Recent Comments

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.

Yes. Yes he is.

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.

But we also had a punt return TD from Odoms later on in 2008 (horribly quality video link)

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."

I completely agree on Port Salut.  Among other things, the best grilled cheese cheese in the history of mankind.

Founder's Red Rye IPA -- on draft in DC -- yum.

You have already done well for yourself.  I will be very candid because this is a huge decision.

1. 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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).

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.

One thing we know about him for sure:  he's smart.  Rivals reports a 31 (!) ACT.

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."

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?

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.

Thanks very much for the guidance.  I followed your method to massively improve the formatting of my recent ESPN rankings diary.

Brilliant work.

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.

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.)

To me this is one of the classic moves of the recruiting analysts that are actually de facto recruiters for a certain school.  Some circumstance suggests a reason for a player to de-commit and the analyst gets the kid on the record and says people are saying you're going to betray us....are you going to betray us?  Then the kid says of course not.  Then you have that statement of loyalty on the record and hope it makes the kid feel locked in.  And I can't say we're not guilty of the same thing sometimes (e.g. Kalis most recently).

A scam?  If the scammer's goal was to embarass the Big 10, why not come right out and say in the post that they're trying to fill seats for the Big 10 championship?  If the scammer's goal was to get email addresses to run a further scam, why not put the supposed giveaway in neon lights to get more takers?  Your theory is that someone took the time to write a discreet initial post and then sit around for the next few hours sending follow up emails to people that responded.  All for the sake of embarassing the Big 10 or getting email addresses. I guess that's possible but it seems unlikely to me.

You link to a post that mocks certain people who stuck their neck out by attributing the Craislist post to a specific entitiy.  Because those entities publicly deny being responsible for the seat-filling, you think that makes this a scam.  I don't.

The Craiglist poster said he/she was working for a client that wanted to accomplish the seat-filling quietly.  I think that's still the most likely explanation.  You will not get a public "Yes, that was us!" statement from anyone.  Because the only organization that can say "Yes, that was us!" is a random PR firm that never puts its name out publicly because that would defeat the purpose of its services.  I think said random PR firm is in fact trying to fill seats for the game.  I don't think that has been disproven by the public denials of the Big 10, convention center, etc.

My bold theory for defending the bubble, that I would love to see some DC try, is to run what I would call a "bubble blitz."  What you would do is have a defender floating out near the receivers, may five yards off the line and a few yards inside of the near receiver -- and you'd have him try to time up a run at the line of scrimmage on the snap.  But not toward the backfield -- toward the flight path of the bubble pass in its last few yards, just short of the receivers.  I.e. if done perfectly, and the pass is thrown, it's a pick 6. 

Now -- could a defense simply pull out this stunt and expect an interception?  No.  But wouldn't you be terrified as an offense if you knew there was a chance some crazy defender might be streaking into your pass lane?

The top two RBs last year, LaMichael James and Mikel LeShoure, both ran out of shotgun offenses.  I'm not familiar with all of the offenses on the list, but I bet the same is true for many of the other top RBs.  It's just not true that you can't use the RB effectively from the shotgun.  People are doing it everywhere. And not just on read-option and outside stuff.

The author of the piece works in legal writing.  The constant struggle in legal writing is to be more direct, simple and clear.  And your argument never gains force by using equivocal language.

The same rules don't apply to the topics DFW was usually writing about in non-fiction. 

His qualified, self-conflicted tone served a purpose when he was telling you to believe in politicians or not eat lobster.  If he had just come roaring out of the gate telling me eating lobster was awful, or instructing me to be open to putting my hope and trust in guys like John McCain...I would have chuckled cynically and stopped reading.  The reason I didn't stop reading is because he conveyed the fact that he too had the same cynical eye-rolling initial stance as me and was working past it himself.  That made his arguments more persuasive. 

The article ignores this, and seems to think DFW just didn't have the guts to say what he thought.  In truth, I think he often was frankly describing a conflicted take on things.  I think his writing was better for the sorts of phrases this article selectively quotes to deride him.

As of 12:43 pm, Wednesday, the front page story on the NCAA FOOTBALL site is "Notre Dame is Back" and the two Miami links read:  "No Miami Suspensions Yet" and "Gifts to Players?". 

In the second article, they have a poll asking "How Big a Deal" the story is...2/3 of their readers have voted "Very Big Deal."  11% say "not a big deal."  I guess ESPN is with the 11%?

The Stadium is no longer open to the public on non game days.

This is sad for me.  I lived the first 9 years of my life in AA and used to play soccer on the field with my dad and brother.  Several years later I was living on the east coast and about to accept a position at Georgetown's law school when my parents insisted that I give Michigan a serious look and visit their campus.  I did, was blown away, and took a walk by myself to think through the decision.  I ended up in the (freezing cold) stadium, sitting by myself.  Once I stopped there for several minutes, the choice seemed easy.  I came to Michigan Law, went to Michigan Stadium every chance I got with my (cheap!) season ticket, and left with an amazing Michigan-born-and-raised wife.

I can't emphasize enough how much I loved that you could just walk in and sit in the Big House.  To me it was like the way some churches are left open so you can come in, sit down and pray or meditate.  I am sure for others it was fun to be able to play games, go streaking, etc.  I really feel it should be left open like a public park.  There's something incredibly corporate about keeping it closed unless you've paid to be inside.

Sad.

I also look forward to the day when we can just evaluate Hoke as Hoke and not Hoke vis-a-vis Rodriguez.  Not that the OP was doing that necessarily.  These conversations just seem to always imply that by supporting one coach you are saying another was lousy.  I liked Carr.  I liked Rodriguez.  I am starting to really like Hoke.

I also think we should really be speaking about the Hoke-Mattison hire, because I think they were brought in as a package and the benefits we are reaping are almost equally shared between the two.

April 1.

When I contacted the Free-Press they said all the right things.  That Snyder is still employed at the Freep, and that his opposable thumbs and ability to use Word are valuable to the paper.  But that is all they could say on the record.  The fact remains that sometimes bad writers are fired.  Accepting this as a fact, I conclude that the Freep could fire Snyder.  And thus, Snyder can't really be sure he won't be fired.  Although my opinion is that, as of this moment, the Freep truly doesn't plan to fire Snyder.  However, my opinion is also that that could change.

[Ready to publish in a newspaper -- I'm headed home for the day]

Great quotes.  Make good points but shows restraint.  Very savvy for a college sophomore.  What a great guy to have.

I was talking about the MSU game.  Go here.  Look at Stu next to the block M in the first video still.  Look at Hardaway Jr. next to the lettering under the basket in the second.

Does the court maize not look more gold to you?

I think you're right about Locker on the Big Board.  Kiper's revising history on him.

interesting take, but I have to say I disagree 100%.  Looking at the "ruins" pictures make me daydream about taking on a restoration project back in Detroit.  They don't make me conclude 'Detroit is dead, nothing more can ever be done.'

You succinctly said exactly what I just finished typing.

Maize and Brew seems very passionate and heartfelt but completely uninformed about the quality of our most recent recruiting classes.

Try to pair these two statements from that post:

1. "Michigan had recruited decently over the last two years."
2. "...when Michigan inks a great recruiting class [in 2011] and people are blaming the AD..."

We recruited very well in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  The 2011 class, to use the dramatic language usually employed for RR, was probably the 'worst in Michigan history' (that being the history of more-than-just-Lemming recruiting rankings...2002 or so).

I don't think it was an objectively lousy class.  I like a lot of the players, and have high hopes for just about every guy.  But if we are judging according to the high historical standards of our program, it was a down year.  That is ok.  There were many factors that made it a tremendously challenging year.  For someone to think Brandon's timing was not one of those factors...that's just willfully illogical.  Of course it was.  That doesn't necessarily mean Brandon made the wrong long-term decision for the program, but it most certainly did not help either RR or Hoke try to assemble and hang onto a class.

I'm glad to see that people are now so adamant about program loyalty--it's a helpful trait.  But this argument seems to get some very basic factual assumptions wrong.

Rivals' team rankings over the past years:

Nebraska

2010: #22

2009: #28

2008: #30

Avg: 26.6

Penn State

2010: #12

2009: #24

2008: #43

Avg: 26.3

Michigan

2010: #20

2009: #8

2008: #10

Avg: 12.6

Since we'll be fielding teams that are almost entirely made up of 2008-2010 recruits I don't understand your assertions that we will not be able to keep up with these teams in the "next year," "immediate future," etc.

He was not amazing last year, don't you put JT Floyd on the field ahead of Avery or Vinopal?

Remarkably simple solution, but I think it would put the incentives and disincentives exactly as they should be.  Schools would have to work hard to keep kids around.  If you care about educating them that is clearly a good thing.

I am most interested in seeing whether some of the MIA highly touted recruits can emerge in the new system.  Particular Campbell, Fitzgerald, and Bell.

To me the real wild card of this defense is free safety.  Woolfolk is the best option but he's probably a corner.  I did not hate C. Gordon there but he's probably an OLB.  Could Marvin play there?  Cullen Christian?

If Woolfolk is not FS the other 3 members of the secondary are fairly solid IMO (CB: Woolfolk, CB: Floyd, SS: Kovacs).  But that makes FS potentially scary.  Put Woolfolk there and CB gets a little scary.  This is our conundrum.  Glad that, more specifically, it is now Mattison's conundrum.

Last night I only saw the 'Michigan gave up on me' bit and thought this departure was poor form.  Reading the whole thing...90% of that is comprised of beautiful sentiments and respect for Michigan and its fans.  10% is defensive (e.g. 'I played injured!', 'I wanted to stay').  I can understand by emotional and defensive about his tenure when a former star exits the scene.  That would be tough.

I hope Tate's assertion of being reformed and prediction of future success both come true.

I found this interesting, and I mean no disrespect, but since there is no objective data involved (e.g. returning starters, previous record, etc.) this seems  like less of a "model" and more just a means of structuring your subjective guess.  And I think it is a good means for doing that.  But aren't you, with this model, essentially just carefully walking through your subjective belief in how good we'll be?

What you have is a model that runs not on data, but on a series of your subjective judgements.  That is fine, and interesting.  I would actually be curious to see how you rated our position groups through the years.  It would be hard for me even to remember the cast of characters by year...

That has been my theory too.

1. Repeatedly criticizing Brandon. 

Until this week Brian has been president of the Brandon fan club.  He is not anti-Brandon.  He was disappointed by the execution of this firing/hiring.

The firing of Rodriguez was appropriately timed and the coaching search was thorough and as timely as possible. 

Timing of the firing was fine, but just announce Hoke that same day if you're not offering Harbaugh or Miles (I'll take Brandon at his word).

2.  Constantly knocking Hoke...In what alternate universe is [Hoke's] a "flimsy" record??

ESPN inhabits the same alternate universe.  When they handicapped the coaching search they questioned whether Hoke had Michigan-worthy credentials.  I think we're all hoping Hoke proves his doubters wrong, but doubt is not irrational, and not a failure to be "objective."

Brian, thank you for continuing to be thoughtful and honest, even as the new loyalty hounds refuse your indulgence in a grieving period.  Do not mind them.

You nailed it with this post.

Not to go over the top on you, but I have been reading loads of DFW non-fiction lately and this has the same wit, perspective, and observational acuteness.  You are a true Michigan fan, and not just a great sportswriter--a great writer.

Having said all that I will now go back to treating you like a fellow fan instead of a saint.  But it needed to be said.

Rich Rod obviously did not understand what Michigan was

A perfect example of the nonsensical, xenophobic garbage constantly thrown at RR.  He loses games and it's because he, an arrogant outsider, does not understand us.  I mean, if we're properly understood we have to beat OSU and MSU, right?

I think the argument is that all of the adversity and negativity from within the UM community made it more difficult for RR to win games.  You may not agree with that view, but it requires more of a response than "but he didn't win"

I had the exact same reaction.  Hope we're both wrong.

Your recitation of the history seems spot on to me.  And if we go back to being a pro-style offense, it will be fun to see more ex-players on offense in the pros.

That being said, that is a secondary concern.  If a "college only" offense gives us a better chance to win, producing pros is not an end in itself.  If things had worked out for RR on the other side of the ball, we'd look a lot like Oregon right now.  I would take that over being Georgia, which churns out NFL players while consistently fielding good-not-great teams.  We were very Georgia-like from 1998 to 2007.

I respect Whitlock a lot.  I am not on board yet by any means, but this is the first time I have bene able to picture Hoke as our coach without throwing up in my mouth.

then he'd qualify

under the shark-jumped metric

of Michigan Man

(If I hear those words

Spoken once more on TV

will hurl self in sea)

Alternate idea

splurge on assistants under

player-coach Denard

Does Brandon not see

Patterson makes so much sense

let me count the ways

He might run the spread

Overacheives with talent

on defensive side

Roots are Midwestern

Might actually keep denard

Might keep Barwis too

Hot national name

Could kickstart our momentum

Solid character

And if we do want

Defensive-minded ballboys

might i hu