"The University of Illinois is also in turmoil. The university sports an Interim Chancellor, an Interim Athletic Director, and an Interim Football Coach; the game will be played at Soldier Field, making this an Illini Interim Home Game."
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Reading comprehension 101||
He didn't call MSU little brother. He recounted Hart's comment as a way of explaining why MSU hates UM.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Crean||
The coaching score for Indiana was the highlight of the entire piece for me. Worst in the top 20 and far below most similar schools. No argument here.
|2 years 16 weeks ago||"Ground Can't Cause A Fumble"||
The ruling of a completed pass at the 7:00 mark in the '85 Minnesota game is pretty hilarious to watch now that it can be considered alongside the Calvin Johnson incompletion where he did not complete the act (or whatever the phrase is).
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Per ESPN, they plan to use||
Per ESPN, they plan to use Denard as a running back.
|2 years 37 weeks 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.
|2 years 41 weeks 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.
|2 years 47 weeks ago||Great Question||
Yes. Yes he is.
|2 years 49 weeks 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).
|3 years 5 weeks 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.
|3 years 5 weeks 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)
|3 years 7 weeks ago||Not much better...||
But we also had a punt return TD from Odoms later on in 2008 (horribly quality video link)
|3 years 8 weeks 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.
|3 years 19 weeks 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."
|3 years 20 weeks 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?'
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Port Salut||
I completely agree on Port Salut. Among other things, the best grilled cheese cheese in the history of mankind.
|3 years 24 weeks 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.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Me||
Founder's Red Rye IPA -- on draft in DC -- yum.
|3 years 26 weeks 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.
|3 years 31 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.
|3 years 40 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.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||Gibbs = OL Einstein||
One thing we know about him for sure: he's smart. Rivals reports a 31 (!) ACT.
|3 years 42 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.
|3 years 43 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."
|3 years 43 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.
|3 years 43 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?
|3 years 44 weeks ago||withdrawn.||
|3 years 45 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.
|3 years 45 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.
|3 years 45 weeks ago||Thanks||
Thanks very much for the guidance. I followed your method to massively improve the formatting of my recent ESPN rankings diary.
|3 years 45 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.
|3 years 45 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.
|3 years 46 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.
|3 years 46 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.)
|3 years 49 weeks ago||well done||
Excellent analysis, excellent post. Thanks!
|3 years 49 weeks ago||These types of Qs are silly||
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).
|3 years 51 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 51 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 51 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 51 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 51 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|4 years 2 days ago||I think you're the one who was duped||
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.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||The vulnerability you're||
The vulnerability you're describing is correct, but true, I think of any aggressive reaction to the bubble and almost any type of outside blitz. Teams already run corner blitzes (at the QB) or flow like crazy toward the bubble action -- and sometimes get burned. I'd love to see someone take it to a different extreme.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Bubble Blitz||
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?
|4 years 11 weeks ago||as plausible as Pryor being the one distributing $$ in envelopes||
This is a bit like saying "it's a fallacy that he was forced to resign because of poor performance -- he has clearly stated that he resigned to spend more time with his family!"
|4 years 11 weeks ago||No Al, No||
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.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||?||
Denard is my favorite Michigan athlete I've ever cheered for and I'm afraid I pretty much agree with Mr. Austin Murphy's take.
|4 years 14 weeks ago||found the piece irritating||
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.
|4 years 15 weeks ago||signatures are pushing this site Scout-ward||
MGoBlog should be programmed so you cannot make a post where your signature has more words than your post.
I know everyone likes their own signature but they are dreadful and annoying to read.
|4 years 15 weeks ago||hilarious||
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%?
|4 years 16 weeks ago||Great Addition -- still wrong on ESPN...||
"The best three sites that have rated Pipkins..."
I keep wondering how long people will keep saying ESPN's rankings are worthless when they have been by far the most accurate for Michigan players in the 3-5 years. I guess the answer is, awhile longer.
|4 years 17 weeks ago||Keep the Stadium Open||
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.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||2006 defense was insane||
Yes, it was written by Rick Reilly, but the 2007 re-rank is hard to argue with and it gives us 3 of the top 6 defensive players that year. I had two reactions: (1) proud of our guys and (2) less impressed by Ron English. Which hurts, because I love the man and thought he was terrific with that 2006 group. But man alive, the talent he had to work with. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team#Dept... Along with Woodley, Harris, and Hall, he had Alan Branch, Jamar Adams, Terrance Taylor, Crable, Burgess, Biggs...Dear God, that's an insane group.
|4 years 29 weeks ago||I agree||
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.
|4 years 31 weeks ago||uh||
I think his formula was "how many players in Scout 100?"
He did not present any argument that our 3 is better than their 4, so it is correct that he did not present a strong one.
|4 years 35 weeks ago||wish it was not||
|4 years 36 weeks ago||relax with the negging||
I just had to double-check that i'm not on a Scout message board. You may disagree with the original poster, but on what basis are 57 people voting the post down? Insufficient optimism? I don't think it is an unreasonable/uninformed question. We have an unreal talent and he is currently focusing on backpedaling from an under-center snap. I think those are simply two established facts. I can see that either being a cause for concern or a fine development. It depends on whether you think Denard will be stifled when he's not in the shotgun or whether he will become a more well-rounded player that is just as dangerous and easier to keep healthy. I think reasonable minds can go either way.
I usually don't like people who are negative but I don't try to chase their posts off the board unless there is an independent basis for doing that (e.g. they're not informed, just trying to provoke, etc.). Not the case here.
|4 years 36 weeks ago||Mark Snyder Can't Be Sure He Won't Be Fired||
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]
|4 years 38 weeks ago||You can forward information||
You can forward information without revealing its source. Why does everyone buy into the logic that protecting the source means not telling another soul about the allegations?
|4 years 38 weeks ago||Love it||
Great quotes. Make good points but shows restraint. Very savvy for a college sophomore. What a great guy to have.
|4 years 38 weeks ago||David Berri||
Why does Brian always say Berri went to Princeton? Here's what wiki says:
Berri graduated from Nebraska Wesleyan University with a B.A. in economics in 1991, and earned both his M.A. and Ph.D. from Colorado State University. He taught economics at Coe College and California State University-Bakersfield before accepting a position at Southern Utah in 2008.
I agree he's ill-advised and reckless. But he doesn't have Princeton to cover his blemishes, he just has an active academic affiliation (which is enough for a lot of people).
|4 years 38 weeks ago||link||
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?
|4 years 38 weeks ago||Some examples||
A lot of good comments here. And I may have been off about WVU's colors.
I found some of the pictures from pages like this interesting:
I was surprised how yellow a lot of the 90s football jerseys looked.
I also was struck by the fact that, over the years, our shade of maize has been all over the map.
|4 years 41 weeks ago||was thinking the same thing||
I think you're right about Locker on the Big Board. Kiper's revising history on him.
|4 years 41 weeks ago||worth listening to||
I don't prize Kiper's individual take on things, but it's worth listening to someone like him or McShay because their opinion are 5% informed by their own film study and 95% informed by what dozens of scouts tell them. And I am interested to hear (even regurgitated) what dozens of scouts are thinking, even if it's just a rough gauge.
I still don't know how the Ezeh thing can be explained...
|4 years 42 weeks ago||interesting||
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.'
|4 years 42 weeks ago||you heard wrong||
If the argument was the cupboard was bare on defense, you just did an awesome job exploding the myth.
All the better for you if you've blotted out the memory, but.... in 2008 our defense was ok and our offense was historically bad.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||oops||
You succinctly said exactly what I just finished typing.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||hate to do this to you...||
7 Action News is right. You are wrong.
I don't know why Men's Health listed the cities starting at 100 and going down, but the lead in says:
Well, Detroit, go ahead and let us have it: You are officially the most spitting-mad metropolis.
Further evidence that high number = more angry can be found simply by looking at the cities listed. Do these look like the angriest citis in America?
7 Cheyenne, WY
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Weird Recruiting Appraisal||
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:
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.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||been thinking about 2012 hoops too||
UMHoops is excellent but I don't think it is unreasonable to start a discussion about Michigan Basketball recruiting on the best Michigan sports message board.
I'm intrigued by Mitch McGary.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||my point||
Rivals' team rankings over the past years:
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.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||what?||
If all of the Big Ten teams agree to field rosters of true freshman I agree with your analysis. Otherwise I expect to see the effects of the 2011 classes in a few years.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Projected DB starters||
He was not amazing last year, don't you put JT Floyd on the field ahead of Avery or Vinopal?
|4 years 45 weeks ago||wrong||
We're seeing new names because we have entirely new recruiters (sans Jackson) with different contacts, philosophies, etc. RR was hampered because other schools convinced prospects (accurately) that he would soon be gone. Hoke has the Ravens D-Coordinator as a recruiting trophy wife.
I am not knocking Hoke at all, I love what he is doing. But his efforts in the last few days do not show RR's recruiting in a negative light at all. RR had two 5* before his firing became imminent.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||agreed||
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.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||incredibly small quibble||
ESPN's position ranking is as an "Athlete." I think that actually makes his position ranking slightly better since ESPN is generous with their "Athlete" designation (not sure about that though).
|4 years 45 weeks ago||it's a great topic||
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.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||based on geography, size and ratings...||
...I christen him Vinopal 2.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||sad tale - let's cut him some slack||
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.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||amazing||
I'd assumed that Mattison's name would carry weight but his enthusiasm for recruiting would be modest, and perhaps his one weakness. Very happy to be wrong. I like the words coming out of Jesse Palmer's mouth.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||sorry to be that guy, but...||
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...
|4 years 45 weeks ago||great quote from BC||
Also nice to "MGo" get a shout-out. I love that sports blog!
|4 years 45 weeks ago||wouldn't mind it||
That has been my theory too.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||warming to Borges||
I was very encouraged by this interview. I don't think we would be squandering our talent if we tried to emulate the Eagles 2010 offense. I like the way he's approaching this.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||these rants are getting tired||
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.
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).
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."
|4 years 46 weeks ago||touche||
Funny, and somewhat deserved. But you must also appreciate the writing if you spend so much time here. This was one of his best written posts.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Beautifully written||
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.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||you and the point did not meet one another||
Go read Brian's post about the O-Coordinator. Decades of traditional schemes and good-not-great results. Not about lineage or caring about defense.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||good lord||
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?
|4 years 46 weeks ago||give me a break||
Brian is entitled to his reaction. It has been a couple days. We're all still processing. If you find him rooting against Hoke in September I think these lectures about positivity will be more deserved.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||let me add one layer of nuance||
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"
|4 years 46 weeks ago||so||
by "turning into the freep" you mean this blog criticizes Michigan's coach? I think you're overstating your objection to Brian's response.
If Brian criticizes Hoke in a way that is (1) personal, and (2) unfair...then make the comparison.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||eeeh||
I had the exact same reaction. Hope we're both wrong.
|4 years 46 weeks ago||one reaction||
Having a publicly acknowledged meeting with Miles would not make sense if Brandon is trying to manage fans' expectations before hiring Hoke. Right?
|4 years 46 weeks ago||Georgia or Oregon||
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.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||could potentially agree||
But it all depends on the coordinators. They would have to be young and hungry. And the offensive coordinator would need absolute power on that side of the ball.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||have to say||
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.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||and yet i'd argue what our||
and yet i'd argue
what our D needed most was
|4 years 47 weeks ago||then he'd qualify under the||
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)
|4 years 47 weeks ago||too bad Belichick was never||
too bad Belichick
was never an assistant
under Bo or Carr
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Alternate idea splurge on||
splurge on assistants under
|4 years 47 weeks ago||But didn't you hear one||
But didn't you hear
one year he beat everyone
|4 years 47 weeks ago||The 5-7-5 case for Patterson||
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
And if we do want
might i humbly suggest
guy who recently
used undersized three-stars to
|4 years 47 weeks ago||charisma contest who wins||
who wins between Brady Hoke
and head of cabbage
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Jimmy won't come home We||
Jimmy won't come home
We reach out to Fitzgerald
|4 years 47 weeks ago||tweet said nothing||
Schad tweeted that Fitzgerald plans to stay at Northwestern. I think every target but Harbaugh currently plans on staying in their current job (except the unemployed and Hoke pending an offer).
|4 years 47 weeks ago||this post||
reminds me of Latrell Sprewell talking about needing his salary to put food on the table for his family. I think the Harbaughs could have made ends meet at $4-5M/year.
The only impact 4-5 million v. 6-7 million has on what you can provide your kids is a potential effect on the brand of 5th car you would get each one.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||oh my||
I think I will remember the "Why not Tom Bradley" post as the absolute low-point of this offseason head coach circus.
We need to get ourselves some brown paper bags and breathe in and out. In and out...
|4 years 49 weeks ago||agreed||
I agree with your reasoning and have the same view. We are not so different from Illinois last year. I would not call our defense a sleeping giant, but it is a slumbering person of reasonable stature.
|4 years 49 weeks ago||no major issue||
Bleacher report is not per se bad. It's just not per se anything. If Bruce Feldman wants to publish a column through Bleacher Report, he can. If your 12 year old nephew wants to publish, he can too. It's open. So making a comment about whether Bleacher Report is good/bad is sort of like saying blogs are good/bad. I'm sure there is some well reasoned content on Bleacher Report, but a lot of it is terrible (as some blogs are terrible). With Bleacher Report you are often not getting anything more as a reader than if you wrote out your own thoughts. Writing for Bleacher Report is sort of like commenting on this thread except you enter your text into a standardized format that is published at a central clearinghouse. Making it look super official.
I think the effect of Bleacher Report is kind of fun, because it illustrates the superficiality of the veneer of "official" sports writing. It looks like real content because it is dressed that way.
|4 years 49 weeks ago||Thanks||
Thanks very much for your effor here. No one else can do this at Brian-level, but this was not bad at all. It is almost cruelly painful to revisit the first half, when we made so many great plays on offense but never turned them to points.
|4 years 49 weeks ago||ha||
I actually noticed the same thing, and was wondering if maybe the essay was on My Cousin Vinny. Let's hope so.
|4 years 49 weeks ago||Separate Question(s)||
I didn't want to start a thread about this -- but are there some good sites to discuss strategy, game play tricks, etc? I really love the game. But I am still a beginner and have lots of questions.
Many of them are about recruiting. I love the recruiting aspect but I'm not always sure what the game is programmed to reward. For example:
1. Is it advantageous to offer early, or best to offer on visit weekend?
2. Does geography have no impact aside from the "Proximity to Home" category and the player's initial interest in your school (and, I guess, the "pipeline" bonus you may get)?
To point 1...I set my board for the 2011 dynasty season and there were 3 or 4 great players from the state of Michigan who committed to MSU after the very first offseason week! (I didn't offer first week.) I was infuriated.
|4 years 50 weeks ago||oh my||
The word rape has been used too broadly and inaccurately with this case, but you can do tremendous psychological and emotional damage to someone in a sexual assault without penetration. And the outrage about this case is not based on the fact that the victim was raped and not just sexually assaulted. The outrage is that ND's response was so tepid and unresponsive that it left a promising young person distraught and hopeless, and that she is now dead, and that ND's public relations response to all this is to put out a statement essentially saying to the parents: "we are right; and you're just hysterical because your daughter is dead."
It is not clear that ND's inaction directly killed someone but I think the alleged victim's repeated efforts to move the investigation forward suggest she cared very much about ND's response. And the pathetic nature of that response certainly didn't help. At issue here is a human life.
So your post, which essentially boils down to "there was no penetration -- Go Irish!" bothers me. And your distinction, while it matters for grammatical accuracy and lowers the legal penalty, does not answer the question or absolve the ND pla