My understanding of Chekhov is that he’d omit the superfluous because it limits the inferences and possibilities available. Every concrete description limits the imagination and inclusion of prior knowledge sets brought in by the reader.
”The sky is blue” might conjure up infinite images and reflection on the part of the reader.
“There was not a cloud in the vast beautiful blue sky,” directs the reader to think about scope, clouds, and a subjective position on beauty.
I’d say both ways have value, depending on the intent of the author.
I’d also add that I’m not a Chekhov expert and that my take on his work might be clouded by my own imagination and wondering about his methods.
"I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING YOU LITTLE SON OF A BITCH! YOU COCKY SON OF A BITCH COMING INTO MY MEETING 10 MINUTES LATE! YOU WILL NEVER PLAY A DOWN OF FOOTBALL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, NOT WHILE I'M HERE. YOU GOT IT?"
Harbaugh is about football. Cowherd is about promoting a product-- most notably himself.
I read the comments and reaction before listening and like others expected to hear Harbuagh tanking the interview... he didn't. Harbuagh was not very engaging but I would not characterize him as aloof-- he actually did the work to clarify the the question about bye vs. buy. The interview was shut down when Jim asked what he could do to make the interview better-- I'm sure this set off Cowherd's defenses as it triggered a rant and an end to the interview with no attempt at recovery. Cowherd was trying to talk to a hype machiine and that's not Harbaugh's style. If he wanted passion, he might have considered the things that Harbuahg is passionate about.
I particularly loved Jim's response to the questions about exectations for the year... to be better today than we were yesterday and better tomorrow than we are today.
Keeping one's integrity does not keep them from winning or getting back to winning. It's a "win" in and of itself. Losing one's integrity for the sake of winning devalues the win and the person.
I love the attitude of the OP. Why not look for the positive?
Whether you agree with the OP or not, it's not a matter of denial-- denial would be refusing to believe that we really lost the game.
I'd say this is more of a growth mindset vs. a fixed mindset scenario. The growth mindset operates under the idea that you can always grow and improve. That your current circumstances are not the end, they are a positional reality from which you can make choices and improve.
The fixed mindset believes that you are what you are and that's it. The current circumstances are largely based on the limitations of the parts and there is nothing you can do about it.
Both views have value and probably provide a level of perspective that can help any organization make critical decisions.
The problem with looking at this through the marketing lens is that it de-personalizes what Michigan is to most of the faithful. Marketers see us as consumers, we're not, we're fans. Fans as in fanatical, fans as in fantastic. We don't consume Michigan football we assimilate it. The marketing aspect reduces the role of the fan to a piece of data. I'd add that the hyper analysis afforded by the internet doesn't help the situation. Breaking down every element of the program to a point of judgement is devisive by nature.
United we stand divide we fall.
The beauty of Canhamland is that it is united.
This all reminds me of the ESPN model, Colin Cowherd specifically paints fans as stupid for following their hearts, according to the marketing model we should all be fans of the National Champion every year, otherwise we picked wrong-- we're losers. The reality is that following a football program is not about an annual result. It's the past present and future. Today's "product" is more than what comes out on the score board on any given day-- it includes hopes and dreams. Granted winning helps. At Michigan, fans have never had the opportunity to learn how to lose for long stretches, our tradition is winning. Other teams-- look at the Lions, are able to survive even with a legacy as losers. The pre- 1970 Pittsburgh Steelers. The New Orleans Saints. Those teams survived because the core fans viewed the team as something to root for, becuase of their hope for success. The TEAM (not the product) becomes a part of one's identity.
I used to bring a 6 pack to the game every week in the early 80's. I never hid a thing. Seems like then people would talk about the good old days when you could bring a keg to the game.
Logged on to up vote. It really does appear that we have a loser's mentality in our fanbase. Critical thinking is one thing, but bashing for the sake of bashing does no good in my view. There is something to be said for the abundance frame of mind-- bringing a positive outlook to any situation allows one to see the resources that are available and exploit them for maximum gain. If you continue to focus on the negative, you end up hamstringing resources for fear of losing what you have. It's soffocating.
Have you been in touch with the Farm to School people. They have a lot of resources and grant opportunities that might help you sustain this. We run a school garden at my elementary school and it's been a great community builder for us too.
How many coaching changes has ND gone through as they tried to return to relevance? The carousel does not make for consistency in building a strong program.
If we're looking for a national image to present for the future of the program, it make make sense to start with stability. I think our coaching staff is working in the present, but is also focused on the long term value of the program. The cut and run mentality will do nothing but perpetuate an image of desparation. Can we really afford to continue our "transition" for another three years?
Short term challenges build to long term success. The problems that this team and coaching staff are working through are invaluable to the long term knowledge and success of a program. There's no magic, as the media portrays it. If Hoke gets it, the issues we see this year will not be repeated. Consistency will be built into the program and "bad years" will be limited in frequency and the level of "badness."
I recall many comments about Hoke's first year being "the worst thing that could happen to him as a coach." The schedule was easy. People projected 10-11 wins with our without a coaching change. Expectations for a "return to glory" were fast forwarded and now we see a backlash because people think that we should already be "there."
Losing is the pits. Nobody likes it. But its not the end. With all of the criticism this team has endured this year, they have been in a position to win every game but one-- that says something about the coaching and the game planning.
If you are looking for a team to represent you in the media and stand up to the talking heads (or blog empowered fans) of the sports world then it might make sense to gamble on a quick fix in coaching changes. If you are looking for a team to represent the values and educaiton standards of an academic institution like Michigan, you need to delay short term success for long term strength in character and values. The wins will come.
If the Michigan AD pays any attention to reactionary fan base we're screwed. Not saying that all the fans are wrong, just that you can cherry pick any opinion you want. Do you go with the loudest voice? The complimentary voice? The optimistic view? The negative nancy? the voice of reason?
In the end, I'm sure that the AD has measurables in place to review goals, progress and expectations. While these three games are a part of the whole, they are not the end. College football has programiatic and cyclical issues to contend with, the view going forward will need to take the short term data (game to game) and be able to appy it to a long term vision for the program.
I see a lot of posts getting a pass on this "rule."
Your suggestion that the Church gets a pass is absurd. These are crimes and sins committed by people. The consequences for unrepentant sin, as the Church believes, is eternal damnation-- that's not getting a pass. It's hell.
I used to be a on scoreboard security back in the early 80's... the boards were so small that we had to post a guard to keep people from standing up and blocking the board.
I seem to recall that a big difference between Carr and RR was that Lloyd made a lot of offers through the camp process, while RR was working the out of state pipelines, beating the bushes and workig a lot of recruits. This points to a difference in recruting strategy. Note that Sparty numbers look a lot like OSU-- Dantonio recruited with Tressel and likely built his strategy on the OSU model.
Seems likely that Hoke will be more like Carr. He can "touch" more kids and their coaches by developing a strong camp model. This helps in a number of ways-- provides an evaluation opportunity, helps develop local talent, improves network among coaches, provides young players with an awesome experience at Michigan. All of these factors should point to a lower offer/acceptance ratio and a more consistent talent base.
The piece that will put us over the top in my view will still be the abiility to recruit nationally and fill in some elite talent. I like the model of building your foundation first-- much like buiding your team from the line. Without the program consistency, there will be no big draw from elite players.
Recent Comments
Jeff Chadwick.
It’s gonna be Michigan again. Michigan.
My understanding of Chekhov is that he’d omit the superfluous because it limits the inferences and possibilities available. Every concrete description limits the imagination and inclusion of prior knowledge sets brought in by the reader.
”The sky is blue” might conjure up infinite images and reflection on the part of the reader.
“There was not a cloud in the vast beautiful blue sky,” directs the reader to think about scope, clouds, and a subjective position on beauty.
I’d say both ways have value, depending on the intent of the author.
I’d also add that I’m not a Chekhov expert and that my take on his work might be clouded by my own imagination and wondering about his methods.
Michigan plays Northwestern.
Huard by far.
Hear, hear.
That was a great game. TB is the GOAT!!!
I got a question mark for orders today. Didn’t know what to do so I attacked Ohio. Hope I didn’t screw something up.
Thank you Coach.
Never been to a posbang before-- heck of a game, Go Blue!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
http://verticalharvesthydroponics.com/
We're getting one of these units for our school garden. Fresh vegetables all winter.
"I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING YOU LITTLE SON OF A BITCH! YOU COCKY SON OF A BITCH COMING INTO MY MEETING 10 MINUTES LATE! YOU WILL NEVER PLAY A DOWN OF FOOTBALL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, NOT WHILE I'M HERE. YOU GOT IT?"
Bo Schembechler to Jim Harbough
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Harbaugh is about football. Cowherd is about promoting a product-- most notably himself.
I read the comments and reaction before listening and like others expected to hear Harbuagh tanking the interview... he didn't. Harbuagh was not very engaging but I would not characterize him as aloof-- he actually did the work to clarify the the question about bye vs. buy. The interview was shut down when Jim asked what he could do to make the interview better-- I'm sure this set off Cowherd's defenses as it triggered a rant and an end to the interview with no attempt at recovery. Cowherd was trying to talk to a hype machiine and that's not Harbaugh's style. If he wanted passion, he might have considered the things that Harbuahg is passionate about.
I particularly loved Jim's response to the questions about exectations for the year... to be better today than we were yesterday and better tomorrow than we are today.
Mike Barwis!
Keeping one's integrity does not keep them from winning or getting back to winning. It's a "win" in and of itself. Losing one's integrity for the sake of winning devalues the win and the person.
I love the attitude of the OP. Why not look for the positive?
Whether you agree with the OP or not, it's not a matter of denial-- denial would be refusing to believe that we really lost the game.
I'd say this is more of a growth mindset vs. a fixed mindset scenario. The growth mindset operates under the idea that you can always grow and improve. That your current circumstances are not the end, they are a positional reality from which you can make choices and improve.
The fixed mindset believes that you are what you are and that's it. The current circumstances are largely based on the limitations of the parts and there is nothing you can do about it.
Both views have value and probably provide a level of perspective that can help any organization make critical decisions.
I see that in your case, the sky was falling. Glad your safe and thanks for the perspective.
The problem with looking at this through the marketing lens is that it de-personalizes what Michigan is to most of the faithful. Marketers see us as consumers, we're not, we're fans. Fans as in fanatical, fans as in fantastic. We don't consume Michigan football we assimilate it. The marketing aspect reduces the role of the fan to a piece of data. I'd add that the hyper analysis afforded by the internet doesn't help the situation. Breaking down every element of the program to a point of judgement is devisive by nature.
United we stand divide we fall.
The beauty of Canhamland is that it is united.
This all reminds me of the ESPN model, Colin Cowherd specifically paints fans as stupid for following their hearts, according to the marketing model we should all be fans of the National Champion every year, otherwise we picked wrong-- we're losers. The reality is that following a football program is not about an annual result. It's the past present and future. Today's "product" is more than what comes out on the score board on any given day-- it includes hopes and dreams. Granted winning helps. At Michigan, fans have never had the opportunity to learn how to lose for long stretches, our tradition is winning. Other teams-- look at the Lions, are able to survive even with a legacy as losers. The pre- 1970 Pittsburgh Steelers. The New Orleans Saints. Those teams survived because the core fans viewed the team as something to root for, becuase of their hope for success. The TEAM (not the product) becomes a part of one's identity.
I used to bring a 6 pack to the game every week in the early 80's. I never hid a thing. Seems like then people would talk about the good old days when you could bring a keg to the game.
From the mgoblue.com
Logged on to up vote. It really does appear that we have a loser's mentality in our fanbase. Critical thinking is one thing, but bashing for the sake of bashing does no good in my view. There is something to be said for the abundance frame of mind-- bringing a positive outlook to any situation allows one to see the resources that are available and exploit them for maximum gain. If you continue to focus on the negative, you end up hamstringing resources for fear of losing what you have. It's soffocating.
Have you been in touch with the Farm to School people. They have a lot of resources and grant opportunities that might help you sustain this. We run a school garden at my elementary school and it's been a great community builder for us too.
Here's a link to the Florida Farm to School site.
http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=23
Thank you magnus.
Like it or not, he just keeps doing his job.
How many coaching changes has ND gone through as they tried to return to relevance? The carousel does not make for consistency in building a strong program.
If we're looking for a national image to present for the future of the program, it make make sense to start with stability. I think our coaching staff is working in the present, but is also focused on the long term value of the program. The cut and run mentality will do nothing but perpetuate an image of desparation. Can we really afford to continue our "transition" for another three years?
Short term challenges build to long term success. The problems that this team and coaching staff are working through are invaluable to the long term knowledge and success of a program. There's no magic, as the media portrays it. If Hoke gets it, the issues we see this year will not be repeated. Consistency will be built into the program and "bad years" will be limited in frequency and the level of "badness."
I recall many comments about Hoke's first year being "the worst thing that could happen to him as a coach." The schedule was easy. People projected 10-11 wins with our without a coaching change. Expectations for a "return to glory" were fast forwarded and now we see a backlash because people think that we should already be "there."
Losing is the pits. Nobody likes it. But its not the end. With all of the criticism this team has endured this year, they have been in a position to win every game but one-- that says something about the coaching and the game planning.
If you are looking for a team to represent you in the media and stand up to the talking heads (or blog empowered fans) of the sports world then it might make sense to gamble on a quick fix in coaching changes. If you are looking for a team to represent the values and educaiton standards of an academic institution like Michigan, you need to delay short term success for long term strength in character and values. The wins will come.
Really? You want to give me a hard time for being optimistic?
More delusional than psychic, but I'd rather think positively than give up on the game before the first practice,
This is the kind of adversity that builds character. Devin appears to have heart and an unmatched accountiability to his teammates.
He'll go far in life.
After we put a beat down on the Bucks, I expect him to have a phenominal season next year.
We're goiing to beat OSU.
Amen.
If the Michigan AD pays any attention to reactionary fan base we're screwed. Not saying that all the fans are wrong, just that you can cherry pick any opinion you want. Do you go with the loudest voice? The complimentary voice? The optimistic view? The negative nancy? the voice of reason?
In the end, I'm sure that the AD has measurables in place to review goals, progress and expectations. While these three games are a part of the whole, they are not the end. College football has programiatic and cyclical issues to contend with, the view going forward will need to take the short term data (game to game) and be able to appy it to a long term vision for the program.
The team (including the coaches) never quit. They deserve to enjoy this.
And in the end
The love you take
Is equal
to
the
Love
You make.
5 years on MGBog, 5 decades bleeding blue.
I see a lot of posts getting a pass on this "rule."
Your suggestion that the Church gets a pass is absurd. These are crimes and sins committed by people. The consequences for unrepentant sin, as the Church believes, is eternal damnation-- that's not getting a pass. It's hell.
Amen!
The only thing I would add is that we do this for many, many years in a row.
Predicting losses seems like opening the door to failure.
I used to be a on scoreboard security back in the early 80's... the boards were so small that we had to post a guard to keep people from standing up and blocking the board.
Bring on the games!
Logged in to say thanks for the video.
“This is Michigan, for God’s sakes!”
Just going to the site from that school down south makes me feel dirty.
Where did we stand the last few years?
I seem to recall that a big difference between Carr and RR was that Lloyd made a lot of offers through the camp process, while RR was working the out of state pipelines, beating the bushes and workig a lot of recruits. This points to a difference in recruting strategy. Note that Sparty numbers look a lot like OSU-- Dantonio recruited with Tressel and likely built his strategy on the OSU model.
Seems likely that Hoke will be more like Carr. He can "touch" more kids and their coaches by developing a strong camp model. This helps in a number of ways-- provides an evaluation opportunity, helps develop local talent, improves network among coaches, provides young players with an awesome experience at Michigan. All of these factors should point to a lower offer/acceptance ratio and a more consistent talent base.
The piece that will put us over the top in my view will still be the abiility to recruit nationally and fill in some elite talent. I like the model of building your foundation first-- much like buiding your team from the line. Without the program consistency, there will be no big draw from elite players.