maybe i should have had greg howard write the brandon obit.
|3 days 8 hours ago||Eh||
They kinda took one in '14: Ty Isaac.
|3 days 9 hours ago||Quantification stuff?||
Sports is the last bastion of quantification.
|4 days 14 hours ago||Tom Brady||
|5 days 14 hours ago||I believe you meant||
|1 week 12 hours ago||Done||
I honored Michigan's big rivalry win with a $52.14 donation.
|1 week 5 days ago||Okay champ||
Thanks for your life lessons, oh wise member of the Class of '17. Tell us more of your travels.
|1 week 5 days ago||Fun fact||
It takes 7 seconds to block an account. How long does it take you to reach 100 points?
|1 week 5 days ago||(No subject)|
|1 week 5 days ago||That was YOU?||
Huh. Who knew.
|1 week 5 days ago||I went to Utah||
And I left.
And I WENT BACK.
|1 week 5 days ago||I always enjoyed||
Back when I was modding on the regular, I always enjoyed when people would try to guess my politics based on what comments/threads I removed.
If you follow the MGoCrew on Twitter, you can get a feel for everyone's individual politics. And while results may vary, having known these guys personally, categorizing the group as a whole as having a "conservative bias" is quite the stretch.
|1 week 5 days ago||Okay, one real comment||
There is a major difference between a thread being "relevant" and a thread being something that shouldn't be locked.
A totally on-topic thread can be deleted, and a totally off-topic thread can survive. It is, first and foremost, a matter of how people handle themselves therein. We've had threads with the word "Obama" in the title that were on topic and didn't stray into partisan crap, so they survived, and we've had the most innocuous=looking on-topic threads thrown into the volcano when people couldn't.
|1 week 5 days ago||Some||
That's the problem: some individuals are capable of intelligent, respectful conversation. I might even go so far as "many" or "most." But if you give everyone in the room a taser and say "BUT NO HIJINKS, YOU GUYS," even though most people will comply, you only need a couple of jackasses before things devolve quickly.
|1 week 5 days ago||HEY||
You do NOT bring Ned Flanders into this. What did he ever do to you? Are you saying Flanders hates America???
|1 week 5 days ago||You know who else found things "frustrating"?||
|1 week 6 days ago||NSFMF||
Reply about the p-value being <1 and pointing to individual data points that contradict the hypothesis.
|2 weeks 8 hours ago||Same with PIPPA||
You don't wanna mess with the royal family.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||You're conflating legal outcome with guilt||
You can be treated by the law as "not guilty" and still be guilty of having committed that crime.
Try this experiment some time: walk into a convenience store and steal something, like a Tootsie Roll or a pack of gum. Then, after your perfect crime is complete, ask yourself two questions: am I guilty of petty larceny? And will I ever be convicted of petty larceny?
There is absolutely objective truth in the system. These are statutory crimes, with specific statutory elements. If you meet the elements, you are guilty of having committed that crime. You took the chattel of another with the intent to permenantly deprive the owner of that chattel. That's larceny, whether the court ever says so, or whether the store owner ever even knows.
And I have no idea how Double Jeopardy plays into this at all. The restriction on being tried twice is a Constitutional protection, not a logical protection. There is no logical reason a court couldn't try you for the same event twice, other than it being a dickish thing to do.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Two reminders||
1) Being charged doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything.
2) Having charges dropped or reduced doesn't mean you AREN'T actually guilty of something.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Little bit of both||
For the other four, the Dram Shop lability requires that the over-serving be the proximate cause of damage or injury, which would be reeeeally hard to prove. But for the establishment that let the hammered, armed guy onto the premises and didn't intervene when the fight started, that's a much easier case.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Spoiler alert||
He wins a suit against Rush Street. He loses against the other four.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Laden or unladen?||
And is it an African or a European Falcon?
|3 weeks 7 hours ago||The thing about Time of Possession||
Is that you win it by winning the game, NOT the other way around. Teams that are ahead run the ball more to kill clock. Picking up first downs is a sign of winning teams because it means the offense is moving the ball, and the added benefit of the extra offensive TOP is merely coincidental.
Trying to win games by winning time of possession is like trying to win games by having more kneel-downs than the other team. A thing can correlate with victory without being an effective aspiration.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||My guess||
She will be terrible, but in a manner indistinguishable from her male colleagues.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Damn||
Now that it's not just me, it isn't any fun.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER||
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I've seen this movie||
"From the people who brought you It's all about DENARD..."
|3 weeks 6 days ago||It's essentially the same thing||
You don't get one injury redshirt AND one redshirt redshirt. Occasionally people will get a 6th year if the same injury takes out two seasons, but it isn't very common.
|4 weeks 8 hours ago||Wilton Speight 3rd string and "a lot on the mind"||
Wilton Speight 3rd string and "a lot on the mind"
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Those two events occured in that order||
But that;s not what happened. Adams was a question mark all the way through the process. Some people had him as a first rounder. Some didn't. Also, he had a couple of previous suspensions.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I thought he was already gone||
In any case, now he gone.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Yep||
My advise is generally this:
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Well||
I would do something about the Hoke hire, but my time machine is still in the shop.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||I don't care||
I don't care
|5 weeks 5 days ago||I've got that with my shoulder||
It just kinda slides in and out.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||My guess||
The expected points of going for two, even with the added hail mary, is still lower than the all-but-guaranteed one point with the extra point.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||They're making a point||
About the terrible-ass call in the divisional playoffs.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||But even for people with term contracts||
If I want to quit midway through a term contract, I can. The company can't make me keep working (after all, 13th Amendment and whatnot). And I can go work for another company doing the same stuff. I might owe financial damages, and I'm forbidden from using trade secrets and stuff, but that's it.
This is essentially a mandatory industry-wide non-compete, which is a no-no in any industry.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Indeed||
That's my point. It's the difference between "you can't go play for a team we play this year" and "you can't go anywhere."
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Very true||
Lots of employers make their employees sign non-competes, and most employees (a) don't read them, and (b) assume that they are actually enforceable. But courts take a very restrictive (and increasingly more restrictive as time goes by) view of what is actually enforceable. Basically, a non-compete has to be limited to prevent UNFAIR competition, not ANY competition. If you are taking your working knowledge of trade secrets and other stuff to go work for a competitor next door, your employer can limit THAT. But if you know that the Number Five is the best sandwich, yor boss can't tell you shit.
The reason people are pissed at JJ's isn't because they are suing people who go to work at Subway. It's because they are making their employees THINK it is a breach of contract for them to go work at Subway. No court in the world would ever actually allow this to be enforced, but its a heavy-handed way for JJ's to "incentivize" their people to stay.
It's also a trick to prevent other employers from hiring you. A potential employer might ask "do you have any non-competes?" And if the applicant says "yeah, it says that I can't can peaches anywhere else for years," a risk-averse employer might think that even though it's unlikely that the other peach canning company will sue, and almost impossible for them to WIN, it's not worth the risk or hassle.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||You keep saying "incentives"||
I ain't see no carrots here. These be sticks.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||I'd prefer Denard stay...||
...if Denard WANTS to stay. But my overriding priority is that these kids not get doinked by the system that often seems designed to doink them.
No one else is subject to these kinds of absolute restrictions. If my company tried to make me sign a document that I wouldn't do my job anywhere for anyone for one year after I left, even if they FIRED me, a judge would throw that crap out the instant he was able to stop laughing. And to your point about these being like pro contracts, I can think of two teeeeeeensy little differences between college contracts and pro contracts. The first is that a pro career is limited theoretically unlimited, and a college career is capped at 4/5 years. The second difference is that one is a negotiated contract between parties of somewhat equal bargaining power (where the employee gets, like, paid and stuff), whereas the "contract" with a college is... not.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||It may have been "out of hand"||
But only if you think that the thing they were trying to keep IN hand is reasonable to begin with. I still don't see a viable reason why a played shouldn't be eligible immediately anyway if he wants to play somewhere else.
Besides, how are things getting out of hand for the NCAA? They have sole discretion on whether to approve these things. They can just look at all of the dubious applications, say "NOPE," and things are back in hand.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Also||
While moral absolutism isn't en vogue right now, it's worth pointing out that waving a gun during a dispute is OBJECTIVELY WORSE than drinking alcohol. Unless you're drinking alcohol and driving. Or tending to a nuclear reactor or an oil tanker. Or juggling infants. Though even if you're sober, you probably shouldn't juggle infants.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||You're conflating two issues||
You're conflating the action and the school's response. If a Michigan player or a Michigan State player does a bad thing, that's not something to celebrate or joke about. This kid is in serious trouble for doing an amazingly dumb and reckless thing. Michigan players under Hoke did amazingly dumb and reckless things.
What we CAN point at and make snide comments (and our rivals can as well) is the respective schools' responses. If tomorrow Connor Cook went out and got arrested for an epic jewelry heist, and he was back at practice the next day, we CAN chide Dantonio for that.
In my opinion, under Hoke the punishments generally fit the crimes. And with violent crimes, people were generally treated pretty severely. C'sonte York was gone. Frank Clark was gone. I don't see too many Glenn Winston situations on his record.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Two things||
1) This is part of prominent ongoing conversations about (a) college kids (including those in the Greek system) being dumb, and (b) campus sexual crimes being a serious, under-resolved and difficult-to-tackle problem. The fact that it happened at a major institution in our conference that previously dealt with issues of underreported sexual crimes tends to make it of interest and relevance here.
2) The green arrows point up. The red arrows point down.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Mmmmmm...||
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Physics and biology||
The problem is the movement of the brain inside the skull, which is a result of how fast your head accelerates or decelerates, which material science can't affect much. The damaging impact is the impact between the brain and the skull, and Riddell can't put much padding there.
|6 weeks 5 hours ago||Wait||
So your argument is that someone you know GOT CAUGHT DRINKING IN A WAY THAT GOT HER IN LEGAL TROUBLE, so Glasgow was stupid for getting caught drinking in a way that caused legal trouble?
|6 weeks 4 days ago||OT: Madness at Michigan (the PC police)||
OT: Madness at Michigan (the PC police)
Already posted. Already deleted. Also, no.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Earff||
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Ah, yes||
This is a conversation I know REALLY well.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Me||
2. 2011 Chevy Traverse & 2005 Malibu
3. No. My extremely average genitals provide me with sufficient self-worth.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah||
This is just really wrong.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||You asked a question||
Of whether what this particular busload of buffoons did qualified as "thoughts." And they do. The first amendment protects the expression of even the most hateful dumb-fuckery you can imagine. The Nazis get to march through Skokie. The Klan gets to stand on Capitol building steps and scream about the subhuman nature of other races. It sucks. But there is absolutely no way to prohibit that speech and protect the "good" speech without some objective determination of good and bad speech, which is completely antithetical to the very essence of free speech.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Maybe||
But they can't get around the Constitution with a "Code of Conduct." If the speech is protected, that trumps any rules/laws/policies to the contrary. The only real out is if it met a CONSTITUTIONAL exception (incitement to violence, fighting words, libel, etc.), and I don't think this does.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Constitutionally?||
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Agreed||
In this case, the law is on the side of the guys everyone wants to see kicked in the nards.
|7 weeks 10 hours ago||So||
How did you feel about the really late JoePa Era (before that whole... series of events, that is)?
|7 weeks 3 days ago||OT: The Class of RichRod.||
OT: The Class of RichRod.
No. Is bad.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||And then to cure the HIV||
You give the kid a good ol' fashioned case of the bubonic plague.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah||
There's a large leap made here, and they don't provide any of that "support" or "evidence" that is all the rage these days.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||With a can full of gas||
and a handful of matches. Still weren't found out.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||So, I'll go ahead and delete this...||
...in a bit.
For now, that little red arrow is your friend.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Yep||
It's based off of Massachusetts' "Wicked Hammered" law.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Welp||
Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose. Thanks for the heads-up.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Damn man||
Can't a guy go out and have a late lunch without people being shitty? Internets these days.
Looks like a lot of it was deleted, so I can't see, but why do we think it was the same guy?
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Yes||
Temporarily. Not an offensive posting history.. just a reeeeeally bad decision.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Semi-OT Roster by Race||
Nope? Yeah, nope. All KINDS of nope.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Agree to disagree||
I've even heard it described as a "square peg, larger round hole so the peg fits through anyway."
|7 weeks 5 days ago||FWIW||
The 2009 and 2010 offenses were as emphatically "square peg, square hole" as you can get.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||But that's just for malpractice||
And its a very narrow exception. Here, this would be like suing a county because inadequate security at one of their buildings led to you being raped, and them looking at your psychiatrists' notes afterwards.
There is no way this kind of disclosure would fly under HIPAA.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Nutshell||
HIPAA covers everyone at a health care provider, insurer/health plan, health care clearing house, and health care service provider who receives Protected Health Information. That includes the person at the front desk, the janitor cleaning the hospital, the IT guy working on the computer systems, etc.
It's just that apparently (and I didn't know this) FERPA covers some ground that HIPAA would normally cover when the school itself is providing services.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Indeed||
This is a Covered Entity, son. We play by Covered Entity rules.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||That's the thing||
She was talking to a doctor. She was talking to a doctor, and this would be covered under "doctor-patient confidentiality" under normal circumstances.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||So||
Now that the stupid, hopefully-unnecessary warning is out of the way, I disagree with Oregon's interpretation of the FERPA exception in this case. They weren't disclosing the records. They were using them for internal prep, and did not disclose them to the opposing party.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Two points||
1) This is a very relevant and important topic.
2) PLEASE everyone behave and allow it to be a relevant and important conversation.
|8 weeks 12 hours ago||It won't do any good||
I will personally text you the final score. And sky-write the final score over your house. And roam your neighborhood with the speaker car from Blues Brothers yelling the final score.
|8 weeks 3 days ago||Obviously||
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Congratulations on the new location||
But can you compete with these guys?
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Eh.||
Is not good. Is not worst thing ever. Is just... eh.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||I think the booth OVERTURNED it||
Which... how is that even possible? How can no one know how the pylon works?
|8 weeks 4 days ago||That's the thing, though||
Dumb rule or no, it was the correct call. So while I think that SHOULD count as a catch in any rational world, the refs got it right.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Yes.||
|8 weeks 5 days ago||No.||
|8 weeks 5 days ago||No.||
|9 weeks 10 hours ago||Not that we're going down the political road...||
But you do realize that the University of Michigan is a state university, yes? And you know what that means, yes?
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Interesting||
Will there be a way to retroactively scratch out dumb predictions that don't turn out to be anywhere near accurate? Asking for a friend.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||(No subject)|
|9 weeks 5 days ago||FWIW||
Those numbers include three walk-ons who deserve scholarships.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Also||
They're aren't in the Midwest right before the combine
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Bobby|
|10 weeks 3 days ago||I have a question||
About my dog's anal glands...
|10 weeks 3 days ago||You're just mad||
About what happened to Kate Mara.
I join you in that sentiment
|10 weeks 3 days ago||The whole series||
Or Rocky as in "Rocky I"
|10 weeks 3 days ago||I dunno||
Leviticus, 11:17 says that "He who shall Perform a Song which is not the Song of the Victorious in a Manner which intermingles it with the Song of the Victorious shall be put to Death."
Rules are rules.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||This.||
So very much this.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||That||
is a lot of sig figs.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||No...||
...if you put the big cooking spoon thing in like that, you'll never have room for the DAMMIT MOVE I'LL DO IT.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Agreed||
See also: the colloquial (and objectively incorrect) use of "ironic" to mean "coincidental" has been added to some dictionaries. IT STILL AIN'T RIGHT, SON.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||I mean||
If your position is that we can't make fun of ANYTHING on the internet, that's cool. We'll just have to disagree. It's a perfectly fair position, just one that I happen to vehemently disagree with.
As for mistakes, I don't think I have a mistake to own here. I came in well after the fact here, and am just discussing the general point. I owned up to a mistake a couple of posts above, but beyond that I feel pretty blameless.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||I think he was saying style-wise||
Wheat doesn't appear to be a super-explosive TE type who can run like a WR and hit like a Fullback. He's more blocky than catchy. So while he can be a really useful weapon, he probbaly won't be the guy you highlight as a matchup nightmare. For that type of TE, you'll be looking more at the Ian Bunting-type TE.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||So NOTHING can be mean?||
No "Brian Kelly is an angry purple little man" jokes? No "Tom Izzo is a whiny little man" jokes? No "Branden Dawson punches inanimate objects" jokes? No "Anything related to Tom Crean" jokes?
Not every argument is made with the purest forms of logic and reason, and arguing otherwise is nuts. And if you're going to argue that this is a pure ad hominem, I think it's worth pointing out that the picture confirmed the same "vibe" as the proposal, which was... uh... not something we old folks were super amped to see brought forth.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||And you know what?||
I regret that post a great deal. In my mind at the time (and for a good while afterward), it was making fun of a really bad music video. But it was only "amusing" because of who made it... and it was a 17-year-old (I think) who made it. I didn't get that at the time. I get that now. But I'm not going to unpublish it, because hiding that stuff doesn't help, and the ability to wipe the slate clean in hindsight makes people less considerate when they originally hit "publish."
But here, we're talking about an adult. Perhaps the line is an arbitrary one, but it's a pretty broadly accepted one in our culture. Second-semester sophomores are 19 or 20. They've lived away from home for two years. They can drink in Canada. Besides, this is a guy who isn't getting pulled into this from the background. He put himself in the foreground, both by becoming a representative and by putting forward a really terrible proposal to that body. Was posting the picture mean and unneccesary? Maybe. Hell, probably. But does being "mean" make it inappropriate? I don't think so.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Narrow block of text||
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Where I come from||
Saying "hey, this is the member YOU ELECTED to the governing body trying to do a stupid thing and asking for your money to do the stupid thing, so tell them to stop doing the stupid thing" is a pretty damn acceptable use of social media. If this was a state legislator or a Congressman, no one would say anything.
For the life of me I can't see why you think this individual is above people responding directly to them in a medium designed exactly for that purpose.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||I didn't||
But if I had, what exactly would have been wrong about that? Seriously, what information would I have been sharing that wasn't already freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and an Internet machine? Hell, what information would I have been sharing that I didn't find with 30 seconds and an Internet machine?
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Not sure what you mean||
I have no reason to be disingenuous here. I'm not receiving a nickel from the site. I'm not even writing for the site anymore, other than the occasional response to the This Weeks Obsession articles. I'm not trying to make inroads in the blogging community.
I don't always agree with Brian. I just happen to not think he did anything wrong here, and I get tired of people who don't understand how social media works..
|10 weeks 5 days ago||No chance||
Adam posted that picture for all to see, in a manner that made it extremely likely that anyone who wanted to see it could find it in short order. Brian then posted a picture of the that exact same thing, which was available to the exact same universe of people.
By your standard, linking to anything anyone coule ever consider embarassing (picture, stupid student newspaper article with byline, public performance, whatever), is cyberbullying.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||He's an elected member of the CSG||
And in that capadity as an elected official (of a teeny weenie election, but still) he's making a proposal to the CSG. How in the tapdancing hell is telling people to tell that guy who ostensibly represents the student body that his idea is TERRIBLE AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN INTO A VOLCANO a bad thing?
Like any social media, a Twitter feed is exactly as private as you choose to make it. Before Brian said one word, I (as a person who has never met Adam Weiss and knew nothing about him) searched for him and saw this within 30 seconds.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||He received exactly 12 mentions||
And only a couple were remotely bad.
The fact remains that a simple Twitter search for "Adam Weiss" revealed his account almost instantly. I saw it before Brian posted it. If we're saying that re-posting images of social media content that was ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION is cyber-bullying, I don't know what to tell you.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||I mean||
It is pretty shady that Brian published the public Twitter feed of a guy named Adam Weiss who goes by the super-secret internet pseudonym "Adam Weiss."
|10 weeks 6 days ago||NSFMF|
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||Yep||
YOU ARE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, maybe not. But soon...
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||You can question any dogma||
And to the extent you think "hey, don't call people retards" is a dogma, you can continue to call people whatever you want. This is just an effort to inform people who somehow AREN'T already aware that calling people "retards" is offensive to a lot of people.
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||Slippery slope||
FWIW, most totalitarian thought-Nazification isn't voluntary. And poster-based.
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||WE'RE NOT GOING THERE||
Speaking of 'speech that isn't acceptable," TALKIN' POLITICS IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||Okay||
But college is also supposed to prepare you for walking into your first post-college job knowing that you shouldn't call things retarded. So maybe this is aimed at that, and not at protecting the virgin ears of the nearby children.
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||We have a version of that||
Certain words are auto-banhammer. Most of them are the usual race/ethnicity/sexual orientation words, but there is also one nickname for Michigan State that is so dumb that upon uttering it you can't stay.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||I should have been more exact||
You are correct. They have to demonstrate injury. They just don't have to demonstrate "I was harmed $X worth of injury" they way they would have to if they were suing for damages.
I'd think it would be pretty easy to make the case that because signing the agreement procluded him from signing other similar agreements, he was injured with the loss of that ability. It's speculative/consequential, but i would guess that would be sufficient.
I still don't think an action would have a prayer though.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||You wouldn't need damages||
"Fraud in the inducement" is a matter of whether a contract was valid to begin with (or whether it is voidable), not the damages that would result from breach.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||I can't help but wonder||
If many of these comments wouldn't be a lot different if we replaced the word "mom" with "dad."
|11 weeks 6 days ago||You seem wise||
How do I subscribe to you?
|12 weeks 4 days ago||It is||
It's about 365 days.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||As someone who attended Michigan AND Notre Dame||
It's whatever you think is best.
But you should probably think Michigan is best.
|12 weeks 6 days ago||There was some running||
Then some lifting.
Then some running.
Then a secret workout I can't divulge.
Okay, it was lifting.
|13 weeks 10 hours ago||MIKE JONES||
|13 weeks 1 day ago||Yep||
And 196.850 is a hell of a nice score
|13 weeks 2 days ago||If you know a little chemistry||
It's actually an interesting metaphor. Most of the energy when you heat something is used in the last degree, when you actually complete the phase transition (like from liquid to gas). It's pretty easy to get water to 211 degrees, but takes a lot to get it to boil.
And if you watch it, it will never boil.
|13 weeks 2 days ago||It's the boiling point of water||
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah...||
But he was... oh, what is English phrase... on a shit-ton of steroids.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||I didn't dislike him||
I could just never get a handle on how good he was. With some guys, you don't know how good they are until you see them in action... and with other guys, you can see them in action and STILL not know if they are any good.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||How big of a deal is that, though?||
I mean, he's been to campus a bazillion times, he's met pretty much all of the recruits, and by then he will have met personally with the relevant coaches. Would he need to confirm that the Diag is still where it was before?
Josh McMillon not visiting campus is a death-knell. Mike Weber not visiting campus is a shrug emoji.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||James Rogers comparison||
So you're saying the floor for him is "I have no earthly clue if this player is kinda good or okay or just the worst damn corner in the history of the forward pass"?
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah||
I don't see causation or injury here. Help me out, MGoLawyers.
|13 weeks 5 days ago||The author||
Is a Michigan fan. And an alumnus of my high school, if I'm not mistaken.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||Yes||
|14 weeks 14 hours ago||If PV=nRT||
Then a 15K change would be closer to a 5% change in P, no?
|14 weeks 1 day ago||Eh||
I'd say it's POSSIBLY illegal. There isn't a "you can only charge $X and if you charge a penny more it's illegal" bright-line, but a judge could look at how much they charge and say it was illegal.
Regardless, certainly shitty.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||This||
is the correct answer.
|17 weeks 1 day ago||Cutcliffe||
|17 weeks 6 days ago||(No subject)|
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Positive||
|18 weeks 14 hours ago||But||
We're talking about Marcellus WILEY, so while the line in the film may be "Marcellus Wallace," in this context it's funnier to never mind I quit Earth.
|18 weeks 2 days ago||That's Razor Ramon||
Kids these days...
|18 weeks 3 days ago||Harbaugh info from a new MGoUser||
Harbaugh info from a new MGoUser
lolwut pear dot jpg
|18 weeks 5 days ago||So||
Are they buying Gruden Manor?
|18 weeks 6 days ago||Harbaugh||
|19 weeks 9 hours ago||The thing||
Is that he's controversial WITHIN Michigan athletic circles. And I don't think that's a secret, or even a controversial statement.
|19 weeks 12 hours ago||If you want||
I'll send Vincent your email address.
|19 weeks 13 hours ago||If you want||
I can give him your email address, and he can get in touch with you. Or you can send a note to MGoBiSB@gmail.com with whatever contact info you want to send him, and I'll forward it along.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||Please mail me mine||
Secret Vault under Markley Hall, Cubicle 7
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
|19 weeks 2 days ago||"Almost none chance"||
Astute analysis, that.
|19 weeks 3 days ago||No||
Michigan fans (like pretty much everyone else) are convinced he's a sure-fire NFL talent, which is undeniable, and a sure-fire early-round pick in the NFL draft.
|19 weeks 4 days ago||Get yo' woman on the floor.||
Gotta gotta get up to get down.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Harbaugh||
|19 weeks 5 days ago||I got it||
I was on the move on my phone, so I was limited in my ability to fix things. It was a user named "WoIverine Devotee," with WD's avatar and signature block and whatnot. But the "l" was a capital "i". Cheeky.And ban-hammered.
That's such a dumb use of time. Taking the time to rack up a couple hundred points and create this post which was literally gone in minutes.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||You missed the point||
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Wait wait wait||
I tried to SAVE him...
|19 weeks 5 days ago||ATTENTION INTERNET PEOPLES||
Perhaps your best course of action on this topic would be to tread lightly.
/Walter White voice
|19 weeks 6 days ago||Indeed||
Good call. Fixed.
|20 weeks 6 hours ago||Censorship?||
I think you mean "CENSORSHIP!!!!!11111"
|20 weeks 10 hours ago||According to this book I saw||
Even Jim Hackett is occasionally full of poo.
|20 weeks 12 hours ago||Because||
Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
|20 weeks 3 days ago||Yes and no||
The search itself wasn't all that bad, because it was really compressed. RichRod's firing to Hoke's hiring was 5 days (January 6th to January 11th). There are only so many ridiculous-ass theories you can throw out there in five days. Here, we've been speculating about new coaches for 2 months, with another month to go.
On the other hand, it was way worse because unlike this time, where everyone pretty much agrees he had to go, last time there was an active debate over whether RichRod should be fired at all. THAT got really, really ugly.
|20 weeks 3 days ago||I'll say this||
I moderated a coaching change once before. It is not pleasant. We all owe Justin and LSA a beer.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||Eh||
Age is an issue. He's 163.
Also he's been dead for 127 years, which is going to be a big target for negative recruiting.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||Perhaps||
But if you don't think they at least discussed the basic parameters of the contract (including the approximate dollar amount) before they announced the hire, you're nuts.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||So||
While we're not going to get into the government contracting issues, because NOPE NOPE NOPE, the answer to you question is simple: free market capitalism.
Michigan can offer Jim Harbaugh a contract that says "if you win the Big Ten you get $10 million, but if not, you get $50,000." And there's no way in hell anyone is going to sign that, because other teams will offer him a much more stable, sane deal. These aren't just mythical creatures; they're employees with families and mortgages and car payments and kids to put through college. And they can do math. Well, maybe not Tim Beckman. But the rest can do math.
Lots of coaches (probably most coaches) have incentives built into their contracts. But if you're trying to encourage a member of a very small talent pool to leave his current home and move to your city, you have to treat him like what he is.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||The primary issue with buyouts||
Is that if you have a contract for a term, but there are no penalties for breaking that contract before the end of the term, then you don't have a contract for a term.Consider this example: if you lease an apartment for one year, but you can leave whenever you want without paying anything, you don't have a contract for a year.
Under normal contract law, if you break a contract before the end of the term, you owe the person whatever damages would put them in the position they would have been in had you performed your part of the bargain. Fire a guy a year early, you owe him a year's salary, minus whatever money he makes over that year at a new job (called "mitigation"). For clarity, it's often easier for an employer to set out a buyout/liquidated damages clause that just says how much each owes the other in the event of a firing/resignation/whatever.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||That's my point||
If you see something you think you need, sometimes you have to overpay. Michigan offered him a fine salary (though not a multi-year contract, which goes directly to the OP's point). But had they overpaid slightly, they might have saved themselves a LOT of headache in the intervening 7 years.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||Because||
If you try to lowball a contract negotiation, Jeff Casteel stays in West Virginia and EVERYTHING BLOWS THE HELL UP.
|21 weeks 7 hours ago||OT Chad Carr||
OT Chad Carr
Fantastic news. Still a double-post.
|21 weeks 5 days ago||Happy Thanksgiving,||
Happy Thanksgiving, Brony-migo
|21 weeks 6 days ago||Even if that happens||
What is the ABSOLUTE nightmare, worst-case scenario? Walton fouls out with 10 minutes left to play? So he misses 10 minutes of the game.
What happens when you sit him for 10 minutes of the first half? He misses 10 minutes of the game. Those first four fouls are a resource. Use them.
|21 weeks 6 days ago||Me||
|21 weeks 6 days ago||(No subject)|
|21 weeks 6 days ago||The argument||
that "Denard Robinson was not a good quarterback" depends on a certain, very narrow definition of "quarterback." Because Denard was a guy you could line up behind the center, and when you did so he would move the ball forward like a sumbitch.
|21 weeks 6 days ago||The first play||
Was a zone read option, where Gardner made the correct read (the end crashed, and Gardner kept). The problem was that Devin Funchess, the receiver to the play side, ran a slant or chased a pretty pretty butterfly towards the middle of the field or DGAF or something, and he left the boundary corner completely untouched. So instead of being one on one with the safety to decide between three to five yards or a big play, he was eating two unblocked guys at the line of scrimmage.
After than my eyes bled too much to care.
|22 weeks 2 days ago||He called the fair catch||
When it was obvious that the gunners were gonna get there before the ball.
|22 weeks 2 days ago||Nah||
You don't have a duty to Michigan football. Neither do I. The good Lord/Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster blesses each of us with only about 4,000 Saturdays.
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Uh...||
|22 weeks 4 days ago||No||
He simply revealed the beard that was always there.
|22 weeks 4 days ago||I sort of agree||
It looked to me like the OL did some good things. But that's the frustrating part: even when stuff gets better, it doesn't get better.
|22 weeks 5 days ago||I'd say||
Worst. 30 for 30. EVER.
|22 weeks 5 days ago||About that..|
|22 weeks 5 days ago||Yeah||
If Ricky Doyle is carrying around a bunch of bad weight, then I'm a Ricki Lake special.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Well...||
|23 weeks 3 days ago||Fun fact||
I actually fixed a broken dryer a few months back. Had to replace the thermal fuse. I was very proud.
Whole damn thing broke like two weeks later... but for a moment, I was a GOD.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Major Lack of WR/TE Depth||
Major Lack of WR/TE Depth
Crowd spoke. And the OP has been posting an awful lot of threads.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||For the last time||
The topic was fine. The problem wasn't that you were trying to shine a light on something important. The problem was that you DIDN'T. DO. THAT. If your idea of "shining a light" is to ask people to discuss PREVIOUS DIARIES, and you don't provide any new information, then sir/ma'am/doctor/reverend/your excellency, I don't know what to tell you. Want to compare Michigan's techniques with those of other FBS programs? Cool. We'll read it. But what you posted was unsupported, conclusory, repetitive, and generally not up to diary standards. End of conversation. /dictator'd
|23 weeks 6 days ago||It's a gut feel thing||
Generally, a well-written and reasoned post will stay up, as long as the take is within shouting distance of reasonableness. And it usually doesn't have much to do with "support" so much as with people thinking it is a reasonable topic of conversation. You can call it "group-think" if you want (many do), but stuff that is WAY outside the mainstream just leads to fights and retaliation and general pissed-offedness, which gets threads pulled anyway.
I pulled a couple of "Fire John Beilein" threads in the middle of the 2012-2013 season (yes, THAT season) because the opinions expressed were just stupid. Call me the thought police if you wish.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||Yep||
Especially when there are only five diaries displayed. I hate to see something substantive and well-researched bumped off the page because someone else likes the sound of his own voice.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||Duh||
I cloned them. At the clonery.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||FWIW||
There is a permanent thread devoted to the topic, in which the mods painstakingly document their actions and the reasons therefore:
|23 weeks 6 days ago||DAMMIT MAN||
What part of "secret cabal" did you not understand?
|23 weeks 6 days ago||Posted below||
But the gist was that Michigan's S&C staff has failed. The problem was that he offered none of that "support" stuff that is all the rage.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||I just compared them side-by-side||
There are exactly zero substantive changes, save for the title.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||Indeed||
Sometimes we'll unpublish something (like a rumor that doesn't seem to have much substantiation yet), and then re-publish once more info comes out.
In this case, I re-read the diary, and I feel pretty confident about it.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||For those curious||
The diary was titled "Why our Strength and Conditioning program failed"
The first sentence was, "Why does our football team look slow and lumbering compared to other teams? Because they've been trained to be slow and lumbering."
He then pointed to two PREVIOUS diaries (without linking, of course) but provided no additional substance.
Jury, what say you?