"In response to CBSSports.com's request for Michigan's concussion management protocol, the athletic department sent the NCAA's 11-page document for treating head injuries."
|15 hours 4 min ago||Honest question... are the||
Honest question... are the two statements necessarily incongruous? Contacting a couple guys and guaging interest does not necessarily fall under "starting a search." Obviously 140 characters doesn't leave a lot of room for nuance, but it's possible both statements are true. Also, if the school was reaching out to AD candidates would sources in the AD really know? Who the hell would be in charge of such a task? It's possible a leak of this story comes from the other side of the contact, while Bacon's contacts have no clue.
On the other hand, it is a little hard to believe that if the leak was on the Michigan side, that coachingsearch.com would have it and Bacon's sources would not.
|15 hours 10 min ago||Muschamp was the much higher||
Muschamp was the much higher profile coach at the time. Mullen was only two years into this tenure at Mississippi State. It's quite possible that Mullen was on Florida's second tier of candidates and Florida just never got their.
|18 hours 51 min ago||Or at least not categorically||
Or at least not categorically opposed. I do think you can win without a dual threat QB, but if you have a guy that can do some things with his legs, use it...
|19 hours 43 min ago||I think Nuss just said that||
I think Nuss just said that he wanted a timeout.
|20 hours 56 min ago||A healthy and alert QB almost||
A healthy and alert QB almost certainly gets the handoff without being hit. But, a guy with a possible concussion? You missed the most obvious way he gets hit. What if he goes the wrong way? What if he turns the wrong way, misses the handoff and gets hit? That absolutely could happen to a guy with a concussion.
|21 hours 14 min ago||Took a really bad loss to La.||
Took a really bad loss to La. Tech. this year and flopped in the two following chances to make a statement win. Getting drubbed by Ole Miss and Boise State. This season could get away from him and if so I don't see him being a serious player in any high level coaching search this off-season.
The non-p5 coach I think we should be tracking is Jim McElwain at Colorado State. He has turned around a completely moribound program at Colorado State (9-27 the three years before his arrival) and currently has the team at 3-1 with wins over Colorado and Boston College. He's mostly been out west, but had a few years with John L. Smith at Louisville and MSU. He then spent a year as QB coach with the Raiders and ultimately ended up guiding two national champion offenses at Alabama under Saban. He's the guy that every coaching search needs to consider this offseason.
|22 hours 6 min ago||Honestly, I don't get the||
Honestly, I don't get the sense that most think Hoke is a "monster" or even that he thought there was a real risk to Morris and chose to ignore it. I think it's more about the whole scenario just being the last point in a long string of evidence that Hoke isn't a competent head coach. I mean, sure Hoke has other things going on, but it's not like he's calling plays or planning the defense while the offense is on the field. He famously doesn't wear a headset as to not be distracted and focus on things the head coach should focus on. If ever there was a coach which should have had an idea that Morris had no business being on the field, even to simply hand off the football, it's Brady Hoke. That it's hard to picture that Hoke really had no clue he took a shot to the head, was woozy and had to be pulled, yet still allowed him to reenter the game rather than call a timeout, is the only thing leading people to saying, "you know what, maybe he's not a great dude afterall."
This groundswell of "he should be fired," isn't really for the wrong reasons for the vast majority. The vast majority are three groups: those that were ready to fire him immediately before the Morris incident, those that wanted him fired but didn't think there was a point to do so before the end of the season and the Morris incident changing their mind, and those for whom the Morris incident was simply the last straw that pushed them from "we're not sure yet" to "fired." I don't see wrong reasons in any of that, even if some of the villifying is over the top.
|22 hours 26 min ago||What is there really left to||
What is there really left to say at this point that hasn't already been said ad nauseum about this team's failures? The only new thing that hasn't been a problem for the last 17 games or so was that we purposefully went with Morris and refused to pull the plug once it became plainly obvious that Gardner was the better option. He had a whole section about that.
Everything else is literally the same story from every loss/bad win over the last 17 games. If we want to figure out why the defense was only ok (but really only two sustained scoring drives - 10, maybe 13 points were on the defense), it probably will take a close rewatching. I don't envy anyone that actually wants to/has to go through that.
It's clear you have some personal interest in Hoke that has you wanting to put your head in the sand and just ignore the obvious. That's fine, just don't expect anyone to cater to your personal bias. But if it's really what you want, why don't you start up a blog, or put together a diary to talk about the things you want to talk about.
|22 hours 51 min ago||You would feel better with||
You would feel better with this game analysis:
We started a QB who clearly wasn't ready. We did not make a change before being forced to do so because of injury. Our RBs aren't particularly good, either at hitting holes, or pass protection. Our offensive line is barely approaching ok. We are uncreative in offensive playcalling, either due to these limitations, or in some insane attempt to exacerbate the offensive problems. As a result, the offense was atrocious. Defense was ok. Not their best game, but part of that has to come from playing opposite this offense.
That is really what you want to read?
|1 day 16 hours ago||That's really the damning||
That's really the damning part of the whole incident. That the official looks at Morris and basically suggests Hoke use a timeout and Hoke doesn't... None of Hoke's excuses are valid...
|1 day 16 hours ago||Someone can correct me if I'm||
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can pass a concussion test in the first few minutes after the incident in question. It takes a little time to adequately assess the player.
|2 days 13 min ago||You picked the wrong head||
You picked the wrong head coach from yesterday's CSU-BC game...
|4 days 19 hours ago||Who was high and mighty?||
Who was high and mighty? Didn't even say we'd win. Just that I feel much better when examining Minnesota's resume and realizing that they may be even more inept on offense than we are. And I feel pretty comfortable in saying that we're better on defense. I feel better than I did immediately after the Utah game, doesn't mean I think we'll win by 3 TDs.
|4 days 20 hours ago||Minnesota only scored 24||
Minnesota only scored 24 points on a GERG led defense from the MWC? I'm feeling much better about this game...
|5 days 20 hours ago||On the other hand, what if||
On the other hand, what if Oregon turned out to not really be Oregon this year? They were tied with 1-3 Washington State in the 4th Quarter this past weekend.
There were computers that were far more down on MSU this season than the pollsters based on personnel losses. Other than the rest of the Big Ten maybe being worse than expected, I'm not exactly sure what MSU has done to quell any of those doubts. A 19 point loss to Oregon? A dismantling of an FCS team and a team that wishes it were as good as an average FCS team? I'm not sure anyone should consider that an impressive resume at this point.
I think it's more likely than not that MSU is the best team in the East, but I don't think it's necessarily a foregone conclusion.
|6 days 17 hours ago||People thought Rich Rod was||
People thought Rich Rod was never leaving West Virginia because he turned down Alabama. Turning down the job "people laughed at" signified the guy was never leaving. Of course, it had more to do with things behind the scenes than anything really football related that caused him to take the next available big job upgrade. That was something nobody could really know about. Could there be something like that with Shaw? Certainly. But there's nothing right now to indicate that it is so.
You're right, it never hurts to ask those guys. I just wouldn't be particularly confident any of them would even consider the job. And it really has nothing to do with Michigan. I think that's what people are talking about with the shallow coaching pool this season. There aren't any candidats out there that have people saying "oh, he'll definitely be moving to greener pastures this off-season." My only point in all of this is that I'm not sure next year is looking any better.
|6 days 17 hours ago||It's a little relative, no?||
It's a little relative, no? Yes, we would have considered that 10 year stretch between Stallings and Saban to be crap, but in those seasons they did manage two top-10 finishes and a top-11 finish. And they weren't playing in a conference as bad as the Big Ten is right now.
|6 days 18 hours ago||David Shaw is young, at his||
David Shaw is young, at his alma mater, with a top-10 program. There would need to be something behind the scenes forcing him to want to leave for us to have a chance. Patterson has had chances to go forever and not taken them. Maybe he'll pull a Chris Petersen and finally decide it's time to leave, but I wouldn't count on it. I mentioned Wittingham, though it's worth noting that he's Mormon and may be inclined to stay in Salt Lake City. I don't think Briles is leaving the state of Texas. Mendenhall is also Mormon and you get the feeling that BYU is a dream job he isn't leaving.
All those guys have compelling reasons that say they aren't leaving. Some more than others. Wittingham is the only one that I think even entertains the thought.
|6 days 19 hours ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, and I've made similar arguments in other places with respect to this year's coaching prospects. I just want an idea from someone on guys they think may be available (or viable) next year that aren't this year. I really can't think of one. Other than Mullen, there's nobody doing great things with traditionally lesser programs. Maybe Hugh Freeze, but he's as southern as can be. Ruffin McNeill maybe gets one more year to show that he's for real in building a contender where one really shouldn't be? Some of the Pac-12 guys? Todd Graham, Kyle Wittingham? Not sure why those gays would be more available next year than this.
I just feel like this attitude is simply fear of the unknown. When the situation is demonstrably untenable, you take the leap. No matter what. Maybe if we turn it around, go 8-4/9-3 knocking off at least one of our rivals. Then maybe the one year is worth the gamble. If we go 7-5 or worse and are again not competing for championships in the worst Big Ten in decades, I don't see how you can stick with the status quo given the present results.
|6 days 19 hours ago||I think Tressel worked for||
I think Tressel worked for the I-AA to Big Time leap because the guy absolutely knew Ohio and how to sell Ohio State to Ohio kids. We're not getting that with Baldwin. As for Martin, I need to see more than him just maintaining Brian Kelly's GVSU program before I give him the keys.
|6 days 19 hours ago||Sort of the same situation||
Sort of the same situation with Kevin Wilson... Though I'd think the Missou win is enough to buy him a season's worth of breathing room, even if things go badly. IU fans don't seem as delusional as Missippi State fans.
|6 days 19 hours ago||There is no such thing as a||
There is no such thing as a slam dunk hire. Ok, maybe there are a couple (Saban, etc.) but those guys almost never leave. Can you imagine a hire that's better than a guy who had three straight top-10 finishes, who's program won two BCS bowls, including defeating the SEC champ in one? That's as big of a home run as you get. It didn't work out for us.
Look at the "home run hires" everyone here discusses. John Harbaugh? Hasn't been in college in ages. He's one Joe Flacco hot streak and one crater season away from being Mike Sherman, who was a disaster at A&M. Jim Harbaugh? Had only one good year at Stanford, and they haven't fallen off under Shaw. Les Miles? Proven winner, but you have to be a Gerri DiNardo level dolt to lose at LSU. Can't help but feel his teams underachieve and his gameday decisions have long been questioned.
That's not to say that I think any of those guys wouldn't be great hires. Just that nobody is a guarantee. Yes, there's no Urban Meyer or Nick Saban out there waiting to get back into the college game with a giant. But there hardly ever is. Sometimes you have to make your giant of coaching.
I also wonder what exactly is going to change next year? Maybe Butch Jones looks like a viable candidate (but if that's true, would he leave Tennessee)? Maybe Harbaugh has one more year to grow dissatisfied with the NFL game? That hardly seems worth the gamble. I don't see any guarantee that there is someone to be had next year. There's nobody that I can think of that has me saying "he's just a year or two away from a big gig."
|6 days 23 hours ago||Holtz was 16-19 in his last||
Holtz was 16-19 in his last three years at USC. Hardly a great foundation to build upon.
|1 week 15 hours ago||maybe a quick description?||
maybe a quick description?
|1 week 18 hours ago||Jerry Kill last week: "As far||
Jerry Kill last week: "As far as I know, like last week, the trainer said that he's banged up and so forth. but said he'd be at full speed today," Kill said. "He did not break his toe. That's all I can say. He was moving around on Sunday. ... He basically got what they call turf toe, but he's swelled up. They expect him to practice today."
|1 week 20 hours ago||I wonder if being on ESPN||
I wonder if being on ESPN "encourages" the beat reporters to be a bit more pointed in their questions.
|1 week 3 days ago||As a season ticket holder,||
As a season ticket holder, you likely wouldn't have waited until week of to buy your single game tickets in the worst possible seats anyway. You really haven't lost anything from these steep discounts to try and sell-out the place by being a season ticket holder.
Complaining about the prices in the secondary market is a legitimate gripe. But you knew that would be the case when you bought this year's tickets and you have the benefit of priority for your seats for next year's much better slate. So I don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy. If the Athletic Department jacks up prices for next year's tickets because that set of games is much better than this year's, then I'll have sympathy for season ticket holders.
There's lots of things to complain about with this athletic department, but these reasonable discount deals aren't really one of them. These are much better tactics to sell the final tickets than things like the groupon offerred earlier this season.
|1 week 4 days ago||In Brian's lingo, it may be||
In Brian's lingo, it may be Hoke's "most desperate need to win" game of his tenure. At least heading into the game. Looking back, an argument could be made for the 2011 version of The Game, may have been the most important win in terms of job security, but that couldn't have been appreciated at the time.
For this game, lose it and the road ahead gets very dicey. He could survive losing to MSU and OSU this year (probably) if they're the only two other loses. Throw in a home loss to a mediocre Utah team he's probably gone. Lose another and he's almost certainly gone. Yes, I'd say Hoke desperately needs to win this one in a way that he hasn't felt before.
|1 week 5 days ago||Maybe this is the year we||
Maybe this is the year we finally handle it? Please?!?!
|1 week 5 days ago||While I agree with you, at||
While I agree with you, at least the answer would demonstrate less contempt for the press. That's the real problem. The press has a job to do as fan interest dictates that reporters gather and report news on the football program. Though it may be debatable how much it matters today in the information age, media has historically helped drive fan interest which has helped turn college sports into the multi-million dollar business it is today. It is not a good look that Hoke shows such contempt for the men and women of the media who are a legitimate cog in the business that has made Hoke a millionaire. It may ultimately cost him if he starts losing games, can't imagine he'll have much good will left with the media.
|1 week 5 days ago||It probably also has||
It probably also has something to do with MSU just not being built to throw a 66-0 beatdown on an FBS opponent. Not their offensive style. It is absolutely in his interest to point out that Baylor hanging 70 on someone doesn't show a better victory than MSU winning by 40.
|1 week 5 days ago||I think you have a gap in||
I think you have a gap in James Franklin's experience. He had a stop at KSU and a second stint at Maryland, he was OC in both places. I also believe he was head coach-in-waiting behind Ralph Friedgen.
|1 week 6 days ago||I think he views it as having||
I think he views it as having a little leeway this year to push these sales and deals without conditioning the buying public to expect it next year. And he's probably right. Next season should reset the picture with a much better home slate. We'll presumably sell more season tickets and be able to package the lesser games in with MSU/OSU for single game tickets. As long as Brandon doesn't jack up prices for next season under the reasoning of "hey, this year's slate is so much better than last year's!!!!", we should be ok. The following season is when it gets interesting again, but Wisconsin coming back onto the schedule helps a bit. PSU presumably will also be really good by then. If Colorado/UCF/Illinois/Indiana/Maryland provide just one reasonably quality opponent, it shouldn't be that hard to sell tickets.
|1 week 6 days ago||That Loeffler piece may have||
That Loeffler piece may have been a bit premature in declaring Va. Tech offensively competent. They averaged 5.3 YPA and 2.8 YPC. Having watched a decent chunk of that game, those numbers sound about right. I was left wondering how in the world they managed to win at Ohio State.
|1 week 6 days ago||The time period didn't||
The time period didn't include a KSU team that kicked the ass of a 7-5 mediocre Big Ten team. Again, LSU wins on a beastly defense and has routinely underperformed its talent on the offensive side of the ball. And I said I had no real explanation for Georgia but they do tend to lose to teams they shouldn't on a yearly basis.
|1 week 6 days ago||We also haven't had the||
We also haven't had the chance to use a 2-minute drill this season, ignoring the fact that we probably should have been doing so at some point against Notre Dame. That and your incompletions statistic should even out through the course of the season. It's why it's silly to put too much stock in this statistic after three weeks.
That being said, with the exception of the triple option teams, I think the plays per minute of game time statistic will give a reasonable look at tempo after a certain number of games. Up-tempo teams don't seem to have an extremely higher number of incompletions than slow-tempo teams. Auburn is averaging 8 through 2 games. A&M is averaging 13 through 3 games.
|1 week 6 days ago||I must have missed it where||
I must have missed it where up-tempo offenses can only work if they're playing a team that's equally up-tempo.
If we eat up the clock with our possessions and don't score and Utah runs quick possessions and score, I foresee a very rough game for us.
|1 week 6 days ago||And the fact that those teams||
And the fact that those teams had awful defenses had nothing to do with it? And that they mostly played in the latter half of the season after MSU had gotten their offense into gear? MSU scored 24 points against Stanford who was extremely slow and much, much better on defense than any of those teams you listed. If ball controll mattered much, you think that game would have been a 14-10 affair.
I also find it funny that you can't recognize that tempo impacts those post-snap issues that were the "real problem" and why those up-tempo teams were able to score so often.
|1 week 6 days ago||I think this just about nails||
I think this just about nails it. How often do you hear an analyst calling the game talk about an offense speeding up tempo for a possession or two in order to "get a rhythm." I've yet to see it happen under Hoke. I don't particularly care if we do it all the time, I just want to be able to do it on occasion. And you're right, the 2 min drill was a continuing disaster under Borges. I'm not going to feel comfortable that we can come back and win a game until I see us actually run a smooth 2-minute drill at some point in the future.
|1 week 6 days ago||You mean the Kansas State||
You mean the Kansas State program that lost 6 or more games three times in the relevant time period? You mean the LSU program who has pretty much been winning with defense only for the last dozen years (do you remember the Alabama-LSU championship game a couple years ago? LSU barely crossed midfield). You mean the conference that has been turned on its head the last couple seasons by high tempo teams at Auburn, A&M, Missouri and Ole Miss? I got nothing for Georgia, but maybe they're slow tempo is a reason they continue to drop a game or two a season that they shouldn't?
Tempo isn't a panacea for all teams. It certainly isn't one of the main contributors to team success (talent and coaching acumen are way above everything else). But you can't deny that college football is in an offensive boom largely driven by high-tempo offenses.
The more reasonable criticism of the tweet is that it's sort of silly to measure tempo after 3 games. Not that outdated data shows some teams with success despite being low-tempo offenses.
|2 weeks 15 hours ago||And like I said, I'm not||
And like I said, I'm not asking for definitive statements. He can't hide the fact that both guys missed time the week before. He can't hide the fact that Funchess obviously left the ND game with an injury. He can't hide the fact that Wilson didn't suit up this week. Simply acknowledging that these guys have injuries or "boo boos" or whater is the reasonable course of action. Doing so would not tell opposing coaches anything they don't already know. And again, I highly doubt that any opposing coach is going to take what is said at a press conference as gospel.
So saying it with a smirk is good? I think most feel that a good portion of why it's annoying is because it IS said with a smirk.
|2 weeks 17 hours ago||Not saying he has to say on||
Not saying he has to say on tuesday "so and so won't play." But it was no secret that Taylor left the ND game and that Peppers didn't play. You really think that Miami is going to be any more fooled if Hoke had said following the ND game that those guys are injured and we'll check on their status as the week progresses? Maybe this happens somewhat with star players, but what kind of coach completely alters a game plan based on dodgy injury information?
My only argument is that it seems silly for Hoke to take it to such an extreme. He's not really gaining anything. Instead, he's just coming across and prickly and annoying to everyone outside of the program for a slight minscule of an advantage. I don't think it's worth it.
|2 weeks 19 hours ago||It does seem like he has to||
It does seem like he has to put in at least some effort to keep this whole thing going rather than just be as forthcoming as everyone would rightly expect a college coach to be. Nobody expects him to say, "well, Funchess went through 20% of reps today, which is slightly better than yesterday." But when he has that coversation in the post-game presser regarding Wilson in which he would only say "something was wrong with him," because he doesn't discuss injuries, it becomes silly. Just say, "Wilson banged up his ankle," hope to have him back soon. There's a way to answer the question in a way that isn't necesserily completely forthright for competitive reasons without going to the extreme that Hoke has decided on this year.
From a selfish standpoint, I'd like to know more about the injured players. I know there's no right to the information, but it royally sucks finding out 30 minutes before kickoff that guys you expected to play or had no idea were even injured were out. That being said, don't any of these reporters have sources? Can you guys not get anyone to leak you an injury report?
|2 weeks 20 hours ago||Funchess, without question.||
Funchess, without question. Taylor and Wilson are key contributors, but the drop-off from them to Lewis/Peppers/Countess and Hill/Thomas is far smaller than the dropoff from Funchess to any other receiver on the roster.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||the transitive property||
the transitive property doesnt work in college football...
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I'm beginning to come around||
I'm beginning to come around to this view. I think Gardner gives us the greatest upside,which is why I thought the idea of a QB controversy in the preseason was silly. But the longer this season goes on the less I'm convinced that Gardner can reach that upside again in his time at Michigan. He just looks mentally shot. Meanwhile, we're not even really using Gardner's athletic upside in the offense. Given all that, Morris might give us a better typical QB performance from week to week. Plus, if a QB is going to give us turnovers week-in and week-out, I'd rather have the guy that can learn from them and build towards the future.
I'd give Gardner one more week, maybe two, to see if he can pull it back together. Otherwise we need to give Morris at least one start before the trip to East Lansing.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I thought a good portion of||
I thought a good portion of the reason we looked like crap is because we coached like we were ok with being predictable and we woule work on our running game. Miami coached like that's what they expected us to do and adjusted accordingly. That and some fluky TOs made this a close game at the half. I'm going to wait and see what we look like next week before making any definitive statements about the future of this season.
I will say that I would like to see Gardner be sharper.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I'm interested, what do you||
I'm interested, what do you call this? I certainly don't think it's fun...
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I think we're going to need||
I think we're going to need those guys to beat Utah next week.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||To be fair to you, it would||
To be fair to you, it would be hard to look at trends if you cut off a significant chunk of data for 3 of the 5 coaches.
I'm not sure 5 game rolling averages would be that helpful since it's easy for a lot of these coaches to run through 4 non-conference games and one conference games and only break a sweat once. 10 game rolling average could be interesting.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Of course, but the point||
Of course, but the point isn't to be kind, it's to be accurate. Looking at the chart, Kelly, Dantonio and Rodriguez all had rough first seasons that seem to be out of line with the rest of their performance. Urban Meyer's first year or two may similarly end up looking ouf of line.
The most accurate thing to do is probably start with year three or four for all coaches and say that's when you can determine the "norm," but that would make for awfully poor samples as you would only really have "good" coaches to choose from. Thus, I'd start after year one. For coaches starting over in a bad situation, it gives one year to install a new system/change attitudes and maybe get a few players in. For coaches stepping into good situations, it could clear out a season that was destined to be good regardless. Would it be fair to every single coach in every situation? Probably not, but I think it would give a more accurate reflection of what a coach is bringing to the table in terms of W's and L's.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I'd be interested to see your||
I'd be interested to see your first chart but dropping the first year. I think it can be argued that a coach's first year is unlikely to be entirely reflective of his long term success at a program. It has the potential to be an outlier for any coach as you're almost entirely playing with someone else's talent.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||I have no doubt he isn't||
I have no doubt he isn't terrible and may even be a first-round level pick (mostly because I think this year's QB class is pretty shallow), but several places have him rated above Winston and to a lesser degree above Mariota? If so, I find those places less than credible at this stage.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||On the other hand, ND only||
On the other hand, ND only ran 65 plays and held the ball for just under 27 minutes without running much up-tempo offense. Was there really that big of a need to rotate extensively? The front 7 played well in the second half, there's no sign they were winded. You don't rotate just for rotation's sake. I assume when we play Indiana you'll see a lot more rotation.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||When you look at the drive||
When you look at the drive chart, you realize how much special teams hurt us. In addition to the two missed Field Goals, short net punts set up two ND touchdown drives. The first punt at the end of the first half had a net of 31 yards and set up ND at their own 44 with 1:24 left. They scored the killer TD that must have really deflated the team at the half. Change those three first half special teams plays and it's not unreasonable to go into the half trailing 14-6 or 17-6. A far different game.
The final TD was set up by a 29 yard net punt which forced ND to only go 61 yards for the TD that erased what little doubt was left.
I don't recall the punts, but the box score says they travelled 43 yards and 38 yards respectively and were returned for 12 and 9 yards. A punter isn't going to get a good one on every kick, but it's troubling that the shorter kicks could see pretty good returns. When you put the punts in perspective of the entire game, you see how punt coverage is truly costing the team.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||That's not exactly a fair||
That's not exactly a fair statement. Thanks to the timing of firing Rodriguez, we had self-limited the pool. The two big names from in the coaching search world that year had already been hired (Al Golden and Will Muschamp) and everyone else that may have considered moving to Michigan had to weight the additional consideration that he was going to walk into a serious disadvantage for the very first recruiting cycle. Who knows who would have been interested had we proceeded in early December like a normal program. All we really know about that coaching search was that Harbaugh and Miles were not interested and I'm not sure that's any fault of Michigan's. Nobody else even rose above whispers.
If we're coach less in early December, we'll see some reasonable names with real interest in the Michigan job.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Is it really another 180||
Is it really another 180 change? Aren't we currently running a lot of spread formation with inside zone, and even zone reads? Is it really all that different to go from what we're doing a lot of now to what Wilson is doing? Wilson's also coached statuesqe QBs such as Jason White and Sam Bradford. I think he would be just peachy with the offensive talent we've accumulated.
To me, Wilson is exactly the kind of offensive mind we should be looking at. He's flexible with his system and adjusts so that he can play the best possible talent he can put on the field. If he can get IU to 7 or 8 wins in the regular season this year, I could get on the Wilson bandwagon.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||In this day and age of||
In this day and age of college football, if you can't run a good chunk of your offense competently from the no-huddle you have a coaching problem. I bet 95% of FBS can do it and some of them even have new coordinators.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||How do we know that he IS||
How do we know that he IS leaving all playcalling, strategy and tactics to his OC. Part of his famous reasoning for why he doesn't where a headset is because every call is relayed to him. Now I don't say that to suggest that he's going to step in on any specific playcall, but he IS still the head coach and cares about what's going on with the offense. It's not insane to suggest that he's involved to some degree with gameday offensive strategy, in fact it's probably the rational conclusion for any head coach. And tempo, in terms of no-huddle, rushing to the line and rapid play after play, is argually a strategy decision that affects the whole team. It only makes sense that a head coach may want to sign off on that. I'm sure some head coaches don't care one way or the other and expect their defense to respond whenever they take the field again. But it's reasonable to suppose that Hoke isn't one of those guys.
All those things you stated may be reasons for not getting to the line soon enough on certain plays, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about no-hudde, 2-minute drill style offense. It's not a radical idea to use that in a variety of circumstances, such as just the desire to get your stalled offense going. I don't think we've seen a possession of it in Hoke's 4 years outside of end of half situations. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that this is on Hoke. He may not like it, he may just not dedicate enough time in practice to it. I don't know, what it is, but it's hard to say it's just a coincidence at this point.
|3 weeks 20 hours ago||Are you saying that we||
Are you saying that we couldn't or haven't put in a 2-minute drill offense? What were we going to do if we had 80 yards to go in two minutes and no timeouts? I'm sorry, there may be something to being young and not highly profecient at it yet, but if we weren't even capable of bringing it out when the situation absolutely dictated that we should, that's an even worse coaching problem than suggesting that Hoke has a problem with going uptempo.
|3 weeks 20 hours ago||A decision has to be made to||
A decision has to be made to go uptempo. It's not just a matter of getting plays in in reasonable time. It's making a decision at the start of a drive not to huddle after every play. The implication is that an OC under Hoke doesn't get to make that call, which may or may not be right, but since we haven't really seen it in 4 years outside of a true 2-minute drill, which often went poorly, I think it's fair to suggest that the OC doesn't have the freedom to make that choice.
I also noticed that after the lead got built to 28 points huddles seemed to be forming slower. I think that was a big part of the difference between getting to the line with 15 seconds left and getting to the line with 10 seconds left on the playclock.
|3 weeks 21 hours ago||How can we possibly say||
How can we possibly say Hoke's no worse than Miles or Brown? I'll give you Chizik who walked into a situation where his boosters bought him the perfect talent to go with the OC he was smart enough to bring in. But Les Miles has won three SEC titles during the best period in the SEC's history. He has been to two national championship games. I think it's fair to say he can coach. Similarly, Mack Brown took UNC to back-to-back top 10 finishes and Texas to two national title games before a Lloyd Carr like fade. He also could coach. What has Hoke done? No conference championships. One top 10 finish. There's a world of difference between Miles/Brown and Brady Hoke.
Part of the problem with a CEO type head coach is that when you don't have a particular specialty that you bring to the table like a Malzahn/Meyer offense or a Saban defense, you have to come up with the right coordinator and position coaches on both sides of the ball. Easier said than done.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Oregon's defense is not good.||
Oregon's defense is not good. I'm confident a few Big Ten teams could go in there and score enough to keep it to about 20. I'm really not sure Oregon is all that good this year. Wouldn't be surprised to see them dropping a couple in the pac 12 this year.
Whatever the case, I'm not elevating a 20 point loss to some big damn accomplishment. As far as I'm concerned, everyone in the Big Ten is wanting and a few teams could win it.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Are we sure? They just gave||
Are we sure? They just gave up 46 points and nearly 500 yards to Oregon while scoring 13 of their points on drives that totalled 83 yards. Sure, Oregon is a good team, but elite teams that have been the class of their conference have shut them down the last few years (Stanford a couple times, LSU, Auburn, Ohio State).
MSU is getting a lot of credit for winning the Big Ten last year (which we know shouldn't mean much) and one excellent win. I'm far from ready to crown them when their defense is at least a couple steps behind last years squad.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||If the argument is that no||
If the argument is that no outsider was going to want the job because of how the last outsider was treated, then the "Michigan Man" concept certainly exists.
I also disagree that a string of 8 or 9 win seasons is the prescription for anything or will do anything to get us "off the ropes" as an elite program. A couple 10/11 win seasons is what's necessary.
We're not going to suddenly become Minnesota no matter who the next coach is. Fearing a bad transition is no reason to maintain mediocrity.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||I think Smith may be better||
I think Smith may be better than Green with below average or worse line play. I think Green is clearly better with good line play. I'd do what the coaching staff is doing and continue to play both, maybe going with the "hot hand" which could be settled by how the line is playing as much as how the backs are running.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I hear you, but do you really||
I hear you, but do you really think we haven't been out coached for the entirety of the Hoke era?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I hear you, but do you really||
I hear you, but do you really think we haven't been out coached for the entirety of the Hoke era?
|3 weeks 3 days ago||But you don't want to risk||
But you don't want to risk loosing a lot of yards either. I think I would have the QB roll to the wide side of the field. Send someone deep and if there isn't an easy pass for a first down, tell the QB to chuck it through the endzone before taking a sack. Would kill a lot of time if the play for the first isn't there to be made.
Of course, that's given a lot of time to think about the best play call in the situation. I'm not sure running a conservative play up the middle was a bad decision under the circumstances.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||No doubt it's a balancing||
No doubt it's a balancing act, and one they probably failed at this year given that they should have had a little bit of foresight into the coming ticket sale problems, but you can't really expect them to not do whatever they can to get rid of unsold tickets, can you?
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Don't see this so much as||
Don't see this so much as hatred as simply a statement of facts that the AD is trying various ways to sell remaining tickets. This plan seems like a good one and is surely a lot better than previous attempts such as the living social promotion (or whatever groupon knockoff it was).
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Yes.||
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Also, yes.||
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I'd completely agree but for||
I'd completely agree but for stories from the coaching clinic and such. I think I made the same argument as you did with regards to the press conference just being bluster to the fans and nobody in their right mind would come in and take an offense that should be amazing and shoehorn it into something as ill-suited as POWER. But there was little reason to keep up that charade all the way through to a coaching clinic. That brings in the faintest bit of doubt in my mind that Hoke may really be more responsible for the offensive mess the last three years than we think.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Sure seems to be a lot of||
Sure seems to be a lot of retrospectives on The Horror this year. Wonder if there's anything we could have done to avoid the onslought of reminders of that awful day?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Probably 12 or 13 depending||
Probably 12 or 13 depending on how you count. For instance, Rees is a lost starter, but Golson would have been the starter absent his suspension. That number doesn't include Ishaq Williams who was a would be starter.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||If the investigation is||
If the investigation is concluded and these guys were going to be back on the field shortly, you'd be seeing them returned to the team immediately. The only reason to continue to hold them out (and add a 5th) is if the school's investigation has determined that they either face a school suspension and/or are now academically ineligible. I expect that the quasi-judicial process for the school starts now and the players aren't back until it reaches a conclusion. I highly doubt that happens in 10 days.
|5 weeks 17 hours ago||I think it's generally a good||
I think it's generally a good idea if you're doing it the way Clemson is doing it. Patch goes with the number, give the number to freshmen who want it. Maybe keep the number from walkons who are never expected to contribute, but whatever you do, don't hold onto the number and then give it to an upperclassman as some form of an honor.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||It may be a reaction to the||
It may be a reaction to the lackluster ticket sales this season with no MSU, OSU, or elite OOC opponent on the schedule. It may be worth it to the athletic department to give up the 7th home game in years when MSU and OSU should guarantee high season ticket sales (and accompanying donations) if it means making sure there is at least one marquee OOC game in addition to Penn State and hopefully someone decent from the west in opposite years.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Don't mean to burst your||
Don't mean to burst your bubble, but September 24, 2016 is a long way away. Plenty of time for schedules to be shifted before then...
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Either way, he's playing QB||
Either way, he's playing QB in the NFL 10 years after his college days. I don't really know whose argument this fact supports (I've lost track), but it seems to me that Urban Meyer, like a lot of offensive coaches, looks better when he has a great QB. I'll leave with this fact. Since Bowling Green, because I'll be damned if I'm going to go look up who his QB was at BG and if he was any good, Urban Meyer has the following career records:
With Alex Smith, Tim Tebow (including hybrid Leak-Tebow year), and Braxton Miller as starting QB: 94-11.
Without said trio: 17-8.
Maybe it's a small sample size issue, but I for one relish the idea that Ohio State may be looking at the latter Urban Meyer this season, rather than the former.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Nine years later, he's still||
Nine years later, he's still a starter in the league, of a playoff team no less.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||I think offense for them||
I think offense for them becomes a serious question without Miller. It's easy to assume an offense is going to reload when you return a senior heisman candidate at QB. But take him away and the losses of your top two running backs, your top receiver, and damn near your entire line start to catch up.
Sure, it is obvious that they have some talent based both on recruiting stars and based on onfield performance. Guys like Elliot, Wilson, Smith and Heuerman. And Urban Meyer is too good of a coach for the offense to completely implode. But a guy like Braxton Miller papers over a lot of question marks that now come to the forefront.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Obviously this accepts that||
Obviously this accepts that there's a grain of truth to the story, but it may not have been a quid pro quo situation. The girl may have enjoyed having sex with the players while at the same time writing papers for them because she wanted to help or saw it as her contribution to Notre Dame Football.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I think he admitted as||
I think he admitted as much...
|6 weeks 6 days ago||It has to be close, I'd||
It has to be close, I'd expect. Having not been to one, I'm going off a bit of common sense and word of mouth, but these outdoor hockey games are more about the experience than game viewing, no? With the proliferation of college games in football/baseball stadiums and the NHL going full bore on outdoor games since last season the experience has to have become less special.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||I don't think there will be||
I don't think there will be all that many people will go to the game in Chicago. Only 26K showed up to the doubleheader at Comerica last year, and there are certainly far more alumni and fans in the detroit area than Chicago.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||At least the black stripes||
At least the black stripes don't show up... good news?
|7 weeks 4 days ago||These are the same bunch of||
These are the same bunch of clowns that nearly screwed up the whole damn enterprise by expanding out to 96 teams. Maybe they've learned their lesson, but I'm far from convinced that they understand the importance of the 64 team bracket, that first glorious weekend and the cinderella factor.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||A "Big 5 only" tournament||
A "Big 5 only" tournament would not garner nearly as much attention as the current tournament format, and would thus lose them a ton of money. A good chunk of sports fans don't pay attention until the tournament and then pay attention for a couple weeks as they cheer for their brackets and the cinderellas of the year. Going Big 5 only takes away all that interest. It'll limit the tournament to just those fans that actually pay attention most of the year.
|8 weeks 3 days ago||Having no permanent lights||
Having no permanent lights until fairly recently was probably a hinderance.
|9 weeks 22 hours ago||He really wants us to believe||
He really wants us to believe that with the Big Ten basically starting from scratch for conference scheduling there was no way to avoid having our two biggest rivals on the same home/away cycle?
I don't know what happened and I doubt it was an active "conspiracy," but there's just no possible way that the computers only spit out circumstances where our MSU schedule got flipped. If anything, the programming should have started with maintaining the Home/Away pattern for all protected Big Ten matchups. That it didn't work that way is amazing.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||It's not just a few guys.||
It's not just a few guys. Every southern and western college baseball program sweats out the period between the MLB draft and the deadline to sign players to see whether their prized recruits will be on campus. The recruiting pitches concern development for a professional career. It's a viable developmental alternative.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||I think you're underselling||
I think you're underselling college baseball a bit. What you say is true in the north, but I bet half or more of starters on most programs in the south and in the west are fighting for a future in pro-baseball. Sure, they usually still go through the minor leagues to finish development, but college baseball is hardly limited to the realm of guys that couldn't sniff the mlb draft out of high school. It's an alternate path for kids, who, if they're true MLB prospects will have a shorter stint in the minors then they would if they had gone straight from high school (Verlander, for instance).
Other than that, I do generally agree with you. Though, I don't see why it isn't in the NCAA's interest to improve the pro-development aspect of any one of their sports, especially if the alternative is less kids attending college at all.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||It seems to me, from reading||
It seems to me, from reading the article, that it's more about using the data collection methods and analysis from the off-shoot consulting company than actually looking to any gameday experiences to import into college football from MLS.
But really, I don't know why even that is necessary. Problems with putting fans in the seat come down to the following: poor w-l records, awful opponents, TV timeouts, and high costs. Big games sell out and students show up. Games vs. FBS opponents are poorly attended. It's not rocket science.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||Adidas always seems to have a||
Adidas always seems to have a few things that are complete garbage and then a few things that would be good but for one adidas throwing in one extra, completely unnecessary element. Like the shirts with the stripe on the sleeves that goes around the back. Why?
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah, it's really hard to||
Yeah, it's really hard to compare drafts. Especially on class year. The whole draft has skewed much younger since the Fab Five left. In Webber's draft, there was one sophomore (webber), a freshman after a two-year mormon mission (Shawn Bradley) and five total juniors. The rest were all seniors.
On the other hand, there's a lot more international talent drafted these dayse.
|13 weeks 5 days ago||It's not really $8 for the 10||
It's not really $8 for the 10 basic channels, though, right? It's $8 plus whatever your internet service costs. And would that internet service remain the same under an a la carte model? I'd have to think that right now, with the vast majority of people still getting the vast majority of their TV from their cable/satelite provider, cable companies are willing to tolerate some cord cutters and price the internet as an add-on service for the more lucritive tv service. If there was suddenly little to no money in the TV business for the internet provider, they'll sure as hell be asking for a lot more money for the internet service.
This is where the cord cutting model always comes apart. People like to simply look at how much each channel costs their cable provider, add it to current internet service costs and say that's the cost of a hypothetical a la carte model. But that's not how it will work. The internet/cable provider is going to want the same amount of money under a new system and will charge accordingly. ESPN is going to need the same amount of money and will charge substantially more under an a la carte method to get there. The only way it really results in a substantial cost savings for all consumers is if there' some fundemental change in how the American Consumer gets its internet which cuts out the current cable/telecon companies that provide the service and also own a substantial amount of the content. Everything today is just too interconnected with the companies making too much money to just let changing the cable model result in substantial savings for the consumers.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Make them $10 a game.||
Make them $10 a game. Enforce the validating thing to prevent sales to non-students. It could be completely covered by the AD surplus.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||I didn't mean to imply that||
I didn't mean to imply that all those thousands chasing football and basketball dreams are chasing pro contracts. Some are chasing friday night lights glory. Some just really like their chosen sports. The point is that there are over a million high school football players, many of whom have been playing since they were in elementary school. Can you honestly say that we wouldn't have a better collection of the country's 23 best soccer players if even half of those kids had instead chosen to throw their passion into soccer rather than football? Same thing for basketball and baseball.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||The better argument isn't||
The better argument isn't with the guys that make to the NBA/NFL, those guys are mostly physical ideals for their sport and position, its with the the thousands and thousands of guys who are excellent athletes who chase fooball and basketball dreams despite not being the physical ideal for those sports and thus never really having a chance to accomplish anything beyond non big-time college athletics. If soccer was the number one sport for these thousands of great athletes who are 6'2" and under and weigh less than 200 pounds, it's hard to figure that we wouldn't have a better national soccer team.
|18 weeks 5 days ago||Malzone looks like a good||
Malzone looks like a good recruit and his tape is impressive, so don't take what I'm about to say as a knock on him in the least. But, I imagine some of his sterling statistics are explained by those around him. His line seemed to provide great protection and he had an excellent stable of receivers to throw to. Numbers 1, 5, and 6 alone were all really impressive at getting open, catching the ball, and gaining YAC and then there were other guys that also made plays. I don't know if any of those guys were elite level recruits, but just like not being a pro prospect doesn't mean you weren't a great college player, not being an elite recruit doesn't mean you weren't a great high school player. It seemed like the whole offense had great high school players.
|20 weeks 4 days ago||Counterpoints||
I don't really buy the "couldn't trade because of the Grant Hill deal." Denver was willing to trade Iverson for Billups. Besides, the Hill trade was more of a free agency thig then a trade. I think most NBA observers would say Orlando was stupid for giving up anything to be able to pay Grant Hill more money than he was probably willing to take as a straight up free agency signing. Sure, Dumars gets credit for a good eye in taking Wallace, but I don't see this as everyone saying "oooh, beware of that crafty Dumars guy." I will give Dumars the Rasheed trade, but I still don't see how that translates into nobody wanting to deal with him.
Maybe some FAs don't want to come to Detroit, and I'd agree that the Pistons were never in on the biggest signings of the 2009 class, but that shouldn't give him a pass for the contracts handed out to Gordon and Villanueva or some of his extensions like Rip Hamilton.
It's hard not to look back on Dumars' time and think that maybe he got a bit lucky putting that first contender together. Minnesota didn't want to resign Billups. Portland had grown tired of Rasheed. Blowing the Darko pick may have actually been a blessing to that particular team. He was also unlucky in that the team really should have had at least one more title, which would certainly have helped his rep. And some of his moves were defensible parts of a seemingly good plan. But everything that happened after the Billups-AI trade makes it hard to put too much faith in the fact that Dumars was at any point an excellent executive.
|20 weeks 4 days ago||I'm guessing because the||
I'm guessing because the elder Dumars did such a poor job managing the Pistons' cap space?
|20 weeks 6 days ago||Lots of alums, but it takes||
Lots of alums, but it takes more than that to sell enough tickets for an entire tournament. You're talking 5 or 6 sessions with 18 to 20 thousand tickets apiece. With 3 or 4 sessions on week days with a decent portion of games during the day.
Sure you get a decent number of Michigan, Indiana, MSU, etc. fans to show up to one-off games in NYC or DC. But it's not like they're selling out the joint. Indiana played in front of about 10K for two games in MSG this year, the second against semi-local UConn. MSU drew similar numbers for its game at MSG against Georgetown. We had a good showing at barclays two years ago but were down to about 11K for the game this year against Stanford. These fan bases are really going to do better when it's possibly three or four straight days? Are the programs that are down that year or Northwestern really going to pull in a few thousand fans?
If the Big Ten is really going this way, they'll have to pray that Maryland is really good the year it's in DC and Rutgers is .... I can't even finish that sentence.
|22 weeks 3 days ago||said he was notified final||
said he was notified final four weekend, test occurred Mar. 28. So a week or two.
|22 weeks 4 days ago||I think you're mis-counting||
I think you're mis-counting unless you really believe Spike has an NBA future.
|22 weeks 6 days ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, but people generally don't like to be wrong about their hand picked guy. So it's not so much that he has an incentive to keep him because he wants a mediocre program it's that he has a means of convincing himself that his guy really will get the job done.
An A.D., for better of for worse, is defined by his or her football coaching hire(s). Get that wrong and you're usually not long for your job. DB absolutely has an incentive to continue to think he got it right.
|23 weeks 14 hours ago||I think it's a forced reality||
I think it's a forced reality caused by the athletic departpment taking the wrong lesson from the stubhub economy (well not wrong in a pure profit driven stance, but wrong from a perspective of doing what's best for your fans). It's pretty clear that the athletic department saw what tickets were going for on stubhub and took the lesson that for big games, they could charge a lot more, and similarly, season tickets were undervalued because those big games were worth so much. But what they failed to notice (or ignored) was the plummeting prices of the lesser games. By increasing prices so that the secondary market couldn't support the lesser game prices it's forced season ticket holders to either stomach a higher and higher cost for good games (higher season ticket prices plus a lower ability to recoup costs by selling lesser game tickets) or ultimately sell tickets to more attractive games. The pull of owning season tickets is obviously still strong, but the economic realities can't be ignored. This has put more and more tickets for good games on the secondary market, and ultimately led to more and more enemy colors in the stadium.
Eventually season ticket holders that buy for only the "good" games are going to be an extreme minority of the season ticket holders.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||I'm fairly sure Gibson didn't||
I'm fairly sure Gibson didn't join his staff at Arizona. Didn't he end up at Pitt for a couple years?
Edit: I stand corrected, I guess he did spend a year there as you stated.
|24 weeks 20 hours ago||Nobody is going to ask why||
Nobody is going to ask why you're not with the team, now are they? There's a limit to what he could have said legally about Gibbons' status according to university policy in disseminating confidential information. I'm not even sure he could have said Gibbons was expelled.
The problem people have with what he chose to say is that it suggests that Gibbons was unavailable through no fault of his own. In a world where a large, vocal contingent believes that sports culture on american campuses gives rise to sexual entitlement and "rape culture" among athletes, Hoke's statement is going to be very poorly received. It could be perceived, at worst, that Hoke was dismissive of the allegations and chose to lay cover for Gibbons. Now, I don't really believe that, but the problem with Hoke's statement is that it even gives rise to that interpretation.
If the wording of violation of team rules bothers you so much (even though, I'm fairly certain a rule for UM athletes is that they be in academic good standing, which Gibbons was not), Hoke could have simply said "he is no longer part of the team." Simple, with no explanation, yet still gives the clear implication that it was Gibbons' actions that caused his absence.
|24 weeks 22 hours ago||He was expelled effective||
He was expelled effective Dec. 20 (told on Dec. 19), Hoke released the "family matters" statement on Dec. 23. I think it's pretty safe to say that Hoke knew then why his kicker hadn't made the trip.
|24 weeks 22 hours ago||I answered this below.||
I answered this below. There's a huge range between "family reasons" and your proposed statement, that he legally couldn't say. "Violation of team rules" would have been infinitely more appropriate.
|24 weeks 22 hours ago||As has been said a million||
As has been said a million times, he simply should have said "violation of team rules." Not being enrolled in the university is certainly a violation of team rules. While I agree it's silly to try and tie this comment into coaching ability, you have to see that it's a little troubling that Hoke knew Gibbons got kicked out because the school believed he raped a girl, yet still chose to lay a little cover for his absence from bowl week.
|24 weeks 22 hours ago||He said something along the||
He said something along the lines of "Gibbons isn't travelling with the team for family reasons." Now, one could argue that it's technically true, but the clear implication was that Gibbons' absence had nothing to do with his own conduct.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||I'm not naive enough to think||
I'm not naive enough to think that it would completely eliminate taking money, but if kids were making money from the school and taking extra on the side jeopardized that in addition to their scholarship/playing time less kids would be taking handouts.
Would there be those kids that still needed to be paid? Yes. Would some "bag men" still need to feel important and do this sort of thing? Yes. But I think there would be less of it and the playing field would level a bit.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Except that relies on||
Except that relies on Bielfeldt/Wilson/Doyle taking the majority of back-up minutes at the 4 and 5. That might work depending on Wilson and/or Doyle being able to come in and play the majority of those backup minutes at the 4. But if I'm GRIII, I'd like the probability of McGary/Donnal/Horford taking more 4 and 5 minutes than McGary/Donnal/Some combination of the other 3.
|25 weeks 3 days ago||Or he got a new phone.||
Or he got a new phone.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||There's nothing particularly||
There's nothing particularly new here. The two roommates are being charged for their conduct which they stated occurred in sworn affidavits as part of the criminal investigation. Those affidavits were the "eye-witness" testimony that Winston's attorney argued cleared Winston of any rape allegations.
I'd be surprised if the purported victim participates in any FSU investigation. I think at this point, with Winston likely to be a millionaire, she's likely to wait and pursue it in the civil courts.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||There's no "right" way to be||
There's no "right" way to be a leader. You can't judge leadership without being constantly present, you just can't. You can't present limited observations as a basis for judging leadership. The only people qualified to judge a player as a leader are the coaches and players around him every day, and they almost never share their true opinion.
|25 weeks 6 days ago||I like our chances if they||
I like our chances if they FINALLY allow the off the wall pass in college basketball.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||Not that it really matters,||
Not that it really matters, but I guess look at it this way. Who would you take last year's team as it was playing in the tournament (healthy McGary) or this year's team? I think the vast majority of the public would say last year's team even with this year's accomplishments in the Big Ten.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||What's funny is that a good||
What's funny is that a good number of the fans you'd consider a walmart fan are Michigan football fans and MSU basketball fans. This is generally lost on MSU fans.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||If partaking in education||
If partaking in education simply became a requirement of the athletes job, it's no longer a scholarship and its no longer taxable income. It would be no different than when my employer provides inhouse continuing education opportunities that I have to complete to remain licensed. Those inhouse continuing ed. classes are not taxed.
That's just an example of ways around the tax thing. If players were suddenly treated like the employees they are, schools would figure out a way to make their taxable income as low as possible so that they would have to put forth less real money to pay the athletes.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||How did anything work 30||
How did anything work 30 years ago when athletic departments were generating a lot less income? Everyone connected with the athletic departments have made out like bandits in the last 30 years except for the athletes, or if you prefere the football and basketball players.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||That's the same deal players||
That's the same deal players have been getting for decades while Coaches, Conference Officials, TV Networks, Athletic Department Administrators, etc. have seen their compensation increase at astronomical rates. It's clear that as the money has increased, the majority of the people generating that money haven't seen their compensation increase. In the abstract, what players receive is a good deal. In reality, I find it hard to believe anyone can think they shouldn't be getting a better deal.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||I put it in quotes because I||
I put it in quotes because I don't think it's a great word but it seemed to best sum up your position.
I too think Beilein is a great coach, and ultimately I think he's better than Izzo, but why in the world wouldn't we want a guy coaching MSU who is likely going to be worse than Izzo? His teams are going to likely always be at least as talented, if not more talented, than the team we're fielding, so I think it is in our best interest if MSU doesn't get to retain that advantage.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||Are you really contending||
Are you really contending that a guy who has been to 6 final fours and won a national title in 20 seasons as a head coach at a program with limited success before his arrival isn't a "threat"? I dislike the guy as much as anyone, but you can't deny him success. The rational position for all Michigan fans is to want to see him leave and take the pretty good chances that the next guy won't be as good.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||I think it's referenced in||
I think it's referenced in this line: "Calipari and Pitino aren't so different. Both really just great recruiters who close deals really quickly. Especially Rick."
|27 weeks 15 hours ago||Which makes McGary 9 months||
Which makes McGary 9 months older than Payne for their respective classes, no? And, FWIW, I have seen Payne's age listed as a negative. For some reason, the longer you're in college the less upside you're seen as having.
|27 weeks 16 hours ago||But with the rookie||
But with the rookie pay-scale, getting into the first round isn't as big of a deal any more. It's much more important to be in the NBA for that 5th year contract (and if you can continue to play at a high level, the next free agent contract is what makes a huge difference in overall earnings). Someone will take a shot with him and if he can stay healthy he can start a nice career immediately. If he can't, coming back wouldn't have done him any good anyway, and at least he will have gotten some money out of it.
|27 weeks 16 hours ago||The back is always going to||
The back is always going to be an issue and he's not getting any younger. I think if he's healthy enough to go full during pre-draft workouts, etc., he probably goes. Someone will give him a shot in the NBA and he gets to start putting in his time towards a free agent contract. If he comes back, he has to stay healthy or he might not even get a shot, and even if he does, he's still a year behind in terms of getting a big contract.
|27 weeks 17 hours ago||McGary is also older for his||
McGary is also older for his class. He very well may feel that his best bet is to declare, trust in his ability to shine at the NBA pre-draft combine and point to his success during last year's tournament to highlight what he can do. The absolute worst thing for him would be if he comes back and has another injury.
As for GRIII, I feel like most players who consider going pro one year and don't, end up leaving the next year, even if the subsequent year raises more questions than answers.
I think believing that either player is better than 50-50 to return is looking through maize and blue colored glasses.
|27 weeks 17 hours ago||Nik's gone, and he should be.||
Nik's gone, and he should be. The other two could really go either way.
|27 weeks 23 hours ago||To me, wins and losses mean a||
To me, wins and losses mean a lot more in basketball than they do football, at least when it comes to indication of overall quality of a team. In football, one play (say an interception deep in an opponents territory returned for a TD) can turn a win into a loss, making the result not necesserily indicative of who was the better team on that day. In basketball, there's just too many possessions for one play to have that kind of impact. Pomeroy can point out "fluke" endings in a couple close games, but the fact that Tennessee was in position to lose twice to A&M is not a good sign about the quality of this team.
Tennessee has talent, you can't veat Virgina by 35 and not be talented. But that same team put on the worst display of basketball I've ever seen in their loss at Florida. This is not the 6th best team in the country. No how, no way.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||They've won in blowouts,||
They've won in blowouts, including over some good opponents, and lost close games. Means they have had good "per possession" stats. For a system like Kenpom that relies heavily on the "per possession" stats, a team like that will be ranked higher than their record would reflect.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||Plenty of games where they've||
Plenty of games where they've called everything (Louisville-Manhattan, Baylor-Nebraska).
|27 weeks 3 days ago||The last two reviews show||
The last two reviews show everything that's wrong the NCAA's system.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||St. Louis won...||
St. Louis won...
|27 weeks 3 days ago||Manhattan followed not long||
Manhattan followed not long thereafter.
|27 weeks 4 days ago||I think he is overly whiny on||
I think he is overly whiny on the court, but for the most part, you're right.
|27 weeks 6 days ago||But by insisting that||
But by insisting that potential causes may include vaccinations, despite loads of scientific data to the contrary, you have taken a position.
|27 weeks 6 days ago||Rephrased to what you're||
Rephrased to what you're actually saying: I don't care how many studies have shown there is no link between vaccination and autism, keep studying until you find one that justifies my position.
|27 weeks 6 days ago||I don't object because it's||
I don't object because it's "bad" or insulting, I object because it's confusing. If it were somehow insulting, then it would be easily understood. Instead, you get topic titles like this one, with no context to know whether we're discussing Ohio State, the University of Ohio, or the State of Ohio, aside from some rule for ohio vs. OHIO that apparently few know.
If Hoke wants to call them Ohio because that's how he's always thought of them, I don't really have a problem with that. I think it makes little sense, but whatever. I do, however, think its silly for part of the fanbase to adopt the naming mechanism when it makes no sense and didn't exist in the fanbase 5 years ago.
|27 weeks 6 days ago||Unvaccinated children are the||
Unvaccinated children are the vehicle by which these diseases that were once essentially gone from the U.S. get spread to adults who's previous vaccinations are no longer effective. It doesn't really matter what the typical anti-vax parent looks like, the fact that they exist has severely hurt herd immunity and can lead to outbreaks among people who would never buy into the vaccination-autism b.s.
|27 weeks 6 days ago||All the more reason to call||
All the more reason to call them Ohio State.
|28 weeks 14 hours ago||Yeshiva is a small, top-50||
Yeshiva is a small, top-50 university with an acceptance rate above 80%. I say again that acceptance rate is not particularly insiteful. There could be a myriad of reasons for why a university's rate is high or low. For instance, some state schools have low to no admission fees, and because they're less expensive than private or out of state schools, they get lots of applicants that have little hope of getting in.
I think you should refrain from making generalities about Regional Universities when you so clearly have little idea about the huge differences within the classification. Some are more akin to private liberal arts colleges, others are practically regional within their own state.
And again, what about Villanova? Their admitted student stats compare favorably to Wisconsin.
|28 weeks 15 hours ago||That's one statistic, and not||
That's one statistic, and not a particularly insiteful one. I took two seconds to look up middle 50% ACT composite scores for Creighton is 24-30, MSU is 23-38. Creighton similarly does better in GPA. Villanova, another "Regional University" only accepts 45.6% and their ACT middle 50 is 30-33. How do those numbers compare to National Universities?
|28 weeks 15 hours ago||If you really did that, I||
If you really did that, I think you would be surprised what you see, especially for some of the better Regional universities. I don't know for sure, because I refuse to rewared US News financially for their stupid rankings, so I don't have quick access to all the data, but I bet the top couple Regional Universities in each region would be comparable to the middle of the Big Ten according to your standards.
Regional Universities aren't simply lesser schools than so-called National Universities, they are in a different category because they don't offer the same sort of doctorate programs. They have different missions. Some are better than others. None are at the level of the Ivy's, but there are some excellent institutions none-the-less.
|28 weeks 16 hours ago||If you accept that the US||
If you accept that the US News and World Report rankings that they are discussing is largely, if not entirely, about undergraduate education, then I don't think you can accept that "National Universities" are DI, "Regional Universities" are DII, and presumably "liberal arts colleges" (or whatever US News calls them) are DIII. There are many, many schools that aren't national universities that provide a better undergraduate education than many national universities.
I agree that you can't really compare a big public national university to a smaller private school, but I'd say that the insistence on ranking institutions in what US News determines are sufficiently similar groupings is equally silly.
|28 weeks 21 hours ago||I agree that either method is||
I agree that either method is superior. The problem is, basketball really does produce 18 year olds that should be playing in the NBA (LeBron), but not nearly as many as the number of 18 year olds that think they're ready. So to prevent too many 18 year olds from flaming out, they do the one-and-done rule as a half-assed measure to solve the problem.
It's also not only the NBA's fault. I think college coaches would bristle under the uncerrtainty of not knowing when an NBA team is going to yank a player out of college, like they can under the NHL system. College coaches have already effectively killed the NBA draft withdrawl window.
I'm not sure the baseball system is in the best interest of the NBA, because too many 18 year olds would still make mistakes, though, if the D-league gets bigger this should be less of a problem. And I think college coaches would prevent the hockey system. So I think we're stuck with half-methods that don't help either the NBA, the NCAA, or the players they are supposed to care about.
|28 weeks 22 hours ago||Draft Stock in 2014 v. 2015||
He's analyzing what choices our current pro prospects should make in light of this new rule. The theory being that one-and-done players make up about half of the first round every year. If the rule is going into effect for the next draft, then there are 15 would-be one-and-done players that won't be entering the 2015 draft. Anyone considering entering the 2014 draft, should theoretically have much higher draft stock in 2015. If you're a mid first-round pick in 2014 you might be top-10 in 2015. If you're an early second round pick in 2014, you're likely a first round lock in 2015. This should matter to some of our current players, thus the post.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||They both travelled. The||
They both travelled. The Neb. one was one that is more typically called.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||A harder shot than a layup||
A harder shot than a layup (definitely) or an uncontested pull-up (probably), but still a better look than good defense would give up in that situation.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||I think he's both. He's||
I think he's both. He's disruptive off the ball, seems to do a good job at getting in lanes, and rebounds at or above his weight. But, I think he gets himself out of position in on-ball defense and gets beat too easily. He also has a tendency to not use his long arms to disrupt jump shooters.
Edit: I should say that I don't think he's an awful defender in any way. Just not a particularly good on-ball defender. The fact that he's the guy we tend to put on our opponents best guard says a lot about why we struggle on defense.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||That's going to be much||
That's going to be much harder on LeVert than it will be on opposing PGs.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||I think you're being awfully||
I think you're being awfully generous. He got beat almost immediately after the offensive player caught the ball well outside of shooting range. We gave up a point blank shot that the kid probably makes 75% of the time. That's not good defense.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||Horford is not good in the||
Horford is not good in the middle of the 1-3-1.
|28 weeks 4 days ago||Timeouts||
I like what the NBA does. If you call a timeout, the tv timeout is cancelled, if you don't, most of the time a tv timeout is charged to one of the teams. The problem with NCAA isn't necesserily having a timeout every 4 minutes. It's having a timeout called, then a whistle, then the TV timeout. That's what kills the game.
The NCAA needs to either follow the NBA's lead or greatly reduce the number of team timeouts. I'd propose 6 team timeouts, charging two tv timeouts a half to each team if the requisite number of timeouts haven't been called in the half. Alternatively, if they want to keep the official timeouts, I'd reduce team timeouts to 2 per team. You get one to stop a run if you need to, and one to set up a last second play. Doing all this would reduce repetitive stopages and end the frustration of the last minute of a basketball game taking 10 minutes to complete.
I don't think TV should have a big problem with this. Game time would become more consistent, and TV ends up not using all the timeouts for commercial breaks anyway at the end of the game.
|28 weeks 4 days ago||Do you have a proposal? I'm||
Do you have a proposal? I'm not sure what you do to stop this, or even if it's something that should be stopped. The shoe companies aren't interested in promoting a specific school, they're interested in promoting their shoes. What they hope to do is get the next MJ, Kobe, LeBron, etc. to have a permanent, profitable relationship with their shoes. So they invest in kids early and hope that the investment keeps the kid with a college sponsored by the same shoe company and eventually, when the kid turns pro, they sign a sponsorship deal with the player that benefits both player and shoe company.
If it seems scummy, it's only because the shoe companies have to pretend that these basketball players are amateurs. If colleges gave up their exclusive deals with shoe companies than there would be no guiding of players to "adidas schools" or "nike schools." But, I bet you can guess the odds of that happening.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||Yep. And if you look at a||
Yep. And if you look at a post like opponents watch, a quick counting shows 11 different "States" mentioned. Obviously Michigan is mentioned a lot in the same post, but stories like that, which are really not obsessive in the least, go a long way toward the apparent results from that word-cloud, or whatever you call it.
|29 weeks 5 days ago||I think it's a little higher||
I think it's a little higher than that when you weed out botched kick attempts. A quick google search says it's about 48%. Maybe it would still be a pretty even split, kickers are pretty damn good these days, maybe they could get to 96%. In any event, I still like my idea as kicking has become too easy in the NFL. Non-drastic changes in the rules of the game (changes that would be hardly noticeable to the casual fan) could revert the game back to more acceptable risk/reward ratios for decisions with respect to kicking a fg/pat.
|29 weeks 5 days ago||Wouldn't this make the 2-pt||
Wouldn't this make the 2-pt conversion the obvious decision in nearly every scenario? If you make the conversion 50% of the time, that's better than 1-point 90% of the time. Even conservative football coaches should figure that one out.
If they want the PAT to be nearly automatic, but not as automatic as it is today, and at the same time limit the influence of kicking on the game, they should do some combination of the following: narrow the goal posts, widen the hashmarks, and spot the PAT at the point where the ball crossed the endzone with the hashmark being the outer limit. PAT conversion probably goes down to 97% from 99% and FGs in general become more difficult. The game gets better. Problem solved without getting too drastic.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||See, I agreed with much of||
See, I agreed with much of the article, except for the last "question." His national title team was almost entirely freshman and sophomores with one upperclassmen that he didn't recruit (Darius Miller). The final four team the year before had a bit more experience, but not a lot more. He showed he can win with bringing in a new bumper class of freshmen every year. It just hasn't worked the last two years.
|34 weeks 3 days ago||Looks like they decided to||
Looks like they decided to take their 80's road top and combine it with their 80's road-alternate bottom for some unknown reason.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||But it's not just additional||
But it's not just additional scholarship dollars. If you assume 25 a year results in about 105 football scholarships a year, that means 20 extra scholarships to be added to women's athletics. Maybe this can be addressed to a degree by upping scholarship limits for individual women's sports, but those are already pretty high. What it likely means is adding at least one more entire sport.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||There's plenty of big five||
There's plenty of big five conference members that wouldn't be happy about an added 40 scholarships or so.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||This is the right solution,||
This is the right solution, but creates huge title IX problems. The two dozen or so schools that are turning a profit wouldn't mind, but I doubt the rest of FBS would go along with it.
|35 weeks 4 days ago||I think all of the Big Ten||
I think all of the Big Ten records are off... I also imagine the FSU section was written before the Iowa win.
|35 weeks 5 days ago||Getting kicked off the team||
Getting kicked off the team (and possibly having to leave school due to a loss of scholarship money) is a bit extreme, no? It's hard to imagine anyone suffering such dire consequences for what amounts to a citation.
|36 weeks 4 days ago||No, it means the Big Ten is||
No, it means the Big Ten is going to be stacked next year. Right? RIGHT?!?!?!
|36 weeks 6 days ago||Hypothesis||
Just a guess, but isn't there a good chance that Riddell makes our helmets, but, as all jerseys are produced by Adidas, they can't use the full Michigan uniform in what is essentially an advertisement?
|37 weeks 2 days ago||That's probably what Syracuse||
That's probably what Syracuse fans were telling themselves when they hired GERG.
|37 weeks 2 days ago||I agree, but that was a one||
I agree, but that was a one time, extremely unique occurrence. I won't consider it a negative as to his coaching ability if he weren't able to keep the teem together and I don't think it's necesserily indicative of positive college coaching ability that he was able to prevent mass defections.
|37 weeks 2 days ago||I'm not sure there's enough||
I'm not sure there's enough information on BOB to make that determination. When the mass defections didn't happen before the 2012 season, he wasn't working with that depleted of a roster. And he was even able to lure in an impact freshman for 2013. It's this year and next where the sanctions are really going to take hold.
BOB had a reasonable roster and reasonable success. Nothing great, nothing bad while working in less than ideal circumstances. It probably would have taken another 3 years or so to establish a real baseline of what BOB could do as a college coach.
|37 weeks 3 days ago||I would guess you don't||
I would guess you don't generally do one when it's a completely new staff. The head coach's press conference serves for the whole staff, even if that staff hasn't been hired yet. Though, I'm sure someone could dig up a Mattison or Borges quote or two shortly after hiring. I'm sure they were made available early in their Michigan tenures.
|37 weeks 3 days ago||I don't understand the idea||
I don't understand the idea that questioning whether this was Brandon's or Hoke's call is somehow implying that Hoke is dumb. Hoke has a different perspective than the rest of us, may have been fairly insulated from the criticism, and may have placed more value on loyalty and "family atmosphere" of the coaching staff than did Brandon. There's a hundred reasons why Hoke may not have wanted to make a change that have nothing to do with him being dumb. Many think keeping Borges would have been a dumb move, but that doesn't remotely mean anyone thinks Hoke is actually dumb.
We had insiders saying up until the moment this was announced that Hoke wasn't going to make any changes. It's not unreasonable to conclude from that talk and every public statement Hoke made all year that a change wouldn't be made without Brandon stepping in. I don't understand why it's so offensive to wonder if that's what ultimately happened.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||It would probably matter||
I look around at some of the better programs and see head coaches that will look for every advantage to win games. No detail is too small. Whether it's a formation on kickoff to get optimal starting field position, or a punt formation that allows for best coverage, on any other of the myriad of ways to improve a team's chances to win a football game, the better coaches seem to do it. These better coaches also are quick to look elsewhere when a coach isn't getting the job done. The best coaches will do what it takes. Replacing Borges was the first sign in a while that Hoke is willing to do everything it takes to make Michigan the best. If he did it because DB ordered him to in order to placate donors, then it would be more evidence that Hoke just doesn't have it in him at this level. So, yes, I'd say it probably matters.
The only way it wouldn't matter is if Hoke made the decision, but did it because he knew replacing Borges and then seeing only modest improvement on offense would still probably be enough to get him to 2015, then no, it wouldn't matter who's decision it was.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Brian has said this a couple||
Brian has said this a couple times. The only evidence that's not pure insider talk would be the Nebraska game where Bellomy came in rather than moving Gardner. The stated reason for why it was Bellomy and not Gardner, that Gardner hadn't taken enough snaps, rang a bit hollow to me but could very well be correct.
I think they did believe the size/speed Gardner could provide to WR was greater value than being a backup QB, but doesn't necesserily mean that it was because they really felt Bellomy was a viable backup or that Gardner couldn't play QB.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Amen on the last point. I do||
Amen on the last point.
I do still think you're being a bit harsh on the 2010 offense saying they stalled agaisnts better defenses. If you throw out the bowl game as being more a result of quitting on the coach/season, they only struggled to score against MSU (17 points with a missed FG and two interceptions in the end zone and 7 against OSU where they moved the ball well all game and I think Denard missed part of it with an injury). This isn't all that different than Carr's better offenses. 2003 got stymied by USC in the Rose Bowl, 1999 which is the year you're probably thinking of scored 18 against Syracuse and 21 at Wisconsin, and 2000 scored 13 against Wisconsin and 14 against State.
A couple down games does not negate an entire seasons worth of offense. If you wanted to say 2003 or 1999 were better than 2010 on offense, I'm fine with that. I think it's a lot closer than you're admitting though.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||We lost 6 games where we gave||
We lost 6 games where we gave up 34, 38, 41, 48, 37, and 52 points, yet you focus on the three games we scored less than 20 points as the reason RR didn't stick around. To win 3 more games, we would have had to score 27 or more points in every game that season. Without doing a completely exhaustive search, know how many teams pulled that off this season? Two: Florida State and Texas A&M. So, a national champion caliber offense and one lead by three first round draft picks. But I guess I'll concede the point, it is possible to be truly attocious on defense and still finish 9-4.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||I think there's a reasonable||
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the 2010 offense was better than any of the Carr offenses. I think there is also a reasonable argument that a couple of the Carr offenses may have been better. What I think is silly is pointing to a couple bad games to make the point that the offense wasn't that great (not to mention including games like Iowa and Wisconsin to make that case).
I don't think anyone is holding to the illusion that the 2010 offense were world beaters. In the annals of Michigan football, though, it goes down as one of the best despite being extremely young at almost every key position. Not the greatest of all time, but pretty damn good. If it had been paired with even a mediocre defense, it would have been a pretty good season. Pair it with a typical Michigan defense and it would have been a great season.
I understand why at the time people had to downplay 2010's offense. People wanted Rodriguez gone and any credit to him was a threat to keep him around. It's been three years. Can't we be reasonable now? Hate him for his defense. Hate him for his special teams. Hate him for his team quitting on him in a bowl game. But can't anyone just admit that his offense was pretty good? (this last paragraph isn't entirely aimed at you)
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Just like it's unreasonable||
Just like it's unreasonable to expect a defense to get stops on EVERY drive, it's unreasonable to expect an offense to score a TD on EVERY drive. And remember that FG kicking was so bad in that season that lots of drives came away empty despite good work by the offense. Even considering all that, the offense did keep them in games (Indiana, Illinois, PSU to some degree).
Yes, they had a couple bad games. Almost every unit in college football does. But to focus on the little struggles instead of the massive success most of the season is even more silly. The 2010 team was not good, but very little of that blame falls on the offense. Only people with an irrational hatred of Rich Rodriguez would really argue otherwise.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||This has been rehashed a||
This has been rehashed a million times, but in at least a couple of those games the defense never gave the offense a chance to put up big numbers in "meaningful" action. A couple lost possessions on offense and it was all over. Yes, the offense wasn't amazing in every single game, but the numbers don't lie (to rebutt what's about to come, no, the stats weren't put up against 4th stringers after the game had been decided). The offense was pretty damn explosive, it's just that the defense was even more explosive.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||I also don't think it's||
I also don't think it's particularly uncommon for one coach on a staff to not be heavily involved in recruiting. I'd imagine most coaches think it's necessary to have at least one member of staff on campus at any given time, and if it's mostly the same coach all the time, it might not be a problem.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||I think I'd be more||
I think I'd be more disappointed in a bad year from the defense next year than a bad year from the offense. With the possible caveat being Pipkins not being able to come back healthy and contribute. The back 7 is talented and experienced and the line finally should have some bodies. I don't think we have to be MSU's death machine from this year, but we should at least strike some fear on that side of the ball.
Offensively, there are still a lot of questions in my mind with respect to available talent. If we don't see any improvement, I'd obviously be disappointed, but slower progression will be more forgivable.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||There's almost no chance that||
There's almost no chance that Gardner is a better option at WR than what we can pull from our depth there.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||And ultimately chose the more||
And ultimately chose the more mobile Kieth Price over the less mobile Montana kid at Washington in that competition. He may actually prefer a dual threat QB to Borges' statuesque preference (if that was indeed his preference, not exactly clear). To echo everything above, hard to see DG still not being clearly the choice at QB.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Almost every coach in America||
Almost every coach in America spends some time each offseason exchanging ideas with a different staff. If you don't, your stuff is going to become awfully stale. Albamama may very well have been willing to move on from Nussmeier (they have the money, and Saban has the pull to keep any assistant they want who is willing to stay), but I doubt Lane Kiffin's pre-bowl visit really had that much to do with it. It was either a decision that had been in the works for a while or simply a case of Nussmeier wanting something else.
|37 weeks 4 days ago||Blaming the second loss (at||
Blaming the second loss (at least) on the offense seemps pretty strange, though, doesn't it?
He seems like he could be a good coach, but I can't say it's a slam dunk. I'm not really sure there's enough information on him to judge. His offenses at Alabama held pretty steady from his predecessor and I'm tempted to just outright dismiss those years. Who wouldn't have success with all the talent they've been accumulating? Washington had a pretty similar performance after he left, if not outright better. Of course, being years 4 and 5 out of the Willingham mess couldn't hurt. And as Brian pointed out, he was operating under an offensive coach.
I don't know what we're getting with him. What is clear is that Sark and Saban both were impressed enough with him to hire him, so I take that as a good sign. But, I worry that either as a directive from Hoke or personal preference, he's going to come in and try and run Alabama's offense without Alabama's players. I'd prefer more of the Washington hybrid than straight up Alabama, at least with Gardner at QB. But we shall see. Either way, I think this is a better situation than continuing with Borges, and I think it will buy Hoke another year no matter what.
|37 weeks 5 days ago||Wasn't he out of the SEC for||
Wasn't he out of the SEC for just one year? His system wasn't new to anyone in the SEC.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||Unless you mean the NFL,||
Unless you mean the NFL, which I'm not sure he's getting, there isn't a better job right now. And if he falls off next year (always a risk at Vandy) he's not getting a high profile job next year such as Florida. I think he knows it's the time for a move and he'll take it.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||I imagine this was targeted||
I imagine this was targeted at High School coaches. Some of the conclusions seem questionable at higher levels.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||I don't know if I'd want to||
I don't know if I'd want to regularly watch something like what ESPN did with Spielman, et al., but if it was being broadcast in parallel, I think I'd be likely to at least occasionally switch over to get a general feel for what some other supposedly impartial football guys felt was going on. And I'd probably be much more inclined to watch a replay of that version than the traditional play-by-play and color man broadcast.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||Maybe I'm just too young to||
Maybe I'm just too young to know, but did John Madden get connected to every job opening after he retired ? Obviously media wasn't as all-encompassing back then as it is now, so he couldn't be quite as visible, but Madden was a young, super bowl champion coach who was on tv and extremely popular.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||At this point it's getting||
At this point it's getting pretty hard to categorize by pro-style and non-pro-style. I mean, aren't all passing spread offenses generally pro-style, if we define pro-style as merely being systems used in the NFL? The NFL has generally done away with the fullback and put lots of pass catchers on the field and let the QB go to work, with lots of no-huddle, up-tempo and plays called at the line.
If you want to limit pro-style to teams that use lots of under-center or lots of classic FB or two TE sets, you might be able to put together a formula. Of course this would take a ton of effort and knowledge of each individual team. I'm also not sure how useful it would be to still follow your formula. I think there are lots of spread passing teams that aren't your classic pro-style that are not all that interested in running the ball efficiently. To include them in the comparison would skew things, in my opinion.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||I was going to post exactly||
I was going to post exactly this. Seems like the obvious answer.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||Or when it leaks from the NFL||
Or when it leaks from the NFL that there were concerns about the nature of his positive test.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, I don't get it. And||
Yeah, I don't get it. And it's not like he was that great of a coach. He was fine, certainly above average. But people act like he was Belichick or Parcells.
Why is Gruden mentioned for every opening while Brian Billick never gets mentioned. They're practically the same guy.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||Agree with you. Seems he is||
Agree with you. Seems he is mostly pissed that he wasn't asked to give his blessing. But, as he seemed to think that every football coach in america should be begging for the job, maybe the rest of the Texas higher ups thought he was too delusional to be involved.