i find this extremely interesting
|5 days 9 hours ago||Boliver? More like||
Boliver? More like Bolivia!
Sorry, that was a terrible joke. Reminds me of the time I met a young Jerry Seinfeld, and he told some joke about airline peanuts. It was terrible, lacking any proper lead-in from his previous jokes. I told him, "Jerry, you need a better introduction for these little tidbits of observational humor. Why don't you try something like 'what's up with airline peanuts,' or even 'what's the deal with airline peanuts'? That'll grab the audience's attention."
Anyway, I heard he did well for himself. Don't really know, I don't watch TV, spend more time writing my novel. Which reminds me of the time I explained to Philip Roth that he really needed to add an accent to the punchline for Portnoy's Complaint. But that's another story . . .
|1 week 3 days ago||Seth, honest question - are||
Seth, honest question - are you aware that the details of the Phillips-Hundley affair were widely-reported back in 2009 when Phillips was fired? Your reaction would make a lot more sense to me if you believed that deadspin was revealing previously private information about a sexual affair, which isn't the case here. This is more a case of examining a story that was big years ago through a different lens, focusing on the espn reaction rather than Phillips' conduct.
|1 week 3 days ago||Agree with all those stating||
Agree with all those stating that this is an absurd moderator overreaction. The Steve Phillips story was huge news when it broke years ago, whatever Seth's opinions as to its newsworthiness may be. Deadspin, among other things, engages in media criticism, and is retroactively assessing the hype surrounding that story given the passage of time and in light of current information. They are not revealing any heretofore hidden personal information -- the news of Phillips' affair was all over the media years ago.
If you don't think it's worthy of discussion on this board, fine, shut down the thread. But to say that this is "an article of the kind that makes people with functional consciouses hate Deadspin" and "the purpose of the article is to cash in on the pain they can cause in their subjects' lives" is hysterical pearl clutching, and is obviously based more on preexisting dislike of deadspin than anything in the article itself. And to accuse a poster of a "gross lapse in moral judgment" for linking to this article is offensive. Beware the next person who makes an innocent joke about Tiger Woods' affairs, you'll be denounced as a heathen.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I have nothing that hasn't||
I have nothing that hasn't already been said, but just wanted to add my congratulations and thanks. Great job Heiko.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||Two possibilities here: 1)||
Two possibilities here:
1) He's a young whippersnapper who has no idea that, before being a GM, Dumars was an amazing basketball player. Those whippersnappers!
2) He was just making an innocent joke about the Piston's recent troubles.
Which oh which could it be?
|9 weeks 11 hours ago||You're losing this one,||
You're losing this one, Champ. Badly. Maybe step away from the keyboard for a while.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Coach K once broke all of my||
Coach K once broke all of my fingers right before my big piano recital.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||Interesting that they've . .|
|15 weeks 5 hours ago||Whoa Whoa Whoa . . .||
|15 weeks 5 hours ago||I have no excuse for the||
I have no excuse for the title. I knew it was dumb, thought it might earn me some unnecessary downvotes, thought real hard about it, and then went with it anyway.
As Joel Goodson once noted, sometimes you just have to say what the f*ck. Sure, he said it in the context of turning his home into a brothel and hooking up with Rebecca De Mornay on the L Train, and I used it in the context of making a moronic "I Can Has Cheezburger" reference in a post about Iowa basketball, but when you think about it are they really that different?
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Perhaps it would be a tough||
Perhaps it would be a tough matchup, but I think the odds are pretty good that Gonzaga doesn't even make it to the elite 8. Which would give Michigan a chance to advance to the final four without facing anyone higher than a 3-seed. Pretty good deal.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Dear lord, the bronies are||
Dear lord, the bronies are taking over. The apocalypse is nigh. Sure, it's a really cute apocalypse, filled with sparkles and giggles and inside jokes that most three year old girls wouldn't get, but an apocalypse nonetheless.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Being in the the section of||
Being in the the section of the bracket that has Gonzaga as the number 1 seed would be better than being a 1 seed ourselves. Come one, #7 overall ranking!
|18 weeks 1 day ago||I don't know, I found it||
I don't know, I found it surprising when our point guard, who was an otherwise skilled player, shot 31% from the line his freshman year. That's the kind of thing that's less surprising when its a power forward or center who makes it in basketball mainly due to size, but you don't typically see such struggles at the point guard position.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Or I'm just making an||
Or I'm just making an innocent joke about Conlan's surprising difficulties at the free throw line during his time as a player, maybe that's it.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||The more surprising news (to||
The more surprising news (to me) information from the linked article . . . Travis Conlan is Michigan's director of basketball operations? Really? Our inexplicable struggles from the foul line are starting to make more sense . . .
|18 weeks 5 days ago||This is a silly question.||
This is a silly question. Even if he is the second best QB on the team -- which he obviously will be -- the coaches aren't going to burn his redshirt just to give him garbage time plays against EMU. As long as Gardner is healthy, they will preserve his redshirt. If Gardner goes down and they need Shane to play, his redshirt will be burned. It's not a matter of choice.
|18 weeks 6 days ago||Our problem wasn't so much||
Our problem wasn't so much incorporating the spread, as incorporating the pro-style aspects given [insert "Denard's limitations as a passer" or "Borges's inability to maximize Denard's strengths in the passing game" here, depending on your preference. I have no desire to reopen this debate].
It's a lot easier, when you already have a quarterback capable of passing the ball in a traditional pro-style system, to then take advantage of that QBs legs using some spread elements (even if the QB is not quite the runner that Denard is). It looks like this is what Borges is planning on doing with Gardner next year, which sounds great to me.
|21 weeks 11 hours ago||What a bizarre statement.||
What a bizarre statement. Care to elaborate, because I honestly have no clue what you're thinking.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Maybe I'm out of the loop,||
Maybe I'm out of the loop, and apologies if this is a stupid question, but what's going on at USC that all of these commits are backing out? Is it just the disappointing season they had, or something bigger?
|29 weeks 4 days ago||What are you talking about?||
What are you talking about? Denard had a lot of carries in the second half, and got stoned on all of them, including a fumble.
I'm as critical of Borges' playcalling this game as the next guy, but "Denard didn't get the ball in the second half" if the least legitimate criticism I can imagine. If anything, Borges was too stubborn sticking with the Denard runs after it became clear that OSU had figured it out.
|30 weeks 2 days ago||Ugh. The only benefit of||
Ugh. The only benefit of this was that Michigan's huge alumni base in the tri-state area would be able to attend games every couple of years without getting on an airplane, and they screw that up by putting Rutgers in a different division. Idiots.
At least there's basketball, I guess.
|30 weeks 2 days ago||I, for one, will by raging||
I, for one, will by raging against this injustice every other year. You know, during the 45 minute car ride. As I am driving my entire family to experience the joy of Michigan football without having to bring two young children on an airplane. At a stadium where I can have Grandpa and Grandma bring them to their home 15 minutes away when they inevitably want to leave before halftime.
This . . . stinks?
|30 weeks 2 days ago||Agreed. Michigan games in NJ||
Agreed. Michigan games in NJ every other year? Yes please.
Rutgers joining the Big 10 is like bad weather - if it's inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it.
|42 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah Brian, focus! We all||
Yeah Brian, focus! We all know that we don't possibly have a chance of beating Alabama unless long-haired Internet bloggers do nothing this week except for thinking about beating Alabama, you know, really REALLY hard!
|1 year 1 week ago||In 1994, the Violent Femmes||
In 1994, the Violent Femmes did the same thing to us, but worse. They had a concert at Hill Auditorium, on campus, the night that we lost to Wisconsin, and trolled us with the Wisconsin fight song.
|1 year 1 week ago||More like 100% chance it was||
More like 100% chance it was meant as a joke. Even if someone took every other part of the article seriously, the "carnations" line at the end should have been a tip off.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||Rutgers is ranked the 68th||
Rutgers is ranked the 68th best university in the US by US News and World Report. Not amazing by any means, but better then a number of Big 10 schools.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Why don't you say it a third||
Why don't you say it a third time?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||or words like that couldnt be||
or words like that couldnt be used...
Words like what? Beyond a third grade vocabulary level?
If you're implying that it's such a strange and unusual word that people shouldn't use it on this message board, you're embarrassing yourself.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||If only you had access to the||
If only you had access to the internet, you could just type that word into an online dictionary and have the answer.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Wait. so what happens when||
Wait. so what happens when you search for Ohio Stadium on google maps? I didn't notice anything, unless I was doing something wrong.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||If we beat NW and Purdue||
If we beat NW and Purdue we have a higher liklihood of winning our remaining games?
Man, odds makers in Vegas love people like you.
It's funny when people try to be snarkily condescending, but really just reveal their own lack of reading comprehension!
He didn't say that we would have a "higher" likelihood of winning our remaining games if we beat NW and Purdue. He said that we have a pretty "high" likelihood of winning out if we get past the next two games. Which is a perfectly rational comment. So not only were you being a dick, you were being a stupid dick as well.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Mighty big of you to||
Mighty big of you to acknowledge his skill despite all the personal pain he's caused you. You are a true gentleman.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Their loss to us was on the||
Their loss to us was on the road, and other than Iowa (whom we also lost to), Wisconsin's only losses have been against teams ranked 6, 7, 8, 12 and 17 (us).
We on the other hand, have lost, in addition to Iowa, to an unranked Arkansas team, 22 ranked Virginia team, and 18th ranked Indiana team, all of which are worse than Wisconsin's non-Iowa losses.
Does this mean Wisconsin should be ranked ahead of us? No. But the resumes are close enough that its certainly not outlandish for them to be two spots ahead of us.
Let's be honest, if the resumes were flipped and the rankings were the same, we'd have fans complaining about being ranked behind them.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||I think you're being unduly||
I think you're being unduly pessimistic. Even if we go 3-2 in the regular season, 12-6 in the Big 10 does not equate to a 7 or lower seed. That's a six-seed at worst, more likely a 5. (Assuming we don't flame out in the first round of the Big 10 tourney).
Lunardi currently has us as a four seed, and that's a better predictor than rankings. A loss to OSU combined with one respectable away loss isn't dropping us three or more seeds.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||We have the most losses of||
We have the most losses of any team in the top 25, so the mere fact that we're ranked shows that people are taking our strength of schedule into account.
Don't worry about a few ranking spots at this stage -- it's irrelevant. This ain't football. We'll be in the tournament, we'll have a good seed, and how far we go is on us, not the voters.
I have to say, though, that the fickleness of our fan base is amusing. After a loss, or after we struggle against a mediocre team, the board is filled with people complaining about Beilein's system and the limited ceiling, and a few days later we're complaining that our top 25 ranking isn't high enough.
[Edit - this wasn't meant as a reply to the OP, but rather to the people saying that, in light of our SOS, why aren't we ranked higher than Wiscy, Memphis, etc.]
|1 year 20 weeks ago||That article is freaking||
That article is freaking brilliant, and anyone who doesn't recognize that should be ashamed.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Careful, you're going to end||
Careful, you're going to end up on this website.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||By that logic, Brady Hoke||
By that logic, Brady Hoke should never have been hired at Michigan because he had a shitty combined record at Ball State and San Diego State, neither of which are power conferences.
We've already been over why that is a stupid analysis, right?
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Shit. As a NJ native,||
Shit. As a NJ native, Rutgers has always been my (distant) second-favorite team. I've enjoyed the rise to semi-respectability under Schiano, and the current team was filled with promising young players, leading me to believe the next few years could be special.
They're probably all going to transfer now.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Are you suggesting he's||
Are you suggesting he's making it all up!?
Hmmm, Aquaman swims in water, water is clear, like . . . glass?
Holy shit, Aquaman is Stephen Glass! Now this all makes sense.
When Aquaman's next report states that he spoke to Jordan Diamond during a computer hacker's convention, that will be a huge red flag.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||If you're going to accuse||
If you're going to accuse someone of theft, don't be so fucking cryptic. What did he steal, and from where? What is made up? Don't throw a bomb like that and give no details.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||The fact that Lloyd Carr is||
The fact that Lloyd Carr is the type of person who would NEVER hire a public relations firm is part of the reason many of us love him.
Thanks for the advice, random internet commenter, but Coach Carr doesn't give a crap what your opinion of him is, and that is for the best.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I don't read anything on||
I don't read anything on grantland religiously, but the media/entertainment stuff is usually pretty enjoyable, especially Hollywood Prospectus.
And any wrestling column written by the Masked Man (formerly of deadspin) is absolutely tremendous, even though I haven't watched wrestling in over 15 years.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Umm, I thought it was a||
Umm, I thought it was a pretty good article, that was complimentary of our program and players, and had an amazing tidbit about Novak's leadership that I otherwise wouldn't have known about (urging Beilein to give accolades to the scout team after the game). I also appreciate a mainstream national outlet giving such focus to a midseason game that most non-Michigan or Northwestern fans couldn't care less about. It was a nice recognition that even these seemingly run of the mill games have great meaning and drama to the participants and fans.
But whatever. It's cool to dislike ESPN and Grantland, so the article sucked. Simmons hasn't been good for years, neither has Saturday Night Live, etc. etc. rabble rabble.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Brilliant, detailed and||
Brilliant, detailed and conclusive. Well done.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Spelling error. It's MOAR||
Spelling error. It's MOAR defense!
|1 year 28 weeks ago||He does get that. He's||
He does get that. He's saying that it's a travesty that teams are selected based on $ rather than merit.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Sigh . . . . isn't that an||
Sigh . . . . isn't that an obnoxious way to start a post?
I was just making a joke, no need to be a prick. Sorry I didn't "upvote" you, I hope you'll forgive me.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||But if you knew it was a||
But if you knew it was a joke, why did you take the time to respond as though it was serious?
"I know it's a joke, but its highly unlikely that a rabbi, a priest and Ronald Reagan would all be trapped in the same lifeboat. After all, Ronald Reagan passed away many years ago, and the secret service would presumably have been protecting him."
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Why "quibble" at all with 40||
Why "quibble" at all with 40 (should have been 44) points against a top defense? Obviously, running on first down was working just fine, why would you want something different?
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Why "quibble" at all with 40||
Deleted and moved to proper place
|1 year 29 weeks ago||People are making objective||
People are making objective points about his record of success. You are making subjective statements about his likeability.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Meyer has had undefeated||
Meyer has had undefeated seasons and won national championships in the SEC.
Rodriguez's very best seasons included losses to South Florida and Pittsburgh.
Their resumes are not quite as similar as you suggest.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Well first, these are two||
Well first, these are two separate issues. What I posted about our chances of being good next year has nothing to do with the quality of the ESPN article.
Second, as I said above, I have no problem with a reasonable criticism of the ESPN article -- it was a bit simplistic, but that's to be expected when the writer doesn't live and breathe Michigan football the way we do. If I was "bagging" on anything it was that you went overboard in attacking an innocuous, albeit simplistic article.
It seemed like you were going out of your way to find something on ESPN to get pissed off about.
No worries, let's not fight. It's Ohio week. Happy thanksgiving, beat the Buckeyes.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Not remotely comparable.||
Not remotely comparable. Fair use is a balancing test, and 20% is way more than sufficient to find infringement, particularly when you copied a discrete portion of the article in its entirety. You think you could get away with posting 2 chapters of a 10 chapter book on the internet?
Also, let's just say that the level of analysis you provide is relatively minimal compared to the amount that you copied -- Brian's UFRs are quite different.
Of course you're not going to get sued for copyright infringement over something so minor, but infringe you did. And setting aside the legalities, this site frowns on extensive posting of paywalled articles. You done fucked up -- no big deal if you acknowledge it and move on, but the defensiveness is a tad annoying.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||It's the entire portion||
It's the entire portion relevant to a discrete subject matter.
Let's just say that, if ESPN wanted to sue you for copyright infringement, they'd have you dead to rights.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Charles Woodson = Blake||
Charles Woodson = Blake Countess 1.0
|1 year 29 weeks ago||There's nothing wrong with||
There's nothing wrong with reasonably critiquing an article. But going ridiculously overboard over an innocuous blurb that says good things about us because you don't agree with the precise reasoning is a little odd.
I mean, saying that this article should be a "finalist as the worst article of the year" is the most hyperbolic, outrageous, offensive statement I've ever seen on the internet, and is a justification for severe restrictions on free speech. (see what I did there?)
Basically, the magnitude of OP's adverse reaction to this article indicates that he's really bothered by something other than ESPN's analysis, if you get my drift.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Those are certainly||
Those are certainly significant losses. On the other hand, all teams lose players -- most teams don't return nearly as many starters as we'll be returning next year.
If Khoury can do a decent job replacing Molk, our offensive line may be just as good due as a result of the additional year of experience at the other spots.
Losing Martin and Van Bergeren sucks and our defensive line will certainly take a hit, but our linebackers and secondary should be much better. Is that enough to cancel out the loss on defensive line? Who knows. But it's far from certain that we'll be worse off next year.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||Deleted and moved to the||
Deleted and moved to the proper place
|1 year 30 weeks ago||I don't think he's||
I don't think he's suggesting that GERG was <i>intentionally</i> humiliating his players, but rather that what GERG saw as a motivational ploy -- rubbing a stuffed beaver in a players' face -- was inadvertently humiliating.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||This presumes that there||
This presumes that there actually were safety problems with Vioxx which were covered up, which is far from certain.
Rather than buy his way out of trouble in the Vioxx litigation, Frazier decided to aggressively battle the lawsuits, litigating each of the individual cases and prevailing on the vast majority of them. Not really the action you would expect from one who truly believes his company was liable.
Pharmaceutical companies aren't necessarily guilty of wrongdoing every single time they're sued.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Congratulations, you read a||
Congratulations, you read a wikipedia article on "fair use" and think you know what you're talking about. You're wrong.
Quoting two consecutive pages from a book, in their entirety, is absolutely large enough to constitute copyright infringement and not fair use. Especially when you could have accomplished the same thing through paraphrasing. But whatever, you read a wikipedia article, and you're always right, so what do people who deal with this for a living know.
That you've given attribution is not a defense to copyright infringement.
As far as "asking the author", didn't you ask him after you posted the quote, and then he asked you to take it down? He didn't give you permission, so asking him for permission after you committed infringement isn't a defense.
At the end of the day its not the biggest deal, since you took it down, and Bacon probably never cared enough to take action anyway, but your original post was copyright infringement. No question.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Fun drinking game . . . take||
Fun drinking game . . . take a shot every time the word "I" appears in a Section 1 post. You'll be dead before the end of the second paragraph.
Section 1, for someone who claims to be big on journalistic ethics, its hilarious that you are unable to follow one of the first rules about journalism -- keep yourself out of the story. Everything is about you . . . how you are right, how the board disrespects you, how you are smart and interesting and worthy of respect, goshdarnit! I thought you hit a low point when you posted about being "interviewed" right after Brian on a radio station, when in fact you actually were just a caller on a call-in program. But drafting an entire diary, and commiting blatant copyright infringement, in order to say "nyah nyah" to another poster takes the cake.
Here's a tip -- instead of dismissing all of the criticism you receive on these boards as the bleating of ignoramuses, take some of it to heart. You could use some self-improvement.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||To those responding to this||
To those responding to this plainly farcical thread with serious pronouncements that "God doesn't care about football," etc.
Get a sense of humor. It's a joke.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Goddamit. I tried to embed||
Goddamit. I tried to embed the video, but I'm a moron. If someone could explain how to embed from youtube, I would greatly appreciate it (and it would make my posts so, so much funnier).
|1 year 38 weeks ago||<iframe width="420"||
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kdhhQhqi_AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|1 year 38 weeks ago||<embed><iframe width="420"||
<embed><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kdhhQhqi_AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Doesn't matter if its a||
Doesn't matter if its a for-profit endeavor. (Well, its better if its not for profit, but commercial enterprises are entitled to a fair use defense). For example, if a TV producer wants to make a documentary that uses limited film clips for commentary purposes, the fact that he expects to make a profit on that show doesn't mean he's not entitled to the fair use defense.
To clarify, <i>pure</i> commercial speech, ie advertisements, will rarely prevail on a fair use defense. But the fact that a film, website, TV show, magazine etc. is "commercial" in that it intends to turn a profit does not mean it can't claim the fair use defense. Brian is on solid ground.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||This guy is a putz - he||
This guy is a putz - he either has no clue what he's talking about, or doesn't care. Commercial endeavors are entitled to the fair use defense. It's really only <i>pure</i> commercial speech, ie advertisements, that are unlikely to prevail on a fair use claim (and even ads can sometimes win in certain circumstances).
|1 year 38 weeks ago||IP litigator here. (I'm not||
IP litigator here. (I'm not proud). The one thing to be careful of is #3 - the amount and substantiality of the portion used. Analyzing a couple of plays from a game is fine. But the more you post, the weaker your fair use claim, no matter how much the "purpose and character" of the use is appropriate.
Also, labeling some videos "gratuitous" -- ie, I'm just showing this because it's cool, not because we're specifically analyzing the play -- is just asking for it.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||No no no, don't you see? Big||
No no no, don't you see? Big plays are only sustainable if DENARD makes them. If anyone else steps up (particularly a receiver, god forbid) it's pure luck. That way we can continue to criticize any play call that isn't centered on Denard!
Seriously, I don't recall anyone complaining about jump balls being unsustainable when Braylon was making MSU defenders look like high schoolers.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||"The problem was the defense||
"The problem was the defense not the offense". Really? Thanks for the insight.
Everyone knows the defense was the major problem last year. That doesn't mean the offense was perfect, or that its flaws are a forbidden subject.
jmblue never suggested that the offense was a bigger problem than the defense, so your response is a complete straw man.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||You know, I didn't realize||
You know, I didn't realize you were responding to that specific post. My bad.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||What a facile response. It's||
What a facile response. It's different when the question is "what channel aired this so I can watch it" versus "who is responsible for airing this offensive piece of garbage."
Your response implied that Fox Sports is not responsible for the original video. That was false, or at the very least extremely misleading. Fox Sports has itself taken responsibility and apologized profusely, to its credit.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||What???? Fox Sports goes to||
What???? Fox Sports goes to California and creates a racist video, and somehow its racism is attributed to California?
The KKK once marched in Ann Arbor. I guess we're all a bunch of racists by your logic.
Seriously, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted here, and that's saying something.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Wrong. It aired on a Fox||
Wrong. It aired on a Fox Sports subsidiary, which is why Fox Sports canceled the show.
"Fox Sports Network spokesman Lou D'Ermilio said in a statement that last week's segment was "clearly offensive" and that the show "The College Experiment" would be cancelled effective immediately."
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Fuel TV is a subsidiary of||
Fuel TV is a subsidiary of Fox Sports, the same way that ESPN is owned by ABC, Bravo owned by NBC, etc.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Well, you're definitely||
Well, you're definitely missing something.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||An I-formation is||
An I-formation is "inexcusable to run in general"?
Now that it's clear we're dealing with an idealogue, there's no sense attempting a rationale discussion, so I'll abstain other than to note that Hopkins is certainly not a "walk-on."
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Well, gaining yards with||
Well, gaining yards with running backs is a pretty important part of football. As I note above, I'm of the "if it's not working, fix it" mindset, rather than give up on it altogether. To answer your question "at what point is it being inflexible to continue doing something . . . if it's unsuccessful," the answer certainly isn't "two games into a new coordinator's tenure."
If Borges was trying to force-feed the ball to RBs 20 times a game, I'd agree with you. But it seems right now that he's trying to find something that works without forgetting the Denard's legs are the real meal-ticket, which I think is the right way to go about it.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||I just remember the few times||
I just remember the few times last year that we had to go I-form in short yardage systems, and looked incompetent doing it.
I also remember Oregon, the team that represents the pinnacle of the spread offense, struggling in the red zone against Auburn.
I am not anti-spread by any means, but I am anti-flexibility. I don't like the concept of a system in which a quarterback is totally uncomfortable going under center -- there's a reason most teams still do it, there are situations in which its effective, and anyone who wants to play quarterback should know how to operate under center, even if its for only 15% of the plays.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||You know those optical||
You know those optical illusions where your eyes become so accustomed to seeing an image that they continue to see it even after its removed?
It's kind of like that. Whenever we see an article complaining about Denard being under center, the brain reads the byline as "Brian".
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Here's the great disconnect||
There are some who think that, if Michigan isn't adept at operating from under center, they shouldn't do it.
There are others who think, if Michigan isn't adept at operating from under center, they should learn to do it.
Borges is going about this the right way -- he's still doing 70% shotgun, but gradually implementing the I-formation because, in the long-run, it will make the offense better to have more balance, stronger performances from the running backs, etc. Sure, there are growing pains in the interim, but hopefully those are far less by year end, and he's not throwing away the year by insisting on diving into his system headfirst.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||I do. I'm just messing with||
I do. I'm just messing with ya.
To be clear, I share your concerns about the offense. I'm just a bit aggravated that I and others had some of these same concerns last year, based on some of the same reasons (big plays rather than sustained drives, lack of replicability, too much reliance on one player, inconsistency over the course of games), and the same people who were arrogantly dismissive of those concerns because "look how many points/yards we had!" are now repeating them verbatim, without acknowledging their hypocrisy.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Which is why I didn't only||
Which is why I didn't only track the number of punts! I also tracked, among other things, overall success rate. 5 touchdowns on 13 possessions versus 4 on 16 possessions. (And one of our three turnovers occurred in field goal range, so it certainly wouldn't have been a punt).
|1 year 40 weeks ago||This year, based on 3/4||
This year, based on 3/4 of a game and 1/4 of another game, this offense IS sustainable and anyone who is slightly concerned is a heretic or is dismissed as a Rodriguez fanboi. That's asinine.
You are either deliberately misrepresenting what people have said, or are incredibly obtuse. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THIS OFFENSE IS SUSTAINABLE, OR THAT THIS OFFENSE IS AS GOOD AS / WORSE THAN LAST YEAR'S. We're saying that it's too soon to tell, but that Brian is being incredibly inconsistent in complaining about the offense based on HOW we scored 35 points, since he ripped on people for doing the same thing last year. We're also saying that those who complain about massive regression are possibly overstating our offense's performance last year, as the offense struggled at least as much against Notre Dame in 2010.
In sum, it's too soon to tell, but the data points don't yet support a "sky is falling" reaction.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||No, he didn't.||
No, he didn't.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||This is a good post but you||
This is a good post but you can't say we look better than last year as yet on O...IMO.
No one is saying that!
|1 year 40 weeks ago||The only thing the 2011||
The only thing the 2011 offense had more of was points at 35 and less penalties.
False. Why don't you actually read the original post? We had more points per drive, more yards per play, more points per play and better third-down efficiency this year than last year.
And that's despite three more turnovers than last year. (I still don't understand how people are arguing that turnovers show regression from last year, as though last year's team was so good at protecting the ball).
Again, the point isn't that our offense this year is great. It's that there is not yet evidence of massive regression, and those who think our offense was the "bees knees" last year are hypocritically relying on gut feelings over statistics -- the very sin that they decried last year.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||It's amazing how the||
It's amazing how the arguments change from year to year. Last year turnovers were largely the result of chance, and did not represent a significant flaw in the offense. This year, the opposite.
Are you really arguing that turnovers indicate regression in the offense? I'll bet you a quarter that, at the end of the day, we have no more turnovers this year than last year.
One could argue that, the fact that we scored more points this year on fewer possessions and despite three turnovers highlights the improvement in the offense. Again, I'm not actually making that argument -- my only point is that the claimed offensive "regression" is not backed up by any actual data.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Unfortunately, I did watch||
Unfortunately, I did watch the game
What a terrible choice of words.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||I agree! It's so much more||
I agree! It's so much more interesting when we blindly agree with what our fearless leader has to say and forego annoying "debates" and "discussion". Ugh. Disagreement is so last year.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||1) He's not saying our||
1) He's not saying our offense is better than last year. He's just saying that a comparison of the ND games doesn't provide support for gloom and doom.
2) "Last year our offense had a flow all game and didn't have to rely on doing everything in the 4th quarter." Really? REALLY? Do you remember the game? Do you remember that we had only ONE score in the second half, and that it came on THE LAST DRIVE? Do you remember that we had 12 punts? Do you remember that, of our three touchdowns in the first half, one was the result of a drive that started on the ND 30 yard line, and another was the result of a "nonsustainable" 87 yard run?
To copy from my post on the message board:
2 missed field goals
25% success rate (up to 31.25% if missed field goals are considered half of a "success")
38.5% success rate
People look at last year through some major rose-colored glasses sometimes.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Great post. I had a similar||
Great post. I had a similar post on the boards, but this is far more detailed and persuasive. For those who might misinterpret this, the point isn't that this year's offense is better than last year based on one game -- it's that the data doesn't yet back up Brian's (and others) concerns about massive offensive regression. At this point, such concerns no more than "just FEELINGS, man", which Brian decried whenever anyone expressed disappointment in the offense last year.
As far as replicability of performance versus last year, keep in mind that one of our TD drives last year started around the ND 30 because of a turnover. And as much as we love Denard's 87-yard touchdown, I don't think when the play was drawn up anyone imagined Omameh taking out two guys with one block, which turned a 20-25 yard gain into the Dilithium Express. Was that play really more replicable than the jump ball to Hemingway?
There's legitimate reason to be concerned about the offense this year, just as those of us who expressed concern about its consistency last year had legitimate points. But it's too soon to say the sky is falling.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||If you're disagreeing about||
If you're disagreeing about my "choice" of stats, then you are missing my point, because the choice is driven by the point I'm making.
Some people are expressing grave concern about offensive regression based on our performance against Notre Dame. The same people dismissed any criticism of the offense last year as "just feelings" unsupported by stats.
Our "stats" against Notre Dame were better than they were last year. Any "concern" about the offense based on a belief that those stats overstate our effectiveness is no more, and no less, valid than criticisms of the offense last year were.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Talk about small sample size.||
Talk about small sample size. Denard's 87 yard td was responsible for 2 ypc by itself, and it's not like that was any more replicable than some of our jump ball long gains on Saturday. (Unless it was drawn up for Omameh to take out two guys with a single block).
|1 year 40 weeks ago||First, you miss my point. I'm||
First, you miss my point. I'm not saying this year's offense is better, just that it's too soon to tell, but the data so far doesn't support that it's worse
And the FEI would probably not mesh with your gut feeling about how the offense has performed. I just think it's funny that last year such "gut" concerns about the offense were disregarded in favor of stats, and this year it's the opposite.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||As you may recall, I was one||
As you may recall, I was one of those last year who thought that our offense (while great!) may have been a bit inflated by late score when the game was getting out of hand. And I'm certainly not saying that the offense won't regress a bit this year (though I hope it continues to improve throughout the year as Borges and Denard continue to adapt and grow).
But I thought The concerns that Brian expressed about the offense regressing - which certainly isn't supported by any data at this point - were hilariously ironic. You basically could have cut and pasted from one of the very threads Brian ripped on last year as being "just FEELINGS man" and come up with his post from earlier today.
"Sure we scored a ton of points, but they were all in the fourth quarter!"
"All our touchdowns were on huge plays - we still can't sustain a drive!"
"We can't convert on third and long!"
And so on, and so on.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Actually, funny guy, as I say||
Actually, funny guy, as I say above my point isn't that this year's offense is necessarily better, but that the evidence doesn't support those who are crying "the sky is falling" based on the Notre Dame game.
As for the defensive statistics, not really comparable given that Notre Dame was playing a walk-on for almost half the game last year. No such outlier in the offensive stats.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||OK, now the commentary. I||
OK, now the commentary.
I wasn't posting this to prove anything - of course the sample size is too small. Rather the point is to rebut those on the main page who are pointing to last night's game as evidence that the Notre Dame game proves that Borges' system isn't working, that the offense is regressing, etc., etc. It proves no such thing.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Hey, I provide fuzzy BALL!||
Hey, I provide fuzzy BALL! SINGULAR!
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Well geez, it's a good thing||
Well geez, it's a good thing that he has been operating from the shotgun in about 70% of his snaps then. From your post, you'd think we were lined up under center 70% of the time, instead of the other way around.
The "shotgun or death" crown talks about the shotgun the way Republicans talk about lower taxes.
"There should be more shotgun".
Well, what percentage shotgun would be acceptable to you?
Well, more is a relative term. What are you looking for? 50%? 60%? 70%? Denard's already in shotgun almost every down.
"MOAR SHOTGUNZ PLEEZE!"
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Magnus is a great poster who||
Magnus is a great poster who provides tremendous insight based on years of experience.
You provide a picture of a monkey smoking a cigarette.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||I agree, I remember watching||
I agree, I remember watching USC's offense under Matt Leinart -- you remember, lefty pro-style QB, like the one we have coming in -- and thinking "my god, how boring this is."
To suggest that all pro-style offenses are boring because you didn't find our offense under Navarre aesthetically pleading is ridiculous. Why don't you think about how our offense looked in the one glorious year with Henson as a starter, instead?
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Well, most college football||
Well, most college football analysts are idiots, whose analysis consists of saying "unleash Denard!" Which is a great concept, but it doesn't explain how exactly Denard should be "unleashed". Denard was given plenty of opportunities to run and through in the first half -- if he had completed more passes, would he have been sufficiently "unleashed"? The big difference between the first three quarters and the 4th was that the passes were actually being completed -- they certainly weren't running Denard any more than they had previously.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Every offense that involves||
Every offense that involves "passing" requires "accurate passes and good decisions." It's not like they're trying to turn Denard into Tom Brady on last year's Patriots.
The implication is that the only offense Borges should be running involves Denard running the ball almost exclusively. Obviously we're not nearly there yet, but how is trying to get some balance in the offense a bad thing?
Borges has done everything he can to adapt his typical offense to Denard. We still have a ton of quarterback runs. We're doing zone reads. We're operating a ton out of shotgun. Yes, he's trying to add new elements (such as establishing a non-Denard running game), and yes, those new elements are working out great just yet. But I don't understand why people would think it's better to run a one-dimensional offense for the next two years, rather than keep what works AND try to improve in other areas.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||White Stripes are not "pop",||
White Stripes are not "pop", and they are definitely not "lame-ass." Why don't you stop talking for a while, Champ?
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Ignore everyone except for||
Ignore everyone except for the poster who said 7 Nation Army. That's the song / chant you're thinking of. If you're not familiar with it you can google/YouTube it for confirmation.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||True, but that's largely||
True, but that's largely because of the incompetence of the walk on qb we were facing for almost half the game.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||YOU ARE YELLING SO LOUD THAT||
YOU ARE YELLING SO LOUD THAT YOU MISSED THE FACT THAT I WAS JOKING!!!!
|1 year 40 weeks ago||That was early in the week.||
That was early in the week. Later on he indicated that Cam might not be ready.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||I agree. If you have a||
I agree. If you have a disability of any sort, you should limit your career options in order to avoid having people like me see and make fun of you.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||A "black and white" game?||
This was a very black and white game: Kovacs and Ryan were awesome.
The black: Herron makes me very worried about WLB, Beyer shouldn't have been on the field, and the lack of production out of WDE is alarming.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Yes, casting aspersions on||
Yes, casting aspersions on Fox News is exactly as bad as making fun of people because of their ethnicity. Well stated.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Borges may or may not be||
Borges may or may not be innovative, but your spelling certainly is.
Though I can't understand why you would want a coordinator who "takes the talent he has" and embarasses it.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Seriously? You describe||
Seriously? You describe calling into a radio show as being an "interview subject"? I can't even tell if you're being intentionally dishonest or just incredibly hubristic. Either way, it's ironic (but not surprising) that our resident scold on journalistic ethics would type something so misleading.
Congratulations on your two year anniversary of calling into a radio show.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||While I normally don't use||
While I normally don't use this type of language or attacks on other posters on the board, the only way I can describe the reaction to the Appy State game is that 80% of our message posters are being a bunch of fucking pussies.
Yes, we can never undue "The Horror." Yes, the game will cause the media to replay "The Horror." Yes, there is no "upside" to playing them again.
So fucking what. The Horror happened. The media will talk about it forever. Deal with it. If we use the Horror as an excuse to not schedule Appalachian State in the future, we are cowards. Play them, beat them, the media and our opponents will still laugh about what happened seven years ago, who the fuck cares. Win the national championship in 2014 and we'll have the last laugh.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||How dare you impugn Blimpy||
How dare you impugn Blimpy Burger. How dare you!
How am I ever supposed to have faith in anything you say, ever again?
Good day, Mr. Cook. I SAID GOOD DAY!
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Scalabrine has been in the||
Scalabrine has been in the NBA 10 years. Darius Morris was the 41st pick in the draft. Do you want to know how many 41st picks go on to have 10 year NBA careers? Here's a hint - not many.
I hope Darius bucks the odds and has a long and prosperous NBA career, but to suggest that a 2nd round draft pick who has yet to play a game should "obviously" be ranked ahead of a 10 year veteran shows a complete lack of understanding of basketball.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||You should watch more South||
First, you should watch more South Park.
Second, I don't believe that Brian is intentionally taking inflammatory opinions to generate hits. That's the kind of shit that people like Colin Cowherd and horribly annoying political pundits do, and I have way more respect for Brian than to believe that.
Apparently, you think he is doing that. And are OK with it, and actually defend it. Which is mind-boggling. I don't think Brian would actually appreciate your brand of support.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||1. Create unjustified panic||
1. Create unjustified panic that Hoke will run neolithic offense based on one misinterpreted sentence, despite ample evidence to the contrary; repeat ad nauseum;
2. Refute unjustified panic that you yourself created, using ample evidence that was available from the outset;
|1 year 49 weeks ago||The funny thing is, over a||
The funny thing is, over a 100 posts in and there hasn't been any real effort to answer the main question I was asking:
In general, is it easier to score when you are down by 20+ points than when you are tied?
|1 year 49 weeks ago||109 posts in, and this is the||
109 posts in, and this is the first useful bit of information in response to my request for actual data. I wasn't aware that FEI dismisses "garbage time" stats. Not to give you homework, and I will try to find this myself when I'm done with work and have even more time to waste, but do you know off-hand how FEI defines "garbage time"?
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Not sure that we're arguing||
Not sure that we're arguing the same thing. I agree that Michigan did zone block "all the time", i.e. with great frequency. And I agree that Hoke was saying that zone blocking "all the time" is a bad thing.
But I don't agree with the implication -- which you may not have intended to make -- that Hoke's words suggest that he will go the other way, and abandon zone-blocking almost entirely. Hoke seems to be saying that you need to be able to power block, but not necessarily that you need to do it exclusively. My understanding is that Borges has run zone-blocking schemes in the past, so until we see the team on the field next year I'm not going to assume that zone-blocking has been abandoned.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Hoke's statement that a team should be able to power-run out of the I. How many times last year did we see the team unable to pick up third and shorts, or look inept on the goal line? Again, this isn't saying we should abandon what works -- it's just saying there are other things we should be comfortable doing that will help in critical situations.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||If you want to have a broader||
If you want to have a broader conversation, then why start it by saying the other side claims I have "no data" but where is their data?
Well, in the title of the post I'm asking "who does the data support"? I acknowledge that my gut feeling may be wrong, and saying that I'd like to see the data either way so that I can understand the issue.
At the same time, I'm expressing my frustration at those who would mock my "gut feeling" by implying that the data refutes it, while not actually presenting any data of their own. While Brian's recent comments on the Wisconsin game were the impetus for my post, in this regard the Wisconsin debate is really just illustrative of a larger frustration I have with people who act as though all of their positions are supported by hard evidence, yet when you look closer it appears that they are just presenting their own hunches.
I appreciate your toning down the rhetoric in our comments to each other, and I'll do the same. Calling you a dick (twice!) was over the line. Sorry.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||The fact that some people||
The fact that some people downvote an informative comment like this because it is contrary to their position demonstrates all that is wrong with this board.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||It's pretty obvious that||
It's pretty obvious that you're the only person in this thread trying to revive the Rich Rod versus Brady Hoke debate.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Not sure how that supports||
Not sure how that supports your argument. After we pulled within 10, they proceeded to shut us down for 12 minutes, until they were up by 20 again, and we only had one meaningless score the rest of the game.
If one game were statistically significant -- which is isn't -- this would support the theory that it's easier to score when down big, but defenses tighten up when the game is close.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Is it really Brian's job to||
Is it really Brian's job to use statistics to prove himself wrong?
No, but it's his job to use statistics to prove himself right. He believes that points scored in the second half of a blowout loss are as significant in assessing an offense's performance as points scored in the first half of a tight game. If he dismisses the countervailing theory, he should present some evidence in support of his own.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||So, the question is "why can||
So, the question is "why can you accept season long red zone stats, but not other season long offensive stats"? Is it because you have feelings about RR and/or losing to rivals? Is it about your feelings man?"
So, you're kind of a dick. I've done nothing to imply that I'm anti-Rodriguez, that I thought last year's offense sucked, or anything of the kind. You're the one bringing up dead issues and being obnoxious.
To respond to your points, such as they are:
The "Wisco Scoring issue" is whether Wisco "let up" last year. It is not about projections. It is only about ONE GAME and does not accept wether UM did well or badly against Wisco. In fact, that is the only thing to be determined -- something that happened in the past in one game -- not what are the cnaces something happens in the future throughout a season.
First, the Wisconsin issue is merely an example -- it was not the only game last year in which our offense came alive after we were down big.
Second, and in any case, I'm not even saying that our offense last year was bad, or overrated, or anything like that, and I'm not using the Wisconsin game as evidence of our weaknesses. I'm responding to others, who would use the Wisconsin game as evidence of our offensive strength, saying that our numbers in that particular game may have been misleading.
Your feeling is that Wisco "let up" on defense ONLY when they were up by 21 to a highly regarded offense. Go ahead....look at what that Wisco teams performance throughout the season to get your answer.
Again, you cannot claim that you are conducting a rigorous statistical analysis on this issue using one team's performance as a sample size. Obviously, there are vast differences in Wisconsin's games against the Michigans and Austin Peay's of the world. The only reason to focus on Wisconsin's games in particular is because it supports your result. It's not intellectually honest.
I could just as easily say that, focusing on Michigan's games, it proves that our offense was more likely to score when we were down by 21 than when we were down by 7, and thus it's easier to score when down 21. The whole point of this post is that I <i>acknowledge</i> that this small sample size doesn't prove anything, and it very well may be the case that our scores in blowout losses are just as significant in assessing our offense. In other words, I'm asking for data either way to help my understanding of an issue. While you're just being a dick.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Whenever people pull up that||
Whenever people pull up that quote, they fail to focus on three key words -- "all the time." Hoke isn't saying that zone-blocking is pussy femball. He's saying that teams shouldn't solely practice zone blocking, because then the defense isn't prepared for a straight-ahead power running team.
Basically, he's saying that teams should be versatile. Saying that a team should be comfortable running from the I formation and with the quarterback under center is not the same as saying "abandon the shotgun!".
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Because the Wisconsin issue,||
Because the Wisconsin issue, raised by Brian in his most recent post, is what brought the subject to mind. It's called a "jumping off point".
The issue I'm raising plainly has to do with the use of statistics in arguments, and whether one side should accuse others of "lacking data" without presenting data of its own. I'm obviously not delving into the issue of "was Michigan's offense really any good"? But if you prefer to be obnoxious rather than consider the actual content of my post, more power to you.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||So when some people argue||
So when some people argue that Michigan's red zone offense was weak, they are told to look at stats indicating that, in general, red zone performance is random.
But when we want to examine the question of whether it's easier to score when down big, we shouldn't look at general numbers, and instead should just look at one team's performance.
Basically, look at a large sample size when that supports your conclusion, but a small sample size when that supports your conclusion. Doesn't seem particularly intellectually honest to me.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||That's kind of my point, so||
That's kind of my point, so not sure why you had to begin with an obnoxious "um". It seems that no one has presented data supporting either position, so I'm not sure why one side is being arrogantly dismissed for lacking statistical support.
But I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and I'm generally curious about this issue, so I asked if anyone is aware of any analysis that may be pertinent. Kind of thought that's the type of thing the message board was for.
For those of you making "beating the dead horse" comments -- this isn't solely about the Wisconsin game. What's past is past. I'm more curious about the larger issue -- is it, on average, easier to score when you're already down big? Because of the emotions surrounding the Wisconsin game and last year's regime, it seems that no one has made a fair attempt to tackle the underlying question, which I think is an interesting one.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||Brian oftentimes seems to||
Brian oftentimes seems to take advantage of the fact that most of us don't have the time or, admittedly, ability to compile statistical evidence for a certain position to suggest that no such statistical evidence can possibly exist, without bothering to marshal the evidence in support of his countervailing theory.
Hence, he mocks those of us who think that our offensive performance against Wisconsin was not as impressive as pure points/yardage suggest -- "Or I could say that 'common sense' suggests that Wisconsin was not trying to let Michigan score in the third quarter and that the overall results should be taken in appropriate context, but then we're back to feelings, man" -- yet he never bothers to present the evidence that yards and points are just as hard to come by when a team is down by three scores as in a tie game.
I'd like to see the statistical evidence, either way. What are the average yards given up by a typical team on a defensive drive when they are up by 21, versus when the game is tied? It may very well be that my gut is wrong, and our points against Wisconsin were equally impressive as if they had come in the second half. But I think its funny that Brian is mocking us for presenting a theory without supporting stats, when he's doing the same thing.
|1 year 51 weeks ago||If it's not already clear to||
If it's not already clear to you -- and I doubt that it is -- here's one of many reasons why the question of whether we'll install a spread system when Hoke is gone is utterly idiotic.
We don't know when Hoke will be gone. And we don't know if the spread will even be en vogue in fifteen or however many years when Hoke steps down. After all, the spread as we know it didn't exist fifteen years ago. You may as well ask whether we'll be giving the triple option another shot when Hoke leaves.
To ask whether we'll go back to the "spread" as we know it today in god-knows-how-many years is akin to giving up on your blackberry today, signing a 20 year contract for an i-phone, and then wondering whether you'll go back to your blackberry when the contract is up.
|2 years 6 days ago||Alternate headline:||
Jim Tressel denies any knowledge of rules
|2 years 2 weeks ago||When Section 1 was a wee lad,||
When Section 1 was a wee lad, his pappy advised him "never let an opportunity to be contrarian go to waste, even if you have to manufacture a nonexistent dispute." And good golly, he has lived his life in accordance with pappy's advice!
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Titus||
The reference to Titus in the SI article, and in Brian's recapitulation of same, troubles me. He didn't offer any insight in his capacity as "former Ohio State athlete" -- rather, he expressly said that he has no inside information, and was merely noting that any OSU student could have told you that football players seemed to drive nice cars. I could have said the same thing about Michigan basketball players circa 1995-98.
Given his disclaimers, it really bothered me that the Sports Illustrated article mentioned him by name, and suggested that his statements were evidence of anything. It really cast doubt on the overall level of reporting in the story, in my eyes. g
|2 years 3 weeks ago||The relevance is that you||
The relevance is that you sound like a jackass criticizing the motives of someone who just donated $1 million to help kids go to college. Hope that clears things up.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||For God's sake. The guy just||
For God's sake. The guy just gave away $1 million of his own money to help 100 kids go to college. He made a little joke about his contentious time in Cleveland, he wasn't seriously claiming that Clevelanders constantly think about him. Lighten the fuck up, Francis. You really need to criticize him now?
[Edit - this was supposed to be in response to Wave83]
|2 years 4 weeks ago||In addition to "unnecessary,"||
In addition to "unnecessary," I'd add "self-aggrandizing" editorializing. Even when he makes what would otherwise be a good point (such as that Michigan fans may not have been behind the billboard), he ruins it by trumpeting himself as the last bastion of journalistic integrity, the smartest guy on these here boards, just trying to bring the light to us unwashed masses who still pay attention to the evil mainstream media.
Thanks, crusading hero of the interwebs.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Love that His Dudeness negged||
Love that His Dudeness negged this post. Apparently posting a quote from a Michigan Heisman trophy winner saying something nice about Hoke and being excited about the program is an attack on Rich Rod.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Wow. Logged on just to neg||
Wow. Logged on just to neg this, not that it has any effect.
Such disdain for the only Michigan coach to win a national title in the last god knows how many years, the guy who recruited Tom Brady, and yes, the guy who recruited Braylon Edwards, one of the greatest wide receivers in Michigan history, who has donated untold time and dollars to good deeds related to Michigan, while you're an anonymous jackass throwing stones on the internet.
Go fuck yourself.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Thanks for the great post,||
Thanks for the great post, Craig. Unfortunately, I think you erred in using the phrase "I don’t see 2011 as much different than 2008," because, as you can see, invoking the year that must not be named results in a shitshow, and people elevate that single (partial) sentence over everything else that you wrote.
I don't think you're actually saying that our offense next year will be as bad as 2008, just using it as an example of struggles that can result with a change in system. Anyone suggesting our offense could potentially even approach the ineptitude of 2008 is forgetting just how bad that offense was -- it makes last year's defense seem like the '85 Bears.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Brian didn't write this, it's||
Brian didn't write this, it's a guest post.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||What show would that be?||
What show would that be? Come on, fill us in.
|2 years 11 weeks ago||Va Azul wins the thread. the||
Va Azul wins the thread. the maizecoloredglasses post sounds good, until you realize that the article it links to establish the "criteria" that the selection criteria is supposed to consider is just that -- an article -- and not the official selection criteria. So the whole "they're only supposed to consider the resume!" argument is completely false.
The actual criteria, as Va Azul points out, is that they are supposed to determine the 37 "best" at-large teams. No more, no less. RPI, record, strength of conference, etc are things that the selection committee should look at to aid in their task, but at the end of the day it's subjective. If it was purely an objective evaluation of a team's "resume", selections could be handled by computers. Thankfully, that's not the case.
Funny how so many people advocating strictly basing selections on a team's mechanical resume were, just a few weeks ago, arguing that Michigan should get in despite an underwhelming resume and no wins over top teams because of intangibles like "improving as the season went on" and "playing top teams close".
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Yeah, and Spud Webb's dunks||
Yeah, and Spud Webb's dunks were nothing out of the ordinary.
And why such a big deal about Ollie hitting a couple of free throws?
Rudy? Pshaw, anyone can get one sack.
And Lucas didn't even catch the damn ball!!!!
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Hi, turd in the punch||
Hi, turd in the punch bowl.
If I can afford to buy a lottery ticket, and doing so gives me the pleasure of fantasizing about owning a 50 foot yacht, it wasn't a bad decision -- it was a harmless diversion.
Why don't you go to a casino and lecture people at the $5 blackjack tables about how they're wasting their lives.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Well, he did choose option||
Well, he did choose option number 2, didn't he? He's refusing to speak about it anymore, which is why he didn't participate in the documentary. So not sure what you're asking from him.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Given the legal issues||
Given the legal issues involved, the question should be why would anyone expect Webber to participate?
He almost went to jail for allegedly lying to a grand jury about taking money from Ed Martin. He only avoided jail because the key witness died before he could testify against Webber.
So why would he want to voluntarily make any public statements on the subject? His only options would be (i) repeat the story that almost got him sent to prison; or (ii) admit that he lied and perjured himself before a grand jury. I don't know what the nature of his plea bargain was, but it might be the case that admitting to perjury now could get him in additional legal trouble. Even if that's not an issue, I can understand why he wouldn't be interested in admitting to a felony on national TV.
I'm sure if it was just reminiscing about basketball and their effect on the culture he would be the first to join in.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Unfortunately, no one on our||
Unfortunately, no one on our team messed around and got a triple double.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Q: What's the difference||
Q: What's the difference between Tressel and Gadhafi?
A: One is a tyrannical dictator who is losing his grip on reality, thinks that rules and international norms do not apply to do him, will do whatever it takes to maintain his grip on power, including utilizing degenerates and criminals to do his dirty work, yet still has adoring followers who will not admit that he is the essence of evil.
The other is Gadhafi.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||If there is nothing is||
If there is nothing is common, why make the joke in the first place then?
Wow, you're really struggling with the concept of what a "joke" is, aren't you?
Q: What's the difference between an oyster with epilepsy and a prostitute with diarrhea?
David from Wyoming: Well, those are entirely different things, so the question is moot.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Well then . . . .||
Well then . . . . nevermind
[I tried to embed video of Gilda Radner saying "nevermind", but failed. I'm just full of fail on this post]
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Worse. Left his 8 months||
Worse. Left his 8 months pregnant (with twins) wife for a 20 year old. That, combined with many lesser offenses and idiotic comments that showed him to be a complete putz.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Guess he had no other options||
Guess he had no other options after his TV career flamed out spectacularly, after he revealed himself as being the biggest dirtbag known to man.
If he really needs the money, he can be spokesman for Bad Idea Jeans.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||God, Iove this team. We'll||
God, Iove this team. We'll probably never experience a season quite like this again in our lives, going to the NCAA tournament in a year when no one expected us to even approach .500. Beilein has a job for life.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Harder to read on the toilet,||
Harder to read on the toilet, though. Yeah, I went there.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||I was just coming to the site||
I was just coming to the site to post this column, with the same comment. He hit it out of the park today.
Every once in a while Simmons shows he's still got it as far as writing goes, even though it seems he prefers podcasts since they require far less effort. (Not to say that his podcasts can't be very interesting at times, I just miss the Simmons who used to churn out three high-quality columns a week).
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Unfortunately, we're stuck||
Unfortunately, we're stuck with that anchor, at least until the final year of his contract. Who would want him?
|2 years 16 weeks ago||LeBron is essentially a point||
LeBron is essentially a point guard in a power forward's body.
|2 years 16 weeks ago||The odds of Nets getting||
The odds of Nets getting anyone resembling Deron's talent in the draft was slim to none (particularly in this year's weak draft). In two years they would have to pay Lopez big money or let him walk. Just gambling on lucking into a good draft pick hasn't worked for them for the past five years, and doesn't justify giving up a shot at one of the top 2 point guards in the game (and one who actually has cartilage in his knee).
With the upcoming CBA (which many think will include a "franchise player") tag, they have an excellent shot of re-signing Williams. They also now have an asset who, along with the upcoming Brooklyn move, can lure other top-tier free agents -- something they were notably missing in this year's free agent class.
There is now a clear path to success. Sign a solid (but not max contract) free agent this year. In 2012, sign and trade Lopez for Dwight Howard. Voila, championship contender.
Obviously there's no guarantee these things happen or that this works out, but as the world's only Nets fan I'm thrilled that there's now hope and excitement on this team for the first time in a long while
|2 years 16 weeks ago||My lord, how did you find||
My lord, how did you find this? What motivated someone to make this? It is the most random, hilarious thing I've seen in a long time.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||First, 7'1 doesn't =||
First, 7'1 doesn't = 7'4.
Second, no one is saying that this guy is a sure thing. But the odds of a 7'4 guy having an impact in college is so great that you absolutely want to grab him if you have the chance.
He doesn't have to "dominate" -- mere competence from a 7'4 center is a pretty damn nice thing to have.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||You know, Frederic Weis would||
You know, Frederic Weis would have been damn good in college. The standards for "we gotta get this guy" in college are far lower than in the pros. A talentless 7'4 guy can be a great weapon in college even if he would suck in the NBA. Exhibit A: Thabeet goes on.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||I dunk because they||
I dunk because they manufacture 7 foot baskets for a reason.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||The consensus has been that||
The consensus has been that Devin is a fine fit for a pro-style offense. Tall, strong arm, etc. Not sure what you're worried about.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||There's this QB on the Eagles||
There's this QB on the Eagles this year who ran a West Coast offense . . . I can't remember his name, but I think he was a pretty good runner . . . is it Kevin Kolb?
|2 years 19 weeks ago||I have nothing to add, but am||
I have nothing to add, but am contractually-obligated to respond to any posts that reference the Wire.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||And I think the OP has done a||
And I think the OP has done a perfectly excellent Fisking of Mr. Wojnowski.
No, he really didn't. Unless an "excellent fisking" involves focusing on headlines and ignoring text, ascribing statements to the author that he didn't make, misrepresenting things that he actually said, and ignoring the author's express words when they are inconsistent with the point the fisker is trying to make. My lengthier counter-fisk is below.
You're basically giving him credit for an "excellent fisking" because he's on your side of the argument, regardless of the actual quality of his work. It's that kind of result-oriented analysis -- give credit to "my" guys, attack the guys I'm opposed to -- that you decry in the media.
You're better than that. Aren't you?
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Hey, great minds, yada yada.||
Hey, great minds, yada yada.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||I try to stop really, but I||
I try to stop really, but I was looking for MSU reaction and stumbled across Wojo's recruiting article. This is so bad and so sloppy I can't even stand it.
Ironic you should say that, because I found your fisking of Wojo's article so bad and sloppy, and filled with misrepresentations and miscomprehension, that I couldn't stand it. Let's fisk your fisking.
1. Title-Brady Hoke's first class looks like unqualified success. Well no, while much of it was not Brady's fault and he did a fine job keeping things together this class was not an unqualified success by any measure. We lost several high profile recruits and arguably the 2 most important recruits for Hoke left yesterday.
Wait, so to consitute an "unqualified" success every recruit that we go after must sign with Michigan? By that standard, no one in history has had an class that is an "unqualified" success unless it consists entirely of five-stars.
Instead of getting caught up in the title (which Wojo may not have even written - editors typically provide the headline), why not look at the substance of the article, which is eminently reasonable? Or is that too difficult. Wojo says that the class finished well, and was ranked by some as 21st in the country, and that Michigan should do better in the future. He acknowledged that the Wolverines "lost some key guys" and in the future "need to land home-state stars" such as Fisher and Zettel. The thrust of the article is that Hoke did better than expected, given that many people (including on this board) were predicting a biblical disaster -- "For all the doomsday predictions, the Wolverines recovered just fine . . . Hoke came in behind and did an excellent job catching up" is essentially the summary. Nowhere in the article does he suggest that the class is perfect or flawless, as you misleadingly imply.
2. Subtitle- Hoke Gets Physical. Wojo talks about getting big road graders like Posada and Bryant and how Hoke is getting back to physical by signing no WR. Wojo fails to point out Posada was already committed under RR and Bryant was a near lock as well so this means nothing in terms of a difference between Hoke and RR. We signed 3 OL and 1 DT/DE so to keep on the Hoke=Bulk, RR=Speed is stupid.
No, he didn't talk about "getting" big road graders [sic] like Posada and Bryant. He talked about the way Hoke described those guys, as a means of explaining the type of players that get Hoke's juices flowing. This is evident when he quotes Hoke's description of those players, and then says: "Hyperbole is mandatory on signing day, and Hoke's hunger for physical players was evident." Which is 100% correct. Again, he didn't suggest that Hoke alone is responsible for signing these guys -- that's your takeaway, possibly the result of preconceived biases.
Again, instead of focusing on titles and subtitles, maybe read the actual text underneath -- there's nothing really controversial in what he says here.
3. Back to Midwest- Wojo covers himself with a sidenote that RR did sign more Ohio and Michigan kids last year, but he still paints the picture that RR goes for the glamour of Florida while Hoke is meat and potatoes in the midwest.
He does more than "cover himself with a sidenote." He acknowledges that more than half of Rodriguez's recruits last year were local, but that this was a belated adjustment. Which is pretty indisputably true.
He even says that Michigan is getting back to Ohio and Michigan where they used to get their best players. While obviously the majority of our players come from Ohio and Michgan...Anthony Carter, Tom Brady, Amani Toomer, Greg Mcmurtury, Mike Hart etc etc..would like to have a word with him. This is tired and old and stupid. We are a national program.
Here I agree with you. We need to recruit nationally, and Wojo is an idiot for suggesting otherwise . . . oh wait. If you actually read the article, right under the "Hoke gets physical" subtitle that you so hate, his first sentence is "Michigan still must recruit nationally, and still does." Why, its almost as if your entire point is invalid!
4. Back to Defense- Wojo says how Hoke is getting back to defense by signing more defensive players(12 of 20). No not really we signed a ton of defensive players last year.
Now this is just complete bullshit. For the past few weeks everyone on this board was talking about how almost every recruit that Hoke (as opposed to Rodriguez) signed was on defense, and how Hoke passed up receivers to add more defense. Are you seriously attacking Wojo for making the indisputably correct observation that Hoke has focused on defense? If so, you have no credibility.
I'm not sure who is "wagging the dog" as they say, but would it be too much to read an article that offered me anything in terms of insight that was actually researched?
Is it too much to read a "fisking" offered by someone who actually read and understood the article in question?
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Well said. I'm really not||
Well said. I'm really not looking forward to more posts from malcontents complaining that the MSM is being too positive about the Hoke regime.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Thank you, Captain Obvious.||
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That was kind of the point of the post.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||"[T]he article completely||
"[T]he article completely disregards the "decimated defense" - that is to say, it completely ignores situations like Demar Dorsey, JT Turner, Boubacar Cissoko, plus all of the other kids we've lost to transfers, injuries, etc."
So, you didn't actually read the article, did you? If you did, you would have caught this sentence: "A combination of injuries and massive attrition undermined Michigan's continued presence at the top of the Big Ten recruiting charts under Rich Rodriguez."
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Looks like his avatar's going||
Looks like his avatar's going to need some new FBI guys.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Delete||
Posted in wrong place
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Sentences have verbs. Yours||
Sentences have verbs. Yours is verbless. You have failed. (Three for the price of one!)
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Please name the 5-7 guys that||
Please name the 5-7 guys that had no business playing. Our front seven consisted mainly of upperclassmen plus Demens and Roh. The youth was in the secondary, but that doesn't explain our feebleness against the run.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Here's where your analogy||
Here's where your analogy falls apart completely.
As you said, Navarre looked good against the tomato cans, but was overmatched against real competition. He wasn't ready, needed seasoning.
Our defense, on the other hand, got killed against the tomato cans. Our defensive performance last year made Navarre on his worst day look like Tom Brady.
So there are two possibilities: either (1) our defensive players are simply terrible and will never, ever be good, or (2) they are young players who, while they should never have been expected to be a "good" defensive team last year, would have looked far less inept against the tomato-can opponents with better coaching.
I'm betting, and hoping, that number 2 is the explanation. Otherwise, I'll be a very sad panda.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Saw that, and had a similar||
Saw that, and had a similar reaction. I don't think it's motivated by any anti-Michigan bias or sentiment, though -- I would expect ESPN to have the same misleading headline no matter what the team in question is, because their number one goal with headlines is drawing pageviews. We just notice this typical bullshit more when our team is the subject of said headlines.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Bloody Mary's, made with||
Bloody Mary's, made with Sriracha and horseradish. You will see God.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||I don't know what's sadder --||
I don't know what's sadder -- (1) your thinking that it's totally cool to toss around the word "faggot", or (2) once negged, you couldn't realize that might be the reason for it.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Add to that, as another||
Add to that, as another poster previously noted, his "losing" record includes a 1-17 mark in "MACrifice" road games against aq schools. Against teams from equivalent conferences, Hoke has a very good record.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||As others have said . .||
As others have said . . .
The stupidity of this post is heightened exponentially by the author's thought that it was somehow worthy of a diary entry. There is nothing of value here. It is conclusory, unoriginal, and uninteresting. If it was on the message board it would be just an easily ignored pebble in an avalanche, but it takes a special kind of hubris to think that this mental vomit is special enough to warrant a diary.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||That's ridiculous. He's||
That's ridiculous. He's said numerous times that Denard can be Michigan's starting QB. (No coach, including Rich Rod, would ever guarantee that a player will be starting QB before the season starts, because it's supposed to be a competition). Borges said that they will build the offense around Denard as QB. Obviously, the plan is to build around Denard as QB.
People are looking for hidden code words to find some nefarious intent that doesn't exist. "Oh my god, he called Denard an amazing 'player'!!! He should have said QB that time! I don't care if he called him a QB fifty other times, calling him a 'player' that one time means he wants to make him a defensive back!!!!!"
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Don't doubt Mike Cox||
Don't doubt Mike Cox abilities. They will amaze and frighten you.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Without doing a thorough||
Without doing a thorough analysis, but based on actually watching the games, I would imagine that Hart was close to his average numbers against the Ohio States and Wisconsins of the world, while Smith padded his numbers against the Bowling Greens.
With some admitted exceptions, Smith didn't look like a true weapon against our toughest opponents last year (even when he had the advantage of not being the defense's focus). Hart chugged along for 4 ypg against the top teams, when they knew he was getting the ball.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Rodriguez never would have||
Rodriguez never would have said that, either. Its always a competition among the QBs on the roster. To say anything else is an insult to Devin (and any other QBs we may have).
|2 years 22 weeks ago||"You don't want to put a square peg in a round hole."||
There's no parsing those words. He will adjust to the players he has. Thank god, and step away from the ledge.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||That's the first time I've||
Yes, West Virginia had a recruiting advantage over South Florida, which was not even a IA school until recently. Not all teams from Florida are UF, Miami or FSU -- does Central Florida have a recuiting advantage too?
West Virginia had much better players than Pitt or South Florida, by any metric. Yet lost too both, despite their "schematic advantage."
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Have you ever heard the||
Have you ever heard the expression "crawl before you walk"? To start talking about national championships for this team is ridiculously hubristic right now. Let's compete in the Big 10, then we can talk about making the next step.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||West Virginia had a||
West Virginia had a recruiting ADVANTAGE over the other teams in the Big East. It had the best players in the conference. Yet, in Rodriguez's best season, it lost to far less talented teams from Pitt and South Florida.
Having a "schematic advantage" over teams like USC doesn't help if you don't win enough games in your own conference to get to play them in a bowl game.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Ever notice all the "coulds"||
Wow, it's almost as if human beings lack ability to predict the future, and thus must only speak in possibilities when assessing future performance. You really busted this story wide open.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||But Vincent Smith doesn't||
But Vincent Smith doesn't fumble! At least that's what people on this board kept insisting whenever I expressed dissatisfaction with him getting all of the carries.