Recent Comments

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.

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! 

or

2)  He was just making an innocent joke about the Piston's recent troubles.

Which oh which could it be?

Coach K once broke all of my fingers right before my big piano recital.

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.

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!

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.

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.

What a bizarre statement.  Care to elaborate, because I honestly have no clue what you're thinking.

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.

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?

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!

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.

Why don't you say it a third time?

If only you had access to the internet, you could just type that word into an online dictionary and have the answer.

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.  

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.

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.]

Careful, you're going to end up on this website.

http://literallyunbelievable.org/

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.

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.

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.

Brilliant, detailed and conclusive.  Well done.

He does get that.  He's saying that it's a travesty that teams are selected based on $ rather than merit.  

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."

Deleted and moved to proper place

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.

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.

Charles Woodson = Blake Countess 1.0

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.

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.

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.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kdhhQhqi_AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/fox-sports-apologizes-for_n_952395.html

Well, you're definitely missing something.

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.  

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".

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

"More."

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!"

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?

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.

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.

YOU ARE YELLING SO LOUD THAT YOU MISSED THE FACT THAT I WAS JOKING!!!!

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.  

Yes, casting aspersions on Fox News is exactly as bad as making fun of people because of their ethnicity.  Well stated.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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. 

Brian didn't write this, it's a guest post.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Well then . . . . nevermind

[I tried to embed video of Gilda Radner saying "nevermind", but failed.  I'm just full of fail on this post]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

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.

Harder to read on the toilet, though.  Yeah, I went there.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with that anchor, at least until the final year of his contract.  Who would want him?

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

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.

I dunk because they manufacture 7 foot baskets for a reason.

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?

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?

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?

Thank you, Captain Obvious.  That was kind of the point of the post.

Looks like his avatar's going to need some new FBI guys.

Sentences have verbs.  Yours is verbless.  You have failed.  (Three for the price of one!)

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.

Bloody Mary's, made with Sriracha and horseradish.  You will see God.

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.

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!!!!!"

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.

First and foremost, you want to make sure you're utilizing your personnel in the best way.  You don't want to put a square peg in a round hole.  I think sometimes coaches make a mistake that, you know "I'm gonna do what I need to do no matter what," and sometimes you gotta step back from that.  This is never gonna be about the coaches, it's gonna be about the guys who are playing, and who gives your program, your team, the best opportunity to be successful. . . .  There's difference ways to do things, the spread, and different types of spread . . . we've been able, because of the personnel, to do a lot of those things, and Denard fits right in there with what we'd like to do.

There's no parsing those words.  He will adjust to the players he has.  Thank god, and step away from the ledge. 

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.

Ever notice all the "coulds" and "mights"?

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.