- Member for
- 4 years 30 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
- Do not go to law school unless you are sure you want to be a lawyer. The schools you are looking at will not put you on a path to riches. (To be clear: the sky is the limit for what you can accomplish after school, wherever you go--but it will have to be your own hustle, it will not be there for you just because you're holding a degree from Wisconsin, Kent, etc.)
- If you are certain your want to be lawyer, and certain you want to practice in Michigan, it is probably not worth leaving the state, even if you could get in to Wisconsin or Iowa.
- If you are looking to move to a large city in another region of the country go to the school with the best national reputation among your options (i.e. Iowa or Wisconsin).
- Academic reputation is most important, but every school has a 99.something, making reputation fairly meaningless as a discriminator
- Faculty-student ratio is obviously assessed in a bizarre and inconsistent manner (e.g. Michigan's ratio is significantly better than Princeton's?)
- Ditto employer reputation (again, I'm sure employers love us, but much more than they love Princeton grads?)
- % of International students and faculty -- this does seem important to me...if you're trying to boost the standing of schools from a small country closely connected to several other small, nearby countries (i.e. the UK)
|4 weeks 1 hour ago||Per ESPN, they plan to use||
Per ESPN, they plan to use Denard as a running back.
|10 weeks 22 hours ago||The Loss was...||
Frustrating, but a blessing in disguise. The big dance is what matters and a third loss to IU on dead legs was not going to help us going in.
|14 weeks 3 days ago||Calm Down||
We were not going to win last night's game. MSU is a strong team that had been waiting all year to put (more hyped) UM in its place. They had a soft three games in February before us to gear up (only decent challenge was a road game at crumbling Minnesota). We had a late night prize fight in Bloomington, a roller coaster overtime game against OSU, and a gut-wrenching overtime loss at Wisconsin. We were on fumes. They were lying in wait. We got crushed.
I was so certain of the result this was the one game all year I taped but did not watch the same night. Glad I did not, I might be in meltdown mode like everyone else.
Cool reason does not suggest time for panic. We lost three games on the home courts of three teams in the KenPom top 13. That is disappointing, but not unexpected in college basketball. We are still #5 in KenPom after last night's game. We have a favorable slate going forward.
It's all about the tournament and we have the talent to play with anybody. The key is having our confidence at a crescendo when the tournament starts. In that, the recent schedule may actually be a blessing.
|20 weeks 4 days ago||Great Question||
Yes. Yes he is.
|22 weeks 1 day ago||$$ =/= Success||
You lost me right out of the gate with:
Dave Brandon is an AD who understands that his role is to make the university money
If that's your view, I can see why you like Brandon. I disagree completely with the role of the AD. I think it is to achieve success as measured by: (1) on-field performance and (2) school reputation. We play sports because it brings the community together, makes alumni proud (and more apt to donate through means other than buying yet another random new jersey), and gives Michigan great exposure. I have made judgments about countless other schools based on the way they conduct themselves in the world of collegiate sports. Wisconsin sports improve my opinion of Wisconsin the school. Ditto Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Georgia Tech. I have the opposite opinion for many others--e.g. Ohio State, Miami U. Those are both pretty good schools but it's hard for me to regard them that way because of the image they project through sports.
Would you really put money ahead of on-field success and school reputation? Admittedly, all three can work in cooperation and reinforce one another, but money has to be third. And there are many instances where making more money is detrimental to on-field success (e.g. giving students far-away seats) or image (see everything Brian hates).
|29 weeks 6 days ago||Unbelievable||
Unless Gardner has regressed to an epic degree I do not understand it. Putting Bellomy out there for additional series in this game, at this point, is an act of cruelty.
|30 weeks 2 days ago||Tank Lives!||
#25 was a real blast from the past -- Tank Carradine! Sad how many of the defensive guys were players I onced thought might come here (Hankins, Montgomery, Carradine)
|32 weeks 2 days ago||Not much better...||
But we also had a punt return TD from Odoms later on in 2008 (horribly quality video link)
|33 weeks 6 days ago||concussion =/= leg injury||
You can walk without assistance after a concussion. And Gholston was not quick to get up. He took a nap with his arms attached to his body like limp noodles. Hope the kid is ok, but I mostly agree with the OP. You don't throw someone back onto the field after short term paralysis because they can recite the score to you.
|44 weeks 1 day ago||as a technical point...||
I wouldn't say disputed. It is just not officially confirmed. The article has a PSU spokesman saying he has not been briefed on a decision yet. That does not mean "no decision has been made."
|45 weeks 2 days ago||I don't follow||
If you're trying to deflect attention from a pedophilia scandal, I don't see how publicly issuing a hard-hitting report on another institution helps the cause. If anything, it gives victims more confidence to speak up and brings the issue more into the public consciousness so people wonder 'where else is this happening?'
|45 weeks 2 days ago||Port Salut||
I completely agree on Port Salut. Among other things, the best grilled cheese cheese in the history of mankind.
|49 weeks 2 days ago||Thank God||
There is another live sports fan familiar with this classic question and its use as a reference point. Apparently no one at ESPN (where I first read the story) has heard of "have you stopped beating your wife" before.
|50 weeks 17 hours ago||Me||
Founder's Red Rye IPA -- on draft in DC -- yum.
|51 weeks 2 days ago||not all felonies are equal||
This is not an assault charge. He slid his fat body over the hood of a car. I don't see how that warrants more than a 1-3 game suspension.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||2 cents||
You have already done well for yourself. I will be very candid because this is a huge decision.
I graduated from Michigan and work at a firm in DC. To be very candid, if I had a relative or close friend considering law school I would not suggest it unless (1) you can go to a top 15 school or (2) want to practice local criminal/family law. And let me be clear that local law practice can be a great life. Fine pay and much more fun/entertaining than what I am doing. But make sure that's what you're after.
Best of luck to you whatever you choose.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||What a mess||
I love that Michigan is ranked so high, but these rankings seem completely flawed.
Like I said, no complaint with the results, but if you look at the methodology and the scores they came up with...doesn't make a lot of sense.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Gibbs = OL Einstein||
One thing we know about him for sure: he's smart. Rivals reports a 31 (!) ACT.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||ok with it||
I think they both serve a useful purpose. The board "hello" post is instantaneous news. The main page "hello" post is shortly-after-the-fact news with substantive commentary and analysis. I don't mind knowing the news right away. And the "hello" is something I will admit I scan for on the board post titles.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||love it||
I noticed that and I love it. I don't see "Ohio" as disrespectful. It is just a more efficient way of referring to the school, since there is no confusion about whether our coaches mean Ohio State or Ohio U. I think more than anything it shows familiarity with OSU, almost like being on a first-name basis. It is totally different from something stupid like "that school down south."
|1 year 16 weeks ago||i hear ya||
I confess, I am a little taken aback by the hysterical and persistent it wasn't the tweets! movement. I understand that Michigan fans are supposed to hate the author of the Yuri Wright twitter article. That's fine. I agree to hate that guy. But I think it's silly for us to bend over backwards to ignore any evidence that the tweets might have mattered to someone. You say the tweets were a reason he was dismissed but not the only reason. I believe that. But I think being a full IWTT truther (denying that even his hs cared) is a bridge too far.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Yuri's tweets||
Don't understand this:
"Also: no, Yuri Wright did not get expelled for some frickin' tweets. That does not happen."
Wright's coach is on record as saying that's exactly why he was expelled.
"He was expelled from the school for the things he had written on Twitter," Toal told ESPNNewYork.com. "It was pretty simple really, what he wrote were some graphic sex things. This is a Catholic school, things like that cannot happen. It was totally inappropriate."
Do we have some reason to think Wright's coach is wrong?
|1 year 17 weeks ago||withdrawn.||
|1 year 18 weeks ago||why highly doubtful?||
Why is it highly doubtful that the tweets were a reason Wright was dropped? We know the UM coaches are aware of twitter. You don't think it's possible one of the dozens of people working for Michigan's athletic department or football program noticed some of the tweets? It is amazing to me how many people are buying the Tom Beaver explanation that Michigan dropped him because of character but absolutely not because of the tweets (which evidenced questionable character). No Michigan coach is going to "corroborate" the story and say: "yes, I can confirm that it was the tweets, specifically the ones about..." What you ask for is absurd. They are not going to do that. They are going to vaguely cite character and move on.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||you are right||
I have actually looked at the NFL draft data and come to the same conclusion. But that points to an independent question, which is: what are the sites' ratings supposed to mean? I have always assumed it means "how well this guy could contribute to a typical NCAA football team." I assume that was at least the original point to the ratings. Which college football team was getting the best future college football players.
Now the ultimate worth of a player is his ability at the NFL level. But assigning recruiting rankings based on NFL potential seems like a different undertaking to me. Guys like Eric Crouch or Desmond Howard are not potential All-Pro players, but had amazing college success. I would not rank those guys too high out of high school if I knew I would later gauge my success by looking at how many of my Top 50 made it to the NFL as a regular starter. The interesting question to me is: what is the approach for the various sites? I honestly have no idea and suspect it may not be the same.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Thanks||
Thanks very much for the guidance. I followed your method to massively improve the formatting of my recent ESPN rankings diary.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Great video||
I forgot how jaw-dropping Webber's talent was, and how historically ugly those warm-ups were. Great game from Pelinka.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Excellent Analysis||
The spin on a study like this is always "see, stars do matter." As though in answer to the commonly-held belief that stars mean nothing. I think the opposite is true. Everyone hyperventilates over stars (to the point of begging analysts to add a star to a player you're already going to get (however good he is), just so you can see him on a web page with 4 or 5 stars next to his name and feel even better about things). And so I think the more interesting thing to note is the incredible variance in your charts -- notwithstanding the strong overall trend, which certainly must be acknowledged. As you say, coaching and player development matter a lot, and you are by no means doomed by mediocre talent (esp. on offense).
The stronger correlation on defense is very interesting and very persuasively presented. Again, great work.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||no offense to either guy||
But I laughed out loud when I saw the thread title. I look forward to the day when we will need to genuinely worry about this.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||thanks||
I think this kind of multi-site aggregation is very useful. What you did here is great.
Even more wonderful would be a master rankings presentation that includes ESPN and provides the mean overall or positional ranking for each player. (I realize the positional thing becomes difficult because the sites don't use the same categories and sometimes categorize the same player differently anyway.)