JUST LEAVE ALREADY
anUMal
History
- Member for
- 3 years 46 weeks
Karma
- Current value
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 2 years 39 weeks ago | Shouldn't it be... |
"Unleash the hell into which Barwis has turned you"? I mean, if this is an mgoblog shirt, shouldn't it adhere to the highest grammatical standards (even disputed ones)? |
| 3 years 6 weeks ago | NSFMF |
To me this looks like more of a way to get rid of this than a consolidation of resources with the goal of finally getting to the bottom of USC's involvement with whatever actually went down with Bush and Mayo. The goal of the consolidation is to determine whether USC had institutional control. This allows them to waive their hands, push some paper and ultimately say "while we couldn't determine what actually went on in each of these situations, including the extent to which any coaches or assistants knew or should have known of any benefits received, we can say that during the time period in question, USC maintained institutional control and that whatever happened were isolated instances and not representative of any wrongdoing or lack of oversight by the university." Or something like that. End investigation. This will end up being a lot like the OSU "investigation". |
| 3 years 14 weeks ago | What? |
Way to ruin this thread with a serious post. But, yeah, that thought had crossed my mind when McGuffie went down with his third. |
| 3 years 15 weeks ago | Better hit refresh |
I think that Scout was a little slow in putting Stokes in the mix for Michigan. We're now #11 on Scout. Not that much of discrepancy between them and Rivals anymore. |
| 3 years 26 weeks ago | 100% |
Something like Laval is scrimmaging the entire team by himself and winning--we'll be unstoppable when he can play. |
| 3 years 27 weeks ago | Don't Forget |
We get Laval Lucas-Perry starting in January. He should be at least another solid contributor. Won't help us for UCLA or Duke, though (who is also on our schedule already so we could end up playing them twice in like three weeks--we'd have to get past UCLA first, though). |
| 3 years 27 weeks ago | But |
But it doesn't take place in the first round of a national playoff, where other, lower ranked teams are almost automatically still IN (woo caps) the MNC. You're basically saying that your system is good because it's no worse than what happens now? Aren't you proposing a solution to fix the screwed-up things that happen now? Your solution to discouraging cupcake scheduling is more in your plan for conference realignment and schedule restrictions than in the playoff. Playing Indiana (one more conference game) rather than Miami-Ohio wouldn't really change anything, though. You can play three cupcakes and still make it into the top 16 or whatever it would take to get an at large bid so I don't really see how your plan takes care of that either. If you want to reduce cupcaking, then the NCAA should go back to not allowing wins over I-AA teams to count in a team's BCS score. That'd be a start. |
| 3 years 27 weeks ago | Ummm |
Your first round doesn't really make sense. Going by this year's standings, you'd have Florida play Bama in the first round, with the looser out of the playoffs. In your "at large" bracket, you could end up with MSU playing Ball St. with the winner advancing. So you put a 10-15th ranked team (or two) into the second round, while a team that won its division who would ordinarily fall to 5th or so after loosing its conference championship, totally out. If you seeded after the conference championship, the SEC looser would have a prime shot at an at large birth. You also in a hypothetical of hypotheticals, left out Michigan in 06, assuming that the UM-OSU game was a conference championship. I'm sure Brian's mgoplayoff proposal is floating around this site somewhere. It's 12 teams, played after the conference championships with the first round played on campus. It's probably the best one that's out there. |
| 3 years 29 weeks ago | No Speculative Content |
That's what next season's preview is for. Besides, we all know the stories about turnarounds with new coaches: Saban lost to ULL last year (or ULM . . . can't remember for sure, don't want to look it up) and is currently ranked 2nd; Pete Caroll at USC; Cap'n Sweatervest at tuosu; Rodriguez at Tulane, Clemson, and WVU; &c.. You can look at all the characteristics of those teams that you want, but do any of them automatically mean that UM will follow the same path? And what about the new coaches that couldn't turn the corner (see Callahan, Bill)? Do any similarities that might exist there mean that we won't be successful in the future? You can assume that the situation at Michigan right now is completely unique and just look at the team in a vacuum: look for any signs of progress; look for any starters or non-starters that might emerge into a starring role on either side of the ball after an offseason of Barwisizing and another round of spring/summer practices. That might be a little more useful but, again, that's what the '09 preview is for. What will this site cover in August? It's hard enough to wait for a new season from January to late-August, which will probably be mid-November to late-August this year. We don't need to start now. |
| 3 years 31 weeks ago | Agree |
Some of the quotes from Coach Rod made me sad though, like the one where he mentioned 110,000 fans booing him. I hope that the comment was made off-the-cuff and that he doesn't really think all the fans are aginst him. Maybe we should all chip in and send Coach Rod a puppy wearing an "In Rod We Trust" shirt. |
