Ann Arbor Cardinal
- Member for
- 8 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|23 weeks 5 days ago||This is what irritates me the most about this whole thing:||
"A UCLA spokesman said Guerrero would not be made available to explain the Pac-12’s vote..."
Over and over, it's nothing but silence from the adults who thought this was so important that it had to be voted on immediately and effective immediately. There's some tag on this blog about people being in charge of things merely because they're in charge of things; that fits this situation well.
This Guerrero person was given some authority and exercised that authority. What's so hard about telling people the reasons for your decision? If you're the SEC, it's because you're lazy or because you want to keep other schools away from "your" high schoolers. That makes sense, and you won. Own it. Flaunt it. As long as you keep winning, nothing else matters.
If you're other conferences, your interests aren't the same as the SEC's, so Mr. Staples says you're probably stupid or corrupt. If that's the case, your employer should help you find a new job. If that isn't the case - if your decision wasn't because you are stupid or corrupt - it shouldn't be that hard to articulate why these camps are so bad.
If the people in charge were in charge for a reason, there would be either be answers or pink slips. Instead, we get the Dave Brandon post-concussion bunker.
|33 weeks 6 days ago||I assume you're not serious,||
so I'm guessing your point is that the way it's worded is confusing. Because it's quite clear that "doesn't mean he wasn't to blame" is not the same as "does mean he was to blame". Maybe another way to put it would be, "Just because some people's opinions went to extremes says nothing about how much Harbaugh is to blame. Perhaps Harbaugh is entirely blameworthy. Perhaps Harbaugh is entirely guileless. If the only thing we're considering are other people's extreme opinions, we can't make that determination."
That's what "doesn't mean he wasn't to blame" means in this context.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Here's maybe a better way he could have responded:||
"I'm happy for Jim. And Michigan has great support without question. They've got tremendous fan support, great resources, and it looks like that's why they targeted Jim from day one, and they're probably thrilled that he's coming back. I don't know him, but I know he wins. He had great success there as a player. He's had great success as a coach too, and I'm sure they're excited."
That comes from Mr. Rodriguez. If anyone has a reason to be bitter, it's Mr. Rodriguez. But that was his response to a question about Mr. Harbaugh. A response he came up with even though he wasn't expecting the question, and even though the question came when Arizona was at its bowl game (and the focus should have been on them). Since he can respond like a "big boy" (to use a phrase of Mr. Hoke's) in those circumstances, I think many of us were looking for something similar from Mr. Hoke - he knew the question was coming, he's been treated with nothing but respect from everyone at UM, and he claims (or claimed) to be a loyal Michigan guy.
I also point to the recent post mortem, If You Pretend You Are A Statue Do Not Be Surprised When You Erode, for another thing I find irritating. That post ends with this: "Brady Hoke stood there in the rain without so much as shaking a fist at the heavens." This interview is Mr. Hoke shaking a fist. What's irritating is that he does it now. Why couldn't he have just once done it as UM's coach? Now that the pressure is off and his ability to do anything for UM - positive or negative - is gone, now he decides to have a meaningful opinion and say something with bite. It's too late; I hope Mr. Hoke is never interviewed about UM again. He forfeited his right to express an opinion when he went four years without shaking a fist.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||That's actually true, though. . .||
The earliest use of the Windy City to describe Chicago was because of the wind. See the book Word Myths, pg 54.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||I despise coach-speak||
I hope Mr. Harbaugh does more things like this. My favorite media statement from Mr. Carr was something the media wet their pants about, since he didn't say what he was supposed to say:
|1 year 13 weeks ago||Not a primary source,||
But easier to point to. Athletic Directors are not subject to HIPAA, unless they happen to be a business associate of a covered entity.
In other words, an AD cannot violate HIPAA, even if he wanted to.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Perhaps someone has already made this observation,||
but I'm getting tired of people calling UM's participation in these camps a use of a "loophole" in the NCAA rules. There is no loophole. There is no rule, right? That's kind of the whole point. The rule is an SEC rule. If my mommy tells me I can't go the park, but Jimmy's mommy doesn't tell him anything, Jimmy is not exploiting a "loophole" by going to the park. Jimmy is just living his life. I guess we as Americans are exploiting a loophole by getting tattoos and drinking alcohol and eating pork, since people in other countries might have rules against such things.
Even calling a more traditional loophole a loophole is a rhetorical device, since your "loophole" is my "merely following the rules as given". In other words, calling something a loophole is just another way of saying the person is actually following the rules but we don't like it anyway. If I don't care about your opinion, then I can shorten that to: a loophole is just another way of saying the person is actually following the rules.
This is a long way of making the point others have already made: Alabama's problem is with the SEC - not with the NCAA, not with Michigan, not with Mr. Harbaugh, not with high school coaches. I wish Alabama supporters would recognize that fact and argue that position (meaning, complain about the SEC rule and nothing else). But at least when someone uses the word "loophole", it's a reliable indication he thinks this is everyone's fault except the SEC's, so I have a good idea of where the argument is going to go before I read the rest.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||Concur||
As great as that game was to watch, I was also irritated the whole time, thinking about what could have been. Instead of winning it all once and doing very well the rest, UM maybe could have owned a decade, like Texas or USC has.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Factual error||
16-16 overall. 8-10 in the conference. Not sure what I was thinking of on that part.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Even hyperbole has its useful limits||
I think what most people would disagree with is your calling a team that has achieved a winning record in one of the top conferences in America "garbage". Even if they lost most of their games miserably, they're still college kids who have put in an unbelievable amount of work and number of hours, of which we see only the tiniest part. For that reason, you would do well to choose a word other than "garbage" to describe the team. I have no idea what you do for a living, but you probably work hard, and you probably fall short of stellar, like most of us. You probably wouldn't appreciate others calling your efforts "garbage".
I'm guessing most of us don't watch Michigan like a movie critic. Probably more like - depending on our ages - a younger sibling, an older sibling, or a parent. No parent I know has ever called his kid's genuine effort at something, no matter how pathetic the results, "garbage" (let alone calling the kid himself garbage, which is what you did). It is usually possible to be honest and tactful - even kind - at the same time.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||Line for UM is moving towards even||
Already gone from 2.5 to 2 at some places; 2 to 1.5 at others. So bettors must be liking UM more than UK so far.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||Eh||
Other than the bad off-Tennessee-player/non-reversed call, I thought the calls were generally going UM's way. There were some weak calls on TN and at least one or two non-calls on UM that easily could have been fouls. Like any game, there's going to be calls one or the other side doesn't like, but when you almost blow a 15-point lead with a bunch of ugly turnovers, it's hard to say it was the refs who tried to gift the game.
|2 years 35 weeks ago||Pot||
|2 years 40 weeks ago||I made that mistake already this year,||
betting against ISU as a point favorite when they played #7 UM.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Lloyd Carr would be a great coach||
Against Michigan right now: play it safe; when in doubt, punt for field position; better to let them lose it than us win it. Actually, UM is making a lot of opposing coaches look good this year.
|2 years 44 weeks ago||Credit where it's due, part II:||
Refs who understand how to promptly spot a ball and signal ready for play. If I were Wisconsin, I'd be sending that game tape to a certain crew for training purposes.
|2 years 45 weeks ago||This has to have been asked||
Has anyone asked this yet of any coach? Have they given any kind of defensible explanation? I'm starting to wonder if all UM has are plays designed for 2nd and long; if they get something like a 2nd and 7, they don't know what to do. That's the best explanation I have for what has to be close to a record for average distance to go on 2nd down.
|2 years 47 weeks ago||Good thing this was just an exhibition||
Or Concordia would have brought its A-game. You know they didn't want to show all their cards at an exhibition game, since Spring Arbor was probably there scouting them. If UM misses out on March Madness and the NIT and ends up in the NAIA tournament, Concordia will probably be favored. (Today I am a Concordia troll, if such a thing exists.)
|2 years 47 weeks ago||Yes||
You'll hear people talk about how they played so-and-so in high school, and so-and-so is now in NFL. Those guys from last year will be telling their grandkids how they played against the one and only Burke in Crisler and gave UM a scare.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||You've convinced me||
I'm taking that one.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||$100||
to win 10 gets you a little over $71. To win the Big Ten, $100 wins $500, at least on this site, over a month ago:
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Does not include the bowl game||
Or any other championship game
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Until late August,||
I would be quite content if this were typical of stuff posted here.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Agreed||
I think we all understand that it's almost a given that he's going pro, so anything at this point other than "Burke to go pro per Burke" isn't really saying anything.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Correct||
But at the time of the call, they wouldn't have known that. A ref trying to call things for Louisville would have called that kick ball on UM. A ref looking at the cheerleaders or whatever they were watching instead of the game misses that call.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Incompetence might suggest the opposite||
I'm thinking the calls they missed were too blatant for this. If I were fixing a game, I wouldn't blow an obvious goal tend at the beginning of the game. Or a foul on the wrong guy that I couldn't know would later help change the game. To fix a game, you shade your calls the other way, maybe get their important players in foul trouble, things like that. Which yes, those happened. But if they do all that plus blow horribly obvious calls, that just makes them bad refs. (Plus, they missed some ridiculous things both ways, like the kick ball. [How do you miss a kick ball at knee-height from a 6'10" guy?]) I'm not saying you're crazy and it couldn't happen. It's just a bad way to fix a game; it's too obvious. It's like the refs' version of The Man Who Knew Too Little.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Why we were 5th in the Big Ten||
Yet the only Big Ten team to survive to the end.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Years||
Or at least since UM/Kansas.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I'll assume hyperbole?||
Refs call the wrong player for a foul all the time?
Missed goaltend (and off the glass/not based on trajectory) is part of basketball?
|3 years 24 weeks ago||No||
This game was quantitatively and qualitatively worse by many degrees, not just from other games in this tournament but from almost every sporting event I've seen. I can think of an NFL game and a college football game off the top of my head that I watched which had refs who called an equally imcompetent game, but this is easily top five. These were bush league refs calling the NCAA championship game. Every game has calls that are questionable; this had call after call which were clear to everyone but those paid to make them.