|1 week 6 days ago||I still think it's going to||
I still think it's going to be hard for Zak Irvin to erase this year's first MSU game from the top line of his Michigan legacy ....
Hah, hahahahaah. I can't tell you how happy I am that Irvin was not only amazing in the most important game of his career, but that his outside shot was on fire. So glad that he turned around his Michigan legacy so definitively, and is going to be remembered glowingly for the rest of his life.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Well if they were to go head||
Well if they were to go head to head I would take Aaron Burr over him.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||I hope he doesn't throw away||
I hope he doesn't throw away his shot. I heard he's young scrappy and hungry, but the problem is he has a lot of brains but no polish.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||This is wonderful parody.||
This is wonderful parody. For those of you who don't get it, read the thread two posts down. Reserve your downvotes for that piece of excrement.
|21 weeks 2 days ago||The North remembers, and this||
The North remembers, and this mummer's farce is almost done.
Actually, wait. Forget the "almost." This mummer's farce is done. Enjoy having Christmas break off, Sparty.
|27 weeks 4 days ago||You're looking at stats||
You're looking at stats without context. In the first game that he faced a decent secondary he couldn't complete a single throw downfield, and couldn't complete a pass to the guy who is supposedly our best receiver. Almost all of his yards were on long runs after short passes. If this wasn't disconcerting then you weren't paying attention.
|28 weeks 22 hours ago||With Braden/Bredeson||
With Braden/Bredeson struggling so much, is there any reason Kugler didn't get any run? Or is there an injury that I'm not aware of?
I remember everyone being very excited with Kugler as a recruit given his pedigree, and he seemed to do well against Hawaii. Is there any hope that he can shore up our weak spot?
|28 weeks 6 days ago||(No subject)||
|29 weeks 1 day ago||What are you talking about?||
What are you talking about? Liquidated damages provisions in contracts are typical. In any case, this isn't so much a "penalty clause" as an agreed upon cancellation fee that allows the parties to terminate the contract before its end date. You can't just unilaterally cancel a contract with no consequences.
|32 weeks 5 hours ago||Re Colorado||
When last we saw them: Michigan has never ever played Colorado ever don’t bother searching for it on Youtube because there’s nothing to see here.
Obviously I know what game you're referring to, but wasn't the last time we played them in 1997? If I recall correctly, that was the game when we first realized that HOLY SHIT OUR DEFENSE IS A WORLD-DESTROYING MONSTER!
|35 weeks 3 days ago||If that site's not working,||
If that site's not working, try this:
|35 weeks 3 days ago||Here's the website. Michigan||
Here's the website. Michigan Alumni Club is sitting in section 113.
|38 weeks 6 days ago||Whenever I hear his name I think of Dr. Seuss||
|44 weeks 22 hours ago||"Random" fat guy? That was||
"Random" fat guy? That was Alvin from the Cosby Show! You fucking millenials.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||It's a free rider issue. If||
It's a free rider issue. If a magical genie were to tell me today that football as a sport would cease to exist if I stopped watching, I would feel morally compelled to stop watching for the health benefits of those who play. But that's not going to happen -- if I, individually, stop watching, it's not going to change a damn thing.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||It's not that complicated.||
It's not that complicated. The game is tremendously entertaining -- I'm sure that all of us became fans long before we knew of the long term health problems caused by playing.
Now that we know of those health consequences, if any of us individually were to stop watching, it would not change a thing -- the game would still be played, so we might as well enjoy it. (I acknowledge there is a major free rider phenomena occurring here.) But we can control whether our own children suffer from these health problems, so we do.
Also, you seem to present the issue as football or nothing. There are other sports that we watch and enjoy in addition to football. If our children aren't playing football, odds are that they're playing soccer instead, or something else. If, among the many sports I enjoy, I encourage my kids to do something other than football, that doesn't mean that I am only allowed to follow the one sport that they play going forward.
|47 weeks 6 days ago||During that time frame the||
During that time frame the Big 10 has produced two of the greatest quarterbacks of all time (Brady and Brees), and one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL today (Wilson). So I think this stat says a lot more about NFL drafting than the quality of Big 10 quarterback play.
Brady, Brees and Wilson versus JaMarcus Russell, hmmm. Tough call.
|47 weeks 6 days ago||I don't see this as||
I don't see this as hypocritical at all. No reason they should put themselves at a competitive disadvantage -- if other schools are going to come into their territory, they should be able to go to other areas.
The problem was that they were trying to force their self-imposed protectionist measures on the rest of the NCAA. Now that that ploy has failed, I have no problem with them participating on an even playing field.
|51 weeks 6 days ago||It's pretty great. If he were||
It's pretty great.
If he were here, Chuck Norris would slap you.
|1 year 1 week ago||I never doubted it for a||
I never doubted it for a minute.
|1 year 1 week ago||Irvin under 65% from the line||
Irvin under 65% from the line for the season. That's terrible.
Good job here, though.
|1 year 1 week ago||Holy shit Irvin hit a||
Holy shit Irvin hit a shot.
Hey and Walton apparently only play well with a minute or less left.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||If only there were some way||
If only there were some way you could send an email to the site's proprietors, perhaps using a link labeled "contact," so that you could contact them directly about this rather than start a thread about something that is of absolutely no interest to anyone else on the board.
Alas, that technology is still decades away.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me???
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me????
|1 year 3 weeks ago||One weird thing about this||
One weird thing about this season -- I don't think we've had a single heartbreaking loss. No game that we should have won but gave away in the final minutes. No buzzer-beaters made against us, or missed by us. Every single game we lost, we just straight up LOST. There's not a single game I can point to and say "oh, if only that play had gone differently, our it would have changed our whole season."
Not sure whether that makes me feel better or worse.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||"If we pull off a huge upset||
"If we pull off a huge upset against a top 10 team on the road, we shouldn't have to worry about making the tournament!"
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Deleted and moved -- this was supposed to be a reply to someone
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Rutgers is ranked 72 in US News and World Report college rankings, only slightly behind Maryland (57), and ahead of numerous Big Ten schools including Indiana, Michigan State, Iowa, and others. Not sure where the belief that Rutgers is poor academically comes from.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||How does fact that BC games||
How does fact that BC games were low scoring show that defenses have an "inherent advantage" over offenses? That's like saying that the fact that Baylor games are high scoring means that offense has an inherent advantage over defense.
Offenses don't put up points in a vacuum. The number of points an offense scores depends, in part, on the quality of the defense they play. If you play a terrible defense you usually score more than your average number of points, a mediocre defense you score your average number of points, and a good defense you score less than your average number of points.
If a great defense plays a great offense, the offense will score less than it usually does, but on the other hand the defense will give up more point than it usually does. This doesn't mean that one has an "inherent advantage" over the other.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||It is a truism in football||
It is a truism in football that if a great defense plays a great offense that the great defense usually wins. I have seen this happen so many times that I pretty much expect Bama to win.
Well, I dispute your overall premise. I haven't seen any stats or evidence showing that a "great" defense beats a "great" offense more than 50% of the time. Those terms are subjective in any event, so what you consider "great" can be altered so that the results meet your expectations. I mean, by most metrics Boston College had a "great" defense this year, yet they barely won any games, even against mediocre offenses.
As for your Alabama point, when you're using Alabama as an illustration the real question is "why does a team with the best defense in the country and also a pretty darn good offense usually beat its opponents?" The answer is pretty obvious. A team with a great defense, by definition, will usually hold a great offense to less than its usual number of points. So, for example, a Baylor or Oregon will score 28 points instead of 45. Combine that with a darn good offense as well, and it's hardly a surprise when a team like Alabama wins championships.
Hopefully it is a model that we follow next year.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||In addition to all the||
In addition to all the factors Brian noted, we simply can't get away anymore with having one big man surrounded by four wing players.
It worked when we had six NBA players on the roster, but even then we had problems defending and rebounding against the Michigan States of the world, and needed ungodly offensive performances to pull out victories. You simply can't count on that, game-in and game-out, no matter how much of an offensive genius Beilein is. It's a lot easier to win games, even when your shots aren't falling, if you can outrebound your opponent and defend inside.
This team desperately needs a true stretch four who can play alongside a center, instead of masquerading as one. I hope, hope, hope that after this year, the plan is to play Wagner as a four, and have him play alongside Doyle, Teske, etc. (If Kam can ever learn to shoot a 3 he would be an ideal backup -- I'm not giving up hope on him yet). We need to have two people taller than 6'9 on the court at all times. Forcing the Irvins and Robinson's to guard power forwards is not going to work in an ordinary (read, non-Trey Burke, Stauskas, and/or Hardaway) year.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Maybe not this year given the||
Maybe not this year given the makeup of our roster (read, plethora of talented wings and dearth of big men), but in the long run is there any possibility of Moe playing power forward, next to a more traditional center (Doyle or Teske)?
For the entirety of Beilein's tenure he's been forced to play undersized guys at the 4, leading to major issues when we play teams with multiple big men. It would be so nice if, for once, we could trot out a true stretch four, rather than forcing a natural small forward to play that role. We'd be able to compete better on the boards and defensively without sacrificing spacing.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Makes little sense? He||
Makes little sense? He viciously took out Tejada without even pretending to go for second base, breaking the guys' leg. What makes little sense -- actually, no fucking sense whatsoever -- was that Utley was called safe even though he left the basepath and never even tried to touch second base. The suspension is warranted. Unfortunately it is too little too late, as the Dodgers got an undeserved win as a result of Utley's dirty play and umpire incompetence.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||Actually, he's saying that||
Actually, he's saying that Rudock doesn't see the field well, and because of that Michigan is making it simpler for him by having him only look at half the field.
And he's right. How many times this year has Rudock simply not seen a wide open receiver? Field vision is a skill, just like any part of a QB's game, and one in which Rudock is lacking.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Well, I for one think Mgoblog||
Well, I for one think Mgoblog is the perfect place for you to tout your skills as an airplane pilot and air your passive aggressive views of Captain Sullenberger. I mean, what else is this site for if not that?
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Disappointing ending. Allowed||
Disappointing ending. Allowed them to break 100 yards at the end. This unit better figure out how to close games or it's going to be a long season.
(I don't really have to add a /s, do I? That was freaking awesome.)
|1 year 27 weeks ago||As a NJ native, I can tell||
As a NJ native, I can tell you that your ranking of colleges is way, way off. Lafayette and Lehigh are not particularly impressive schools, and Rutgers and Maryland are certainly not "safetey" schools if you don't get into them.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||But you didn't say "he's||
But you didn't say "he's there because he wasn't going to get the opportunity to play multiple positions here." That would have been unobjectionable. Instead, you said that he transferred because "he was going to have to compete for it everyday" here, making it seem like he was afraid of competition. Which was a complete misrepresentation of what was in the article, and a dick thing to say about someone who played hard for Michigan for years.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||The checkmark shows up next||
The checkmark shows up next to his name in his biography, but not on each individual tweet.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||I haven't seen this||
I haven't seen this supposedly-deleted Harbaugh tweet discussed anywhere on this thread, so apologies if it's been posted already. Anyone know anything about whether this is legit? Truly hope not.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, but in the first film didn't Sam Neill's character have a similar arc, in which he didn't like kids at first but then discovered a paternal side in protecting Hammond's grandkids from velociraptors (as one does)? I recall one of the final shots of the movie was the kids resting against him in the helicopter, while Laura Dern looked on approvingly.
As a larger issue I agree that popular media sometimes suggests to women that their greatest value is as a set of ovaries, but given that this franchise has already done a similar arc with a dude in this instance it may be a case of homage, rather than retrograde misogyny.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Dear god people. No, it was||
Dear god people. No, it was not a serious question.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic||
"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic Park, not Game of Thrones.
I haven't seen it yet, but here are some spoilers nevertheless . . .
Someone will express concern about keeping all these dinosaurs in a theme park. Those in charge of the theme park will pooh pooh those concerns, claiming that their systems are state of the art, and there is no possibility that dinosaurs will escape.
Dinosaurs will nevertheless escape.
Some people will be eaten. The audience will not really care because wooh, dinosaurs!
Children will be in danger. They will not be eaten.
At the end of the day, the children, the hero and his love interest will be saved, and most people at the park will escape from danger. We will all learn a valuable lesson about attempting to bend nature to our will. But it will be clear that some have not learned that lesson, and that danger will again rear it's ugly head in oh, let's say three summers from now.
Apropos of nothing, I remember seeing the first Jurassic Park in theatres. Before the movie started, the woman in front of me was asking her friend about the title -- "What does Jurassic mean? Is that just a made-up word?" Anyone know the answer to her question?
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Upvoted for excellent use of||
Upvoted for excellent use of the term "plot armor."
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Also giants work just as well||
Also giants work just as well we found out.
Not so. The giant was stomping wights, ie the reanimated dead (zombies). Those are relatively easy to kill, the problem is that there are just so many of them (and their numbers are easily replenished).
The white walkers are the blue-eyed scaries that create the wights. They cannot be killed except by dragonglass or, as we now see, dragonsteel. (My guess is that dragonfire will work as well, which may be something we discover in the final season).
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Yes.||
|1 year 43 weeks ago||In honor of the character||
In honor of the character Moritz from the musical Spring Awakening, we should dedicate this song to our opponents whenever Wagner hits a backbreaking shot.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Pipe down, fuzzy.||
Pipe down, fuzzy.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Look on the bright side!||
Now we won't have such a logjam and difficulty finding minutes for our players of the future! Moritz Wagner, who otherwise would have been relegated to the bench, will emerge as the platonic ideal of a Beilein stretch 4, a magnificent combination of Dirk Nowitzki, Detlef Schrempf, and whatever other tall, white German NBA players I can think of! Aubrey Dawkins will learn how to play defense, and will instantaneously develop into a lottery pick! The players on this team will complement each other perfectly, who needs the distraction of a 6'7 superathlete who can slash to the rim and slam the ball at will . . . .
Shit. I was on the verge of convincing myself.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Derryck Thornton's dad has||
Derryck Thornton's dad has told a few people that Spike Albrecht might end up redshirting after his hip surgeries this offseason.
Spike redshirting might alleviate a potential problem re a lot of good players without enough minutes to go around (a good problem to have -- I'm not complaining), but even if he redshirts that wouldn't open up a scholarship, would it? How would we ever have room for Williams absent a Hatch medical scholarship, and wouldn't that mean that Jaylen Brown is officially out of the picture?
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Jinx!||
|1 year 52 weeks ago||I went from 6 to 12. Oh,||
I went from 6 to 12.
Oh, "wins." We were talking about wins.
|2 years 6 days ago||acquit verb [T] (DECIDE NOT||
|2 years 1 week ago||He did have a downfield||
He did have a downfield threat by the name of Derrick Alexander, perhaps you've heard of him. They hooked up to the tune of almost 1400 yards in 2000
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Player deciding to put his||
Player deciding to put his health over football has nothing to do with Harbaugh, and is not a reason to point and laugh at the 49ers management. We have plenty enough legitimate reasons to do so.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Agreed. As much as I've||
Agreed. As much as I've loved watching the beautiful basketball that Beilein has brought us (yay, alliteration), even our best teams have struggled against size. Even the 2013 team needed a miracle comeback to get past Jeff Withey and Kansas.
It will be really nice if, one of these days, we can turn out a team with a true center and a stretch power forward who can defend down low and rebound, so that we're not always playing David v. Goliath against the Kentuckys and Wisconsins of the world. We had a shot at that in 2013, before Mitch was injured. Oh, what might have been.
Can you imagine a typically-skilled Beilein team, with rebounding and free-throw advantages thrown in? That would be amazing. Hopefully Moritz is a step in that direction.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Great to hear that assessment||
Great to hear that assessment of Wagner. My early impression of him was that he was a potentially game-changine, 5-star level recruit, but then I started seeing people on the board suggest that we don't really need him, that Duncan Robinson would fill the same role, that another year of Max would be preferable, etc. People were all over the place about what to expect from him.
If he is really the equivalent of a top 30ish recruit, he may in fact be a game-changer -- the first true stretch 4 that Beilein has had at Michigan since Evan Smotrzy . . . Evan Smtrye . . . Evan Metrics (but a lot better, hopefully).
I'm daydreaming about an upperclassman Ricky Doyle at center, Wagner at PF, and the typical assortment of Beilein studs at the 1-3 spots. For the first time in forever (ht Disney) we may have a team with amazing offensive efficiency but also some real size/rebounding ability down low.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||You miss my point. I have no||
You miss my point. I have no problem with him discussing the Fab Five in his documentary.
In the linked video, he acts as if Jalen Rose had recently called him a "bitch" and a "pussy." Which is not remotely true -- Jalen was describing how he felt about Laettner as a stupid 18 year old, but not attempting to justify those feelings.
I think Laettner's feigned offense is particularly ironic since it arises in the midst of his promoting his own documentary about how everyone hated him when he was in college.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||What I took from it was that||
What I took from it was that Jalen said this is what we thought, and boy were we wrong.
Exactly. In the linked video Laettner acts as if Jalen called him a pussy today, when Jalen actually was saying "when I was a stupid 18 year old, I thought Laettner was a pussy."
And it's particularly ironic that he whines about this while at the same time promoting his own documentary about people not liking him in college.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||He was responding to an||
He was responding to an earlier poster who said that the bar for free speech should be lower for a university. He was explaining why free speech rights are generally protected at an even higher level at universities, which are an important part of the marketplace of ideas.
His comment was clearly speaking about free speech issues generally, not saying that the particular statements by the SAE racists is valuable.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Come now. He neither said||
Come now. He neither said nor implied any such thing.
Speech does not need to be deemed valuable to be protected by the First Amendment. The whole point of the First Amendment would be frustrated if speech had to pass some subjective evaluation of "worthiness" before being protected.
None of this is to defend the evil and awful conduct of the SAE members. It's just laying out some basic legal principles that would seem to restrain OU from expelling them.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Absolutely no one is denying||
Absolutely no one is denying that what the racist assholes did was horrible, evil and had no redeeming value. Some people are saying that the First Amendment nevertheless prevents them from being punished by the government for such statements. Expulsion from a state university qualifies as punishment by the government.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Just want to comment that||
Just want to comment that people really shouldn't be negging Nacho Man. He is making an arguably correct statement that the First Amendment prohibits the University of Oklahoma -- a government entity -- from punishing students for private (reprehensible) speech. He is not defending the conduct of the racist assholes.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||A tired joke can be funny in||
A tired joke can be funny in a new context. I.e., in the limited context of Harbaugh wearing an Oakland A's jersey, the joke is now funny again.
Thank you for joining us for this week's edition of "Comedy Explained."
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Don't worry about it, could||
Don't worry about it, could happen to anyone.
On an unrelated note, were you bummed when college football adopted overtime in 1996, and was 1992 your favorite Michigan football season of all time?
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Dude, I know you! You're the||
Dude, I know you! You're the one who had that weird thing with your sister, right?
Sorry to blow your spot.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||First name: Omar City:||
First name: Omar
City: Baltimore, MD
High School: Edmondson HS, West Baltimore
Sports you played in HS/college: None, but I knew a guy who played lacrosse
Occupation: I rip and run
Hobbies: Enjoy whistling, especially old nursery rhymes
|2 years 4 weeks ago||This is such a nothing issue.||
This is such a nothing issue. They didn't "approve" anything -- they said that if you want to go out and try to get famous people to write a song about Michigan, go crazy. It's a free country. They didn't provide any funding, they didn't suggest that the student government would officially adopt the song in the (unlikely) event it is actually written.
Way too much ink has been spilled (uh, keyboards have been mashed?) over this non-story already.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Something can be both funny||
Something can be both funny and bad-natured at the same time. See, e.g., 50% of all insults leveled in high school.
Brian correctly realized that putting a 19-year old on blast by posting a goofy photo of him was ill-advised. But if this is the hill you want to die on, so be it.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Language isn't that rigid,||
Language isn't that rigid, and I contend that surely you can identify levels of uniqueness in a completely colloquial way.
There are many people who take that position towards language, so I recognize that your position has some merit, and I say this with all due respect:
Fuck that shit. I hate it that linguistic errors become "colloquialisms" just because people misuse a word often enough. And I hate it that dictionaries now include these misuses as alternative definitions. It literally makes my head explode.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||The article says he's only||
The article says he's only spoken to Durkin once or twice since signing day. The context is that he has not been speaking to any schools much since signing day.
Not saying we have a great shot, but the suggestion that he has never really talked to Durkin is false.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Good to know that you think||
Good to know that you think 19 year olds can never be criticized. I'd love to know what happens to a kid who gets an A- or doesnt get a trophy in your world.
Oh, give me a break. Weiss is certainly already being criticized, and painfully mocked, within his community at the University of Michigan. I'm sure he was already in a world of shit before Brian joined the fray.
Saying that a website with a national platform shouldn't exponentially compound a young man's humiliation is not remotely the same thing as saying that 19 year olds can never be criticized.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||This has nothing to do with||
This has nothing to do with "how social media works." His twitter feed had nothing to do with his CSG proposal.
In this day, everyone has a public online profile to some extent. That doesn't mean it's OK for a 36 year old man to mock a 19 year old by picking out a photo and essentially saying "look at this idiot."
Imagine some of the stupid shit you said or did as a 19 year old. Now imagine that, immediately after you said it, a website with a huge following, run by a grown man, posted a goofy picture of you and called you an asshole. And for the rest of your life, google searches of your name lead to that website. I'm sure you would think it's totally justified, because that's just how social media works.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||3. No one reasonably could||
3. No one reasonably could think that Brian was going to act on any "threat".
Umm, except he did act on his threat. He warned CSG members that if they voted in favor of this terrible idea he would find their social profiles and kill their search results. And as an example, he did that very thing to Adam Weiss, the progenitor of the terrible idea.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Disingenuity isn't a good||
Disingenuity isn't a good look on you, BiSB.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Yes. Everyone recognized||
Yes. Everyone recognized that the quote was taken from Taken. (heh, taken from taken).
That he was quoting a movie doesn't change the fact that he also identified the student in question and put him on blast. No need to expose a 19 year old to public humiliation just because he had a shitty idea with absolutely zero chance of succeeding.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Umm, I don't know if you're||
Umm, I don't know if you're up to date on the show or the books, but let's cool it on the Jim Harbaugh/Robb Stark comparisons, ok?
|2 years 7 weeks ago||You cannot come over here,||
You cannot come over here, come up to the north and walk out of here with your pockets full and not give us respect.
"That's not gonna happen again, I can tell you that right now."
The north remembers, Coach Meyer. The north remembers, and the mummer’s farce is almost done.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Step off, Internet Tough Guy.||
Step off, Internet Tough Guy. It's not "talking shit" to correctly observe that Ace utilizes information from pay recruiting sites, which provide value. Besides that, the attitude that sites we like should somehow be immune to criticism is annoyingly childish and cultish.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||I think he was trying to say||
I think he was trying to say that while 115 members were at the event, only a small subset of that number were responsible for the damage.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Are you not familiar with the||
Are you not familiar with the proverb "a bird is worth two in the bush"?
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Speak into the tennis ball||
Speak into the tennis ball Stringer. Don't worry, it's just a tennis ball.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||FSU was only number 3 because||
FSU was only number 3 because it was a four-team playoff. If only two teams were playing for the title, there is absolutely no way an undefeated, defending champion from a power conference was being excluded.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||This is exactly the playoff||
This is exactly the playoff scenario that I've been proposing. Now all we have to do is put together some pitch materials and mail it to the NCAA, and our dreams will become reality! Question -- do you know how to use PowerPoint?
In all seriousness, I love the idea of the first round of the playoff being at the higher seeds home field. How great would it be for the SEC teams, who regularly go an entire season without having to play below sixty degrees, to have to play in frigid temperatures up north?
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Ugh. I hate this argument.||
Ugh. I hate this argument. The playoff is not perfect. But it is absolutely an improvement on what came before it.
If this was last year we would have had an Alabama/FSU championship game. Utterly ridiculous in light of what happened in the playoffs.
No matter how many teams are in the playoffs, there will always be a team complaining about being left out. Better it be the 5th, 7th, or 9th ranked team than the 3rd ranked team.
And if TCU wanted to be in the championship, they should have beaten Baylor or played some better teams as part of their out of conference schedule. They looked great against Ole Miss, but before that they gave up 61(!) points to Baylor, and squeaked by West Virginia and Kansas of all teams. There's a reason they were ranked 6th coming into the playoffs -- they weren't even the first team out.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||/s destroys all humor in a||
/s destroys all humor in a good joke. If you want people to use /s, it means that you hate humor, happiness, and all things that bring respite from the cold darkness that awaits us all.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||https://www.youtube.com/watch||
As per usual, if something I say doesn't make sense, it's probably a Simpsons reference.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||OT means "off-topic" -- if||
OT means "off-topic" -- if you start a thread that doesn't relate to Michigan sports, you need to talk it OT.
You don't have to worry about that yet because you don't have enough points to start a thread, but those will come. Just post insightful and/or humorous comments (and don't be a dick), and people will upvote your threads with the green arrow. With upvotes come points. With points comes the ability to start your own threads, etc.
On Mgoblog, first you get the points, then you get the sugar, then you get the power, and then you get the women.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Don't be an idiot. Saying||
Don't be an idiot. Saying that who the coach is is important to a football commit is not the same as saying that academics are irrelevant.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Having "bodies buried" is||
Having "bodies buried" is like having "skeletons in the closet" -- it's an expression, one that you are taking way too literally.
No one is disputing that some shady business dealings led to Prokhy's takeover of a formerly state-run nickel-manufacturing company (the source of his billions). But shady business dealings are not the same thing as being in the mafia, which you keep implying.
I know that you said at the outset of this topic that you "refuse to google it," but if you check out Prokhorov's wikipedia page you'll see that he has a business background -- Moscow Finance Institute, management position at an International Bank, etc. Again, I would not be surprised if he had dealings with unsavory characters along the way -- such is how things were in Russia at that time. But to the extent that you are suggesting he was some John Gotti-like Mafia thug, you are simply wrong.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||I never heard that Prokhorov||
I never heard that Prokhorov was an "admitted" mobster. I'm sure that all of the post-communism Russian oligarchs had to do some shady dealings to get where they are, but I don't think Prokhy is an dirtier than a Roman Abramovich, say.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Who are you arguing with?||
Who are you arguing with? Absolutely no one in this thread is advocating that Michigan should hire Schiano.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Convenient stat to||
Convenient stat to cherry-pick, as if 10-win seasons are the only measure of success.
In the six seasons before Schiano, Rutgers had 4,2, 0, 5, 1 and 3 wins.
Under Schiano, they had seasons with 11 wins (once), 9 wins (3 times) and 8 wins (twice).
But if 10 win seasons are the sole metric for success, I have some bad news for you --Harbaugh only had one 10-win season at Stanford! And he didn't have any 9 win seasons! Oh no, Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford into a winning program!
|2 years 15 weeks ago||While I don't want Schiano at||
While I don't want Schiano at Michigan, the disdain for him on these boards is ridiculously over the top. He is a good coach. He turned Rutgers into a winning program. His defenses were regularly excellent, with middling recruits. He is not going to be a "disaster" by any means.
I hope Schiano does go to Wisconsin, and does well, just to see the reactions of all the experts here who insist that he is incompetent.
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Take this as an opportunity||
Take this as an opportunity to improve your writing. If no one on this thread has any clue WTF you are talking about, obviously you need to work on your clarity.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Any time you have a chance to||
Any time you have a chance to interject an unfunny Ferguson joke into a football thread, you just have to take it.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Get over the muggle thing||
Get over the muggle thing already. Everyone knows Hoke is gone. No need to get pissy about the fact that some of the people who actually played for him like him.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Ah yes, that bigoted and||
Ah yes, that bigoted and aristocratic Weasely family, wantonly tossing off slurs.
I don't think we read the same book.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||You miss my point. I'm making||
You miss my point. I'm making fun of the previous poster for continuing to insist that it is a negative term despite admitting that he is not familiar with the source material and being informed that his understanding is incorrect. I'm not agreeing with him.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Come on, now Mealer is Draco||
Come on, now Mealer is Draco Malfoy?
Try replacing the word "muggle" in his tweet with non-athlete:
The non-athletes that attend the University of Michigan should pick who the next AD is. Found out earlier this year that they're experts in it.
He's expressing the opinion that people insider the athletic department have a better perspective on what makes a good AD than people outside the department. Feel free to disagree with that position (I do!) But it is certainly not so controversial that it justifies all of the consternation and whining that followed. And the use of the word "muggle," which football players use as a synonym for non-athlete, does not imbue it with hidden dark meaning.
And it certainly does not justify Brian's portraying Mealer and others as out-of-touch British aristocrats. I love how the proprietor of this site is free to share his opinion ad nauseum, but the second an athlete offers a differing opinion he launches a full-out character assault.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||You one the other hand sound||
You one the other hand sound exactly like the stereotypical jock who would use the word in a derogatory way (When you say right or wrong that is my view, that is ignorance at its worst).
Wow, slow your freaking roll dude. Nothing OP said suggests that he is a "stereotypical jock that would use [a] word in a derogatory way."
Moreover, he didn't say "right or wrong that IS my view." He said that, right or wrong, that WAS the attitude taken by players -- he is distinguishing his understanding of things now from his perspective when he was an 18-21 year old student (just as most of us mature and get a better perspective on things as we get older).
Maybe you also missed the very next sentence, in which he acknowledged that not many student athletes have administrative experience and that they don't necessarily know what's best for the department.
Your response was quite dickish, and had virtually nothing to do with the original post.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Doh. Fantasy football on the||
Doh. Fantasy football on the brain.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||So you are saying that not a||
So you are saying that not a single person was offended by the use of the term?
Oh, people were offended. People can get offended over any old thing. But I think it was utterly idiotic for people to be offended by what was clearly a good-natured, joking term.
Or are you arguing that Rowling's world was one where wizards and muggles lived on equal grounds?
Not saying that either, but that's a far cry from saying that "muggle" was used as a "derogatory term" in the stories. I mean, it's not like the Weasely's, Dumbledore, and all of the other likable characters who regularly used the term were portrayed as bigots. It was a term of affection, if anything.
I'm on record from the outset as saying that people getting offended by the use of the word "muggle" to refer to non-athletes were whiners of the highest order. Vincent Jackson's explanation below should have been obvious from the outset -- it was a good natured, joking term for non-student athletes. If anything, it is certainly less objectionable and more good-natured than the term "civilian," which athletes used during the Bo days.
As comments in the Vincent Jackson post make clear, at least some of the people who got upset about the word "muggle" never read the Harry Potter books or saw the movies, which makes their decision to be offended by a word without bothering to understand it even more frustrating. This was made all the worse by our own fearless leader's decision to whine about the word in a post, even though he too never read the books.
This whole controversy was stupid from the outset. People just like to get offended over nothing, apparently.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Not sure what you mean. I'm||
Not sure what you mean. I'm just a really big tennis fan. ;)
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I can see how "muggles" can||
I can see how "muggles" can be taken as a derogatory term (as it is basically used as one through Rowling's stories).
This is not remotely true. Your entire premise is incorrect.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I do not really know what a||
I do not really know what a "muggle" is in Harry Potter, but it really doesn't matter since the meaning of words change as they are used in new situations. . . ."Muggles" just sounds like an insult- whether it is intended or not-
This is ridiculous. 90% of the population knows what a "muggle" means in Harry Potter, and it is not remotely an insult. You don't get to change the meaning of the term and assume it is an insult just because you are not familiar with the source material.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Although I'm not a Harry||
Although I'm not a Harry Potter fan, it does seem like a negative term,
Although I am part of the 5% of the population that has no idea what the term means, I am going to assume that it is a negative term and voice my opinion accordingly.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Sorry, but you're a grown man||
Sorry, but you're a grown man starting a message board thread in which you complain that you feel "alienated" because a college athlete referred to people outside the program as "muggles." (As if that is some sort of offensive slur. Didn't realize that all of the wizards in Harry Potter were bigots). That is whining of the highest order. Order of the Phoenix, in fact.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||I can't take the whining from||
I can't take the whining from some members of our fan base.
"Oh no, athletes use a Harry Potter term to describe non-athletes who have less of a sense of the inner-workings of the athletic department! I feel alienated by these statements by 20 year olds! I'm a 34 year old insurance adjuster commenting on the Interwebs, and it is all about me! Wah!"
|2 years 21 weeks ago||I love everyone on that||
I love everyone on that Michigan team, but Anthony Davis is on another level.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||Would you seriously describe||
Would you seriously describe the following email:
"I don't watch these games anymore. It is too painful. Winning in triple OT to a struggling winless team in the conference only proves my prior points. This team is in serious trouble. Own it!"
as a "very respectful email" that is "well-written on their families' opinion of the job he is doing . . ."? If so, I don't think we speak the same language. Normally I don't end my respectful emails with a demand that someone "own it!"
I also don't see how the fact that the email is 5 sentences long means that it must be well-written and respectful. That just doesn't follow.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||There is some major||
There is some major revisionist history going on today.
In Wolverine Devotee's original post aboutdndon email, he did not include the original email that elicited Brandon's response. He simply claimed that his friend's aunt "sent a very respectful email to Dave Brandon that was well-written on their families' opinion of the job he is doing and she said that they no longer were season ticket holders."
While some people claimed that the Brandon email may have been faked, many others argued that it was difficult to evaluate Brandon's response without seeing what he was responding to. If WD's friend's aunt had truly sent a polite, respectful email to Brandon, his response would have been outrageous. On the other hand, if she had sent an obnoxious email, Brandon's response was more forgivable.
Now we've finally seen the initial email, and it certainly is not the "well-written," "respectful" email that WD claimed:
"I don't watch these games anymore. It is too painful. Winning in triple OT to a struggling winless team in the conference only proves my prior points. This team is in serious trouble. Own it!"
So I don't really get the whole "WD is redeemed!" movement. Yes the Brandon email was legitimate, but that was only one issue that people raised. At best, WD (perhaps inadvertently, but at least carelessly) grossly mischaracterized the email to which Brandon was responding.
I was never one of those who launched attacks on the kid, and I don't blame him for people like Olbermann pimping the story without doing their own due diligence. I think WD should be welcomed back (and I don't think he should ever have been compelled to leave). But I also don't think that we should now be acting like his initial post has been completely redeemed, when in fact his post has been revealed to be quite misleading, and many of the concerns that people voiced in the initial thread have been borne out.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||I agree that it is certainly||
I agree that it is certainly best practice not to respond at all to assholish emails. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the tone of the emails he was responding to in evaluating his responses.
Looking at the email that started it all-- if Brandon had actually sent that response to a "well-written, respectful" email, as was previously claimed, it would have been an outrage. But now that we see the actual email, his response isn't outrageous or offensive -- it's unwise at worst.
Yet way too many people in this thread, simply because they hate Dave Brandon for other reasons, are acting like these emails are the worst thing ever, and ignoring the fact that Brandon's tone was far, far more polite than that of the people he was responding to.
If a well-meaning fan sends a polite email and gets an obnoxious response from a person in power, that is an outrage.
If an asshole sends a drunk email late at night saying "this team sucks and you suck," and is told in response "have a nice life, we don't need fans like you," that is not an outrage (but probably not the wisest thing to do in practice).
People should be able to recognize the difference.
|2 years 22 weeks ago||The "respectful" email that started this all||
According to Wolverine Devotee's original post, his friend's aunt "sent a very respectful email to Dave Brandon that was well-written on their families' opinion of the job he is doing and she said that they no longer were season ticket holders."
What did the "well-written," "respectful" email actually say?
"I don't watch these games anymore. It is too painful. Winning in triple OT to a struggling winless team in the conference only proves my prior points. This team is in serious trouble. Own it!"
Screw it. Dave Brandon deserves to be fired for numerous reasons, but I could care less if he responds snarkily to annoying people who think the proper response to their football team not doing well is to send annoying, whining emails that state the obvious to the University's athletic director.
Wolverine Devotee's friend's aunt is a pain in the ass. Own it!
|2 years 24 weeks ago||I'm all for statistical||
I'm all for statistical analysis, and normally am one of those who get frustrated when jocks dismiss advanced metrics by claiming that us nerds can't possibly use our numbers to understand the game as well as they do, etc.
That said, anyone who has played a sport on any level knows that pressure has an effect on performance. Hell, I get the yips when I have a short putt to clinch a mini-golf win. Of course some people handle that pressure better than others. It's not that some players perform better when the game is on the line -- it's that their performance stays steady regardless of the situation. That is the real definition of clutch, and to deny its existence is to deny human nature.
|2 years 24 weeks ago||Not too far fetched to||
Not too far fetched to believe the same is happening under Hoke.
Because Saban handcuffs his coordinators, Hoke must also be handcuffing his coordinators?
Because Hoke and Saban have SO much in common. Two sides of the same coin, those two. Why, just the other day I was talking about a football coach who was a total control freak perfectionist and needed to manage every single detail that took place on the football field, and everyone was like "wait, we don't know if you're talking about Nick Saban or Brady Hoke!"
|2 years 24 weeks ago||How date the athletic||
How date the athletic department try to encourage fans to attend a game.
I IZ OUTRAGED!
This is idiotic. It is the athletic departments JOB to try to maintain fan attendance. They know that attendance is going to be down, not just because of the boycott but because of the team's struggles. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, trying to get fans to turn out for a night game regardless. If you're really outraged about this you are in serious need of some perspective.
|2 years 24 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|2 years 25 weeks ago||"Now, I may be wrong about||
"Now, I may be wrong about the claim that he "inserted himself into decision making". If so, please correct me. But, it sure smells like it."
Translation: I made an affirmative claim without any factual support, but rather than try to find support for my statement I am going to put the onus on you to prove a negative.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||Now this really is becoming a||
Now this really is becoming a witch hunt.
Let's not just go after Hoke and Brandon - let's go after anyone who supports them. Ve vill accept no dissension!
|2 years 26 weeks ago||The reason for a boycott is||
The reason for a boycott is to push people to take action. But a boycott should be a last resort -- before doing it, we should give the Board of Regents some time to actually, you know, take action. It is reasonable to wait two or three weeks to fire your athletic director if you are getting your ducks in a row.
It would be terrible to ruin the 100,000 attendee streak for no reason, if Brandon was already in the process of being fired regardless of the boycott.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||You're like a dog with a||
You're like a dog with a fucking bone on this. Let it go.
Obviously Magnus was wrong about where Shane got it. For you to extrapolate from that that he is a terrible person who doesn't give a shit about kids' safety makes you look like the asshole, not him.
Magnus has posted here long enough that we know he's a decent guy, even if he made a mistake here.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||"[T]o all on this blog that||
"[T]o all on this blog that are willing to promote beyond reason . . . the integrity of a Div I Head Coach . . . ."
|2 years 26 weeks ago||The "CC" was necessary back||
The "CC" was necessary back then because whether or not Rich Rod needed to be fired was a major point of contention that was dividing the blog, and a warning was necessary so that people could try to avoid the epic clusterfuck that resulted whenever the topic was broached.
There is no such controversy on the Brady Hoke issue. 98% of this board is of the same mind. Not sure if the CC tag is necessary in these circumstances.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||You're missing a bit of||
You're missing a bit of nuance. It was already a near certainty that Hoke would be fired at the end of the season because of the product on the field, and most fans were content to wait for that. The new insistence that he be fired RIGHT FUCKING NOW is because the Shane Morris Incident (TM pending) revealed that he is not just incompetent, but dangerously so.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||The negative trajectory was||
The negative trajectory was the performance of Rodriguez's defenses, which were getting worse and worse with no signs of improvement.
You write as though I am somehow defending Hoke respective to Rodriguez, when what I am actually saying is that if Rodriguez had to go, the same holds doubly true of Hoke.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Genius, if a player gets hit||
Genius, if a player gets hit like Morris did and then is "wobbly on his feet," the first thing you do is TEST him for a concussion. That was not done.
That the head coach says after the game that he "doesn't know" if his player had a concussion or not is atrocious. In those cirumcstances, he needed to be evaluated, and the coach should know the results of the evaluation before putting him back in.
But no, you're right, everyone else is wrong. We're all such pussies about this "head trauma" bullshit these days. In my day, we'd always stay on the field after having our "bell rung"! [Insert additional bullshit macho grousing here]
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Has to be someone on defense.||
Has to be someone on defense. If Mattison won't accept it give it to one of the position coaches. To give it to anyone on the offensive staff (particularly someone who has been here for half a year) makes no sense from a coaching or optics perspective.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||I'm going to steal this.||
I'm going to steal this. Great summary.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Hoke's fourth year is looking||
Hoke's fourth year is looking like it is going to match Rodiguez's first year. But everything is proceeding according to plan! He knows what he's doing! Everyone who can't see it is insane, and I'm the only sane one!
Seriously, what will it take for you to change your opinion and concede that Hoke shouldn't be Michigan's coach? Would a 2-10 season do it? Or would you just claim that is the expected result of an OC transition, and that Hoke should get at least five more years to prove himself?
|2 years 26 weeks ago||This is insane. Rodriguez was||
This is insane.
Rodriguez was rightfully run out of town because while his offense ranged from good to excellent, he had committed defensive malpractice, and because of the negative trajectory (and its concomitant effect on recruiting) there was no realistic hope that things would improve.
Hoke is the exact inverse at that (except at least Rodriguez was responsible for the offense -- Hoke is a figurehead that delegates everything. One thing that should be extremely obvious by now is that we need a coach, not a figurehead).
Youth is not a viable excuse for this tire fire of an offense. This is Holk's fourth year. It is his third year with his first major recruiting class, which was universally praised. All of those guys are now juniors or redshirt sophomores. Of course they should not be a finished product yet, but they sure shouldn't be the worst offense in the power 5 conferences, which is what we are.
Hoke chose this staff. Does anyone have any confidence in this staff's ability to identify or develop talent, particularly on the offensive side? Based on what?
Recruiting this year will be a catastrophe if Hoke stays. (Spoiler alert - he's not staying). There is no way he is going to be able to dig out of this hole. Our offense has hit rock bottom just like the defense did under Rich Rod.
The Hoke era is over. This is not a result of fickle fans. This is a result of a guy who is hitting historic lows in his fourth year in the program, with the players he recruited. When the best defense of a head coach is "well he's not really responsible for either the offense or defense so you can't really blame him," that's not a paraticularly persuasive defense.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Fair enough, but with||
Fair enough, but with Harbaugh I would have faith in his ability to establish a coaching tree to leave us in good shape even if he leaves. See Shaw, David.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||As alum96 notes, John H. has||
As alum96 notes, John H. has not had experience dealing with some of the elements unique to college football. That said, I'd be pretty damn thrilled to get him as well.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||We shouldn't insist on a||
We shouldn't insist on a coach who has Michigan ties. On the other hand, we shouldn't disregard a great coach just because he has Michigan ties.
Harbaugh may still very well be a pipe dream, but can you name one coach with a better resume who would even consider us right now?
|2 years 26 weeks ago||I would absolutely love it.||
I would absolutely love it. It would almost make the last seven years of frustration worth it if, at the end of it all, we finally wind up with the right guy to lead the program forward for the next 20 years.
I know OP is going to get slammed for posting speculation, but it does seem that the stars are aligning in a certain way. Four years ago when Harbaugh (supposedly) turned us down for the NFL, we all figured that was all she wrote -- there was no way that Michigan would be looking for a new head coach in just a few years, and if we were there was no way that Harbaugh would be disillusioned with the NFL in such a short time. Yet it looks like that may be exactly what is happening.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Silver linings . . .||
Enough people left the stadium early that no one was hit by lightning?
Because of blue laws, all liquor stores in Utah were closed by the time the game ended, reducing the risk of celebrating Utah fand driving drunk?
|2 years 29 weeks ago||Fair or not, when you win and||
Fair or not, when you win and you don't talk to the media, it gives the impression that you like to play your cards close to the vest.
When you lose by 31 points and get shut out and don't talk to the media, it gives the impression that you don't know what the fuck you're doing and have no idea how to fix it.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||You mean his post joking that||
You mean his post joking that Bellomy should start because he is the only QB not to throw an incompletion? I read it. Not sure you did.
|2 years 36 weeks ago||No, the definition has not||
No, the definition has not "been changed." A few dictionaries -- the vast minority -- added a second definition to acknowledge a widespread common misuse. While it infuriates me that even a few dictionaries have included this incorrect secondary definition, the vast majority of dictionaries continue to recognize only the correct definition.
|2 years 36 weeks ago||Such a good article. But||
Such a good article. But then I get to the end, and all I can think about is this:
Our offensive line is literally one giant question mark.
[To be clear, the "aaaargh" is about the misuse of the word "literally," and not the state of the offensive line, the correct reaction to which is *whimper*]
|2 years 40 weeks 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).
|2 years 41 weeks 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.
|2 years 41 weeks 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,
|2 years 41 weeks 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."
|2 years 41 weeks 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).
|2 years 41 weeks 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.
|2 years 41 weeks 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.
|2 years 41 weeks 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.
|2 years 48 weeks ago||Brilliant.||
|2 years 48 weeks 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.
|2 years 49 weeks 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.
|2 years 50 weeks 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.
|2 years 50 weeks 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.
|3 years 2 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.
|3 years 2 days ago||Dear god, I love this team,||
Dear god, I love this team, but they sure like to give me agita :)
|3 years 1 week ago||Me too. And then I felt||
Me too. And then I felt ashamed. Really ashamed. Really, REALLY ashamed.
And then interested ...
|3 years 1 week 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.
|3 years 1 week 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.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Absolutely.||
|3 years 2 weeks 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.
|3 years 2 weeks 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.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Thanks. Those rebounding||
Thanks. Those rebounding numbers scare me. Go ASU, I guess.
|3 years 2 weeks 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.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||'We will win by turnover if||
'We will win by turnover if we have less than seven tens.
|3 years 2 weeks 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.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||I am so confused right now.||
I am so confused right now.
|3 years 4 weeks 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.
|3 years 6 weeks 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.
|3 years 8 weeks 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.
|3 years 8 weeks 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.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Why? He didn't presume||
Why? He didn't presume guilt. He questioned why the investigation took three years.
|3 years 8 weeks 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.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||And you just won the||
And you just won the championship of douchebaggery! Congratulations!
|3 years 9 weeks 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 . . .
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Can't believe Stauskas missed||
Can't believe Stauskas missed the dagger :)
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Yep, I've been lurking but||
Yep, I've been lurking but had to log in when that happened!
|3 years 9 weeks 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!
|3 years 10 weeks 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.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Kenpom looking really good||
Kenpom looking really good right now.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||Whooosh.||
|3 years 21 weeks 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?
|3 years 22 weeks 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.
|3 years 23 weeks 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.
|3 years 23 weeks 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?
|3 years 23 weeks 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.
|3 years 26 weeks 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.
|3 years 29 weeks 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.
|3 years 29 weeks 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.
|3 years 31 weeks 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.
|3 years 32 weeks 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.
|3 years 37 weeks 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.
|3 years 37 weeks 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?!?
|3 years 39 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!
|3 years 39 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.
|3 years 39 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/
|3 years 41 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 . . .
|3 years 42 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.
|3 years 42 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.
|3 years 44 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.