"The University of Illinois is also in turmoil. The university sports an Interim Chancellor, an Interim Athletic Director, and an Interim Football Coach; the game will be played at Soldier Field, making this an Illini Interim Home Game."
|2 years 51 weeks ago||If we get two more schools...||
... I'd be shocked of they were Kansas and Virginia Tech. Likewise, I'd be shocked if they weren't Georgia Tech and either UVA or UNC. I fully expect this to happen at some point. My question is: does it stop at 16 or do we add the other of UVA / UNC and (gulp) Duke? And what does that mean for Notre Dame? A Big Ten with two ten team divisions is possible but I don't see a 20th team out there that Big Ten presidents would tolerate except maybe Pitt (once you take Duke and ND,what's another private school?)
|3 years 22 weeks ago||One idea||
One thing i never understood - why do we so frequently conflate honoring the Fab Five - whether it be the idea of them as a unit without names or the four minus Webber - with the Final Four banners that were taken down. Isn't the legacy of the fab Five so much more than those two Final Four appearances?
If Webber was ineligible for those two Final Fours, I very much understand why we wouldn't re-hang the banners? Why not hang a banner simply honoring the Fab Five?
|3 years 26 weeks ago||The fourth reason may be the most important||
Not that I disagree with an of he three points made by 11W, but it's somewhat irritating that a fourth reason that Hoke had more success than RR did isn't mentioned: he had better players - not "basically the same players."
Jr returning starter heirs an trophy candidate at QB
Let's not forget who we had starting on offense in RR's first year.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||This is all excellent advice||
Better than mine.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||My pleasure||
Uptown really probably stops around Turtle Creek Blvd and Blackburn Sts to the northwest and northeast, respectively. North of that is just other parts of Oaklawn until you get to the ritzier Highland Park around Hawthorne and Armstrong Avenues.
I definitely was staying in Park Cities. Hotel ZaZa is in the heart of uptown though.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||Uptown Dallas defined||
Uptown Dallas is a nice, fun, somewhat fancy area between downtown Dallas and Park Cities neighborhood. It is loosely defined as the area between the Woodall Rodgers freeway to the south, the North Tollway (to the west), US-75 (tobthe east) and it may go as far north as Mockingbird Lane (but some would say that's getting in to Highland Park). SMU's campus is (beautiful; worth a look) and just north of Mockingbird Lane in University Park. Those to neighborhoods with "Park" in their names make up the larger area called Park Cities.
Addison is a city north of Dallas (I-635 is roughly the northern border of the city of Dallas). I would not recommend staying up there. It is perfectly pleasant but suburban. There is a new mixed-use (commercial/residential/retail) development confusingly called Ptown hatis being built along I-635; but that's totally different. The Galleria is one big shopping mall. I don't recommend it if you want to go see what Dallas is all about.
In the uptown area, there are lots of bars and restaurants along McKinney avenue (the southern portion of it) and in the Knox-Henderson area (where Knox Knox St and Henderson Ave come together) especially to the east of US-75 all the way toward Greenville Ave and the cute M Streets neighborhood (named because all of the east-west streets begin with the letter M). The area around Fitzhugh Ave is also getting cool.
I usually stay at one of two Kimpton properties when I am in Dallas. Both are technically in University Park by SMU- Hotel Palomar or The less expensive Hotel Lumen. Hotel ZaZa is a new hip hotel further south that has a cool restaurant and bar. That would be fun. If you want to Less expensive, there is a La Quinta Inn in Uptown right on US-75 and Garrett Ave and a Best Western as well.
You have to check out the Katy Trail Ice House when you're in Dallas. Huge outdoor beer place right along a running trail. Feels very "Texas". Everybody goes there before Mavs games and walks the trail to the arena. Have fun!
|3 years 28 weeks ago||Dallas BBQ isn't the greatest...||
... compared to what you might get in Austin area, but I've enjoyed the brisket at Bartly's in Grapevine. Cool counter service / Formica chair type atmosphere. There are always fireman there when I've been, which is a good sign.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||1 seed is incredibly unlikely||
But a 2 seed is definitely possible. If we beat OSU to reach the conf finals (having beaten them twice this year), it's possible we move past them just for that. Win the whole thing and we're definitely a 2 seed ahead of them.
I also think a 3 seed is on the line today for Michigan. Win and we got it; lose and we could slip to 4. Marquette and Georgetown lost and, barring an ACC championship from Florida State in which it beats UNC and Duke, I think the only threat to earn a 3 seed other than the four teams universally on that line (Baylor, Mich, Marquette, Georgetown) is the Indiana / Wisconsin winner. Since Marquette and Georgetown already lost one (Georgetown) would be more likely to slip to a 4 than Michigan would. But if Michigan loses to Minn, we could slip below Georgetown on the S-curve.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||This blog does||
Check out the 2013 offer board:
|3 years 40 weeks ago||Indeed||
I'll take any site in MI, Indiana, Ohio or Chicago. I can't believe I am saying this but, if not in Michigan, Ft Wayne, Columbus and Cincinnati aren't horrible places to play.
|4 years 1 day ago||If Georgia wins...||
... everything is out the window, but not because Michigan doesn;t finsih in the top 14 of the BCS rankings. Michigan is likely out no matter whether it is in the top 14 or not. My "no question" comment was about whether or not we finish in the top 14 in a scenario that matters.
I don't see LSU losing to Georgia, but if it does, and LSU/Bama finish 1/2, which they likely still would - a) LSU still has a beter resume than any other 1-loss team, and b) voters wouldn not want to give Bama a benefit for losing to LSU at home - there will be three SEC teams in BCS bowls (UGA still gets the Sugar) and, with Houston a likely AQ, only one at large bid left, which the Fiesta would get to select, and I agree with you that it would most likely be Stanford.
|4 years 1 day ago||We're in||
We'll finsih in the top 14. No question.
Sugar will get first choice of teams, and we'll likely be it. Crazy. Only way I can see it going any other way is if Oklahoma State loses to OU on some fluke and somehow seems like a more attractive opponent for Houston, which the Sugar Bowl will almost assuredly take with its second selection. No way Stanford is a team that they want given the likely opponent.
|4 years 1 week ago||Sugar Bowl likely picks undefeated Houston over Big East Champ||
If no SEC team is available to be selected, the Sugar Bowl would very likely pick Houston. Houston is driving distance from New Orleans and it's not likely that any other team eligible to be selected would travel to New Orleans nearly as well (save, perhaps, Michigan). The only Big East team that would even come close would be Weat Virginia.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||Something that will never happen||
How nice would it be to have five "BCS" conferences with 62-64 teams fighting for five AQ spots and four or five "non-BCS" conferences with anywhere from 40-60 teams in a playoff for one AQ spot and the rest of the Sun Belt and WAC just busted down to FCS?
|4 years 5 weeks ago||Depends on the game||
Except for extreme circumstances, all of the official Michigan bars (in Manhattan at least) will have Michigan basketball games on if they are on BTN or ESPN. Your best bet to watch with other fans would be at Professor Thom's on 2nd Ave. As somebody said, above, though, none of the bars draw a huge crowd for Michigan basketball unless them agme is not televised in NYC (NCAA Tournament, for example).
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Cool. Thanks a lot||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||This response string is great||
I love it. I don't have many points because I rarely post, but I've been around for quite a while. Nevertheless, I'll probably forego disturbing your parents; though I appreciate the precise estimate of my awesomeness.
You see, I'm not from Fargo; but I'll be there for a wedding. And, despite my advanced age, I do know how to use Google. I'm not particularly indolent; rather, I thought a kind user, such as NDSU_Blue, would know the area well and could recommend a bar that not only subscribed to BTN, but would be happy - even eager - to put on the game for me, and perhaps a few other like-minded Michigan fans.
Major props to FgoWolve and NDSU_Blue. Thanks guys / gals.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Wow||
ok; I liked the helmets, actually, but I did not realize how much these unis do, indeed, look like South Florida's. The numerals are weird and I'm not a black pants fan.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Wow. Thank you for sharing.||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||I really love Picture Pages||
Thanks to Brian and all the others who contribute. Moving Picture Pages are cool, too, but the above really helps to see it frame by frame.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Thanks||
I love the Picture Pages. Keep them coming!
|4 years 10 weeks ago||I actually like them||
For an alternate uniform, these aren;t so bad. Little things could be imporoved, IMHO, but I kind of like the bronze and the green Spartan. Don't kill me.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Great shot!||
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Any place to watch in Fargo?||
I'm going to be there for a wedding the weekend of the Eastern Michigan game? Anybody know where I could watch it at 11 am CT on Big Ten Network with volume? Good news is the Gophers aren't playing at the same time, to the extent that matters.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Depends what you're looking for||
Professor Thom's has been a Michigan bar for a while. It will be only Michigan fans, it will get backed with younger people, it will be loud, the sight lines to TVs aren't great.
Brother Jimmy's in Union Sq is newer for a Michigan Bar (newer in geenral). It will also cater to other groups, so not 100% Michigan; it has better HD TVs; also will be crowded, but not just with Michigan people.
On the rare occassion when I have to watch a Michigan game at a bar (basketball; football is always on in HD at home), I go to The FOrum on 4th Ave and 12th St. It is an unofficial Michigan bar but draws a decent number of Michigan people. They have some well-placed HD TVs and will have volume for the Michigan game. It;s not as much of a scene as the other two which I prefer, but you may not.
I don;t know of the new place on Front St in Brooklyn. Could be promising.
I've gone to The Hill and to some place on 53rd St befrore and I found both lacking.
|4 years 22 weeks ago||It isn't "enforceable"||
There is no guarantee that a greyshirt offeree would get a scholarship next year. There also is no guarantee that kids who sign LOIs will have scholarships the following year. But there are some generally accepted practices. If Hoke yanked Ricardo Miller's scholarship this year, there would be outrage and the same would likely be true if he reneged on an explicit promise to a greyshirt candidate.
|4 years 22 weeks ago||Maybe that means one NT||
And one DT
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Exactly.||
Couldn't have said it better. The jersey number was worn by some great Michigan WRs, but also run-of-the-mill Junior College transfers. Braylon wanted it bad though.
EDIT: Silly me: Butterfield transferred away from Michigan (to a 1-AA school, I believe), not to Michigan from a Junior College. It was Russell Shaw that transferred to Michigan from a Junior College.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||Is it possible...||
...that the coaching staff sees Wormley (and/or Godin) potentially growing into a DT?
|4 years 27 weeks ago||Thanks, Tom. A question...||
... are we out of it for Tommy Schutt? Seems like we have a lot of good options even if we are.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||Would/could Godin potentially move to DT?||
He seems to have the size and our roster seems it will have the need.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||Not to pick nits||
But sales tax is a state issue, not federal.
|4 years 37 weeks ago||Lunardi moved Colorado ahead of Michigan||
SImple as that.
|4 years 38 weeks ago||What's wrong with the source?||
Joe Rexrode is legitimate.
|4 years 41 weeks ago||Thanks, Tim||
I was surprised not to see OH S Allen Gant on the list of prospects that may be offered in the future. Any indication on where Michigan is (or isn't) with him?
|4 years 49 weeks ago||Doyle is horrible||
I was even more disturbed by the frequent use of the term Baby Blues to describe our team.
|5 years 1 week ago||Check out a few neighborhoods||
Ive lived in NY for 10 years and I agree with others: check out a few hoods and see what you like and what your money can buy in each. Take your time.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Given the way things have gone||
I would not be surprised to see Woolfolk at deep safety when he returns.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Seems reasonable to me||
This seems like a reasonable take to me, and one that's been espoused by others here before.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||I think so.||
DirecTV and Dish won't help you in the home, but commercial satellite packages should be able to get ABC feeds from various regions. At least I think so; not 100% sure. I imagine we can find out this weekend.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Right||
Big Ten no longer has a carriage agreement with ESPN Gameplan. ESPN3 or a bar with satellite channels it will be for those who do not get the Big Ten prime time game on ABC. Don't be surprised if only Ohio and Minnesota markets get that game this weekend. A Michigan State-Iowa night game was unavailable a few years back in much of the Big Ten footprint (including Chicago) outside those two states when matched up against a game with far more national interest. We'll just have to wait for the regional coverage maps to come out to see. I'm certainly hoping my market (NY) gets Oregon.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Reverse mirror rules||
Unless the Big Ten's contract with ABC/ESPN changed this year, ABC is only required to reverse mirror 3:30 pm ABC televised regional games; there is no requirement to reverse mirror prime time Big Ten games. Of course, ABC/ESPN can reverse mirror or us the standard def feeds to reverse mirror if it so chooses, but they are not contractually obligated to do.
|5 years 9 weeks ago||The pecking order changes every week||
IIRC, the pecking order, as you say, changes every week; and we don't know which weeks are which in advance. This was true for the 2007 season and, I beliebe, still true today:
ABC/ESPN always gets first choice of Big ten games to televise.
In three weeks, BTN gets second choice - I believe BTN gets to pick those weeks and can do so 7-10 days before the scheduled games.
In three weeks, BTN gets third choice - same as above
In all other (six) weeks, BTN gets fourth choice.
ABC/ESPN can decide to put third or fourth choice games on any channel they choose of ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU (as the Big ten conference have deemed all of them widely available)
ABC agrees to mirror any regionally carried 3:30 pm Big Ten game on ESPN2 in areas of the country that do not get the Big Ten game on ABC. Any regional prime time games are not included in the mirroring clause.
|5 years 13 weeks ago||Oh, and Grant Mason||
Sorry- forgot about him.
|5 years 13 weeks ago||David Bowens was OLSM, too||
David Bowens was OLSM, too
|5 years 29 weeks ago||Minor correction on Big Ten TV deal||
Unless something changed this year, I think there is one exception to the rule that "There is no such thing as a Big Ten football game you cannot get nationally." I do not believe ABC is required to "reverse mirror" any prime time (8pm) Big Ten matchup that receives regional coverage on ESPN2. In fact, I seem to remember this adversely affecting Michigan State fans in Chicago last year or the year prior. I may be mistaken.
|5 years 37 weeks ago||FWIW, I lived in EL for 18 years||
Best food near Munn - one of best in area - is affordable Middle Eastern place called Woody's Oasis in Trowbridge Center at the opposite end of the ShopRite. Very good, cheap and easy.
|6 years 5 weeks ago||great, great stuff.||
thanks for taking the time to put together such thoughtful analysis.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Wait... what?||
If you don't like Lloyd Carr sitting in an Iowa box, fine, but let's not go crazy here.
I am very proud that Lloyd Carr represents the University of Michigan and our football team. He's not a Michigan Man? This is getting nutso.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||I'm fine if Rick Leach is worked up about it||
But that doesn't mean:
a) we all have to (we're not sheep that blindly follow Rick Leach)...
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Leach is pissed at Lloyd for where he sat||
The Free Press article has little to do with that. At worst, somebody from the previous administration told the Free press that they never kept team GPAs so RR's claim was bogus. But we HAVE NO IDEA if that happened or not. And it's moot, because it's stupid...the Free Press still wrote the story.
PS, the Rosenberg vacationing with asst coaches thing is ludicrous. I don't know where that came from, but it's conspiracy theory from the nut-jobs in the fan-base.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Might have small effect||
If ABC wants a Big Ten game at 3:30 that week, it really just wants the best game it can get. If Michigan vs team X is a great matchup, there is no reason ABC wouldn't take it, if available. But it might think another matchup is better. I would. Then again Western Michigan was a 3:30 ABC kick, so who knows.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||I doubt Nov 7 is a 3:30 game||
We play Purdue and, for it to be 3:30, ABC would have to pick it up. I doubt that will happen. This is looking like noon on ESPN/2. Or BTN.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||My fiance told me the same||
And I love her for it. In fact, she was recently asked why we where getting married next summer and she said "we want to get married outdoors, this summer would not have been enough time to plan, spring is too cold, and don't even think we'd have it during Michigan football season."
|6 years 6 weeks ago||You will definitely be missed!||
Thanks for all your contributions! Good luck to you and your team.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Well written||
and spot on. + many.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Unfortunately, I think they've claimed that song||
Much like Wisconsin did with Jump Around. I doubt they care that the White Stripes are from Michigan, just like they don't care that Vernon Gholston was.
Depending on your perspective on in which situations piped in music is acceptable, either a) shame on us for not being able to take that one before they did or b) it's lame so who cares.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||The last Iowa TD was not on Mike Williams||
He had ok coverage in the flat opposite to where the TEs aligned. That one was on LBs and Kovacs. Kovacs had to have had one of the TEs and was miles from him. A LB had to have the other TE and, while Brown saw the TE release, Ezeh ran in to him (Brown) when both he he (Ezeh) and Mouton bit on the run fake like whoa.
The 3rd & 24 was obviously all on Williams and (maybe) the coaches for such a shallow alignment on 3rd & 24. That led directly to Iowa's 2nd TD.
I'm not sure if Williams did anything wrong on the first TD if the call was for him to blitz if the TE didn't release into a pattern. I think it was their paper to our rock, but sharik and gsimmons85 know better than I.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||I was that reader...||
... who thought Mesko, after having taken three steps to his left, may have done the right thing by running because the State guys were in on him and would have blocked the ruby-style roll-out punt. I was wrong.
The end zone camera (used for replay; not lightboxed here) made it seem like the MSU defenders were closer than they actually were. It's clear from the live-action sideline angle that Mesko could have gotten the punt off. I should have, you know, re-watched the live action angle before making that comment. My bad.
I was wrong here, but the note is a good one to keep: on those rugby-style roll-out run/punt option plays, the punter is asked to roll three (or so) steps one way before making the decision. If there happens to be a guy right up in the punter's face, neither option is a good one and the play is doomed. That's not what happened here, though. Mea culpa.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Only +1 for tackling||
on Graham's 3rd and 2 stop on Winston? That was perfect technique: head up, feet moving arms wrapped. Tackling +4.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||"If they keep Robinson..."||
What are we to infer from that dependent clause?
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Next year, is Kovacs the SAM||
So, if "Kovacs has turned in a couple of impressive tackles so far. He's probably a disaster in coverage but Michigan is using him as downhill run-stuffer, something he seems capable of" then could he take Stevie Brown's SAM (hybrid) role next year? I know Brandon Smith and all, but perhaps he is big enough to be a WILL?
Wait, no; then who plays SS? Ugh.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Really?||
I thought he was just taking the opportunity to stretch out his bum shoulder.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Actually, the line opened with Michigan favored by 2 points||
The line has swung 5.5 points since the open. That's a pretty big swing and it should tell you something. MSU fans (no single team's fans, really... maybe ND's) don't have enough money to swing lines like that. This should tell you something.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Dantonio is smart||
There are always exceptions, but I think he's right that most players from the state of Michigan care more about the rivalry than those from outside the state. If he's using it to pander to potential in-state recruits or motivate his team, so be it. He's doing what somebody in his position should.
I'd rather have good players, wherever they're from, than players that care about the rivalry. That goes for the OSU and ND rivalries, too.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Gotcha.||
|6 years 8 weeks ago||That's a bummer to hear||
Any public signs?
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Rosenberg has been writing a humor column for a while now||
Maybe a couple of years.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||IIRC, the seats are just folding chairs||
And stools. But I haven't been in the press box in more than 10 years.
The Univ has said it will save the art deco lettering atop the press box, but, to my knowledge, will demolish the structure itself.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Confirmed: No SEC||
CBS has first choice of games involving an SEC home team every week. ABC can't air SEC games, but ESPN and ESPN2 can.
ABC/ESPN can't pick what goes on ESPN until CBS does if it wants a shot at an SEC game. CBS is airing a primetime game the week of Oct 10 (http://www.cbssports.com/cbssports/schedules/page/collegefootball) and Florida-LSU is scheduled for that time.
I don't see any other big SEC games that CBS would choose for the primetime time slot even if Georgia wins this week ('Bama-Ole Miss was a prime matchup, but not after Ole Miss' loss).
There is still a small chance that a Michigan loss this weekend means ABC televises two primetime games and Michigan gets rgional ABC coverage, but I don't see any primo Pac-10, ACC or Big 12 matchups with a primetime or TBA start date. BC @ VA Tech could really screw us East coasters though. Ga. tech at Florida State, too.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||Can Florida-LSU even be on ABC?||
If I am not mistaken, CBS' contract with the SEC gives them first choice of SEC games and prohibits games from airing on any other national broadcast networks, such as ABC. Obviously, ESPN is an option. I don't recall ever seeing a game between two SEC schools on ABC in the past few years.
|6 years 8 weeks ago||On Sunday, RR said Turner might play||
He named Turner, specifically, as a freshman who hasn't yet played, that may.
I would guess - and this is pure speculation - that if he doesn't play in the next three games, the coaching staff will do their best to hold him out for the remaining five. An injury to a corner could change that, of course.
Yet, it's interesting to look at the passing proficiency of our remaining opponents. To date, only Michigan State seems to be a prolific passing offense, currently ranked 8th nationally. Other than that, we're not playing too many teams that are putting up big numbers through the air
Maybe the coaches won't feel that his presence is needed after MSU. It might be far more important to get Sagesse, Banks and Campbell more time given the strength of the rushing offenses coming up. Not that you have to choose betwen the two, of course.
Interesting side note: check out the current passing offense ranks: MSU #8, ND #14, Western Mich #21, PSU #40, Purdue #44, Indiana #46, Wisconsin #49, Iowa #71, Ohio State #82, Michigan #88, Illinois #110, Eastern Mich #113. In other words, if Turner doesn't play this week, might the coaches sit him the rest of the year?
|6 years 9 weeks ago||I don't believe that is correct||
I don't think Stapleton was ever a UofM Regent, and this doesn't list him: http://www.regents.umich.edu/about/regentsalpha1-09.pdf. Nevertheless, Regents are elected by the citizens (or appointed by the Governor if there is a vacancy between elections) and receive no direct monetary compensation for their service.
He is on the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents though. Maybe that's what you were thinking.
|6 years 9 weeks ago||Here is one idea||
And, this is not "Off Topic"
|6 years 9 weeks ago||Not written by either of those guys||
The article referenced is from Free Press News Services, which means its a collections of blurbs off the wires (mostly AP) that some sports editor puts together to fill space.
Malign the Freep for this if you want, but at least malign the right people. This is not on Snyder or Rosenberg.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Beware the listings||
When I go to BTN's page, enter my ZIP code (in NYC) and select my cable provider (Time Warner Cable), it says the Michigan-EMU game will be in SD on one of the overflow channels.
However, the on-screen guide that Time Warner Cable provides says the Michigan-EMU game will be on the "main" Big Ten Network HD channel.
So, be careful, I guess, is my message. I'm going to set my DVR to record both and hope one of them is right.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Erick Anderson||
Irons was great, too. Steve Morrison was good.
Simpkins was before my time.
Sword, Jones, Gold Hobson, Foote and Harris? I like them all, but hard to put those guys in the "greatest of all time" debate unless your only frame of reference is 1997 on. That said, my frame of reference is 1987 on, so who am I to talk.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||I don't think Cissoko did anything wrong||
On the play in the video above.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Agreed||
And we lose our credibility (with whom, I have no idea) when we express outrage at opponents who twist our players legs/ankles after tackling them on punt returns, but dismiss punches to the face after whistles blow.
Nobody (well, not the sane among us) is saying Mouton is a thug or was completely unprovoked, or should lose his scholarship or be suspended for the season; but we recognize that acts such as this are wrong, not to be tolerated at Michigan, and, when observed, deserve punishment.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Thanks||
No, not from Saginaw. I am from elsewhere in Mich and, like many I'm sure, am a big Woodley fan.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Can I take a guess on how Irish one shot and Brian got another?||
Irish is taking a still from the torrent - what we all saw on TV as shot by ABC - as he clearly states in his post.
Brian is taking a still provided by WNDU, an NBC affiliate in South Bend - ostensibly from video taken by its sideline cameraperson because the headline, subhead and lede of the story refer to "WNDU cameras" or WNDU footage" - as is clearly indicated by Brian's link.
It seems entirely possible to me - in fact highly likely - that the replay officials did not have access in the replay booth. I mean, this is appears to be video taken by a local NBC affiliate during the game - how the heck would the replay official have this shot?
Many will mention - and I have no evidence to refute this - that the replay official may have had access to camera angles other than the ones shown on TV. Possible of course, but I doubt it had anything similar to the shot Brian referenced as it appears this camera angle is similar to the ABC camera angle seen repeatedly on the broadcast; it's possible, but unlikely, that ABC would have had another camera with a similar angle.
Could the replay officials have has another camera angle that is as equally conclusive as the WNDU shot? Or could they have higher resolution video equipment that allows them to see more frames per second? Absolutely. But, while the WNDU footage, to me at least, proves the runner was out of bounds, it doesn't prove that the replay officials had access to this "smoking gun" at the time they made the call. I think that is the source of their frustration.
I'm glad we got the call, though.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||I saw Mouton punch a lineman on replay||
He landed the punch under the lineman's facemask. It was a retaliation for the lineman blocking him on the ground after the whistle. Maybe could have been a call on the lineman, but definitely should have been a call on Mouton. Can't retaliate and definitely not with a punch. We dodged a bullet on that one.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Upon further review...||
I was wrong. The "headless shot" was on a 4th qtr play where Clausen completed a pass to Golden Tate for 10-yards (or so) on ND's penultimate drive. It should have come back.
It was Chris Stewart, though.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||I know nothing about video either||
But I think the situation described above is certainly possible. None of us know for sure, but if I had to guess if the replay officials had footage from WNDU, I would guess not. They could have had other angles that we didn't see on replay, but likely not this one if it was, in fact, captured by a WNDU cameraperson.
In short, is it possible that conclusive evidence exists that Allen stepped out of bounds but that the replay official did not have access to this evidence at the time he had to render a verdict? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible the replay official had evidence (other ABC camera angles) at his disposal other than what we saw on TV (which, IMHO, was inconclusive, despite my prayers that the replay official would see it differently)? Sure.
Unless somebody here knows how many cameras ABC had at the game, where they were positioned and why or why not producers would show viewers the best shots and what other video footage, other than from ABC, to which replay officials have access, or unless somebody gets an exclusive interview with the replay official, we're just not going to know.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||There did seem to be a few holding penalties that weren't called||
Most involving an ND lineman holding Brandon Graham, and at least one perpetrated by Sam Young. But the "headless Brandon Graham photo" is not the result of Young's fine work. It is LG Chris Stewart and, if it is from the play of which I am thinking, it was called a penalty, negating a six- or seven-yard Clausen scramble in the 3rd qtr.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Yeah, I dunno||
I'm glad you're still posting here, Irish. The whining ND fans in meltdown mode complaining about this are one thing, but the rational, reasoned response from you on this are another.
Based on only what I saw on TV, I wouldn't be too happy if that call went against my team. I wouldn't make asinine comments on message boards (my team's or others') and I understand it's possible that the replay referee had other angles, but, if I ignore the color of the jersey that guy was wearing, I'm not sure if I would say I saw conclusive evidence, either.
That said, as a Michigan fan, I sure am happy the way it broke.
I will say that I thought Cissoko committed another PI penalty that wasn't called in addition to the few holding penalties I saw ND commit that weren't called. And the holding penalty that brought back the long Rudolph pass maybe possible wasn't holding on replay, but that take down gets called nine times out of 10, so tough for any team to complain about that one.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Good catch||
Confirmed by the official participation list. Thanks, Brewers.
Emilien played on special teams, too. Barring injury, neither will redshirt.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Yup- Fresh Meat is right||
Emilien is on the Special Teams participation list for Western. I doubt Tate ever was, so little chance of number confusion.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||No surprise he hasn't played meaningful snaps yet||
Guys as large as he often take a fair amount of time to learn technique, etc. Mike Martin was an extreme case of having both a college body and excellent technique while still in h.s. Wrestling helped. He was college-ready but may have a lower ceiling than Will.
However, this uninformed observer would be surprised if, given his recruiting hype and that it looks like he'll burn his redshirt, Will doesn't rotate in for a some meaningful snaps, at least situationally, by the time we get to the Penn State game. By that time, he should have a) seen enough snaps in garbage time against lesser opponents, b) experienced at least a few snaps against power O-Lines (MSU, Iowa) and, most importantly, c) had enough practice time, to contribute. Though, I imagine a lot will depend on how well the coaches feel Banks and Sagesse are performing, a subject upon which I have no opinion as of now.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||I think jg2112 has the right list||
I'd add Teric Jones' name to those written in very light pencil.
Barring injury Tate, Denard, Roh, Campbell, Stokes, Hawthorne, and Vincent Smith will not redshirt.
I have to imagine that Turner and Emilien will see the field at some point, given the combination of their hype and our lack of depth in the defensive backfield.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Tate was asked about this at Monday's presser||
I think it was Karsch who asked the question. Tate said Clausen waited to congratulate him and tell him he was impressed by how well Michigan moved the ball. Classy move by Clausen.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Update: "Junior should be back this week"||
RR: "But, I'll know more today."
I think he said somebody just had cramps and couldn't get re-hydrated. I didn't hear if he said Williams or Stonum (or other), though.
EDIT: Per comment below, it was Williams who just had cramps [ed: phew.]
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Thanks.||
I will edit.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Great column||
On the bullets:
I still think you're right on Tate heading outside on zone reads where he shouldn't. It's not just the TD vs Cover 0, but the plays where he gets three and could get five that "prove" this. Obviously, we're picking nits here.
I don't get the defense of Cissoko either. I mean, part of the deficiency is his height (or lack thereof), which isn't his fault, of course, but neither is JT Floyd's lack of speed his fault. Cissoko looked hesitant. He played quite soft, but never let guys behind him, which is good, I suppose. He got out of his break late and took a poor angle to Tate on the short TD. Warren, OTOH, got beat by Floyd once, but not too badly and Floyd is pretty damn good. We'll need to see some improved play from the corner spot opposite him, though. There's no reason that can't come from Cissoko.
I think you'll see a few more holding penalties on ND's O-Line than were called, but not tons. Our 4-man rush got little pressure on Clausen. Herron looked like he didn't know whether to rush or drop in to zone a few times. And I don't know what the excuse is - other than size - for getting crushed by the O-Line on runs. Ezeh had a bad day reading plays and getting off blocks. This, we must fix, as we'll face many more big, average O-Lines in front of competent RBs this year.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Touche||
Although, in my defense, all I knew was the stretch limo part. And the bad hair, goofy, chose ND, looks like an emu part.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Thanks, Sonny||
|6 years 10 weeks ago||What time is Valenti on?||
I'll tune in online.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||+1 to Clausen, then||
That is quite a gesture. I now feel bad for hating him for no reason.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||It didn't look like PI to me, either, at first...||
...but on replay it appeared that Cissoko used his arm to impede the WR's route. The side judge's view was obstructed by the players, but the back judge got a good look and threw the flag. I think it was the right call.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Yeah, I saw that||
I found it confusing. All I'm basing it on is what i see on the field, which is typically Woolfolk deep, often deep center in Cover 1, and Williams often plays in the box, and, even when not, is, more often than not, not as deep as Woolfolk. But, that's just my observation from watching on TV (no film or anything).
|6 years 10 weeks ago||I know it says differently on the official two-deep||
But, from the looks of it, Woolfolk has been playing Free Safety and Mike Williams has been playing Strong Safety.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||And I hope you keep posting here||
Good insights on our team, opponents' past and opponents' future from a fan like you are always welcome.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Both happy and scared||
Our offense looked quite good - even with Hemingway out, Minor bruised a bit and Stonum out for most of the 2nd half. Forcier, obvs, was excellent. We haven't had a QB that could do some of those things since... I dunno when. Leach? He and Minor were studs. Minor just looked great running and blocking. We have to keep him healthy. I think we can all see how important he is by how few snaps other RBs got.
But I think it's bad news that we put almost no pressure on Clausen - ND O-Line wasn't supposed to be good - got gashed by Armando Allen for over 6 per carry - Ezeh, for one, looked... not good and the light DLine, as a whole got pushed around a lot. Obvs, the pass D allowed a lot of big plays. We should all hope for Mike Williams' speedy recovery. We're paper thin in the secondary as it is. These were great WRs, yes, but we'll face other competent QBs+receiving corps that can do damage.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||Great reference||
Butterfield's drop was key. I can't believe we even threw that.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||A few ideas||
I assume from your post you want to watch on your laptop (with 3G card), not your blackberry.
In short, I'd go for Slingbox first, if you don't mind shelling out for one and setting it up before Sat - the long term payoff is there.
Second, you can try espn360.com, but I doubt it will have a distribution deal with your wireless card provider. You can check here: http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/index?id=292460152
If neither of the above two work for you, you can try the non-official online streaming sites such as Justin.tv, channelsurfing.net, or atdhe.net
There is more info in a couple of threads from last week
|6 years 11 weeks ago||On the fourth offensive play||
Is it possible that Odoms was called for illegal motion for moving backward at the snap? That was my thought when watching the game, but I am not an expert on the NCAA rules for illegal motion.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||There is a good discussion of this topic here||
I find Prof Thom's a tough place to actually follow (watch & hear) the game given how crowded it gets, often with people more interested in the social part of the day rather than the football part. But, depending for what you're looking, it might work well.
I'm 33 and I like to watch with a good pro-Michigan crowd, but to have HD screens with good sightlines and volume at audible levels. So, I would go to The Forum if I went to a bar. But that's just one man's opinion.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||The '96 D had the best names, IMHO||
Huff, Carr and Steele on the D-Line
Irons and Sword at ILB (Swett backed them up... maybe started one game for Irons).
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Rivalries: no right answer||
I have this debate with my friends all the time. There are no right answers. I see it a little differently. I've been around Big Ten football for 25 years and Michigan football for 15 and, to me, Ohio State is our biggest rival, but I don't root against them (though, every now and then schadenfreude creeps in). I want OSU to win all of its games and for Michigan to ruin its season.
OTOH, I root for ND to lose every one of its games. I suppose it's partially a factor of us playing ND earlier each year, partially the fact that OSU is "one of us" just the worst kind of us) and ND has distinctly decided not to join us (in the Big Ten). Perhaps there is some self-hatred, too, as dex points out. I dunno.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Hey Blue in Yarmouth||
How, if at all, did you end up watching the game in Nova Scotia last weekend? Just curious if it worked out for you.
EDIT: This is a sincere question as BiY wrote a board post about how to get the game online, and I responded.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Where, exactly, did you find this information?||
A link or a source would be helpful.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Exactly||
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Bad point actually.||
because it's wrong. You guys are in way over your heads.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||You guys don't know the law||
Don't speculate. Anybody can FOIA records from public institutions, and UM's AD counts.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Covering teams outside of its readership's interest area||
makes no sense and would not be an indicator of partiality.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||State||
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Columnists don't "cover" anything||
Mark Snyder has been, for many seasons, the Freep's U-M football and basketball beat writer. He remains on the beat.
Michael Rosenberg is a columnist that writes about all sorts of sports of interest to the Freep's readership. In the fall, typically once or twice a week, at minimum, that is college football, but can also be the NFL, the Tigers, should they be in playoff contention, or any number of other sports.
The Freep sports section technically has three columnists - Rosenberg, Sharp and Albom (though, other reporters often write "columns" to indicate an opinion piece, at times - but Albom hardly writes anymore, so Rosenberg and Sharp write more frequently.
Rosenberg is not the U-M columnist. Neither is Sharp. Rosenberg often writes about MSU just as Sharp often writes about Michigan. I wouldn't read much in to one week. If Roenberg doesn't write another column on Michigan football for the rest of the season, then that would be out of the ordinary for the Freep.
"Rosenberg off Michigan stories," even with a question mark to end the sentence, isn't something we could possibly observe at this time.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||So, plus a bunch to farside, right?||
|6 years 11 weeks ago||This is true||
They count athletic dept personnel from both teams, all media members, the band (when the opposing band comes, attendance goes up a bit), etc. I am not sure about ushers and concession employees. This would be a great question for the SID.
A bigger press box will potentially have a pretty big effect on single-game attendance for the biggest games, when many more media members can be accommodated.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||A welcomed improvement||
FA's board moderation and role as voice of reason is a welcomed improvement to the quality of this here message board, let alone his/her excellent non-revenue sports posts.
This blog is getting better all the time. Kudos.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||A plea||
I think FA's response illustrates something that has been bugging me all week. Listen, I'm a Michigan fan and, I think, a pretty attentive and even-handed one. I hope nothing comes of these allegations because I am a fan, and because, even IF there are a few rankled players on this year's team (and possibly more on last year's), I don't think these allegations are that big of a deal.
However, while I understand the outrage voiced - occasionally articulately and intelligently - at the Free Press report on this site and others, very few of us have the expertise and credibility to launch many of the critiques I've read on this message board (and elsewhere). Some commenters are way out of their league.
I, too, feel the need to rail against what I feel is unjust, and it's often nice to do so around like-minded folks, because we know our outrage will be well-received. But let's leave it at that. I think we've collectively vented enough. Let's move on.
I know I could just stop reading this stuff, but I'm a huge fan of this site and this board, in general, and I don't want to give up the addiction.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||I'm with Magnus||
I didn't see Woolfolk bite on the run fake or move down on any other WR - because there was none in the middle. He didn't move toward the LOS, as far as I could see, but he did not get deep enough. He should always be deeper than the deepest offensive player in the coverage. In this, he failed. Saying he got 'sucked in' implies, to me at least, that he either bit on the run fake or moved down on an underneath receiver.
Floyd got toasted, too, though at least he was outside of the WR. If he sat on a dig or thought somebody might be in the flat, that could explain it, but it was a poor play by him, too. Yet, that happens - and should be expected to on occasion. It's the whole reason to have a safety deep.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Let's hope is sooner than later||
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Hopefully, Turner pulls ahead of Floyd very quickly||
He's only had 2+ weeks of practice, but we need him as the 3rd corner. I hope one more week allows him to do that. ND receivers are big and good.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Seconded||
Floyd looked lost; WMU was obviously going after him.
Woolfolk made a big error on the TD.
Warren was a very sure tackler, but looked only ok in coverage.
Cissoko looked good when out there, but who knows how bad that injury is.
Both Warren and Cissoko are small; Michael Floyd and Golden Tate are not. And Clausen is better than Hiller.
Good show this week. But, we'll have to see some improvements next week, or I don't think it'll end the same way.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Woolfolk at fault, too||
There were no receivers underneath. Woolfolk did not get deep enough on that play. Floyd beaten, too. That's why you have a FS playing deep.
Don't understand the beg points for the OP. He didn't say anything wrong, at least in what I read above.
|6 years 11 weeks ago||I don't get it||
I'm not saying - in any way - that there is anything to the allegations, but how does winning our first game prove that the allegations of NCAA violations are false?
|6 years 11 weeks ago||Seriously, we're starting to sound like babies||
And dumb ones at that. Picking Western Michigan to win is neither an indication of bias or stupidity. There are very reasonable arguments to pick Western to win. In the end, virtually everyone's dissatisfaction with Snyder's pick can be summed up as a) he doesn't agree with me so he's stupid, and/or b) he wrote an article I don't like so I'll rail on his pick but not others who made similar picks.
Why do I think if a writer picked Michigan to win a game in which it was a 13 point dog, many around here would applaud the pick and chime in that "Michigan has a chance." Western is a team with a very good qb going up against a defense that was poor against the pass last year, breaking in a new defensive scheme and starting two new safeties. WMU has problems, too, sure, but picking the Broncos to win is neither an indication of bias or stupidity.
Also, Snyder indicated he thought Michigan would lose this game in a season preview he wrote earlier in the week. This isn't new.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Because they are different situations at different schools||
Involving different players. I'm not saying either decision is right or wrong, because I am not the best judge of these things and I find that having a really vociferous opinion means little, but I do know that A = B is rarely right.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I second the Forum||
But I'm beginning to think that I am almost a "blue hair" so take the rec FWIW. I went for a basketball game when Prof Thom's was insufferable - frat boys are sor girls more interested in flirting than watching.
I did not like The Hill, either, but if it's not too full, it could be a nice place to watch, I suppose.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||In my very personal opinion||
Prof. Thom's is a horrible place to watch a game given how crowded it gets and how poor their TVs are.
But, I'm in my early 30s and am quite fastidious about my game watching experience so perhaps a younger, more social and less attentive game watcher would enjoy it.
I never need to watch a game in the bar anymore unless its an 8pm ABC game not carried in NY, but when I used to need to, I would get 8 friends together and try to find the lamest, quietest sports bar in the city and convince the bartender / manager / owner to put the game on with volume.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||It doesn't do either||
This report - which has been out for a long time - neither supports nor refutes any claims made in the Free Press story.
It may provide some context that some (many) feel was lacking in the above mentioned newspaper report, but that's it. The Detroit News ran a story about this report today, as well.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Thank you, guys||
|6 years 12 weeks ago||This is complex, I guess||
The Big Ten Network will only stream games:
a) that are televised on the Big Ten Network
So, a big NO for this game.
I think of this in four categories:
1. Games televised on Big Ten Network
2. Afternoon ABC games with either regional or national coverage
3. Primetime ABC games
Right now, Michigan's only scheduled ABC primetime game is @ Iowa but, as of now, there does not appear to be any other marquee games scheduled for the same time slot that ABC could air (Florida game will be on CBS), though, this can certainly change.
4. Games carried on ESPN - by definition national
Most, but not all, ESPN/ABC televised games are available online at ESPN360.com, but ONLY if ESPN has a deal with your specific Internet Service Provider. You can see if yours does at ESPN360.com by clicking GET ACCESS in the top nav bar and then (hopefully) selecting your ISP from the drop down menu.
If you are not able to use ESPN360.com, or if the game in which you are interested is not being streamed there, you can always try the non-official streaming sites such as justin.tv mentioned in the above posts.
Hope this is helpful. Sorry that it is long and apologies in advance for any factual mistakes.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||You can check if you get ESPN360||
You must have a high-speed internet connection from an "ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider." That can be checked by clicking Get Access from the nav bar on top.
Otherwise, justin.tv should work for those interested in going that route.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I found the link||
And sorry if I got your hopes up even for live streaming of BTN games... it's available outside the US AND Canada only: http://mgoblog.com/content/big-ten-network-stream-all-football-basketbal...
EDIT: The above post, which I can no longer edit, should read, "If you get whaetever ABC in Portland, ME or Boston shows - frequently, a Big East game, I imagine - you'll be getting Georgia-Oklahoma State." The original post says ESPN. Same result, but I may have confused you. If so, apologies.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Only ESPN family fo networks will help this week||
Here is a link to the coverage map: http://www.mgoblue.com/uploadedImages/Sports/Football/Articles/2000s/200...
No Big East game or Pac-10 game about which to worry, though Georgia-Oklahoma State is certainly a good matchup. If you get whaetever ESPN in Portland, ME or Boston shows - frequently, a Big East game, I imagine - you'll be getting Georgia-Oklahoma State.
I'd say call your operator and see what they say. I know that's not too helpful.
And FYI, Big Ten Network will stream games online internationally. Brian posted about it a few weeks back. Sorry that I don;t have the link. I'll try to dig around for it. That may help you watch Indiana, Eastern and Delaware State games; maybe even Purdue.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I don't know how or if it would differ in Canada, but...||
... IIRC, The Bug Ten does not have a distribution deal with ESPN GamePlan in the US once The Big Ten Network took most (all?) games that would have otherwise been televised by ESPN-Regional or ESPN-Local.
As has been mentioned before, any 12:00 or 3:30 game featuring a Big ten team televised regionally by ABC will be mirrored on ESPN2 in regions of the US where ABC is not televising the Big Ten game in question. Virtually ever other game I remember from last year - and definitely every other Michigan game was either on ESPN or BTN. However, ABC primetime games are not guaranteed to be mirrored on ESPN2, so one could miss out there.
As for what this means for Canada, I have no idea. Do you get ESPN2 or ABC at all? You may want to call your cable or satellite operator to see what options they offer. Maybe Big ten games are on GamePlan in Canada but not in the US, though I doubt it.
Sorry that this wasn't more helpful.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I don't think the Big Ten has a deal with Game Plan||
For any ABC night games not carried by your local affiliate, I believe you'll have to find a satellite dish. IIRC.
But Florida-LSU should be on CBS, right? No other big games seem to be scheduled (as of now) for 8pm ET.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||And...||
... it's entirely possible Sharp doesn't have all the details on the sources Rosenberg and Snyder cultivated. I don't count his opinion on the matter for much no matter which way it bends.
The Schad ESPN report with mention of a current player that started some games last year indicates its quite possible that some (at least one; maybe more) of the sources were current players other than the freshman quoted in the article.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Semi worried?||
Your a better person than I. It's not so much that I'm more worried, just more embarrassed.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Not for nothing||
But 5-7 isn't a crazy prediction. It doesn't display the optimism that fans would prefer, but it's not indicative of bias. Snyder has us losing only one game in which we'll likely be favored - vs WMU on Sat - and, frankly, I'm scared of that game, too. Western has a good quarterback and a dangerous offense, especially through the air; our poor safety play last year combined with the new scheme and the relative inexperience on that side of the ball doesn't make this a great matchup for the opener.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||You've got to be kidding me||
I'm sorry. The ad hominem attacks, name calling and silly threats are bad enough, but this board has gone to shit if people resort to attacks on people's race, ethnicity or religion. Seriously?
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I may be mistaken, but...||
... I think the ABC/ESPN2 mirroring applies only to Saturday 12 noon ET and 3:30 pm ET games, but not to primetime ABC games. So, it's possible that, depending on where you live, you may not be able to see some Michigan night games (@ Iowa, for example) if your local ABC station carries another primetime game. This was how it worked last year; I believe it is the same this year, but I could be mistaken.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I know you won't like this||
But, technically, withholding playing time from anybody solely on the basis of not attending voluntary workouts, would likely be construed by the NCAA as punishment and, hence, a violation of its rules. Now, if the result of not attending voluntary workouts resulted in poorer on-field performance relative to peers, one would imagine playing time could be justifiably withheld.
However, while romantic, the dogma that "workouts are relative, but so is playing time" is, in and of itself and without regard to a workout's impact on player performance, a violation of NCAA rules. Even if everybody else is doing it and saying it. As such, I'm glad RR isn't the author of that quote.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I doubt Rodriguez forgot the rules when he came to AA||
I doubt Rodriguez forgot the rules when he came to AA. He probably played in the grey areas of "mandatory" vs. "voluntary" time about the same as he did at WVU, much as coaches at most other BCS football programs do (though maybe to a greater extent: IDK).
In this case, some of the veteran players noticed a stark difference in the time they felt required to spend on football related activities and enough of them were upset enough about it, and potentially other issues, to speak about it.
Likewise, there are members of the media who feel that RR runs the program his way without regard for tradition, those outside the program and, occasionally, his own players. Some also feel he plays a little fast and loose with the rules and doesn't understand how the culture is different at Michigan. Well, the media is part of the culture, too, and for those in the media who thought RR would eventually get in trouble, there is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are clearly gray areas in the activities that count toward NCAA maximums and those that don't just as there are ways to comply with the letter of the rule, though not the intent, regarding voluntary vs mandatory activities. It seems pretty clear that Michigan under RR - like many BCS programs - plays in those gray areas. The reporters may not have done a good enough job to sketch that nebulous gray cloud for us, instead implying that Michigan has crossed a brightline, but it's evident Michigan is further into the gray than it was at least in the waning years of its former coach.
Whether or not there will be any violations and any sanctions has much to do with how easily Michigan can explain away the gray (to the NCAA!) by counting hours, etc. It will also depend, as these reporters rightly point out, what, if anything, players say to the NCAA should it ask.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||And my hope is...||
... Stoney (and every last one of us) looks at this from all sides. WLA had a good and thoughtful perspective, as did Jim Carty, Adam Rittenberg and Doc Sat.
I think there are better and more interesting stories here than the one that, as Brian says, was (at least somewhat) uncritically reported, but I think we may be kidding ourselves if we don't think that a) there probably were technical violations, b) as described, Sunday itineraries - even if possibly explained away - could have easily blown past the 4-hr max, c) there are/will be fissures in the program that are still at least festering.
These reporters may have been able to put out a better story and I won't say bias didn't creep in, but skewering these reporters as unprofessional is neither a criticism most of us are qualified to level, nor does it make a good case that there is nothing to be worried about here.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Irish adds a lot to this board||
Balanced, insightful, thoughtful and informative. There aren't very many commenters out there that can say that.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||Co-signed||
Just because one of the player's parents hasn't seen or heard of anything he deems abusive, or is ok with bending the rules a bit, doesn't mean it hasn't happened or it is not that big of a deal if it did.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||And vilification from fans||
Few want to look like guy who rats out his alma mater.
|6 years 12 weeks ago||I can't believe how much this is devolving||
Comment on the story all you want. The timing, your perception of its bias, the veracity of its arguments (or implications). Hopefully, people are reasonable when presented with well thought out rebuttals, but even that's not required.
But, why is it important to be critical of them as people? I just don't understand.
|6 years 16 weeks ago||Michigan should campaign for the Yale Bowl as the site||
It seats far more, and is both in perception and reality far easier for NY-based alumni to attend, especially via MTA train. Boston alumni base will travel to Hartford or New Haven in the same numbers anyway.
I don't see why Michigan wouldn't push for the Yale Bowl as the site. Whether, logistically, UConn could make that happen without giving up a lot, I have no idea.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||I'm with Brian||
It's not that UConn is a bad opponent, it's that it's nuts to give away a home a game to a team such as UConn. Plus, UConn is not exactly an exciting opponent for the Stadium opener. Army would have at least been "special." Oh well. On with life.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Thanks||
Appreciate the link. Good stuff.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||I didn't see that either||
You got a link? Because the whole reason these five teams were mentioned was because they each had open dates on Sept 4, 2010. If a team is moving some games around, then the criteria for creating this list isn't useful.
Georgia came to my mind to, given the Daily article. Brian debunked UGA because it's schedule is full in 2011, but if the return game could be in 2012 or 2013 (though that would mean just six home games for M if the return game were in 2012), AND if our potential opponent is trying to move some games around, Georgia is a logical team to at least put on the list of potential opponents. Though, Georgia is full in 2013, and I don;t know if Michigan wants to have just six home games in 2012.
I guess I could just wait a week and find out.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Good to know||
Thanks; I did not read that. You got a link?
|6 years 17 weeks ago||What type of different?||
That FSU won't offer or that it won't end his recruitment?
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Thanks guys||
I get the logic. I just was wondering why the coaches thought he was good at football now, but not (good enough to get an offer) before. A strong camp performance makes sense. Thanks Tom.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||A thought||
On the Georgia debunking: Why would the return game have to be in 2011? Couldn't it be in 2012? That wouldn't work so well for Michigan (@ ND and @ UGA in the same year), but it would work.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||It's wishful thinking because...||
... it's wishful thinking because of how team's schedule these days. There are two primary factors making this list "wishful thinking:"
1. Few BCS conference teams find it beneficial to schedule two difficult non-conference games in the same year
2. In this environment, when the facilities arms race is as heated as ever, ADs are loathe to give up the larger payday which, for Michigan, is another home game.
I don't pretend to know at all what is going on inside Martin's head, but I imagine point 1 is not entirely moot for him in 2010, though it is of less importance than it would be in a typical year. However, the 2010 season may also be a critical inflection point for Michigan football and I doubt that, even if he could convince USC to visit, would he wish to foist that burden upon his third-year head coach.
Secondly, it's typically not a one-year decision. Most "quality teams" that would excite MGoCommenters (at least those on this thread) have the same incentives (above) as Michigan does and, other than Duke and perhaps Virginia, would not likely agree to play at Michigan without a return game. And even if any of these teams did agree to that, it would set up each for a brutal non-conference schedule, the likes of which I'm not sure we've seen in the past five years, should Michigan actually turn out to be good.
Last, like it or not (and I do), Notre Dame is on the schedule and is reasonably viewed as a possible BCS bowl-caliber team before the season begins. From a scheduling standpoint, it would be rough to add another high caliber team each year, and difficult to do so without agreeing to return games.
As a fan, like many of you, I wish Michigan would schedule team's with quality ranging from Virginia to Pitt (I wouldn't prefer to go so far as wish to have USC and ND on the schedule every year) and would be fine with home-and-homes. I like the idea of a rotating fun out-of-conference road trip every two years (see: Colorado, UCLA, Washington, Oregon), though, preferably, not to the West Coast, when ND visits Michigan.
But, I understand why Martin may not: there is little upside. If Michigan beats three patsies and ND, that OOC record paired with whatever we do in-conference results in the highest payday, doesn't alter our TV exposure, and sets us up for, in most, but not all circumstances, the best possible bowl game.
While I WISH we would add a home-and-home with, say, Boston College or Rutgers the next two years, and will continue to wish for it, I think we should realistically HOPE that we get back to scheduling BCS conference teams (or their equivalent) in one-and-done home games, a la Vanderbilt. These teams will not be of the same quality as Pitt or Oregon State, but they won't be Massachusetts , either.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Army would work actually||
On many levels. It's, by definition, special. It's not a 1-AA team. It's not very good. It has Sept 4 open, with lots of other scheduling flexibility. It won't ask for a return game. It benefits financially. It benefits from the national TV exposure it would get. It doesn't have a non-conference schedule to worry about. You may be on to something.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Apologies are in order||
I started this thread with some (very) basic analysis of the likelihood that Michigan would schedule one of Rittenberg's "potential" opponents to open the 2010 season. I didn't mean it as a referendum on scheduling or any of these individual teams.
I suppose my point was that UVA and, especially, Oregon State and Pitt, appear, to this observer at least, as unlikely opponents for Sept 4, 2010 despite the open dates on each team's schedule and the waxing/waning enthusiasm of MGoCommenters for each team.
I suppose it would have been more useful for me to actually do some research, identify teams that I think could be potential Stadium opening opponents, and present those in a diary, rather than just lamely attempt to take down Rittenberg's hastily researched blog post.
PS- Duke seems like a possibility, but, man, what a brutal schedule it would have that year, and there isn't much upside for Michigan.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||Oh man, for posterity, I need to retroactively add...||
1997 - Michigan @ Penn State football - perhaps the most epic of beatdowns I have seen in person, especially considering Penn State's then-current ranking and what the win did to ours
1996 - Michigan @ Duke basketball - down by (about) 10 with (about) six minutes to go in second half at Cameron, but we pull it out with a Traylor dunk with five seconds left.
|6 years 17 weeks ago||An offer||
I like the optimism, but... I'm willing to wager $50 on the under if you're setting the line at 8.5 wins.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Yeah||
This is just an outside the tackle box rule, and one I'm fine with.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Beware Western Michigan||
Its offense vs our defense in the first game of the season could go horribly wrong. Then, ND's passing attack vs our pass defense the next week will look pretty scary.
Of course, we all WANT Michigan to win both of those games, but, I think we should be content with a split and delighted with a sweep.
Even with a split, home games vs. EMU, Indiana, Delaware St & Purdue appear very winnable. Throw in a win @ MSU, @ Wisconsin or other and we're in a bowl game at 6-6.
I would be ecstatic with a 7-5 record, which so many have predicted, but does anybody remember last year? Our offense should be much improved, but our D is scar, scary, scary.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Good catch||
Thanks. Too late to edit it.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||A tough one||
In ascending order:
1990 - Michigan vs MSU football - despite the outcome, a great game
1994 - Michigan vs Colorado football - ugh; it still hurts
2008 - USA vs Italy World Cup - we didn't lose! You haven't experienced pandemonium until you've cheered with (or against) European soccer fans
2006 - Michigan at OSU - great game; bad outcome
EDIT: 1996 - Michigan vs BU hockey (Frozen Four semifinal) - the most dominant performance by that team that year. It got us over the hump and made me believe we could win the whole thing
1997 - Michigan vs OSU - schwing! Actually, it was a good game, not a great game, but the impact was the best
|6 years 18 weeks ago||That's going to be tough||
Brian debunked UGA the other day.
I wouldn't mind if Michigan got back to the home-and-home deals it had so that the years where we're @ ND, we have a at least a decent BCS-conference opponent coming to Michigan Stadium. Incidentally, those years are also the years where we're @ PSU and @ OSU - that even year schedule needs a boost.
The game doesn't have to be USC or Alabama or LSU - in fact, I'd prefer a middle-of-the-pack, but respectable opponent, one which, when Michigan plays in its stadium, people don;t wonder why the heck we're there. Then, I am 100% fine with two MAC pansies for the other two games. In my opinion, Eastern should always be on the schedule due to proximity.
However, that means giving up a home game - and the revenue associated with it - something Michigan hasn't done since we were @ Oregon in 2003 - a deal struck before Martin arrived in 2000.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Great summary||
This is the most concise and incisive review of the RoJo situation I have ever read. Kudos.
I remember when Nick Perry, Ronald Johnson and Dionte Allen all seemed like Michigan locks. Bleh.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||They were a package deal for the 2009 draft||
They never said they were a package deal for this draft, as that would mean Manny would have announced he was coming out no matter what. He very likely will be leaving, but it's not because he decided he and DeShawn are a package deal.
Let's wait and see what observers think of him mid-way through the season, but, as most are, I'd plan on Manny leaving after this season. If we get Zeigler or Prather and look good for Kearney or Brundidge in 2011, I'll be happy.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||ASU is already trying to fill a hole on its schedule||
For the next week. At first, I thought that might help our chances, but after looking at which teams are on its schedule, I think it makes in nearly impossible to make it work. And, ASU lost a home game and likely wants to fill that spot with a home game.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Yes, I have read the same||
Mike Jones was playing Spinner in Spring. It is kind of obvious to most observers who is at the Spinner because Greg Robinson, rather than Jay Hopson, coaches that position. I have also read that Bell will likely start at Spinner, but could move inside eventually (I read that as next year) if bulks up.
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Seems to be working now||
|6 years 18 weeks ago||Me too||
Anybody have any info? It has to be a server error of some kind, even if they are migrating to a pay site.
|6 years 19 weeks ago||This was my first reaction as well||
It was not the smartest thing for him to say, and I was a tad miffed when I heard it - far more disturbing than any comments about the 'family atmosphere' given that that is now such a buzzword. But, I'm willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt - it could have just been some throwaway comment without any racial, or otherwise prejudicial, intentions behind it. Best of luck to Kurt.
|6 years 19 weeks ago||Whatever happened to Rashad Knight's recruitment?||
With Avery in the fold, I (as an uninformed observer) would imagine that the coaches are also counting on Cullen Cristian and would like a third corner, but would prefer Mathis or Knight over Grimes. No?
Any news on Knight? I haven't heard anything about him for a while?
|6 years 19 weeks ago||Wow, was I wrong||
I was just reading some of my old comments for fun (bored at work AND narcissistic!) and, boy, was I wrong on this one. Q: How much worse could our offense be? A: a whole heck of a lot. I quit.
|6 years 19 weeks ago||Actually...||
... after re-reading Poe's piece, the most interesting thing about it is that Free press U-M beat reporter Mark Snyder is also the head coach at Marshall. I never knew!
|6 years 19 weeks ago||Agreed.||
Poe is being "controversial for the sake of being controversial." When you don't know what else to write about, and have to write something, it's far easier to just write something controversial than research a subject and come up with an interesting angle or piece of analysis. I have no idea whether he wants to piss people off (not apparent in this case) or make the story about him, but it needn't go that far to be a rationale for the fall of that type of mentality.
|6 years 19 weeks ago||A bit too far||
"when the twit in question fails to respond it's a tacit admission that the assessment in the subject is correct."
Hey, I agree with you, Brian, that this guy's argument is baloney, but not responding to your sincere (but, obviously mocking) proposition doesn't mean he's wrong (many other things do, but not this).
This guy, like many others, is a less-successful Drew Sharp. He is what he is. One of the "problems" with some of these guys is that they don't actually believe what they write, but write in order to find an audience. This kind of thinking won't last more than a decade more, it exists.
Believing the idiocy of one's own arguments probably is better, not worse.
|6 years 20 weeks ago||One man's (dumb) idea - Pareto efficient||
There are so many proposals out there and so many opinions - of which mine is no better than others' - that I have always thought it might be best to find an alternative that conforms as much to Pareto's principle (all parties better off) as possible. And here is what I have. It is not perfect, but I don't see, with few small exceptions, how any existing constituent - other than hypocritical University presidents who don't want to see one extra game for just two of FBS' 120 teams - is not made better off by this:
- Add a 5th BCS Bowl
- Allow that Bowl to tie in with a conference champion if there is mutual agreement with a conference (or two) to do so (The Big East is the obvious one, so I say the Gator Bowl, but it could be anything)
- Play 5 BCS Bowl games as is done today, but with no Conference tie-in ever thrown asunder.
- Use same rules of eligibility as today (I'd love to see them changed, but I can't think of a good solution where one constituent isn't made worse off)
- Re-run BCS rankings after these 5 Bowls
- Play a MNC game that rotates among the four existing BCS bowl sites
I'm not sure I see a downside for anybody here other than the fact that the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange would lose the ability to place the Big East champ in their bowl game
Personally, I'd also like to see teams without direct conference championship tie-ins get slotted in to bowl games based on their penultimate BCS ranking (barring in-conference matchups) but the BCS bowls would likely wouldn't go for that what with ticket sales & TV ratings abut which to worry.
|6 years 21 weeks ago||I'm going to assume this is a joke comment||
|6 years 21 weeks ago||I don't even know what an in-state recruiting battle is||
Look at the number of guys both M and MSU want and see who gets more. Then remove the guys who are M or MSU locks/leans for one reason or another and look at that metric. Look at each case and analyze whether it is disturbing or not, and to what degree - all cases are not the same.
I hope MSU has more recruits from the state of Michigan than U of M does in every one of its classes. M should be able to pull more guys from out-of-state than MSU is, and recruiting classes have finite numbers.
|6 years 22 weeks ago||On Quicks and Spinners||
I'm not gsimmons, who I'm sure can explain this better, but, the Quick is the DE/OLB hybrid that defines the difference between a 4-3 and a 4-3 under. The position is consistent across these schemes if the name of it is not.
Michigan is then doing something a little different with its LBs. In addition to the quick, Michigan will have a Mike (middle LB) and a Will (weakside LB, lined up on the opposite side of the field as the offense's TE). Ezeh has and likely will play Mike and Mouton has and will play Will. Standard so far.
Now, where Michigan looks like it will differ a little, is what it's doing with it's seventh guy of the front seven. A team running a 4-3 under could employ a 'typical' strongside LB, a SAM, a la Sean Crable, but, instead, Michigan has decided to use a safety/LB hybrid to play this role, which it calls Spinner. This role will likely be played by Steve Brown this year.
The Sam is the player typically taken off the field when a team goes to 5 DBs, so this is both an effort to defend spread teams better and to theoretically minimize substitutions needed on a play-by-play basis. Against many formations, the Spinner will need to perform like a traditional SAM, so this is not just another SS; but, often will be employed more like a traditional nickelback, a la Brandon Harrison when the 2006 team (frequently) went with 5 DBs.
gsimmons, and those who understand better should correct anything I said that was wrong or otherwise misleading.
|6 years 23 weeks ago||We could use Bryant as strongside DE, couldn't we?||
We could use Bryant as strongside DE, couldn't we? Especially if Jibreel Black is a DT. Unless, of course, Paskorz grows in to a SDE; but then the whole Holmes O thing doesn't make as much sense. Unless Antonia Kinnard is not a LB, but a Quick. In which case we have no LBs in the class.
So, in short, we could use Bryant as a strongside DE, couldn't we?
|6 years 25 weeks ago||Seconded.||
|6 years 30 weeks ago||What about Colorado?||
Reprise the infamous 1994 game. And not the most difficult of BCS opponents in 2010, most likely.
|6 years 30 weeks ago||Or, is there an option to move MSU?||
Other conferences do it.
|6 years 32 weeks ago||I'm confused||
Did Smith move to hybrid LB/safety position like Stevie Brown did, or to a true LB position a la Ezeh and Mouton? If the former, makes complete sense. If the later... huh.
|6 years 32 weeks ago||The Other Brian has it right||
I'm sure the coaches want one more RB and prefer an all-purpose back - the bruiser and the scat back positions are in good shape with Hopkins and Drake.
We should all be hoping for Austin White, and he seems to be the staff's No. 1 RB priority now. Clay would be a fine replacement - probably preferred - but, other than the "if he gets to campus and Tate does his thing, anything can happen" thing, Clay seems like a big risk for directing our recruiting focus. Brown likely an even bigger ling-shot.
Cassius McDowell and Nick Hill are little shifty guys we'd probably now only take if scholarship slots are open. Dietrich Riley is probably not a RB
We'll take Lattimore if he wants to come no matter who else has already committed, so no worries there.
Corvin lamb is the wild card.
|6 years 32 weeks ago||Maybe he meant Marvin Robinson||
He's an MR.
|6 years 32 weeks ago||Some are still here||
I have heard rumblings from people that speak with players, that a lot of the players, especially many of defense, were not very happy last year. I suppose that means they did not buy in 100%. I think Shafer being gone helps; there was little love lost between many defensive players and Shafer.
Some players are starters and are are still around - Warren, for example. It wasn't just the guys who left or didn't play. If so, it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.
|6 years 35 weeks ago||I do||
And next year, we'll have three more, but I'm not sure why Gibson will suddenly be a starter next year or why Cronin, who will basically be a frosh next year, is a better pair with Sims than even Gibson was/will be.
I'm just sayin', to start next year, Sims-Novak-Stu-Manny + a PG is likely the starting five rather than substituting a guy who couldn't crack the starting limeup this year or a lumbering redshirt frosh.
Of course, all of this changes in Beilein decides to start Stu at PG, which I doubt.
|6 years 35 weeks ago||Why will Cronin and Gibson play more next year than Gibson this?||
Maybe Cronin starts getting more minutes at the end of next year - he can't even practice fully right now and the coaches won't see him practice till fall - and/or Gibson improves dramatically, but right now all evidence is that Novak is the starting "4."
And the biggest question mark for next year is where true vocal leadership will come from. To date, Harris and Sims haven't shown they can do what CJ and Merritt did this year. But, here's hoping. We won't know until fall or winter.
|6 years 35 weeks ago||Agreed||
First team at practices has been Ortmann, Schilling, Molk, Moosman, and Dorrestein. McAvoy has been second team center, Ferrara second team guard along with Barnum.
Obviously, lots can change, but that's what it looks like now.
|6 years 36 weeks ago||Really? You got a link?||
Surprising. And Gillespie wasn't a one-hit wonder (nor a one-trick pony, which, actually, I don't think applies). He had three really good seasons at A&M, especially considering how horrible the Aggies were before he arrived. He also led a major turnaround at UTEP, which was horrid before his stint there.
His resume was about as good as it could be for only five years as a HC. I wanted him as M's coach.
|6 years 36 weeks ago||We don't handle pressure well||
Tough, tough matchup, I think. They don't have a ton of size, which is good, but they are a pressure pressing team. As evidenced by the second half vs Illinois, we just don't do well when other teams press our guards. We handle trapping presses better than pressure presses, but not much.
This will be a tough one. Grady might actually see some PT, but I'm not even sure if that's a good thing at this point based on how little he's played recently. Must be some serious confidence issues there (either he in himself or Beilein in him; or both).
|6 years 38 weeks ago||A few bubble scores omitted, some good, some bad||
Oklahoma State 77, Kansas State 71
Bad - three teams won against inferior opponents in games where losses would have likely knocked them down a few pegs if not out entirely in one case:
Texas A&M 72, Colorado 66 (a game CU was winning in 2nd half)
|6 years 38 weeks ago||I love jamiemac||
You should get TomVH status, or at least start your own blog. Best stuff on M bball out there, man.