somehow we're only 124th
- Member for
- 2 years 20 weeks
|3 days 22 hours ago||It's not as weird as it looks||
If three teams are tied, they break divisional ties first. If two teams are in the same division, they use the normal two team tiebreaker between them first and then whoever comes out ahead is entered into a normal two team tiebreaker with the team in the other division. Same with four or more teams, they will narrow it down to one team per division first.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||No, it's an old term||
A very old term. An outdated term, in fact. You will rarely, if ever, hear a medical professional use that term. The notion of concussions having classifications has gone the way of the dodo bird as we've learned how impossible it is to accurately classify them. Now, a concussion is a concussion. Saying he had a mild concussion is like saying a woman is mildly pregnant.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Speaking of high||
What, exactly, are you smoking? The team doctor specifically said that there were no fractures or broken bones, and didn't say anything more than there were injuries to several ligaments. At this moment, there is absolutely no reason to think he can't recover and play football again at a high level.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Umm, no||
Preparing these young men for life after Michigan is significantly more important than a game. If a player is willing to sacrifice their long term future, they can, but that is THEIR choice. If they want to stick to a certain position because that is the best thing for them at the next level, the coaches damn well better respect that.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Take your pick||
He had 31 passing attempts and 69 rushes the entire season. It's not like it'd be difficult to find somebody to take his place. How about Tate Forcier, who was starting ahead of Denard anyway.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Braxton is on pace for 1,526||
Braxton is on pace for 1,526 yards this year. He probably finishes in the 1300's somewhere(I haven't looked at their schedule), which would leave him in the neighborhood of 2000-2100, which is about where Denard was after two seasons. And he'll probably be running more in his last two than Denard has, since he won't have the coaching change that Denard did. If Braxton stays healthy, he'll have a very good shot at Denard's records.
|2 years 11 weeks ago||And why does it look like a||
And why does it look like a painting?
|2 years 12 weeks ago||Umm, what?||
What the hell are you talking about? Who said ADD isn't a learning diability? It was said that ADD is over diagnosed, which is true, and that most people who are diagnosed with ADD do not actually have learning disabilities - BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ADD! In fact, ADHD was directly called a "terrible disability" - for those who actually have it.I don't know what part of that you misunderstood, but please be more careful about such things in the future.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||Worse? No. I'd be lying if I||
Worse? No. I'd be lying if I said quarterbacks of color got "worse" criticism, just as you are lying when you say it.
Obviously the two quotes you gave were disgusting. But those same people would still be ripping Henne or Navarre or any other white quarterback. They'd just be saying they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, couldn't hit water from a boat, etc.
Let's not confuse the issue. Denard's criticism may sometimes be directed at his race, but that is a far cry from criticizing him because of his race. The distinction does not matter when you're discussing what kind of sorry excuse for a human being would say such things, but it is very important in the discussion here.
Agreed on the player choker whose name I will not type. The less he's mentioned around here, the better.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||Indeed, he was quite the||
Indeed, he was quite the opposite, having been BENCHED at Maryland.
I'm glad Wiscy is struggling, perhaps karma for the Wilson not-cheating-but-it-feels-like-cheating last year, but I actually don't mind guys like O'Brien using this loophole. He wasn't going to play at Maryland, why not reward him for graduating in three years and let him go somewhere he can play. I know there's no way to legislate against the Wilson types while allowing the O'Brien types, but there should be.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||I imagine Sweetwaters is less||
I imagine Sweetwaters is less local because they're better, more successful, and like you mentioned there's more than one. Gives them a chain-restaurant feel for those that don't know any better. Sad, but true. Oh well, they're the ones missing out on vastly superior coffee.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||I would||
Dish has definitely lost the benefit of the doubt. We've seen them lose other networks recently, while BTN has not left any other providers as far as I know. I have a hard time imagining Viacom and BTN conspiring to screw Dish in favor of every other company in the country.
This is unquestionably on Dish.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||???????||
What part of "today's game" did you have trouble with? In case you're unaware, it's no longer the 70s. Ergo, what happened in the 70s no longer qualifies as relevant to a discussion about today's game.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||That's true, but the point||
That's true, but the point was that this offense doesn't prepare you for the NFL. That means most players that have NFL aspirations aren't going to want to play in it. And this is a valid point, even if guys manage to develop enough to get to the NFL despite playing in that offense.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||This is correct. That kid||
This is correct. That kid didn't deserve to be treated the way he was just because his dad killed five hookers.
The correct end to "And this is the same school that..." is "...hired Bobby Knight."
Which makes this story significantly less surprising, though no less disgusting.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Outrage! Anger! Dismay! wait, why?||
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what the problem here is. I've seen a lot of people use the argument that because of this, if Ohio or Penn State wins the division title but the second place team goes to Indy and wins the conference, it means a team will win the conference without winning the division...but that's true either way, obviously.
If Ohio is 7-1 and Wisconsin is 6-2, Wisconsin is the 2nd place team in the division. If they win the conference championship game, that means a 2nd place team won the conference championship game. Why is this acceptable if Wisconsin is given a phony division title, but not acceptable is Ohio is given the division title? The standings will remain the same - Ohio one, Wisconsin two. (At least until Ohio inevitably vacates all wins.)
I mean, who got the Pac 12 South Division Title last year? USC or UCLA? Does anybody care? I know I don't. It's not going to change the fact that the second best team in that division played in the conference championship game, even if UCLA was given a paper division title. Does the Pac 12 even award "Division Titles"? Why does the B1G award Division Titles?
Either way, to me it makes the most sense that the Division Title is given to the team that has the best record in the regular season. It's a regular season thing. The Conference Championship is a postseason game, so they're ineligible for that. When the Division Champion is ineligible, they send the second place team instead. Miami (YTM) was given a Big East Co-Championship despite being ineligible for postseason play(I looked up the first banned team winning a conference that I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, and it's entirely possible that others were not given an official Conference Championship).
This is just my opinion, but if you have the best record, you're the Division Champion, even if you're ineligible to play in the postseason. That's not "rewarding" them for cheating any more than allowing them to win games when they score more points than their opponent, even though they're ineligible to play in the postseason.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||So a 6-6 UCLA team playing||
So a 6-6 UCLA team playing against Oregon and getting smoked is acceptable, only if UCLA is given the title????
This changes NOTHING. If Ohio or Penn State has the best record in the division, the second (or, theoretically, third if Oho & Penn State finish first and second) is going to the B1G Championship game. Who cares if the "division title" goes to the ineligible school in first place or the eligible school in second/third???
I just don't get your point about UCLA, at all. I don't even know if the Pac 12 gave the title to USC or UCLA, and it doesn't matter. UCLA was going to play in the title game regardless. And it's the same this year with Ohio & Penn State.
So, why, again, doesn't it make sense?
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Drats! Conflabit.||
I was hoping to name a team that nobody else has said. 2001 Tennessee fell early, as did 75-76 Oklahoma, and 07 Oregon. (Oregon is the most underrated team in this discussion - as somebody else said, if Dixon stays healthy he wins the Heisman Trophy in a landslide on his way to a National Championshp. And that was a GOOD Michigan team they embarrassed in the Big House, The Horror aside.)
But yes, that 2002 Iowa team. That's the one I thought would slip through the cracks here. They beat Michigan 34-9 in the Big House. At the time, that was the bigget loss Michigan ever suffered in the Big House. Bigger than FSU in 91. (It was since surpassed by the aforementioned 07 Oregon team.) They did lose to Iowa State, inexplicably. But they went undefeated in the Big Ten, because due to scheduling they didn't play the eventual National Champion Ohio. (Compared to Iowa's 34-9 beatdown in AA, Ohio beat Michigan 14-9 in Columbus that year.) Also, Iowa played in the Orange Bowl because Ohio had the Big Ten's automatic bid (both were 8-0, Ohio was better in the non conference) and played in the National Championship game. That left Iowa as an at large, and the Orange Bowl got to pick before the Rose Bowl. (Since they lost Miami, which was the #1 team in the title game.) That was when they added the rule that's still in place, stipulating that when a bowl loses a team to the title game they get first shot at any other team from the same conference. (I defend the BCS more than most, but they're definitely reactive as opposed to proactive. That rule should've already been in place.)
Anywho, this is a tough question to quantify. This seems to have turned into a "Most Dominating Performance Against Michigan" question, which isn't necessarily the same thing as "best team" they've played. And there's also the issue of weighing what they did against Michigan compared to what they did that entire season(which holds back the 2006-07 USC team, as they lost games they shouldn't have that year, and also the Iowa team I mentioned)...and even bigger picture, what the players did in the NFL has been brought up several times. But that's an issue of "most talented" vs "best" team, which also aren't necessarily the same thing. If you're just talking about the most talented, one team that will (rightfully) never get mentioned is the 2007-08 Florida Gators. They were talented as hell - they won the National Championship the year before AND the year after and had loads of NFL talent. But they disappointed that year during the season and, of course, lost to Michigan. But there's no denying the talent on that team.
For me, it's 1991 Washington or 2003 USC. Both were loaded with talent, had the dominating seasons the talent suggested they should have(ironically, they both only won a split National Championship - although USC's split was only on a technicality, one poll was obligated to vote for LSU), and both convincingly beat very good Michigan teams. I might go with Washington just because they were undefeated(USC lost to an average Cal team in OT) and probably looked a little better against Michigan.
EDIT: A team that nobody named? 1984 BYU. They won the National Championship, FFS!
(Yes, I'm kidding.)
|2 years 15 weeks ago||I lol'd. Well played,||
I lol'd. Well played, sir.
I'd say the most likely reason is a disciplinary issue, but team rules as opposed to a legal thing. Being late for curfew is a good guess. The best guess, of course, is that we won't find out from Hoke.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||The point isn't incorrect,||
The point isn't incorrect, you just missed the point, I believe.
The WILL or JACK linebacker is, for all intents and purposes, the end in a 3-4 defense. When the QB reads him, he's not reading anybody else. Which was the point that you seem to have missed: the QB is reading one player, not two.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||No, he's right. The QB reads||
No, he's right. The QB reads the DE and the DE only. The LB doesn't enter into the equation until after the QB makes his decision. This is as simple as I can make it:
The end has two choices, take the RB or the QB. The QB has two options, keep it or give it to the RB via handoff or pitch. As you can see, each of the QB's options are directly linked to one of the end's choices. The QB reads the end, and makes the decision to keep it or handoff/pitch it. Nothing the LB does would alter that decision, because the ball can't end up in the hands of whoever the end is going after. And most of the time, the LB is going to be reacting to what the QB does anyway, so obviously the QB can't read someone who's reading him.
Running the ball is pretty much always a one read and go, for RBs too. You don't have time to do anything more than that if you're going to gain any yards. Passing the ball is where youmake multiple reads. Even then, for some mobile QBs(like Vick when he was at VT), you read one receiver and if he's covered you run.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||No redshirts at service||
No redshirts at service academies, no. (They each have a prep school where some students will go for a year if they're not ready to play.) Four years to play four years, and then they're off to serve our country for another four years.
Really a shame this young man got hurt. I can't even imagine how much he and his family were looking forward to playing in the Big House.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Just speaking for the B1G,||
Just speaking for the B1G, like many others said, it's been one week. Let's calm down a little. Plus, at the end of the day, all but 2 won. One team lost to the best team in the country and the other had the most chaotic offseason in the history of athletics, including losing 10 of their best players in the frees leading up to the season. Yes, some of the other games were close. That's because the talent gap across college football of closing, which brings me to the second point.
Before I can answer where the B1G stands among other conferences, I would need to see how the other conferences did. I know many teams struggled. Pittsburgh lost to Youngstown State(by 14). Maryland nearly lost to William & Mary, as did Wake Forest to Liberty. Stanford barely beat San Jose State, Cal did lose to Nevada and Colorado did lose to Colorado State.
I think this would be a better conversation to have after all the non conference games are played, and we look at all conferences instead of just one.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Yeah, but no||
"argument is beyond weak. Every single team in the B10 (save NU maybe, I honestly don't know) has the same standards for football players as the SEC: pass the NCAA clearinghouse and you are in, with very few exceptions. I guess it's harder for us to get JUCO transfers but that's about it."
No truth here whatsoever. Except for maybe Vanderbilt, every SEC school is easier to get into than every B1G school. I'm not saying this to defend the B1G or say that's why they're struggling, I'm just saying it because it's the truth. The same goes for the PAC 12 and nobody says they're struggling. There is a big gap between the B1G/PAC 12/ACC at the top and the Big XII/Big East. Then there's an even bigger gap between those two and the SEC.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||In defense of all the||
In defense of all the potential whiners, it's not whining given that it's completely valid. There's no excuse for putting him in that situation. None.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||If you had read that - any of||
If you had read that - any of it - you would know that it didn't sound like that.
Of course, that assumes an ability to understand what you read.....
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Fact stating =/= excuse||
Fact stating =/= excuse making.
First of all, read the OP again. Well, not so much "again" since you probably didn't read it entirely in the first place, but you get my point. Nowhere does it state that Michigan lost to Alabama because they're a bunch of cheating cheaters who couldn't get out of a paper bag without cheating. In fact, quite the opposite, it says exactly what you did - Alabama won because they're the better team. The stuff about Alabama playing fast and loose with the rules was simply stating that Michigan will not be Alabama because they're not going to do that.
And secondly, Alabama pushes every boundary and tests every rule that the NCAA has. There's plenty of proof of that. And the fact is that every school/team/coach/player/person in the world - college sports, pro sports, and every day life - who pushes every boundary and tests every rule...is also breaking rules left and right without yet getting caught. Alabama has been caught several times in the past, and they will again. To say it's not happening because "there's no proof" is just naive.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||You must be either blind as a||
You must be either blind as a bat or the most naive person on this board.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||I received simliar texts. My||
I received simliar texts. My response was always the same: 49-7
That was the final score of the 2011 Capital One Bowl, Alabama vs. Michigan State.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||We could definitely play||
We could definitely play Arizona(supposedly they promised Rich Rod a game against Michigan in the near future when they hired him), but that's not a replacement for Notre Dame, and it'd probably be a one time game in Ann Arbor instead of a home and home.
If they're going to add Arizona, I'd rather it be sooner than 2018 to increase the likelihood that Rich Rod is still there. (My guess is he's either fired or leaves for a better job by then.)