|4 hours 18 min ago||The difference between RR and||
The difference between RR and Hoke is that not one other BCS (at the time) conference team would have hired Hoke. Now after Hoke is gone from here, not one power 5 conference team would hire Hoke. RR would have been hired by just about any BCS team before we did and when we let him go, RR was still in demand by BCS schools. He's already turned around a bad Arizona program.
Nobody in the country has ever thought Hoke was a good coach besides us.
|4 hours 38 min ago||Not all experience is created||
Not all experience is created equal. Shane going in and getting pounded, thowing a bunch of picks could just as easily break him.
|9 hours 17 min ago||Yeah, because 2005 was such a||
Yeah, because 2005 was such a great year in Michigan football history!
|37 weeks 5 days ago||Yeah, I agree. The scary part||
Yeah, I agree. The scary part for me on the defense is that our problems seem to be systemic. The University of Michigan cannont defend modern offenses with mobile QBs. This goes back at least to Donovan Mcnabb eating us alive. But of course, App. State did it and then Oregon made us look down right stupid the next week.
When we play a good mobile QB we have to out score them. I don't know. Maybe there isn't a fix for this problem, which is why college and pro offenses are moving that direction.
|43 weeks 1 day ago||I agree, but I would add that||
I agree, but I would add that it seems to me that our Athletic Department is a bloated, decrepit beached whale filled with people who have deemed themselves too good for outsiders. They treat people like crap, unless they can meet some BS standard of "Michiganess." They spend all their time talking about the past and what Michigan is. And now we've got a football program lead by big talk about the past and a Michigan potemkin village on the field.
|48 weeks 2 days ago||Are you saying that the kid||
Are you saying that the kid playing football for free deserves to be analyzed in the same manner as the adult offensive coordinator who is paid more to do his job than (I'm guessing) almost everyone who reads this blog?
Are you saying one backup player has as much of an effect on the offense as the offensive coordinator?
To answer your question. No I do not think it is unfair.
I also thing the leaders of any branch of the military deserve more in depth analysis than any one GI.
I also think the CEO of a company or the manager of a department deserves more in depth analysis than ony individual team member pushing paper.
|48 weeks 4 days ago||Come on, everyone! You have||
Come on, everyone! You have to give Al credit. It's not easy to be the author of the worst RB performance in the history of Michigan football! It's not easy to call for your QB to spike the ball with the clock stopped on first down! It's not easy to come up with a way to not only tip your run plays, but also come up with a brilliant new way to also tell teams exactly where the run is going to go! These are innovations! This is the future of football!
|49 weeks 21 hours ago||Best part of that is that||
Best part of that is that Gardner is looking at the sideline asking why.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||No, it simply objectifies||
No, it simply objectifies women by reducing their value to how attractive they are to men.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||No, I disagree. I don't want||
No, I disagree. I don't want to live in a society that lets workers kill themselves while employers hand them the opportunity. Just because someone is willing to do something, does not make it ok and absolve everyone around them of responsibility.
Given your "logic" the miners at the Upper Big Branch mine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html?_r=0) that exploded killing everyone are the one's at fault because they continued to work there. The negligence of the company doesn't matter. They chose to continue working. They knew the dangers. It's their fault they died. Employeers can do anything they want. If an employee stays there, the employee has accepted all risk and it's the employee's fault if something bad happens to them. There is zero reponsibility on the part of the employer.
By your "logic" the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tragedy (google it) was the fault of the stupid workers who worked there. They knew the doors were locked. They continued to work there, thus they killed themselves. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory is the real victim here!
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Are you really suggesting||
Are you really suggesting that the standard by which we should judge this is whether or not YOU can fathom what someone would need money for?
I'm shocked that you haven't be selected as supreme decider of what people need. This would solve a lot of the world's problems.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Actual Research||
Here is some actual research on the topic you might want to read: http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024
In short, these guys are not getting even close to what they would on the open market, they live just above the poverty line, and end up owing money because the scholarship does not cover everything.
"- Duke basketball players were valued at $1,025,656 while living just $732 above the poverty line and a scholarship shortfall of $1,995."
Bottom line: They are giving a massive gift to the university by doing what they do.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Webber did it at OSU, I||
Webber did it at OSU, I believe it was.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||I hate alternate uniforms.||
I hate alternate uniforms. Let the clowns play with their makeup.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||PAIN||
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Yeah, Pete Carroll has no||
Yeah, Pete Carroll has no experience with paying players, having spent so much time in the college game. I don't know what the Seahawks were thinking putting........ oh wait...
|2 years 28 weeks ago||The fallout after the Fab||
The fallout after the Fab Five era happend for one reason, hiring Brian Ellerbe. That was a monumentally poor decision.
We act as if schools never have NCAA investigations and sanctions. They do and they don't hurt the school one bit, if the school doesn't shoot itself in the foot. How much is the one year bowl ban going to hurt Ohio? Not one bit.
The fallout was our doing. Not Chris Webber's or Taylor's or Traylor's. It was Goss hiring a guy that had no buisness coaching high school kids, much less a major college program. Had we hired a competent coach the long years in the wilderness would not have happend. NCAA investigations don't have to distroy your program. I say that because the almost never do. What's Baylor ranked right now? Have they had any problems?
Brian Ellerbe (and Tom Goss' decision to hire him) did the damage.
|2 years 36 weeks ago||Ask Barry Sanders if NFL guys||
Ask Barry Sanders if NFL guys can takle in space. Or if 6 NFL guys can takle in a phone booth.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||I've never read anything that||
I've never read anything that suggested Howard, King, and Jackson ever had anything to do with him. So I think the first answer is no.
Michigan can have all the contact it wants with Rose, Howard, King and Jackson.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||"Selecting on the dependent||
"Selecting on the dependent variable"
Failing would be researchers since the dawn of time....
|3 years 41 weeks ago||Dear DB, Please end this||
Please end this farce. I personally would keep RR, but if Harbaugh is going to be our next coach, what the heck is he doing wasting his time with Stanford this month? I don't give a crap about Stanford their record or their bowl game. A Michigan Man cares about Michigan. If he is going to be coaching Michigan next season then it should start today.
Either way, end this, please.
Sincerely, your loyal fan,
|3 years 42 weeks ago||They were tied at halftime of||
They were tied at halftime of the UTEP game and then in the second half they just looked dead. I think it was 10 plus minutes into the second half before they made a bucket. I chalk it up to fatigue.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||Here's hoping that neither||
Here's hoping that neither Denard Robinson nor Mike Martin starts.... because other players beat them out, not because they lose their job.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||2011||
Next year's team looks like it will be able to compete at that level:
Senior: Novak and Douglas
Junior: Morris and Vogrich
RS Soph: Morgan, McLimans
Soph: Hardaway, Smotrycz, Horford, Christian
Fresh: Brundidge, Burke (and Pointer?)
Not a bad team in my opinion.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||I'll take the home dogs...||
I'll take the home dogs...
|4 years 5 days ago||There's plenty of Fat Tire up||
There's plenty of Fat Tire up here in Indianapolis. It's not that far a drive for you.
|4 years 5 days ago||I know the internet is all||
I know the internet is all about screaming bloody murder about everything, but in this case perhaps it applies.
I loved these shirts and own a bunch of them already. Hopefully, the order I placed when the HE16MAN shirt first showed up will still come.
What saddens me the most is the loss of all the future shirts. There has been some great creativity here that will now never happen.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||This game they shot 30.5%||
This game they shot 30.5% from three, while last game they shot 38% from three. If I recall, Coach is looking for 36% from three for it to be considered a good shooting night.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||When Michigan is playing||
When Michigan is playing Michigan is it even possible for both the Offense and Defense to look great? Isn't this a bit of a zero sum game?
|4 years 5 weeks ago||The reason you don't like||
The reason you don't like them is the exact reason I do like them. I like the fact that most everyone I see has no idea what my shirt is saying.
You go to Target or god forbid Abercrombie and they sell shirts for stuff that doesn't even exist like "Sweet Joe's Trucking and Repair."
|4 years 6 weeks ago||Hmmm...||
Well in general, when one is conducting research that attempts to explain why something happened one should not fall into the trap of assuming that the result of some process tells us why it happened. In other words, the result does not tell us why the result happened. Assuming it does is a tautology.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Becuase, obviously, men can't||
Becuase, obviously, men can't cook food and where else would his wife/girlfriend be, if not the kitchen?
|4 years 19 weeks ago||I agree with the posters||
I agree with the posters above who are wondering about whether or not a law degree is really the best path to achieving your goal of public policy advocacy. Although, knowledge of the law surrounding health policy is important. In order to get into an organization that is currently lobbying Congress (or whomever), a law degree is not necessary.
I also graduated from UM with a major in Pol. Sci. and now have a Ph.D. in Pol. Sci. My wife works as a women's rights advocate around the globe. In my opinion, getting involved in public policy advocacy requires the same steps you've taken in your current career. Get in at the ground floor somewhere, work your way up and make connections. It would also help to get some type of advanced degree in public policy along the way, but it is not critical and I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it. A Ph.D. in this area could help in some ways, as it would make you a more marketable "free agent" so to speak, but again not necessary.
|4 years 22 weeks ago||If your signals are so simple||
If your signals are so simple that the guys from OSU can steal them, then shame on you.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||Downtown||
I live in Indy also and would recommend downtown if it is at all possible. If you are going all the way out to Carmel you could pretty much stay anywhere. You might as well save money and stay at a hotel near the airport, in which case you would have easier freeway access from your hotel to the part of town you want to be.
On another note, does anybody know when UM might start (or have they already?) selling tickets for the tourney? I'd prefer to buy tickets from UM and sit next to other UM fans. I think I saw IU already has a B10 tourney package up for sale on their site.
|4 years 39 weeks ago||Vogrich was in and promptly||
Vogrich was in and promptly threw the ball away. At which point, he returned to the bench.
|4 years 41 weeks ago||The filibuster is a delaying||
The filibuster is a delaying tactic, whether or not you actually see Senators standing up and talking is immaterial. The threat of a filibuster slows the process down, as leaders work behind the scenes in order to shore up the votes they need. And that is just on legislation that the majority is interested in pursuing. See for example, the current debate on health care reform.
In other instances where the majority just sets the issue aside and moves on, it is still a delaying tactic. In this case it can cost years, as the majority waits for opinion or the individuals in the Senate to change. See for example, the long history of civil rights legislation.
My point, the possibility of a filibuster affects legislation both in terms of the time it takes to pass a piece of legislation and the types of legislation we ultimately see or don't see passed.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||My experience is similar to||
My experience is similar to yours. I haven't lived in Michigan since 1999. I've been on the east coast for most of those intervening years (NYC and DC). MSU does not exist out there.
|4 years 44 weeks ago||Yeah, it seems to me that if||
Yeah, it seems to me that if we could just get a good Middle LB and a Safety to step up and be just average to good next year, we would be mediocre overall. So, just two key players and they wouldn't even have to be great, just good.
|4 years 44 weeks ago||In my mind, the only thing we||
In my mind, the only thing we need to get 8 wins next year is a mediocre defense. But can it be mediocre? I have no idea.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||The replay solution I would||
The replay solution I would propose is that the replay official can only watch the play a set number of times (e.g., 3). If the call on the field is not obviously incorrect after watching the play 3 times, then it's not obvious at which point it becomes a guess.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||The claim is that the BCS||
The claim is that the BCS violates antitrust laws (e.g., the Sherman Antitrust ACT).
I don't think that organizations should be allowed to break the law simply because some people don't think the issue is important enough or that there are other issues that may be more important.
If one is breaking the law, one is breaking the law. It does not matter if the reason one is breaking the law is for a silly billion dollar college sport.
|4 years 50 weeks ago||Hmm... As, His Dudeness,||
Hmm... As, His Dudeness, says. I don't really agree with dumping him. All that does is give some other team an outstanding player for below market value. He'll play great for them for the next 15 years and all we will have is our moral high ground.
|4 years 50 weeks ago||This is exactly what I was||
This is exactly what I was thinking. Not one word that came out of that idiots mouth was correct. If you sat down and tried to write the exact opposite of how things really are, you could not do better than what he just said.
Than they are going on and on about in-state crap. News flash, winning the state of Michigan gets you nothing! Only schools, teams, and people who can't compete on a national level care about wining the state of Michigan.
|4 years 51 weeks ago||So you're suggesting that||
So you're suggesting that Sparty will be afraid of the arm of Sheridan?
|4 years 52 weeks ago||I've known a lot people who||
I've known a lot people who never attended UM who are much better fans than people who did attend. So the answer, in my mind, is absolutely you can.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Exactly, DamnYankee! Like||
Like all good researchers, they gathered evidence and then toss out anything that doesn't support what they wanted to claim.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||It most certainly does NOT||
berryH, it most certainly does NOT indicate that "we weren't following the rules."
Those kids were asked questions about how hard the preparation for this season has been. And the answer to that question has been used to suggest that they were talking about rules violations. They were not! They did not say they were being over worked! They did not say they were not willing to participate in voluntary practice.
Yet it has been passed off as them being forced to participate more than they would voluntarily be willing to do. That is disingenuous on the part of the author. That is not the question that was asked and that is not the context of their conversation.
The disingenuousness of the piece has you believing that they reveled violations!! That's how bad it is!!
|5 years 3 weeks ago||That's a good question, but I||
That's a good question, but I don't see the Stokes and Hawthorne quotes as slip ups. They were talking in a completely different context and the disingenuous reporter took the quote and used it in the article with a small disclaimer.
I can take a few dozen presidential quotes from different contexts and applied them to this article or anything I happen to be writing. Of course, the person who said them said them about something else, but being disingenuous, I can apply them none the less.
Asking Stokes and Hawthorne to talk about how hard the prep is and then applying in a context that claims violations is bunk.
|5 years 18 weeks ago||I was there too. It was a||
I was there too. It was a great event.
I liked how Coach Rod pointed out that this year everyone has bought in. He qualified the statement by saying that last year they bought in but they still had questions. This year we're all in!
|5 years 19 weeks ago||I could be wrong about this,||
I could be wrong about this, but I think the key to the case is that there is a prohibition against using student athletes' names and likenesses in commercial ventures. And that EA circumvents this by allowing players to easily upload the names and likenesses, which the in game announcers actually use.
So it wouldn't be enough in the future to just have student athletes sign a waiver. The NCAA "officially" can't sell the the student athletes (yes I know that in practice they do this all the time).
Here is the NCAA's resonse:
"Our agreement with EA Sports clearly prohibits the use of names and pictures of current student-athletes in their electronic games," said NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson, in a statement. "We are confident that no such use has occurred and that we will ultimately be dismissed from this lawsuit."
|5 years 20 weeks ago||If Congress isn't capable of||
If Congress isn't capable of doing much of anything, then how has the USA survived these last 200+ years? It may be slow and ugly, but it does lots and lots of things right.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was pretty good, if you ask me.
|5 years 20 weeks ago||Well, I would argue that had||
Well, I would argue that had Congress not done the dog and pony show with MLB we would not have any steroid policy in baseball to this day. The player's union had long opposed any attempt at testing and never changed this stance until they were called before Congress to testify. Then magically, the owners and players union could agree on testing and then re-agree on increasing penalties after a second round. The history of the owners and players' union is not one of happy agreement on anything.
Yes, I know it's fun to say that Congress has better things to do, but guess what, Congress is capable of doing many, many, things at once.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||It's another fine example of||
It's another fine example of the homogenization of college sports.
Next we'll be chanting "We are Mich i gan"
|5 years 23 weeks ago||Interesting||
This is interesting analysis and I'm not saying your conclusions are incorrect, but feel the need to point out that you are committing an fundamental error in analysis. You are doing what's known as "selecting on the dependent variable."
That is, the thing you want to explain (presumably) is winning a national championship. That becomes your dependent variable. In order to do this you are choosing cases based on what you want to explain, i.e., national championship teams. But this can lead to spurious conclusions because the independent variable(s) (in this case you have an interaction between star raking of a recruit and the number of years at the school) you claim is explaining things may exist to the same degree in school NOT winning the championship. Thus, the thing you claim is the cause of the national championship may not be because a team with that kind of roster may be just as likely not to win as win. But you won't know this because you have tossed from your analysis any school that did not win.
Of course, not only are you selecting on the dependent variable, but when you find a case that doesn't support your argument (2006) you toss that one too.
|5 years 26 weeks ago||Novak seems to be a tough one||
Novak seems to be a tough one to figure out. I've seen lots of people already predicting that he is the odd man out. But I think they are wrong. JB has already demonstrated this year that he will not play someone just because they are tall. Novak will play 25 minutes a game again next year and my guess is those minutes will come from playing at the 4, 3, and 2. Probably in that order.
Cronin will play I'm sure (how well, who the heck knows), but I think McLimans and Morgan will be complete non-factors next year. I would bet both those guys red-shirt. McLimans won't be better at anything than Novak, so he's out. The only two things that Morgan might be better at is rebounding and man to man defense (because he seems thick) but that is not guaranteed. Rebounding is NOT just about being tall and playing good defense is also not just about being tall! This year JB demonstrated that he prefers less on the defensive side to less on the offensive side. Morgan will be way less on the offensive side and, my guess is, only marginally better on the defensive side.
Project big men like McLimans and Morgan do not just step into major minutes when they reach college (only if the team is desperate and we are NOT desperate! We did pretty damn well this year.). I don't want to be mean to either of these guys because I think they will have great careers here, but they are not exactly Kevin Love entering college.
|5 years 26 weeks ago||The only way his draft stock||
The only way his draft stock rises so much that he becomes a first rounder, is if he leads us to a national title (like Anthony did for Syracuse), while averaging 25 a game.
If he does that, I'll take it and wish him the best of luck in the NBA!
|5 years 26 weeks ago||You gotta get odds on that.||
You gotta get odds on that. The B10 has tougher games because they were giving higher seeds. We have only one team seeded to make the sweet 16. The ACC has 3 (UNC, Duke, Wake).
|5 years 27 weeks ago||Playing devils advocate||
Playing devils advocate here:
I don't buy either of the two crippling weaknesses listed. But I'm not saying we are great in either department. I know this post if primarily focused on Clemson, but I want to focus on the big men belief, I think that our weakness against them has been way over blown.
I think this is due in large part to people seeming to rely on the taller = better heuristic. We are not tall, so tall teams must be our big problem. I'd say there are just as many instances of us playing well and even beating teams with good/great big men this year as there are instances of us getting blown out by them. (Remember the heuristic suggests that this is our biggest weakness, so we should be getting kicked in the nuts when we play them.)
I think our big problem is when we play other good teams. Whether or not those other good teams have great big men doesn't matter. It's the fact that the other team is good that's the problem.
The only team we played more than once and didn't beat at least once with good big men is OSU. MSU has very good big men and we played them close in one of the ugliest games I've ever seen. UConn has great big men (NBA lottery pick great) and we kept it close in their gym.
So, my argument is that this belief that great big men = death for us is false.
They are a problem, but no different a problem than if the team we are playing has great guard play.
It's harder to really get a handle on how we will respond to 40 minutes of full court press because we haven't really seen it. Our team has kept the turnover pretty low all season. I can remember instances where we turned it over in pressure moments, but that doesn't mean we do it more often than one would expect. It just means that remember times where I screamed out NO!!! more than the times I smiled and said yes.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||I think that rather than a||
I think that rather than a generalist network like Versus, it may be the individual sports' own networks that become major competitors to ESPN.
I've just had the MLB network added to my lineup and I like what I see so far.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||But is there a statistically||
But is there a statistically significant difference in their probability of starting?
After estimating a probit model predicting the effect of star rating on likelihood of starting, (Dependent variable is dummy = 1 if started 0 otherwise. Two dummy independent variables indicating star rating),There is a significant difference between 3 stars and 4 or 5 stars, but there is NOT a significant difference between 4 and 5 stars.
This is likely due to the small number of 5 star recruits contained in the data. So, I would not be willing to claim that there is no difference between 4 and 5 star players just yet. I'd need more data.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||Excellent! More good stuff.||
Excellent! More good stuff. I was in junior high when we won the NC so this was all before my time, but It is good to hear people talk about it. I think our great basketball tradition is too often eclipsed by football (even before the the dark times of the last decade).
|5 years 27 weeks ago||Thanks||
|5 years 30 weeks ago||I recall from various||
I recall from various interviews that are done after the field is announced (in years past) that members recuse themselves from discussions involving teams from the conference they are affiliated with.
I may be remembering incorrectly, however.
|5 years 30 weeks ago||Yes, but did you see the||
Yes, but did you see the Lions this year!
|5 years 41 weeks ago||Yep, I agree. If we are on||
Yep, I agree. If we are on the bubble in March (which I don't think we will be. I think we will be safely in the Tourny finishing 3rd in the Big Ten), then the most important thing for us will be perception of the Big Ten. If the Big Ten is perceived to be soft, the we would be in trouble. Thus, we need all Big Ten teams to win their non-conference games.
|5 years 41 weeks ago||There aren't a lot of||
There aren't a lot of programs that are obviously better than Michigan in basketball. Yes, the last 10 years have been really bad, but let's not get too caught up in the recent past.
Michigan has made at least one final four in every decade since the 1960s. So it's not just the Fab Five era in which we were considered great.
And while Dick Vitale is a bit of a nut, he does always say that for the Big Ten to be great nationally from a psychological stand point, both Indiana and Michigan need to be leading the way.
Are we UCLA or Duke, no, but we are one of the bigger names out there, even taking into account the horrible last ten years.
Some UM B-Ball history:
|5 years 41 weeks ago||Yep, agreed. HATE DUKE!! Go||
Yep, agreed. HATE DUKE!!
|5 years 42 weeks ago||I think today the game is||
I think today the game is going to be on the net through the Big Ten network: http://video.bigtennetwork.com/
|5 years 43 weeks ago||Put me down for 2 gallons of||
Put me down for 2 gallons of the RR cool aid, because I believe!
|5 years 43 weeks ago||Fantastic win!! It's great||
Fantastic win!! It's great to get a win like this when, by all accounts, our third best player isn't even eligible yet (LLP).
|5 years 43 weeks ago||I think the key to us||
I think the key to us potentially winning is in how our "other" players (i.e. Douglass, Novak, Wright) shoot threes.
If they can keep UCLA honest with a realistic threat of making 3 pointers, then that will open up the middle for Harris drives and Sims in the post.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||Team looked great tonight.||
Team looked great tonight. I'm really excited! The free throw shooting was amazing!
Northeastern is considered by many of the gurus to be a bracket buster type team in March (see Katz and Gottlieb). They are a solid experienced team. They are not the same as Radcliff and Brown from last year. This is a legit win.
|5 years 46 weeks ago||I agree with the point that||
I agree with the point that going 2-10 was not the inevitable result for the 2008 season. The fans making excuses for this season seem to be suggesting that this season was going to be this bad no matter what. That is simply not true. I wanted Carr gone as much as anyone, but there is no way if he were coach we would be headed to a 2-10 season right now.
|5 years 46 weeks ago||Yeah, you're right. We||
Yeah, you're right. We should probably hire someone to coach our kids how to tackle.
|5 years 47 weeks ago||I agree, Section 37. While I||
I agree, Section 37. While I think the play calling is being done this way because they are afraid to do too much and are trying to make it easier for the kids, the result is to make their success even less likely due to predictability.
They have to start throwing the ball down field more, despite the fact that Threet is only marginal as a QB. It is the only way they are going to have success. They can't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results!
|5 years 47 weeks ago||I know that I feel much||
I know that I feel much better when it's 3rd and 3 than when it's 3rd and 14. It seems like teams get the first down 75% of the time when it's 3rd and 7+.
The three man rush on third and long is the defensive equivalent to Sheridan playing QB.
|5 years 48 weeks ago||Maybe the coaching staff is||
Maybe the coaching staff is as wrong about Feagin being a bad QB as they were about Sheridan being a good one. Get Feagin on the field and let's see what happens (if Threet can't go).
|5 years 48 weeks ago||haha, good call, I forgot||
haha, good call, I forgot about that :)
|5 years 48 weeks ago||Yeah, I understand your pain.||
Yeah, I understand your pain. Except that there is no reason to put Sheridan. If Threet is hurt, then we might as well put a RB at QB, because Sheridan is totally and completely worthless. He makes bad decisions, he can't throw, and he can't run. What's left?
|5 years 49 weeks ago||haha, I handn't thought of||
haha, I handn't thought of that. I'm going to have to say that would be under.
|5 years 51 weeks ago||This is an interesting||
This is an interesting debate on booing. I personally don't have a problem with people booing. I live in VA, so wasn't there and don't recall ever booing a team (I've seen the basketball team get whipped by Georgetown in person twice now and didn't boo and was in the stands to see A-train fumble away the game to Northwestern and didn't boo then either), but I don't have a problem with it.
I guess what I don't understand is why sitting in the stands at a game is the only place in the world where it is not ok to voice one's displeasure with the team? Why is it ok to head home from the game, get on the net and proceed to rip apart the team there? I'm sure the players are well aware of the nets existence. How is ripping apart Stevie Brown game after game better here than in the stands? Are his feelings only hurt in person?
I guess what it boils down to for me is that the venue (be it the stadium, internet, radio, etc.) doesn't matter that much. It's all criticism.
|5 years 51 weeks ago||I wasn't at the game booing,||
I wasn't at the game booing, but I don't have a problem with it. I know I'll be thought of as a classless jerk. But I don't see why indicating one's displeasure with the team is a bad thing or "classless." I know in this touchy, feely, PC world we live in now we need to make sure little johnny's self esteem is always thought of first above all else. Heaven forbid if we were to suggest that little johnny isn't just the greatest thing in the world.
If it is classless to boo, then wouldn't it be classy to cheer? Where you all cheering the team when they went into the locker room? We all know that they tried! That's all that matters isn't it? That's what they taught me in t-ball, anyway, and is why we didn't keep score. Don't want to hurt little johnny's feelings!!
I don't think being emotionally invested in the team and being disgusted with how they played the first half is classless. And neither is venting one's emotions.
Fine, I'm classless and was devastated when Trent fumbled, I apologize. I should have expected the team to look worse in the first of this game then they have all year. What an idiot I am. I'll have to learn to be less emotional about these things in the future and always remember that these are just kids deserving of nothing but love and encouragement no matter what they do.
You know there is one thing worse than booing. It's not caring at all and that's what 90 percent of Michigan "fans" have done to the basketball team. I'd much rather have a place full of fans booing than a place where the fans have turned their backs on the team, which is what has happend to the basektball team.
|5 years 51 weeks ago||Wow what a win!! Truly||
Wow what a win!! Truly amazing!!
On another note, I've grown tired of the "this is a new offense/system" excuse. It's tired. We finally stopped butting our heads against the wall and started throwing passes downfield. That's why we won. These dinky behind the line of scrimmage passes have killed us all year!! They are either incomplete or lose yards. Why, then continue to do them over and over again? "This is a new offense" is not a good enough excuse to continue to do things that do not work! Plus, this new offense does actually have a vertical passing game component too!! RR has repeatedly stated that the WVU version of the offense is NOT the only way he can run it. So don't tell me there are no plays in "this new offense" that can work. Why does "this is a new offense" mean we have to stink?
The ridiculous fumbling in the first half deserved boos! These guys have been playing football for years. "This is a new offense" has nothing to do with fumbling on kickoffs and punts!
"This is a new offense" is a good enough excuse to go 6-6, not a good enough excuse to go 4-8. There's enough talent on this team to win 6 games. Anything less is boo worthy.
|6 years 2 weeks ago||To my untrained eye it seemed||
To my untrained eye it seemed like it took Threet longer to get the short passes out and since anything longer than 8 yards is pointless for both QBs, I might lean toward Sheridan.
Of course, this is choosing between "oh no!" and "what the?"
And Andre Ware doesn't know bunk about what was happening in the game. I'm fine with changing QBs when one accomplishes nothing.
|6 years 2 weeks ago||Yes, thanks for posting. I||
Yes, thanks for posting. I enjoy reading your analysis of the lines.
|6 years 2 weeks ago||Hmm. Your ideas are||
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|6 years 3 weeks ago||"Offensively, he went for||
"Offensively, he went for way too much. You don't need to be a genius
So, what exactly should he have done, coached a different team with different players?
" RR should have settled on Threet from the beginning, or become more
Your "solution" relies on the same inexperienced
I don't see how your "solution" solves the problem
|6 years 3 weeks ago||Oh man, I love that over! I||
Oh man, I love that over! I see tomorrow being all about what Michigan does and doesn't do. That is, most of the points scored tomorrow will be a result of Michigan's offense scoring TDs and Michigan's offense turning it over and giving the short field to Utah. I see lots of points and lots of turnovers.
|6 years 3 weeks ago||Oregon took a nap the second||
Oregon took a nap the second half of the game. They could have scored 60 or 70 against us without a problem. They were running playground plays (reverse statue of liberty, anyone) and our D was the three stooges. They were nice enough to take pitty on us.
We're just arguing about the degree of ugly here. They were both horrible.
Yes, I know emotion plays a big role in how I'm ranking these two, but emotions also affects how you might feel about the ND game and team, i.e. the elation we felt pounding someone else after we looked so bad.
Perhaps it is my focus on how bad our defense was against Oregon and you all are focusing on how bad ND's offense was against us. I think they were both historically bad.
|6 years 3 weeks ago||Yeah, I know. But we all||
Yeah, I know. But we all know that transitivity does not apply to college football. If that were the case, one could make all kinds of rediculous arguments about X garbage team that upset Y that beat Z that beat J that beat LSU means that X should be national champs.
I'm not trying to change your opinon, but that Michigan team that was on the field agaist Oregon was the worst thing I've ever seen. That includes the Horror. Us that week and ND the next week had one thing in common, we looked like we had never seen a football in our lives.
|6 years 3 weeks ago||I don't know, the Michigan||
I don't know, the Michigan "team" that played against Oregon the week before was worse in my book.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Interesting points. From||
From the same theoretical stand point, it is no coincidence that the rise of MSU basketball coincides with the fall of Michigan basketball.
I do think that our recruiting out of state in football will be good enough to offset any gains MSU might make in-state. This is because we will still be able to cherry pick the guys we want instate and have a big enough brand name to get the guys we want out of state. I would say we are the biggest brand name running this type of offense so we should easily pickup the guys we need to run it from out of state.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Hmmm... Drawing conclusions||
Hmmm... Drawing conclusions based on minuscule amounts of data... Yep, I must be on the internet!