|2 weeks 3 days ago||The US is out if they lose||
The US is out if they lose 1-0 and:
Ghana wins by two goals, or
Ghana wins by one in a goal blizzard (3-2 at least)
Portugal wins by five
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. If we lose 1-0 and Ghana wins 2-1, we're out based on total goals scored (tiebreaker after goal differential).
|3 weeks 6 days ago||You have to bear in mind that||
You have to bear in mind that courts have already ruled that even professional baseball players don't have a "right of publicity" in connection with their in-game performances. This obviously doesn't mean that pro athletes don't get paid -- they get paid because they can refuse to perform at all unless they get a paycheck. That is what should really be at the heart of the issue here.
Saying that college athletes, like pro athletes, don't get to sue TV stations for broadcasting an event that took place before tens of thousands of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid at all. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to collectively bargain with the NCAA for salaries, etc.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Fair point. Certainly the||
Fair point. Certainly the reason that access to the stadium is valuable is because a game is going on there,
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Apples and oranges. If I||
Apples and oranges. If I control a facility that seats 100,000 people, I can refuse to admit you unless you agree not to film what goes on and sell said film. That doesn't mean that if I appear before 100,000 people I am not appearing in "public."
|3 weeks 6 days ago||No problem, it's nice when||
No problem, it's nice when the weird stuff I deal with at work is actually a subject of interest.
To be clear, no court has ever expressly addressed the question of whether the First Amendment trumps a player's right of publicity for purposes of the broadcast of a game -- I'm giving my prediction of how that will turn out based on analogous cases, but I feel pretty confident in it.
The only case to actually involve athletes claiming that they had a right of publicity interest in broadcasts of a game was decided back in 1986. In that case, a federal appellate court held that a ballclub's copyright interest in the telecasts preempted the players' right of publicity--it didn't get into the First Amendment issue. I think that the decision in that case will be a problem for O'Bannon as well, though as BiSB notes in his post, there are some factual differences (most notably the explicit employment relationship between pro athletes and the ball clubs).
|3 weeks 6 days ago||The antitrust argument comes||
The antitrust argument comes into play with regard to the contract they are forced to sign, which gives the NCAA the right to use their images even on products -- a use that is not protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment issue is a broader one -- is you appear in public and participate in what you know to be a newsworthy event, you don't get to complain when someone puts that newsworthy event on TV, much less demand compensation after the fact. This rule applies to everyone, not just NCAA athletes.
If you want to say that NCAA athletes should be able to refuse to participate in those events in the first place without getting paid by the NCAA for their performance, that is certainly a different issue. But that doesn't mean that, once having chosen to participate, they can retroactively demand payment from everyone who broadcast the game.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Yes, but this is a resolved||
Yes, but this is a resolved issue. Courts have recognized that every expressive work is "commercial" to the extent that it is being sold. But the law recognizes a difference between creative (or newsworthy) works like films, television shows, books, etc -- even though the purpose of such works are to make a profit -- and "purely" commercial works such as advertisements and products (ie, Denard's face on a t-shirt). Films and television broadcasts get a lot more First Amendment protection even though, like everything in our capitalist utopia, they are sold for a profit.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||FWIW, the NCAA has argued||
FWIW, the NCAA has argued that they don’t sell the rights to the broadcast; they simply sell the right to access the premises. Seriously. They argue that ESPN pays the SEC a gajillion dollars for the right to put cameras in the building. The ‘broadcasting football and running ads’ thing is just a nice little bonus.
If you understand copyright law, this is not an absurd argument -- in fact, it is 100% correct.
The NCAA cannot sell the "rights" to a football game, because no one possesses "rights" to a football game. There is no copyright interest in the football game itself -- the game is not scripted in any way, it is not fixed in a tangible medium before the players go out and play, etc. The copyright exists only once the game is filmed, and the copyright subsides in whoever did the filming. So if the NCAA wants to give ABC, for example, the copyright interest in a football game, the only thing they can do is give ABC sole authority to film the game in the stadium.
As for whether the athletes have a right of publicity in connection with the use of their image in an in-game performance, it's really doubtful. Courts have previously held that the copyright in the telecasts of major league baseball games preempts the Players' rights of publicity in their game-time performances. http://openjurist.org/805/f2d/663/baltimore-orioles-inc-v-major-league-baseball-players-association
Also, the right of publicity is sharply circumscribed by the First Amendment, so it only can be used to prohibit commercial uses of a person's image -- ie, in advertising or on a product -- and not "expressive" uses (eg, use in a film or on a television show). The filming of a public sporting event for broadcast is an expressive work. Once a player voluntarily agrees to perform at a sporting event, in public, he loses the right to complain or demand payment for the display of that public performance.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Brilliant.||
|11 weeks 2 days ago||"This issue is NOT about||
"This issue is NOT about politics. It is about States Rights."
This issue is NOT about sports. It is about football.
This issue is NOT about physics. It is about string theory.
This issue is NOT about sex. It is about cunnilingus.
This issue is NOT about oxymorons. It is about jumbo shrimp.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||All Jewish alums living in||
All Jewish alums living in the Northeast are very happy. Looking forward to a Yom Kippur break-fast tailgate. Calling sunset for 5 pm that night.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Good to know. I am||
Good to know. I am definitely a believer in advanced statistics informing our analysis of sports, yet every time I hear people claiming that statistics show there is no such thing as a "hot hand" or a "clutch performer" I have to stifle the urge to yell that they must have never played a sport in their lives, and scream at them to get off my lawn.
At the risk of coming off like a 60 year old print journalist, I do think that anyone who has ever played a sport knows that there are some days that you are "on" and some days that you are "off" -- the ball feels right in your hand and it seems like you can throw a watermelon through the basket, or everything feels discombobulated and the easiest lay up is no given. It never seemed to make sense when people insist that, if a player is a 40% three-point shooter, the next shot has a 40% chance of going in, regardless of how the player is performing on a particular day. Nice to have some actual analysis backing up my gut feeling.
|12 weeks 6 days ago||Yes, let's go back to||
Yes, let's go back to rebanning politics immediately after I've said something silly so that no one can call me on it.
If you really think that Jason Collins, who was in the league for 12 years and was the last player to try to call attention to himself, came out for "greater fame," I don't know what to tell you.
If you think that Michael Sam, who was solidly projected as a third round draft pick, came out for "greater fame," despite the fact that a number of anonymous GMS have admitted that they would be less likely to draft him because of potential locker room issues, I don't know what to tell you.
You say you don't want to hear "announcements" about players coming out, but you don't think that if a player started dating men openly and publicly there would be a million news articles and Internet reports on it? You don't think that NFL teams would have learned that Michael Sam was gay, after he came out to his teammates?
If something is going to become news anyway, it is perfectly appropriate for a player to make the announcement on his own terms, rather than have it come out through rumor and innuendo. That doesn't make the player a fame whore. Hopefully someday it will be the case that a player being gay is not news at all, rendering announcements unnecessary, but we ain't there yet.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Even if we didn't get the||
Even if we didn't get the charge call, we had the steal. It will be ridiculous if there's any controversy about that call.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Dear god, I love this team,||
Dear god, I love this team, but they sure like to give me agita :)
|15 weeks 5 days ago||Me too. And then I felt||
Me too. And then I felt ashamed. Really ashamed. Really, REALLY ashamed.
And then interested ...
|16 weeks 1 day ago||I wouldn't want McGary to||
I wouldn't want McGary to come back unless those-who-know have great confidence that he is healthy enough -- don't risk your future for our sakes, Mitch.
Even if he was completely healthy, I probably wouldn't want him to come back during this tournament -- it takes time to (re)develop chemistry, and there is no need to mess with a rotation that has been great for us this year.
That said, the one scenario in which I would possibly want McGary to come back during the tournament is if we play MSU in the finals -- after what happened on Sunday, I think the need for a more powerful inside presence against those guys outweighs the risk of adversely affecting chemistry.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Amazing article, and great||
Amazing article, and great highlights. For some reason my computer froze when I was about halfway through the article. Oh well, I'm sure I didn't miss anything worthwhile.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Absolutely.||
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, if we lose to Wofford it||
Yes, if we lose to Wofford it will be all my fault.
Setting aside the fact that absolutely nothing I post will have any effect on the result of Thursday's game, do you really think that Beilein and his staff are going to spend the next three days exclusively scouting Wofford, and are not going to watch any film of either Texas or ASU until Thursday night? If so, you are very, very wrong. I just think it's strange that its OK for our coaching staff to think a little bit about potential second round opponents, but god forbid someone on a message board ask a question about one.
Also, I assume that you also called out Brian for daring to mention to #1, 2 and 4 seeds in our region on the main page, since they are all irrelevant right now and he is just tempting the karma gods. Everyone knows that once the NCAA brackets come out you have to ignore every aspect of them other than your first round opponent.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Fortunately none of us||
Fortunately none of us actually play for the team, so if we look ahead to the second round it will have absolutely no impact on what happens on Thursday.
I'm curious why it is apparently no problem for everyone to assess the strength of the 1, 3 and 4 seeds in our region, yet people are jumping up my ass for asking about a 7 seed who I assume Kenpom will give us approximately a 60% chance of actually playing.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Thanks. Those rebounding||
Thanks. Those rebounding numbers scare me. Go ASU, I guess.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Didn't mean to suggest that||
Didn't mean to suggest that Texas is a lock, or even a good bet, to beat ASU. Just that I have a better sense of who ASU is, and while I respect them I'm not overly concerned that they pose a potential matchup problem for us. Just trying to get a sense of a team that I know less about, and whether they are particularly built to take advantage of our weaknesses.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||'We will win by turnover if||
'We will win by turnover if we have less than seven tens.
|17 weeks 14 hours ago||You've posted the same thing||
You've posted the same thing in two threads now. Are you a self-appointed moderator?
And you're incorrect. The presence of an open thread to discuss the BTT generally does not preclude a specific thread to discuss our next opponent after a game ends.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||I am so confused right now.||
I am so confused right now.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||Seven's the key number here.||
Seven's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. Seven dwarves. Seven, man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirlin on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||I can't decide if your post||
I can't decide if your post would have been funnier or less funny if you added a /s at the end of it.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Again, he's questioning the||
Again, he's questioning the length of the procedure, not saying that he should have been expelled without any process whatsoever.
Be honest -- if an MSU or OSU football player was accused of rape in his freshman year, and then expelled in his senior year (after his eligibility was essentially expired), would you be so charitable in assuming the university was just following proper procedure.
I'm not saying UM did anything nefarious here. But at the very least by allowing the process to take so freaking long they opened themselves up to an unnecessary shitstorm.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||What does that have to do||
What does that have to do with questioning the slowness of the investigation?
It is bizarre that he would be expelled three years after the incident took place.
Even if there was no sinister reason, the University has unnecessarily opened itself up to criticism. A football player is expelled THREE YEARS AFTER a rape allegation, coincidentally after his eligibility is all used up? Let's be honest -- what would we be saying if this happened at MSU or OSU? Not "innocent until proven guilty" I'm sure.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Why? He didn't presume||
Why? He didn't presume guilt. He questioned why the investigation took three years.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Anyone have any video of the||
Anyone have any video of the Appling/Levert noncall that set Beilein off? Missed it during the game, and I'm having trouble finding video on the world wide interwebs.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||And you just won the||
And you just won the championship of douchebaggery! Congratulations!
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Don't you mean three straight||
Don't you mean three straight top 10 wins?
Oh, sorry, my bad. i accidentally posted this FROM THE FUTURE bwah ha ha ha . . .
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Can't believe Stauskas missed||
Can't believe Stauskas missed the dagger :)
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Yep, I've been lurking but||
Yep, I've been lurking but had to log in when that happened!
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Irvin just got "not just a||
Irvin just got "not just a shooter" props! But he is just a shooter! I'm so confused!
|25 weeks 2 days ago||He was trying to get one foul||
He was trying to get one foul shot for Penn State so that Kenpom would be exactly right.
|25 weeks 2 days ago||Kenpom looking really good||
Kenpom looking really good right now.
|26 weeks 18 hours ago||Whooosh.||
|36 weeks 1 day ago||Dear lord - was that a Lloyd||
Dear lord - was that a Lloyd Brady sighting at 2:24? Is Lloyd Brady immortal? Is Lloyd Brady a . . . gasp . . . vampire?
|37 weeks 16 hours ago||As if the hit was so||
As if the hit was so devistating that it caused him to completely reevaluate his life and decide to do a project like this...
I didn't get that at all from the article.
It was a nice article - no, it wasn't perfect (should have included the name of the charity), but the charity and Smith's character were certainly the focus. The hit was just the hook that was used to get the casual reader to click on the article, which is a good thing -- I'm sure Vince has no qualms with using the hit if it gets more publicity for Hope for Pahokee.
|37 weeks 3 days ago||Then I'm not sure why you||
Then I'm not sure why you were calling me out for failing to grasp "black humor" when I was responding to The2nd_JEH, not Trebor. In fact, I'm not sure why you were calling out anyone for failing to grasp the "inside joke," when no one responded to Trebor's post. Doesn't seem there was a single poster who failed to grasp the joke.
|37 weeks 3 days ago||I'm confused. Are you really||
I'm confused. Are you really suggesting that The2nd_JEH's intent was to parody some kind of "blame Barwis" hysteria over injuries that apparently existed four years ago (which I certainly don't recall)? I don't see anything in any of his posts to suggest such parodic intent.
Or are your just projecting your preoccupation with the Rich Rod battles of yesteryear onto a post that has nothing to do with Rodriguez or his coaching staff?
|37 weeks 3 days ago||There is no occurrence that||
There is no occurrence that someone on this board will not somehow tie into a call to "reevaluate" some portion of the coaching staff.
Seven of our players were bitten on the ass by a Sumatran rat monkey and are now flesh-eating zombies!
We really need to take a hard look at Curt Mallory. If those players had their hips on a swivel this never would have happened.
|40 weeks 6 days ago||Don't blame ESPN - people can||
Don't blame ESPN - people can control the settings of their own fantasy league. If a league has a stupid rule, its not the fault of the service provider that gives them the option of having a stupid rule.
I've never been in a league that docks points for missed field goals -- extra points yes, but not field goals.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Ugh. I'm bringing my 6 year||
Ugh. I'm bringing my 6 year old daughter to the game, and I know a lot of people planning on bringing young kids as well. 8 pm would be absolutely horrible.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Seriously, you're giving||
Seriously, you're giving Borges shit for calling for a pass play on 3rd and 12? One of the things that people love about this coaching staff is their aggressiveness, but you're saying that we should be sitting on a two score lead with almost an entire quarter left against a team that had been moving the ball easily? That's ridiculous.
Oh, but Borges made a bad call against Notre Dame last year, so your point is proven, I guess. What an insipid post.
|46 weeks 2 days ago||You are wrong, but don't let||
You are wrong, but don't let that stop you from doubling down!
First, you seem to think that if you accuse someone of a crime without their being previously convicted in a court of law constitutes libel. That is insanely incorrect. If what you say is true, it is not libel, whether or not the person has been convicted. Moreover, the standard for proving truth in a civil action is only preponderance of the evidence, whereas to convict someone of a crime they need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, as another poster has noted, where the plaintiff is a public figure he needs to prove that the person making the statement acted with actual malice, knowing that the statement was untrue when made. As a practical matter, that makes it virtually impossible for someone in Gibbons position to win a libel action such as this.
But whatever, you read a dictionary definition. You are totally qualified to give legal advice.
|47 weeks 18 hours ago||Actually it's very||
Actually it's very different. Polls are not predictions -- polls ask likely voters how they will actually vote, so you expect efficient polling to reflect what will actually happen. The person polled has an impact on the result.
People giving predictions have no impact on the result, and you wouldn't expect predictions to have such a high degree of accuracy.
|51 weeks 3 days ago||I like to think myself above||
I like to think myself above the obviousness of "That's what she said" jokes, and certainly above homophobic/gay jokes, so I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But did this line jump out at anybody else?
Michigan State’s receivers much preferred the softness of Kirk Cousins’s balls.
Edited: I should have realized the very first poster would beat me to this one.
|52 weeks 14 hours ago||Yeah! Right on! Why haven't||
Yeah! Right on! Why haven't there been any game threads about a guy who has yet to play a summer league game yet, huh?!?
|1 year 2 weeks ago||You're absolutely right. I||
You're absolutely right. I missed the part of his post where Section 1 brought race into it. My apologies, I shouldn't have called you out when I obviously hadn't read the post closely. Shows what I get for defending him!
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Really? You're going to make||
Really? You're going to make me defend Section 1?
Not sure how you can acknowledge that the claim of monthly KKK marches is an "untruth," yet in the same breath accuse Section 1 of being a "race-baiting troll" for pointing that out.
That Ole Miss has had more than its share of issues when it comes to race relations is indisputable. Doesn't change the fact that falsely accusing the school of hosting monthly KKK marches is idiotic.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Not sure why you were||
Not sure why you were downvoted for this, but I'll try to rectify. You're absolutely correct. Notwithstanding Mississippi's dubious history on racial matters, Ole Miss can't be held accountable for the fact that KKK morons decided to hold a rally on campus, any more than Ann Arbor can be deemed racist because the KKK held a rally there in 1996. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/klan-security-detail/
|1 year 3 weeks 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 year 4 weeks 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 year 4 weeks 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.
|1 year 7 weeks 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.
|1 year 9 weeks 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?
|1 year 12 weeks ago||You're losing this one,||
You're losing this one, Champ. Badly. Maybe step away from the keyboard for a while.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Coach K once broke all of my||
Coach K once broke all of my fingers right before my big piano recital.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Interesting that they've . .|
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Whoa Whoa Whoa . . .||
|1 year 18 weeks 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?
|1 year 18 weeks 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.
|1 year 18 weeks 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.
|1 year 18 weeks 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!
|1 year 21 weeks 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.
|1 year 21 weeks 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.
|1 year 21 weeks 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 . . .
|1 year 21 weeks 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.
|1 year 21 weeks 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.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||What a bizarre statement.||
What a bizarre statement. Care to elaborate, because I honestly have no clue what you're thinking.
|1 year 24 weeks 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?
|1 year 32 weeks 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.
|1 year 33 weeks 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.
|1 year 33 weeks 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?
|1 year 33 weeks 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.
|1 year 45 weeks 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!
|2 years 4 weeks 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.
|2 years 4 weeks 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.
|2 years 9 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.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Why don't you say it a third||
Why don't you say it a third time?
|2 years 19 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.
|2 years 19 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.
|2 years 19 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.
|2 years 20 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.
|2 years 20 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.
|2 years 21 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.
|2 years 21 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.
|2 years 21 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.]
|2 years 23 weeks ago||That article is freaking||
That article is freaking brilliant, and anyone who doesn't recognize that should be ashamed.
|2 years 23 weeks ago||Careful, you're going to end||
Careful, you're going to end up on this website.
|2 years 23 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?
|2 years 23 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.
|2 years 24 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.
|2 years 24 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.
|2 years 24 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.
|2 years 25 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.
|2 years 25 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.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Brilliant, detailed and||
Brilliant, detailed and conclusive. Well done.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Spelling error. It's MOAR||
Spelling error. It's MOAR defense!
|2 years 31 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.
|2 years 31 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.
|2 years 31 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."
|2 years 32 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?
|2 years 32 weeks ago||Why "quibble" at all with 40||
Deleted and moved to proper place
|2 years 32 weeks ago||People are making objective||
People are making objective points about his record of success. You are making subjective statements about his likeability.
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 32 weeks ago||Charles Woodson = Blake||
Charles Woodson = Blake Countess 1.0
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 32 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.
|2 years 33 weeks ago||Deleted and moved to the||
Deleted and moved to the proper place
|2 years 33 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.
|2 years 33 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.
|2 years 39 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.
|2 years 39 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.
|2 years 40 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.
|2 years 41 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).
|2 years 41 weeks ago||<iframe width="420"||
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kdhhQhqi_AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|2 years 41 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>
|2 years 41 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.
|2 years 41 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).
|2 years 41 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.
|2 years 41 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.
|2 years 41 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.
|2 years 42 weeks ago||You know, I didn't realize||
You know, I didn't realize you were responding to that specific post. My bad.
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 42 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."
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 42 weeks ago||Well, you're definitely||
Well, you're definitely missing something.
|2 years 42 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."
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 42 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".
|2 years 42 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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).
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||No, he didn't.||
No, he didn't.
|2 years 43 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!
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Unfortunately, I did watch||
Unfortunately, I did watch the game
What a terrible choice of words.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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).
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Hey, I provide fuzzy BALL!||
Hey, I provide fuzzy BALL! SINGULAR!
|2 years 43 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!"
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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?
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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?
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||YOU ARE YELLING SO LOUD THAT||
YOU ARE YELLING SO LOUD THAT YOU MISSED THE FACT THAT I WAS JOKING!!!!
|2 years 43 weeks ago||That was early in the week.||
That was early in the week. Later on he indicated that Cam might not be ready.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 43 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.
|2 years 44 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.
|2 years 45 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.
|2 years 45 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!
|2 years 47 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.
|2 years 47 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.
|2 years 47 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;
|3 years 3 days 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?
|3 years 3 days 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"?
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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!".
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 3 days 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.
|3 years 4 days 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.
|3 years 2 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.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||Alternate headline:||
Jim Tressel denies any knowledge of rules
|3 years 5 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!
|3 years 5 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
|3 years 6 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.
|3 years 6 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]
|3 years 7 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.