“The player development is the main thing I like (about Michigan),” Williams said. “You can see that they develop their players. They get them in the gym and they work them hard. And their hard work pays off.”
- Member for
- 4 years 49 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 hours 47 min ago||But...||
But we're still sending JMFR on an A-Gap blitz, right?
|4 hours 29 min ago||Why?||
They were really, really f***ing good.
|1 day 22 hours ago||Nah||
During the offseason, MGoBlog is sort of a cross between a sports blog and Angie's List. With a dash of "What Are You Drinking?"
|2 days 17 hours ago||Funny you should mention that||
He's now been banned, but not for this comment. A review of his comment history should give you a good idea why.
|2 days 23 hours ago||Luck||
As a way to describe things that happened or didn't happen? Sure, luck exists. As a causal force or predictive indicator? No, very much not.
|2 days 23 hours ago||That's the worst law ever.||
By a lot.
|3 days 22 hours ago||Yeah||
You're my favorite too.
|3 days 22 hours ago||My comment wasn't directed to Shaw's point||
It was directed to Mike and Mike's point. People exclaim a fundamental difference between athletes getting paid and anyone else (GAs, interns, etc.) getting paid, and I don't see it.
|3 days 23 hours ago||Exactly||
I find it hard to reconcile the NCAA's twin arguments that (a) they give these athletes lots of compensation, including a free education, room and board, food, and Bill Walton, and yet (b) compensating athletes would somehow undercut the very fabric of the NCAA.
|3 days 23 hours ago||Even so||
There are lots of people who have jobs while going to school. Does a student who works in the Admissions Office in the afternoons care less about studying because her "job" is at the Admissions Office?
And as far as whether "the education is actually worth more in the long run than what payment would most likely be," why does that matter? This isn't an either/or proposition. Can't they get that education AND get paid for their likenesses?
|5 days 4 hours ago||No way||
Two VERY different systems of punishment, with different standards of proof, rules of evidence, etc. No one suspended for steroids is ever convicted of anything. No one suspended for bumping an official or attempting to injure an opponent is ever convicted of anything. Tropp and Conboy never saw a courtroom.
In this case, there are witnesses to Ray Rice punching a woman in the face. There is video of him DRAGGING an unconscious woman out of an elevator. Conviction or no, you suspend his ass for WAY longer than two games.
|6 days 16 hours ago||What I know:||
Run the blade flat-wise on your skin, NOT long-edge-wise on your skin. I'll never make THAT mistake a sixth time...
|1 week 1 hour ago||Indeed||
And there are no other variables...
|1 week 1 hour ago||You divided by zero.||
You divided by zero.
|1 week 1 hour ago||MIKE JONES||
|1 week 4 hours ago||More Seven Nation Army||
More Seven Nation Army
|1 week 1 day ago||Indeed.||
It shall be done, possibly in a follow-up/recap edition.
|1 week 1 day ago||I always appreciated you analyses...||
...but I appreciate it even MORE this week.
|1 week 5 days ago||Yeah||
And they say Penn State fans are conspiratorial...
|1 week 5 days ago||The problem is||
Which one? Odds are, if you took one of Kalis, Bosch, and Magnuson, you'd have a heck of a player in there. But it'd be gambling when you only have five players and don't get the luxury of boom-or-bust prospects.
|1 week 6 days ago||Your complain has been noted||
And forwarded to the office of complaints in the complaint division.
(Seth. That's Seth.)
|2 weeks 1 day ago||But you know what IS a good one?||
|2 weeks 1 day ago||When I say "no prayer"||
I'm not saying this is a David vs. Goliath case where the little guy faces a great uphill struggle despite being buoyed by the forces of good. I'm saying this is the case where the plaintiff is just legally wrong. Really, really wrong. The State Constitution says so. They have NO case. None.
The power the regents have to do business in this manner is protected by a document that requires a statewide vote of the electorate to change. No lawsuit can change it unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind on a pretty easy question of interpretation in the last decade.
Taking on the issue is fine. But the suit is frivolous as hell.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||That reminds me||
Of one of my all-time favorite filings:
|2 weeks 1 day ago||For future reference||
Was it because we talked about Kurtis Drummond too much? Or because we didn't talk about Kurtis Drummond enough?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||FWIW||
This is pretty standard for a first offense. For those (like myself) who don't believe his punishment should be harsher, or less harsh, because he plays football, this seems about right.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I pray thee||
In the name of all that is holy, read this. The exemptions outlined in the law are irrelevant, because article 8, section 4 of the 1963 Constitution trumps it. They are CONSTITUTIONALLY permitted to regularly conduct business in informal meetings behind closed doors, so long as they properly hold any formal meetings. It is 100% within their power to go behind closed doors, decide how to vote, and then go into a formal meeting to vote. Don't like it? Blame the 1963 ConCon.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||...||
they aren't just allowed to discuss some matters in informal sessions they are allowed to discuss all matters in informal sessions as long as they do the voting in formal sessions so they are not violating the law because they are not subject to that law because the state constitution says they aren't subject to that law and the michigan supreme court says they aren't subject to that law and you don't get to file a suit against someone who isn't violating the law you claim they are violating and oh god my brain just fell out and is running away and yep it just stole my car and now I am brainless and without a ride
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Okay, I'm only saying this one last time||
Because my forehead is getting sore, and the desk is starting to crack:
YOU DON'T GET TO SUE SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BUT IS "BAD PRACTICE" OR IS "NOT A GOOD IDEA." THE THING THE REGENTS ARE DOING IS LEGAL. THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO. THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO. I SAY SO. THE FREE PRESS CAN WRITE A THOUSAND OP-EDS BEMOANING THE SECRECY AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, AND THAT'S FINE AND WELL AND PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT YOU CAN. NOT. SUE. THEM. FOR. THIS.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Fair point||
But the decision was less than a decade ago, and this is basically the same question they just answered. And the state constitution is pretty darned clear on the issue: the universities and the legislature are basically co-equals. The legislature can't impose OMA restrictions on the way Universities operate.