he grew a beard
- Member for
- 4 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Shock from the ball being in||
Shock from the ball being in your hands at the appointed time does not constitute an excuse for dropping said ball.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||DOROTHY MANTOOTH IS A||
DOROTHY MANTOOTH IS A SAINT.
That's where that post was supposed to go. Context. Sigh.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||DOROTHY MANTOOTH IS A SAINT||
DOROTHY MANTOOTH IS A SAINT
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Super Bowl||
So you're saying it will be the Super Bowl of press releases about player health?
|15 weeks 1 day ago||A day late. But my name is||
A day late. But my name is vindicated. Except I didn't want these things.
|18 weeks 6 days ago||The Court didn't nullify the||
The Court didn't nullify the legitimacy of anything. What they did was interpret the state's highest governing document, more than once, and determine the rights and privileges citizens have vis a vis their elected officials when they vote on certain issues. They did their job. Courts aren't supposed to be susceptible to popular opinions.
Insofar as they may be entitled to file a suit, I guess they're not "wrong." But they're most certainly "wasting time" and hilariously "stupid." And if they brought that lawsuit to my practice, I would laugh them out of the building. Just because you can find someone that will file for you, doesn't mean it's a good, or even plausible, suit.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||To the Merger Remark (I replied incorrectly).||
Because they MAY be merging? And they want to ensure that if it's delayed, B1G will have contracts with both major providers? Or if it's blocked, they'll still have contracts? And to ensure that when they do merge, both entities have contracts in place that the successor entity needs to honor?
|34 weeks 3 days ago||I've studied labor law with||
I've studied labor law with a highly respected attorney/former organizer (2 months from finally graduating law school. Not a lawyer yet. Disclaimer.) Analysis is pretty dead on here.
This isn't the NLRB saying GIVE MOAR DOLLARS. The decision makes its scope clear (even if you didn't know labor law. Good job). NW scholarship football players are considered, for the purposes of the amended NLRA, "employees" in a purely legal sense. They spend 50-60 hours a week on football; they are subject to strict controls on means & output. They're under direct supervision by the people directing them. They sign a "tender," which is a contract, that subjects them to these and other extremely significant restrictions in order to be scholarship players. In exchange for their souls/time etc, they receive a large amount of economic compensation. They calculated it to be around $250k over 4 years. Which is well above the US median wage.
To those saying how educational football is, you're falling into the same language trap. The terms of what is "primarily educational" are laid out in the Brown University decision. Specifically, playing football is not a part of their academic experience & they receive no credit for it. They're not being supervised by faculty.
One alternative I pondered which, while not dispositive at all, could help universities change the story is making some of the head position coaches lecture. Like (sigh) Tressel did, except for a purpose other than being a self-righteous schmuck.
Schools could chip away at this, but until they aren't making players use 50-60 hours a week and 20-30 for academics (under strict restrictions for both), the underlying premise shouldn't change.
|35 weeks 1 day ago||His letters & strategic,||
His letters & strategic, two-phase "vision" for UA are a disconcerting mix of consulting buzz words and self-importance. I'm pretty sure his pitch was "hire me to make hideous PR moves like firings and slashing budgets...then profit."
Actually, that might make hiring him so crazy it's genius. Intentionally hire a scapegoat. Make him do dirty work. Punt him unceremoniously. Profit.
|42 weeks 4 days ago||Anyone that can get me to||
Anyone that can get me to watch the Knicks again should be voted to every available all-star type game.
|44 weeks 2 days ago||Well, clearly the context I||
Well, clearly the context I was providing for the remark was misconstrued there. The context was required to get to the underlying point. Obviously, everyone loved whatever the man said.
BUT, fwiw Lloyd spoke the next year and gave a beautifully composed and delivered speech. I'm sure it's similar to what he gives elsewhere, but it was well done. Just a contrast.
I'm a big fan of both men. There was no derogatory intent there. But thanks for the witty lolz.
|44 weeks 2 days ago||Morgan's ability to hit that||
Morgan's ability to hit that low post baby hook consistently has made him much more viable for long stretches during games. The charges help, too. He's definitely been reasonably solid in everything he's been asked to do.
Horford has appeared more aggressive around the rim and has been hitting that mid-range jumper. Horford has been pulling down 1.8 more boards per game, albeit with a 1.7 minutes more per game. Just seems to give a bit more energy. Having hands not made out of stone helps, I suppose.
As Beilein said when he came to my fraternity's banquet (with absolutely nothing resembling prepared or passingly-considered remarks): "It's all about Balance." (The event had the word "Balance" in its title. ) He related this to rebounding drills.
Both are producing and letting the other rest.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||This thread just got||
This thread just got lawyer'd, real hard.
|44 weeks 4 days ago||Here.||
26 USC § 170(l): (Treatment of certain amounts paid to or for the benefit of institutions of higher education
(1) In general- For purposes of this section, 80 percent of any amount described in paragraph (2) shall be treated as a charitable contribution.
(2) Amount described- For purposes of paragraph (1), an amount is described in this paragraph if—
(A) the amount is paid by the taxpayer to or for the benefit of an educational organization—
(i) which is described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii), and
(ii) which is an institution of higher education (as defined in section 3304 (f)), and
(B) such amount would be allowable as a deduction under this section but for the fact that the taxpayer receives (directly or indirectly) as a result of paying such amount the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic event in an athletic stadium of such institution.
If any portion of a payment is for the purchase of such tickets, such portion and the remaining portion (if any) of such payment shall be treated as separate amounts for purposes of this subsection.
NOTE: this is NOT legal or tax advice. Please consult your professional.
|45 weeks 1 day ago||enjoy Bolivia!||
|48 weeks 12 hours ago||Bad in person||
I was sitting pretty close to the court with a pretty good angle to see contact around the baskets. There were a few bewildering calls. But there usually are.
What bothered me were the 2 calls against in the 2nd half where (forget which player) their Guard-Like-Substance just sprinted full speed, lowered his shoulder into a Michigan player & drew fouls both times. Those were absolutely horseshit. Not only that, those kinds of plays are unnecessarily dangerous for both players. It went beyond drawing contact and more into "punt return blocking."
Too many fouls. We were shooting double bonus with like 11 to go in the first half (curiously once we got there the fouls stopped coming) and Stanford was shooting it nearly as early in the 2nd half.
Can't complain too hard. Looked like we got the benefit of a clearly wrong shot clock reset on an offensive board. Looked clear it should've been a violation; their coach was real heated about it.
Also there was a seemingly insane OOB call on the baseline that went against us. It looked like there was a significant (more than half a foot) bit of space. Friends agreed, so, wasn't just hallucinating.
|48 weeks 3 days ago||Not being baited by a Brandon Troll anymore.||
Enough said. Bye now.
|48 weeks 3 days ago||Wrong.||
If you think they're going to lower ticket prices at some abstract point in the future when we're "done with investment," you're absolutely insane. CEO's are not automated supply & demand curves.
A "CEO mindset" is a lot more likely to be focusing on year-over-year bottom line & revenue growth. If you think a former CEO is going to elect to reduce his revenue stream now that "we're updated," this conversation is even more pointless than I originally thought.
See: airline fees (on everything). During periods of lower fuel prices, did airlines nix baggage fees because they weren't needed anymore? How about the fuel surcharges?
I will eat numerous hats if DB decides to lower prices (not just leave the same) for football tickets, barring a catastrophic 9 loss season.
|48 weeks 4 days ago||*Squints,slowly shakes head sideways*||
So, your defense is "DB had made a bunch of critical mistakes that have irritated passionate fans, frustrated students, and alienated alumni--but look! Money!" Well then.
I never said he made "no decisions for the long term health" of the school. I said he will not consider making decisions that, although not directly "revenue generating," benefit the long term health of the institution by preserving a sense of tradition and reverence for those traditions.
Saying that noxious policy changes that actively frustrate fans and have made it economically unviable for some to support their team in person will "eventually be accepted" doesn't really do much to save DB here. The point is, his policies have actively driven fans away (anectdotal evidence, but this is an instance in which anectdotes are significant) or made them at least seriously rethink their financial support for Michigan Athletics.
This is bad for the long term health of the institution. Full stop. Not debatable. Driving away longtime fans and setting higher barriers to entry for new fans is bad for the institution.
And of course we should spend on facilities...which is what I said. Programs attempting to remain "elite" should obviously spend to, at a minimum, keep pace with other elite institutions--if not outclass them entirely. But you also don't need to leave a real bad taste in everyone's mouth in order to do so--the renovations are funded in large part by gifts. (see: http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Athletics-FY2013... at pg. 11.) But this is also "doing the job," not "being an exceptional visionary."
|48 weeks 4 days ago||Dude, we get it.||
You are an enthusiastic supporter of Dave Brandon and his performance as AD--as measured by the net financial gains the Department has enjoyed thus far. DB's plan of aggressively monetizing every possible facet of the Department has proven he's a winner.
People dislike Brandon because he has clearly prioritized wringing profits out of the fanbase--and doing so in ways that reverse some of the formerly "fan-friendly" policies that helped grow & maintain a massive fanbase.
One dimension relates to ticket policies and how they reflect priorities. The GA student ticket policy, overall net cost of season tickets (incl. licenses, seat cushions, "dynamic pricing"), and student basketball tickets are examples.
The other major aspect is his refusal to make minor expenditures/compromises that might negligibly lower the AD's profit margin--but should certainly be incurred no matter what, as a means of preserving the atmosphere/tradition of Michigan athletics. Refusing to pay for MMB to go to JerryWorld because he knew he could extort donations & refusing to send the band on other roadtrips are good examples here.
The problem is the CEO mindset he refuses to abandon. He will not make a revenue neutral (or negative) decision for any reason whatsoever--even if it is better for the long term health of the school (as measured by loyalty, viewing, merchandising, other support, giving, and goodwill).
And to the extent he's done facility upgrades (NOT football or baseball), great. Keeping up with other schools falls under "not sucking at your job," not "let's throw a parade."
|49 weeks 1 day ago||Goes to you !||
Congrats on the upset win for your own award!
Dave Brandon is "giving us a brand?" Are you ill? Pretty sure Michigan was a national icon before Brandon and will be way after he's gone. Ask those players who's doing the real branding work.
Whether or not you agree with what he does, call it for what it is. He's aggressively attempting to squeeze the maximum profit margin out of absolutely every facet of the AD he thinks he can monetize. Seat cushions, GA student seats, ticket prices. Some say that's necessary to compete and be at the top.
Personally, I'm sure MSU enjoyed flaming our AD with the Rose Bowl ticket distribution & statement. And you know what? For once (and only once) I can't really blame them or even really disagree.
|49 weeks 3 days ago||But not really.||
note: just providing facts. not hating.
the board members do have fiduciary responsibility, and thus personal liability, in theory.
Of course, it's nearly impossible to successfully sue a board/directors, let alone criminally convict them. In terms of being sued, the board is protected by "the business judgment rule," which basically requires you deal in good faith, make reasonably prudent decisions, and make decisions you then-believe to have been in the company's best interest.
Not that easy, though. The board has what is essentially an extremely high level of deferrence from courts--the courts won't substitute their business judgments for the execs.
Also, to successfully bring a shareholder derivative suit, you need to first obtain permission, or "waiver" from the board. The premise of derivative suits is that conduct/a decision harmed the company, and the company is thus suing the directors. AND, to top it all off, this is only waived when you can show a self-interested transaction that would make it futile to attempt to ask. To sue. Themselves.
In short: technically, there's liability. But you need to try real hard to actually screw up hard enough for anything to happen.
/end law rant
|50 weeks 2 days ago||I love the guy's enthusiasm,||
I love the guy's enthusiasm, but, does anyone know if Hoke has ever changed his shirt? Man must have a closetful of those suckers. Makes sense.
And, yikes, only 1 player in the top 100. I know caveats apply, but, well, yikes. Hoke's recruiting has been his early strength & obviously Peppers was a ridiculous get, but we know what happens when recruiting starts to level off around here...
This is not a "weight joke," but, if eating sausage is what a head coach needs to do in order to get recruits, then I'm glad we've got Hoke.
And somewhere Borges cuts off another slice of Rum Ham.
|1 year 6 hours ago||Why did this thought cross||
Why did this thought cross Borges' mind?
"Well, Green seems effective, probably time to get Fitz in there. Don't want those numbers to be too gaudy."
I know fitz had a decent run or two but Green was able to get between tackles, not dance for a loss.
|1 year 1 week ago||Of course he knows. I'm sure||
Of course he knows. I'm sure he knows how much he's paying the facilities staff. I should've been more precise: it's a very public reminder. And an extra reminder in an unavoidably public way may be the push DB needs to put his foot down.
|1 year 1 week ago||Glad he highlighted Borges' Pay||
I'm glad Desmond highlighted the fact that Borges is the 3rd highest paid OC in the country. I would imagine that a quick reminder to DB of how much Michigan Athletics, Inc. is paying Borges will bring out the calculating CEO.
"Paying him that much? For this? Waste of my money, get out!" Brady may have a large degree of autonomy, but, I am pretty confident DB will stage some sort of intervention. That's his valuable product on the field. The no-raise in ticket prices could be a response to our horrible home schedule next year, but, they knew that schedule for a while. Think it's a mistake that announcement was timed when it was? Think if we were a 1 loss team (STAEE) they wouldn't be considering raising those prices?
|1 year 8 weeks ago||The legal issue here- A||
The legal issue here- A ticket is a license. As long as the fine print or terms & conditions said availability and conditions subject to change, then yes. In a legal sense, it is the AD's right to change the terms. Your version of how things work, not as much.
And jumping into this debate (no one cares, I know):
Saying things like "students don't need athletics" (not above poster, just read earlier) underlines the absurdity of your argument. THE STUDENTS ARE THE ATHLETES. They play for the university, i.e., its faculty and STUDENTS. Students get discounted tickets, sure. That kind of benefit is probably more of a concession to the reality that students aren't as wealthy as alumni and the students are paying members of the University the sports teams are composed of and representing (yes I know tuition doesn't go to the AD).
And when I was there, '07-'11, I saw both entirely empty and jam-packed Crisler. The thing is, since the student section is relatively small, many students that cannot get there early enough get annoyed/discouraged knowing they're relegated to the upper portion of the arena. If the environment and cheering is a substantial portion of the fun, then, it stands to reason that sitting with 3 other friends in the upper deck will not be enjoyable, yes?
Also, please keep in mind that MGoBlog is an exceptional community in its devout fanatacism (I am included here; that was not pejorative). For students that think they might want to go to a bunch of games, especially the big ones, the retail for those tix will probably begin approaching the season ticket price. Why buy a few retail when you can have tickets for all of the games and pick which ones you can/want to attend?
Also, I distinctly recall having classes that went late enough to pose a problem for getting to Crisler practically (and having a chance at a decent seat).
I'd probably stop shit-talking everyone from out of state, though. There's no reason for it and y'all look petty as hell. There is merit to remembering that someone making the choice to pay around $50k/year to go to Michigan actually cares about it.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||I know what a medical||
I know what a medical scholarship is. I also know that, on this board, we have specifically cited instances of players being forced to transfer due to injury or not being good enough anymore.
Let's suppose, however, that you're entirely right. This still doesn't mean that players aren't forced out of a program/off scholarship to make room for other, better players. If a player hasn't done anything wrong (besides "not be good enough), and loses a scholarship because they aren't "good enough," then I think there's enough moral outrage there go around. Promise an 18 year old a scholarship to play sports, they play hard, then they still lose it.
Also, the reasonable inference from requesting medical expenses due to injury is that all of these expenses accrued after college would not be covered. Yes, as a matter of law, you're limited to a single recovery. As a matter of morality, I think that injuries incurred in service to the school/team merit the school footing the bill thereafter. These aren't NFL players that blew their savings and can't pay for care.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Yes. It's not either "wild||
Yes. It's not either "wild west" or "complete amateurism." Laugh as we might at the idea of regulating these sponsorships, there's no reason to think you couldn't. How? Make the school liable too.
Student athletes that are willing to market their image can submit their names to the school. Agents can then submit a bona fide sponsorship offer to the AD for X number of players. If the player is interested, the agent, AD, and player can sit down. They can make a deal for a certain promotion within reasonable parameters (compensation in relation to a scale--why not allow it to go up for each year the player is there? It incentivizes staying in school for the best players, minimizes attrition, increases graduation rates.)
Let's pretend the scale says that for each year the student is in school, they're capped at: 25% value of the scholarship, 50% scholarship, 75% scholarship, 90% scholarship cap thereafter. Yeah, there could be schools that have a slightly higher cap. It wouldn't be a significant amount, though.
Let's also say the school is the clearinghouse for the funds. The school will be a fiduciary of the students, whether or not the student actually has a deal. Nothing like the term "fiduciary duty" makes a large, compliance-sensitive organization pause before engaging in funny business. Here's another good idea: allow the universities to collect fees directly from the promoters (bids on offers, other contract fees). Those fees can be put in a trust for injured players.
Fairness? Okay. To balance it out so it doesn't turn into just a few players are getting paid, how about: we allow an agent/organization to pitch an entire team for promotions. Even if the individual players that are getting paid are on that team, their earnings will still be capped based on the scale. This will also provide some incentive not to sign 1 year max-deal.
For the record, I just thought that up. As I typed it. Stream of consciousness. If a lazy third year law student can cook that up from his couch, I am supremely confident the NCAA can work out a reasonable compromise. Also, if anyone has Emmert's number, go ahead and ring him. Pretty sure I just solved his problems. I'd like to be paid.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||You're right, nobody forced||
You're right, nobody forced them to play. Okay, now, consider this: you have the opportunity to be the first person in your family to go to college because you're an extremely talented football player. What do you do: decline a scholarship to college because it's to play football?
The fact is, I don't know that we can fairly say "IT'S A TRAP" for players really wanting cash payments. Based on the content of this board, we've all been disgusted by the greyshirting and scholarship pulling that goes on at many major schools to clear out injured players or those that aren't up to snuff.
We pride ourselves on taking well-rounded young men for the football program; not just football skills matter, but grades and attitude (unless all of that fawning over academics has been total horseshit). How do you think it feels to be literally discarded off to the side due to injury? Turns out that all that mattered was their football talents, not any of the other character shit to which we had paid so much lipservice. Wouldn't YOU be upset that after sacrificing your body and best lifetime earning opportunity for the school, you were tossed aside and had your education pulled? Wouldn't you be bitter if you had a lifetime of knee/head/ankle/elbow/wrist pain because you gave it all to the school and they tossed you for an injury? Wouldn't you be bitter if a university with a major hospital system made you pay for the treatment that resulted from playing for that school?
I'm not saying that Michigan is necessarily guilty of these things. What I'm saying is a lot of these other schools likely are.
The kids that make the committment to play are 16-18; they see glitz and CFB glamor all over TV every week. Then they get to school and can nominally afford to go out to the movies while coaches make millions.
Whether or not YOU think it's objectively fair, you need to look at the totality of the circumstances in the PLAYERS' positions. Yeah, we're all SO morally superior because rabble rabble damn kids can't appreciate what they have. You try what they're doing in their environment, knuckling under OUR expectations. Then come back to me and say none of their complaints are valid.