campus are really nice, the campus is beautiful, the locations is fantastic, the weather is amazing....
The way I read it, Myerberg comes to the conclusion that we are in the "loser" category because, essentialy, we were not able to flip Mike Weber. Myerberg essentially ignored the rest of the 3 and 4 star players that make up the class.....
ESPN has us ranked 40th, 247 has us 38th, Rivals has us at 49, and Scout at 27.
I think an average score of 38.5 does not = "loser". It is respectable, especially considering the class is small and the fact that Harbaugh and co. had to scramble. Additionally, Harbaugh was able to get additional solid recruits in areas of need, i.e. QB.
I like how the cat has the expression of "Umm, what do you think you're doing?"...and the raccoon is like..."I will be taking some of these....thank you....peace out beeeyatches?"
Not sure how I feel about it. Re: Moeller, look at Cleveland. Of course, that may be, in large part, because the team, in general, stinks. Re: Durkin, the last two seasons were awful for Florida, 4-8 and 6-5. Again, it may not be indicative of Durkin's ability to coach, but I cannot help but notice that against ok to great teams, Florida was giving up a lot of points - 30 against Kentucky, 42 against Bama, 30 against LSU, 42 against Missouri. They did better against Georgia and FSU, in the 20s.
Like someone else said on here, many probably see Hoke as more than just a coach. It never is easy seeing someone you care about getting a heap of bad news. Also, I am sure that it will be a tough/uncomfortable hour for Hackett. I believe that he has a good relationship with Hoke. Being forced to give him the ax (based on the circumstances) will surely be, to say the least, uncomfortable.
I just hope that if Brady is, in fact, fired, the admin really does its best to bring in a top notch coach. I am very much afraid of the ND coach-carousel scenario post Lou Holtz. With two unsuccessful coaches, we are certainly on that track. Another bad hire, and it will really take a whole lot of digging to get us out of the abyss. I can't help but think about ND - Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham, Big Tuna - and how much the bad coach pile up killed the ND brand. I really don't want that for our program. Time to shell out the $$$.
I live in LA and have been to UCLA's campus countless time. I think UCLA has a nice campus although I am not sure if I would go so far as to call it beautiful. It does have some very beautifully majestic buildings in the central part for sure. When I think beautiful, I think of campuses like Colgate, Princeton, William & Mary, Rhodes College, Chappel Hill....places with a nice blend of history, beautiful (and diverse) architecture, and a lovely setting. Although, you can't beat UCLA's weather 9/12 months of the year..=)
it was ranked right around 22/23. Berkeley and Northwestern were ranked ahead of Mich (Berkley was around 20 and Northwestern around 16/17), UVA was right there with us, and UCLA was around 30-32, along with UNC.
In the past 8 years or so, UCLA shot up, Mich fell a bit (along with UNC), while UVA/Berkeley/Northwestern remained around the same ranking. Even though Michigan slipped a bit, it is still considered an elite university domestically as well as internationally, is regarded as one of the top research institutions in the world, 90% of its departments/grad programs are ranked in the top 20, with many in the top 10, and Michigan gets ranked consistently in the top 25 in the other major global academic rankings (i.e. ARWU, which really were in their infancy and were not given much consideration, when I was in school), so a small slide on US News is really nothing.
ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) ranking #22 in the world
QS World University Rankings #22 in the world
The Times Higher Ed World University Rankings #18 in the world
Although I would not be surprised if Argentina pulled it out against Holland. From what I am seeing, Argentina is playing much more agressively, attacking the Dutch goal really well.
Both teams have a stronf midfield though, something which was absolutely non-existent for Brazil yesterday....
I saw the first four seasons of the show and mid-way through this season purchased the first five books.
I am thinking about starting with the third book (which covers season three and four) and skipping the first two books for now. Would I be missing some things (sub-plots not in the show that started in the first two books) in the third, fourth, and fifth books if I skipped the first two books? I still remember, relatively well, what happened in the first three seasons, which I have been told keep relatively close to the books. I am mainly trying to be lazy and skip the first two books, for now, but also do not want to miss anything significant that may not have been covered in the show.
Tony embodied class on the field and off the field. He sort of reminds me of Barry Sanders, an elite talent yet very humble, quiet, generous to fans, just an all around good guy.
sure if these courses are still offered but I really enjoyed: Field Archaeology, Greek and Roman Archaeology, History of Early Christianity, and Neuropsychopharmacology (bio-psych course).
I was a bio major, so these were a nice break from my usual chem and bio courses.
because he knows his way around the legal court. I am sure he is also surrounded by some of the best attorneys in the LA area. He has shown himself, in addition to being a blatant racist, to be an arrogant, aggressive, and unpleasant person.
This is a guy who, when violating clear NBA by-laws by unilateraly moving the Clippers from SD and being subsequently fined $25 million for violating said clear rules, turned around and sued the league for $100 million, even though he was being fined purusant to clear rules. Not wanting to litigate, the NBA settled with Sterlking for a $6 million, taking it out of Sterling’s cut from expansion fees, which amounted to, essentially, not receiving$6 million.
The legal analyst for ESPN seems to think that Sterling's removal is a done deal and that the sale is foregone conclusion and will happen very quickly and that Sterling has no foot to stand on.
I have litigated my share of cases and know, from experience, that nothing in law is clear. Most is mud. The pertinent language in the constitution, pursuant to which this vote will go ahead, is open to interpretation. Was a conversation taped in private a "willful" violation of the league rules? Well, that is certainly not a clear cut answer, and is most definitely open to interpretation. However, even if the arbitration panel finds in the affirmative, Sterling can pursue other legal avenues, anti-trust for example (arguing that a forced sale of his team in this circumstance is an illegal restraint of trade that could make him accept a below-market price). Now that course of action he can pursue in a court of law, not before an arbitration panel.
When you get into the realm of the courts, the legal process all of a sudden gets a LOT longer. There are a lot of "tools" within the rules of civil procedure (all sorts of motions), that one can use to stall. There is also the discovery process. That can take ages. I have worked on cases where just discovery took years. Just deposing every single owner can take forever. Personally, I do not think the antitrust case is super strong, Sterling might not prevail in the end, but litigation could last anywhere from weeks to years, so no, this is not a done deal. I am also sure that the other owners are doing their legal homework before they vote and are preparing for the possibility of a lawsuit. Depositions can be pretty brutal and the skeletons can start marching right of the closet.
There is also the issue of his wife who, incidentally, has her own history of racism( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/30/wife-of-do…). Assuming they do get a divorce and she gets half the team, what then? If she does decides that she does not want to sell, on what grounds can the owners vote her our?
I know people want this guy to be gone but, realistically, people need to get ready for a looooong ride. Financially, it would make sense for Sterling to sell honestly; the longer he holds to the team the more the value will fall as sponsors will bail, etc. However, I do not get the impression that he cares.
where one would draw the line for athletes versus owners/managerial types, across all professional leagues. I realize that it presents a number of issues: (a) What is egregious enough to warrant a boot ou the door, repeated use of racial slurs, attacking fans, sexual assault?; (b) Who makes the decision, the individual team or the league?
I think that most active professional athletes would not make disparaging remarks openly but what if they were caught making egregious comments, evidencing clear/ingrained racism/anti-semitism, etc.? I return to Rocker again, because he is as close to a Sterling example as you will get with a player. Just as a refresher, the guy's quotes include: "I'd retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark. . .next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS. .. right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing... The biggest thing I don't like about NY are the foreigners. . . How the hell did they get in this country?" and called his teammate a "fat monkey".
Should players of Rocker's racist/homophobic (repetitive) calliber get the boot?
gone much earlier. Why that did not happen, who knows. I heard some BS excuses that since he was never actually found guilty (he settled most cases) the league (commish) felt it should not pry. This is a BS excuse as there is evidence of him making some pretty blatantly racists/offensive statements on the record (in depositions, etc.).
I think the reason why it came to a head now is that what he was saying on tape is (a) fresh (as in pretty current), and (b) it touched very close to home with the NBA itself, making disparaging remarks about Magic, etc.
Before, he was likely perceived as some old dude that had some housing discrimination cases, sexual harrassment cases, but I don't think many people really knew the extent to which he was a racist/asshole. You know, people don't get into the nitty gritty until the proverbial poop really hits the fan (hindsight is always 20 20). I think he was perceived, to a certain extent, like Al Davis, some old white unpleasant crochety guy and the public, in general, did not pay him much attention, as is the case with most owners.
As to why the commissioner never did anything before, well it was not in the spotlight and he likely felt he should leave sleeping dogs lie. Also as to Sterling being this AMAZING person, his coat is not as clean as people think. He has been around the NBA long enough (I think since the early 90s) in an executive-type capacity, he certainly must have been aware of Sterling's skeletons.
Never thought of the "who is the employee? The league or the owner?" argument. Perhaps the league should have some more power in the more egregious cases, i.e. Rocker. Then again, what is egregious....it can become a slippery slope.
I am NOT defending Sterling. Perhaps you have not read my comments carefully and I did not make it abundantly clear. I think Sterling deserves to go....period.
However, personally I do not think there is a difference between a racist bigot like Sterling and vile homophobe like Tim Hardaway. The only reason why Tim "walked it back" as you say is because he realized he let the cat out of the bag and the criticism came shortly thereafter. You don't say stuff like Tim Hardaway said without being a life long bigot. Perhaps Tim truly changed his way, but when he made those statements, you really are naive to think that it was a spur of the moment thing? Do I need to remind you of what he said? Tim Hardaway: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States. And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that's right. And you know I don't think he should be in the locker room while we're in the locker room. I wouldn't even be a part of that."
Also, the reason why I mentioned other sports is because I said athletes, in general, get a pass. If an MLB owner made comments like Rocker did, he would, in all likelihood, be gone. If Magic used words like Cracker and Honkie, as Wells did, he would be gone. My point, again, is that athletes seem to get a pass when, perhaps, they should not. Although they are not owners, they still wield influence and serve as role models for kids/youth.
Look what happend to Rocker. He got a 15 game suspension and continued to play in MLB. I know that allegedly Shaq was joking when he said "Tell Yao Minfg, Ching chong yang, wah, ah soh', but most of my Asian friends did not find it funny and, actually, found it very offensive. The matter was brushed off and all was well. Riley Cooper used the "n" word in a very offensive way and nothing really happens to him.
I do not find mocking someone with a disability a "joke". Certainly, my friend, whose brother has a serious life threatening disability, and who works in the disability advocate field would not find it funny nor a joke. This "joke" stings just as much as racist remarks to those who are disabled and those who have family members that are living with an impairment/disability.
Would you suspend him indefinitely? Would you throw the same book at him that Silver threw at Sterling (Personally, I find mocking someone with a serious disability just as bad and hurtful as racism). Would you give a permanent ban to John Rocker if you were the MLB commissioner? Would you have booted Tim Hardaway for saying that he "hates gay people"? Would you ban Sterling for the comments he made?
I guess my point was (perhaps I did write it correctly) that with athletes, we tend to laught it off, when it is more serious we shake our fingers, but in the end we tend to give a pass. I can't believe that Rocker was allowed to play in the MLB after what he said and that all Riley Cooper got was a team fine of $30,000.
Would you suspend him indefinitely? Would you give a permanent ban to John Rocker if you were the MLB commissioner? Would you have booted Tim Hardaway for saying that he "hates gay people"? Would you ban Sterling for the comments he made?
players and ex-players, I feel, tend to get a relative pass, be it for making blatant racist remarks (Rocker, Bonzi Wells, Riley Cooper, Shaq), for sexual assault, for fighting dogs, after being convicted of manslaughter......
But in all seriousness, do you think Shaq should receive some sort of a punishment? This is pretty egregious. I just brought it up because it is somewhat pertinent. Sterling gets the book thrown at him, as he should, but what about players, ex players? Is it ok to say "ok, you apologized....you REALLY did not mean it"....."shame on you...now be good"....all is well?
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.
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.
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.
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.
, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent Comments
In that case we're screwed when we enter Big10 play. Air Force is actually pretty decent team (they won 10 games last week) but, still, their defense should not hold a major program to field goals.
Is O'Korn really that much worse than Speight? He was relatively good when he played for Houston. Granted, they ran a slighty different offense.
I do not mean to pile up on Speight, but he does have a tendency to overthrow/float his throws, misses reads/open receivers. Defintiely underwhelming.
I have been living in LA for over five years and, in my many many years of driving all over the US, I have never encountered so many inconsiderate d-bags. No one signals. People will cut you off with inches to spare. People absorbed in their cell phones standing still when light turns green and when you gently nudge them with a honk after 10 seconds of no movement they give you the middle finger. Ugh!!!
It was a very easy class. It certainly did not hurt that Randy was about the most chill professor (and, overall, just a really nice guy with plenty of interesting stories) that I encountered over the course of my undergrad and grad studies.
Brutal.....
I ended up with two Ws on my transcript because i was truly scared these two classes would wreck me GPA. I should have bailed early on. P chem was a bruiser from the start. I think the test averages were in the low 40s in that class.
Citing USNWR is not a good strategy, considering that it is about the only ranking in the world that has USC ranked higher than U of M. Do not get me wrong, USC is a great school but, speaking strictly academic wise, Michigan is much better. Just look at the rankings of individual graduate programs. In law, medicine, dentistry, IT, engineering, social work, business, public affairs, etc. etc., Michigan outranks SC. Something like 90% of Michigan's graduate programs rank in the top 15 nationally. Michigan is one of the leading research universities in the world, etc. USNWR factors in stuff like alumni donations, and we all know that schools can totally game USNWR by submitting bogus or, at the least, inflated graduation and/or employment figures. Again, not implying that USC is not a great school, just that you have to take USNWR with a grain of salt. For whatever reason, perhaps because of heavy marketing, it somehow became THE ranking in the US. Most of the reputable global rankings of universities (which tend to be based, typically, purely on academics) i.e. The Times, ARWU, CWUR, QS World University Rankings, have U of M in the top 25 globally. You want to look at national ranking systems, UNWR is the only one that has USC ahead of Michigan. Look at Forbes, Washington Monthly, etc. Michigan is way ahead of SC.
It is pretty ridiculous that he is being kept out of the hall because some nincompoop voters assume that, in the language of Ted Wells, it is more probable than not that Bagwell roided because he was a big guy, even though there is not a shred of evidence vis-a-vis Bags. He was always a stocky guy. His health naturally declined over the course of his career and, in fact, he missed a substantial amount of playing time because his body simply was in decline as he grew older.
Three of them are pretty hot....the other two are not too shabby either...
That being said, on a serious not, UCLA is in many respects like Michigan. It does not have as storied of a history in terms of football like Michigan does, but it is an elite institution as far as academics go, the athletic dept has a ton of $$$, the sports facilities on campus are really nice, the campus is beautiful, the locations is fantastic, the weather is amazing....
Not to mention that the weather report for today is 80 and sunny....which is pretty much the weather report ten months of the year in LA.....
The way I read it, Myerberg comes to the conclusion that we are in the "loser" category because, essentialy, we were not able to flip Mike Weber. Myerberg essentially ignored the rest of the 3 and 4 star players that make up the class.....
ESPN has us ranked 40th, 247 has us 38th, Rivals has us at 49, and Scout at 27.
I think an average score of 38.5 does not = "loser". It is respectable, especially considering the class is small and the fact that Harbaugh and co. had to scramble. Additionally, Harbaugh was able to get additional solid recruits in areas of need, i.e. QB.
I like how the cat has the expression of "Umm, what do you think you're doing?"...and the raccoon is like..."I will be taking some of these....thank you....peace out beeeyatches?"
The eagle gif is aight....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaHDvYKkMk
a flat wall is pretty insane...in this video Honnold is free climbing a wall with a concave curve to it....
Not sure how I feel about it. Re: Moeller, look at Cleveland. Of course, that may be, in large part, because the team, in general, stinks. Re: Durkin, the last two seasons were awful for Florida, 4-8 and 6-5. Again, it may not be indicative of Durkin's ability to coach, but I cannot help but notice that against ok to great teams, Florida was giving up a lot of points - 30 against Kentucky, 42 against Bama, 30 against LSU, 42 against Missouri. They did better against Georgia and FSU, in the 20s.
Like someone else said on here, many probably see Hoke as more than just a coach. It never is easy seeing someone you care about getting a heap of bad news. Also, I am sure that it will be a tough/uncomfortable hour for Hackett. I believe that he has a good relationship with Hoke. Being forced to give him the ax (based on the circumstances) will surely be, to say the least, uncomfortable.
I just hope that if Brady is, in fact, fired, the admin really does its best to bring in a top notch coach. I am very much afraid of the ND coach-carousel scenario post Lou Holtz. With two unsuccessful coaches, we are certainly on that track. Another bad hire, and it will really take a whole lot of digging to get us out of the abyss. I can't help but think about ND - Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham, Big Tuna - and how much the bad coach pile up killed the ND brand. I really don't want that for our program. Time to shell out the $$$.
...the setting is very lovely.....
I live in LA and have been to UCLA's campus countless time. I think UCLA has a nice campus although I am not sure if I would go so far as to call it beautiful. It does have some very beautifully majestic buildings in the central part for sure. When I think beautiful, I think of campuses like Colgate, Princeton, William & Mary, Rhodes College, Chappel Hill....places with a nice blend of history, beautiful (and diverse) architecture, and a lovely setting. Although, you can't beat UCLA's weather 9/12 months of the year..=)
it was ranked right around 22/23. Berkeley and Northwestern were ranked ahead of Mich (Berkley was around 20 and Northwestern around 16/17), UVA was right there with us, and UCLA was around 30-32, along with UNC.
In the past 8 years or so, UCLA shot up, Mich fell a bit (along with UNC), while UVA/Berkeley/Northwestern remained around the same ranking. Even though Michigan slipped a bit, it is still considered an elite university domestically as well as internationally, is regarded as one of the top research institutions in the world, 90% of its departments/grad programs are ranked in the top 20, with many in the top 10, and Michigan gets ranked consistently in the top 25 in the other major global academic rankings (i.e. ARWU, which really were in their infancy and were not given much consideration, when I was in school), so a small slide on US News is really nothing.
ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) ranking #22 in the world
QS World University Rankings #22 in the world
The Times Higher Ed World University Rankings #18 in the world
......so 'bleep' US News
love to see Argentina beat Brazil.
Although I would not be surprised if Argentina pulled it out against Holland. From what I am seeing, Argentina is playing much more agressively, attacking the Dutch goal really well.
Both teams have a stronf midfield though, something which was absolutely non-existent for Brazil yesterday....
the show.....
I saw the first four seasons of the show and mid-way through this season purchased the first five books.
I am thinking about starting with the third book (which covers season three and four) and skipping the first two books for now. Would I be missing some things (sub-plots not in the show that started in the first two books) in the third, fourth, and fifth books if I skipped the first two books? I still remember, relatively well, what happened in the first three seasons, which I have been told keep relatively close to the books. I am mainly trying to be lazy and skip the first two books, for now, but also do not want to miss anything significant that may not have been covered in the show.
Appreciate your thoughts...............
Tony embodied class on the field and off the field. He sort of reminds me of Barry Sanders, an elite talent yet very humble, quiet, generous to fans, just an all around good guy.
sure if these courses are still offered but I really enjoyed: Field Archaeology, Greek and Roman Archaeology, History of Early Christianity, and Neuropsychopharmacology (bio-psych course).
I was a bio major, so these were a nice break from my usual chem and bio courses.
because he knows his way around the legal court. I am sure he is also surrounded by some of the best attorneys in the LA area. He has shown himself, in addition to being a blatant racist, to be an arrogant, aggressive, and unpleasant person.
This is a guy who, when violating clear NBA by-laws by unilateraly moving the Clippers from SD and being subsequently fined $25 million for violating said clear rules, turned around and sued the league for $100 million, even though he was being fined purusant to clear rules. Not wanting to litigate, the NBA settled with Sterlking for a $6 million, taking it out of Sterling’s cut from expansion fees, which amounted to, essentially, not receiving$6 million.
The legal analyst for ESPN seems to think that Sterling's removal is a done deal and that the sale is foregone conclusion and will happen very quickly and that Sterling has no foot to stand on.
I have litigated my share of cases and know, from experience, that nothing in law is clear. Most is mud. The pertinent language in the constitution, pursuant to which this vote will go ahead, is open to interpretation. Was a conversation taped in private a "willful" violation of the league rules? Well, that is certainly not a clear cut answer, and is most definitely open to interpretation. However, even if the arbitration panel finds in the affirmative, Sterling can pursue other legal avenues, anti-trust for example (arguing that a forced sale of his team in this circumstance is an illegal restraint of trade that could make him accept a below-market price). Now that course of action he can pursue in a court of law, not before an arbitration panel.
When you get into the realm of the courts, the legal process all of a sudden gets a LOT longer. There are a lot of "tools" within the rules of civil procedure (all sorts of motions), that one can use to stall. There is also the discovery process. That can take ages. I have worked on cases where just discovery took years. Just deposing every single owner can take forever. Personally, I do not think the antitrust case is super strong, Sterling might not prevail in the end, but litigation could last anywhere from weeks to years, so no, this is not a done deal. I am also sure that the other owners are doing their legal homework before they vote and are preparing for the possibility of a lawsuit. Depositions can be pretty brutal and the skeletons can start marching right of the closet.
There is also the issue of his wife who, incidentally, has her own history of racism( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/30/wife-of-do…). Assuming they do get a divorce and she gets half the team, what then? If she does decides that she does not want to sell, on what grounds can the owners vote her our?
I know people want this guy to be gone but, realistically, people need to get ready for a looooong ride. Financially, it would make sense for Sterling to sell honestly; the longer he holds to the team the more the value will fall as sponsors will bail, etc. However, I do not get the impression that he cares.
where one would draw the line for athletes versus owners/managerial types, across all professional leagues. I realize that it presents a number of issues: (a) What is egregious enough to warrant a boot ou the door, repeated use of racial slurs, attacking fans, sexual assault?; (b) Who makes the decision, the individual team or the league?
I think that most active professional athletes would not make disparaging remarks openly but what if they were caught making egregious comments, evidencing clear/ingrained racism/anti-semitism, etc.? I return to Rocker again, because he is as close to a Sterling example as you will get with a player. Just as a refresher, the guy's quotes include: "I'd retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark. . .next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS. .. right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing... The biggest thing I don't like about NY are the foreigners. . . How the hell did they get in this country?" and called his teammate a "fat monkey".
Should players of Rocker's racist/homophobic (repetitive) calliber get the boot?
gone much earlier. Why that did not happen, who knows. I heard some BS excuses that since he was never actually found guilty (he settled most cases) the league (commish) felt it should not pry. This is a BS excuse as there is evidence of him making some pretty blatantly racists/offensive statements on the record (in depositions, etc.).
I think the reason why it came to a head now is that what he was saying on tape is (a) fresh (as in pretty current), and (b) it touched very close to home with the NBA itself, making disparaging remarks about Magic, etc.
Before, he was likely perceived as some old dude that had some housing discrimination cases, sexual harrassment cases, but I don't think many people really knew the extent to which he was a racist/asshole. You know, people don't get into the nitty gritty until the proverbial poop really hits the fan (hindsight is always 20 20). I think he was perceived, to a certain extent, like Al Davis, some old white unpleasant crochety guy and the public, in general, did not pay him much attention, as is the case with most owners.
As to why the commissioner never did anything before, well it was not in the spotlight and he likely felt he should leave sleeping dogs lie. Also as to Sterling being this AMAZING person, his coat is not as clean as people think. He has been around the NBA long enough (I think since the early 90s) in an executive-type capacity, he certainly must have been aware of Sterling's skeletons.
Never thought of the "who is the employee? The league or the owner?" argument. Perhaps the league should have some more power in the more egregious cases, i.e. Rocker. Then again, what is egregious....it can become a slippery slope.
I am NOT defending Sterling. Perhaps you have not read my comments carefully and I did not make it abundantly clear. I think Sterling deserves to go....period.
However, personally I do not think there is a difference between a racist bigot like Sterling and vile homophobe like Tim Hardaway. The only reason why Tim "walked it back" as you say is because he realized he let the cat out of the bag and the criticism came shortly thereafter. You don't say stuff like Tim Hardaway said without being a life long bigot. Perhaps Tim truly changed his way, but when he made those statements, you really are naive to think that it was a spur of the moment thing? Do I need to remind you of what he said? Tim Hardaway: "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States. And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that's right. And you know I don't think he should be in the locker room while we're in the locker room. I wouldn't even be a part of that."
Also, the reason why I mentioned other sports is because I said athletes, in general, get a pass. If an MLB owner made comments like Rocker did, he would, in all likelihood, be gone. If Magic used words like Cracker and Honkie, as Wells did, he would be gone. My point, again, is that athletes seem to get a pass when, perhaps, they should not. Although they are not owners, they still wield influence and serve as role models for kids/youth.
Look what happend to Rocker. He got a 15 game suspension and continued to play in MLB. I know that allegedly Shaq was joking when he said "Tell Yao Minfg, Ching chong yang, wah, ah soh', but most of my Asian friends did not find it funny and, actually, found it very offensive. The matter was brushed off and all was well. Riley Cooper used the "n" word in a very offensive way and nothing really happens to him.
I do not find mocking someone with a disability a "joke". Certainly, my friend, whose brother has a serious life threatening disability, and who works in the disability advocate field would not find it funny nor a joke. This "joke" stings just as much as racist remarks to those who are disabled and those who have family members that are living with an impairment/disability.
Would you suspend him indefinitely? Would you throw the same book at him that Silver threw at Sterling (Personally, I find mocking someone with a serious disability just as bad and hurtful as racism). Would you give a permanent ban to John Rocker if you were the MLB commissioner? Would you have booted Tim Hardaway for saying that he "hates gay people"? Would you ban Sterling for the comments he made?
I guess my point was (perhaps I did write it correctly) that with athletes, we tend to laught it off, when it is more serious we shake our fingers, but in the end we tend to give a pass. I can't believe that Rocker was allowed to play in the MLB after what he said and that all Riley Cooper got was a team fine of $30,000.
Would you suspend him indefinitely? Would you give a permanent ban to John Rocker if you were the MLB commissioner? Would you have booted Tim Hardaway for saying that he "hates gay people"? Would you ban Sterling for the comments he made?
players and ex-players, I feel, tend to get a relative pass, be it for making blatant racist remarks (Rocker, Bonzi Wells, Riley Cooper, Shaq), for sexual assault, for fighting dogs, after being convicted of manslaughter......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/shaquille-oneal-bullies-jahmel…
But in all seriousness, do you think Shaq should receive some sort of a punishment? This is pretty egregious. I just brought it up because it is somewhat pertinent. Sterling gets the book thrown at him, as he should, but what about players, ex players? Is it ok to say "ok, you apologized....you REALLY did not mean it"....."shame on you...now be good"....all is well?
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.
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.
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.
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.
, 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.
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.
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.
Geez Louise....
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.