- Member for
- 6 years 29 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 days 9 hours ago||Bell's rebound was a great play||
He anticipated where the shot would miss and oléd the box-out to put himself in a normally-bad spot between the backboard and the rim. Most misses bounce out a lot farther and if this one had, he'd have no shot at the ball.
That looked more like Bell making the play than Wilson failing to box-out.
|6 days 5 hours ago||Sigh||
Oregon just ... played better. They were tenacious on D and we couldn't get the shots to fall, while Bell dominated the paint and Dorsey just buried his looks. Just have to tip our caps here.
For all the mis-seeding in this tourny, there have been a ton of great, close games.
|1 week 5 days ago||Shot for shot||
All the way to the end. We were in danger if we missed, so it felt closer than it ended up being. Go Blue!
|2 weeks 2 days ago||My faith was wavering||
I never though Coach had forgotten how to coach offense, but I did wonder if adding Donlon would boost our defense, and we are not recruiting at the very highest levels.
This past month has showcased his strengths. We have adapted to our previously poor defense and now can depend on it when the shots aren't falling, continued to play elite offense, and gotten more than I thought we could out of our players. This may not be a Final Four squad - beating Louisville and then another top team is a tall order - but it's one of the best coaching jobs of his career.
This is Coach at his best.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||They did not help themselves||
And the NFL is going to be a real eye-opener for some of these guys. Instead of facing OSU-level talent once a year, they're going to be facing guys better than that every week. As the Navy says, "that's fine, son, but this here's the fleet".
Everything Lewis was able to do for us, he'll have to do better at the next level, and against receivers stronger, faster and bigger than he faced in college.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Another example of the vast gulf between the NBA and college||
A NPOY with a strong shot and dominant college performances isn't strong enough to outmuscle NBA guards, quick enough to zip by them, and doesn't have enough hops to outjump them. Ah well, we'll always have Kansas and The Steal.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Two months ago we were despondent||
We thought that we'd be out of the tournament by mid-February, and fifty-fifty on whether we'd be looking for a new coach shortly.
Instead, we are looking at one of the best runs of our coach's career, with a team that is playing elite offense and decent defense. Subjectively, this team feels like it is in fact being coached to the limit of its ability - these guys are playing better than we might have expected overall.
I am excited to see how they do in the two tournaments.
|4 weeks 12 hours ago||He has ~30 actor credits - that's not bad||
and was in Django Unchained, so they're not all fourth-guy-on-the-left-in-one-episode sort of credits.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||In addition to the roles above, he was||
the Clairvoyant in Agents of Shield. He gave a fine performance that came largely as the first season raised its game in the wake of Captain America: Winter Soldier.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Spread out over their lifetime, that's a drop in the bucket||
Even at Michigan, that's nothing compared to the current athletic budget. Let's say we have 1,000 student athletes a year. Over a 60 year period, that's 60K people we're adding.
Most of these people will never bill us. We'll be the secondary insurance policy behind work-provided health care, but it will cost something. Let's say that incurs an additional 20K a year. Now we're talking about 12M/yr dollars baseline. That's a small fraction of the AD budget.
But, the football players! OK, there's a 100 of those a year, so we're talking 6K players we'll have to support. They will have the highest costs - let's say that they need 100K/yr of care. That's still only 6M/yr.
All told, it won't be cheap, but it will be affordable when you look at *how much money* these programs raise each year.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||It would be expensive||
but it would accomplish several goals:
1. The money spigot would be directed toward player welfare, and the benefits spill over onto non-revenue sports, without partaking of the sordid nature of "hand Joe a large pile of cash because he is faster than any 250lb human should be".
2. One of the best moral arguments in favor of paying players is that they end up broken for our entertainment. We can at least care about what happens to them after they stop wearing our laundry. Health care is directly on point.
3. A happy benefit is that some athletic departments would have to fold FBS football because that's the sport with the highest long-term insurance payouts. I contend this is a good thing for two reasons:
a. Colleges bankrupting themselves to field a FBS program when they're never in contention for a bowl bid, let alone a championship, can drop to FCS, and provide more benefits to more students instead of pouring money into a crap team.
b. Reduce the number of baby seals available. Average game quality goes up; fans get better football, and teams get better competition.
4. I don't think it would be that difficult to administer. Every major employer, including the schools, has a health care system, and there are private insurers for things like CORBA and so forth. Essentially, each university has to add a policy which auto-renews and provides the minimum levels of support specified. The athletes are responsible for updating their information and setting it up each year, just like everyone else.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||I think it would change because now it is illicit||
And not everyone does it. If everyone can do it and it is no longer illegal by rule, I would predict an influx of cash immediately, and then two things would serve to taper the results:
1. Rich people didn't get rich by spending their money foolishly. They will end up setting a budget and having to choose how to allocate it. Today, because the payments have to be under the table, and there is no direct competition, essentially anyone can dump a small amount of benefits without a cap.
2. The hit rate beyond the very top athletes, particularly in football, is brutallly small. The fact is there just aren't that many people worth spending large sums to get. The Rashan Garys of the world would get f-you money, but the 50th-best guy isn't going to find that much out there.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Quite right - wrong tab||
As you were.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Concrete proposal for paying the players||
In the comments we tend to go back and forth with "of course/of course not/won't-someone-think-of-the-childen/what-about-the-other-students", so I thought I'd lay out a specific proposal.
1. Lifetime free/reasonable-cost health coverage.
This is obviously of most value to our football players, but one thing student-athletes do more of is get hurt. Some of those injuries can have serious long-term consequences, so give them lifetime coverage for those risks. Whether this is health insurance or actual health coverage can be discussed, but I would imagine health insurance would be the better way to go, as health coverage has geographic limitations that aren't always convenient. This in and of itself would soak up a tremendous amount of the money pouring into collegiate sports and give it back in a way that I contend is fair - student athletes incur more long-term health risks than their fellow students, so giving them a benefit to counteract that risk - and doesn't appreciably change the collegiate sports landscape.
2. Allow athletes to profit from their likenesses. If EASports wants a Michigan QB #16, Denard Robinson gets a cut. Again, other students aren't restricted in such a way, so removing this restriction seems fair.
3. Remove the restriction on outside student benefits (i.e. bagmen and boosters). This restriction doesn't currently exist for other students (or, technically, for high school students not yet subject to the NCAA), and hence is also fair.
The last restriction seems like the most likely to cause havoc, but I have a few counterarguments:
a. Those who believe that the $EC is already deploying bagmen for football and that everyone is for basketball should welcome a leveling of the playing field. Aside from the moral arguments around "why shouldn't they get what they can?", Michigan has resources it can deploy more effectively than most, so it's to our benefit.
b. Those who think that auctioning off the top talent every year would lead to a totally different football landscape ... well, if you take a look at the top 10 teams each year for the last 10/20/50 years, you will find a strong correlation between the wealthiest universities and the most successful. Put simply, they can pay for facilities and coaching talent, and if they make a mistake they can pay to make it go away anyway. What, exactly, will change?
c. I have no doubt there would be a turbulent few years as people gave "f-you" money to top prospects and people decried "the kids these days", but all it takes is one top target who flames out to get people to realize that throwing giant piles of money at 18-year-old boys to play a sport with a horrific flameout rate is not sustainable. It will stabilize pretty quickly (within about ten years, I think) and the Rashan Garys of the world will get injury insurance money to wear someone's laundry, while the others will get new-car money, and not much will change.
d. This has the benefit of not running afoul of Title IX, as the athletic opportunities aren't changing and the university isn't doing any of the payouts.
Argue away :<)
|6 weeks 5 days ago||MLB piece on his passing||
From the outside, he struck a good balance between active and hiring people and letting them do their jobs. RIP, and may you get a turn to own the 1984 Tigers in the afterlife.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Interesting thought exercise||
We'll take it as read that it will never happen, because it offers nothing to the people who control scheduling. (Makes their job harder, perceived fan disinterest, nobody cares about the historical B1G, no simple way of determining a champion, etc.).
Now, if you really want a good championship game, there is one easy step to take that will solve most of these problems in one stroke: put Michigan and OSU in opposite divisions. Now you are overwhelmingly likely to get the two best teams at the end of the year. But it won't happen because we value the division rivalry over the better B1G setup.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||No, but you're making a common error (Gambler Fallacy twist)||
There is a difference in saying before you start the odds of the sequence HHHHH are one in 32, and in saying that if I have seen HHHH then the odds of the next flip being tails are greater, because it was 1/32 before I started watching.
The difference is due to the fact that the "improbability", if you will, has already been taken into account. The odds that you would end up in the universe where the sequence was HHHH was 1/16, and the odds that you'll continue into the universe where the sequence is HHHHH are 1/2, and HHHHT is also 1/2.
So, no, luck doesn't have to even out, especially if you bet on it.
|9 weeks 11 hours ago||Wheatley opened my eyes here||
In general, our backs hit the holes more often, blocked the right guy more often, and generally made fewer mental mistakes under his tutelage. There's a reason that the site now has the "RB coaching is a thing" tag.
It may be overrated compared to OL coaching, but it's not just about getting the right guys on the field. Getting them to do all the things RBs need to do in our offense is not trivial.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Yes, the Destroyer!||
I remember getting a Destroyer from there a couple of times but not for timed consumption. I watched one of my friends try once (and he could inhale an entire large pan pizza in that time) and he managed to finish it under the time, but was not happy about it afterwards.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Not to mention the decline in mental errors||
In general, our backs have hit the holes more often, run better routes, and gotten better in pass pro after infamously being bad at that under previous coaches.
There's a reason we have a tag for RB coaching being a thing.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||3/4 DL starters, 2/3 LBs and the entire D backfield graduate||
including our Heisman candidate. And yet we have the makings of a pretty good defense on hand. What we lack is depth.
There are definitely some problems ahead, but this side of the ball looks to be good on the line and so worries me less.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||We're not firing a coach midseason||
And we're not firing him if we think there's sizeable improvement out there. Firing Beilein to hire a non-Harbaugh level coach is a huge gamble.
That said, if we keep playing like this, Manuel will have an easy call at year's end. Being out of the tournament by February after missing the tourny two years ago (and barely scraping in last year) is not a good trajectory; couple that with just flat-out uninteresting, poor play and all the goodwill that three-year peak bought him will be spent.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Peters would have to be pure magic to win the job||
One of our QBs underrated abilities last year was pocket presence. He's not Denard but was able to move within the pocket to keep plays alive. Behind an OL that might start a true freshman next year, that ability is worth more than a lot of people will think.
Even if Peters is better than the rest at everything else, if he doesn't have that he wouldn't get the chance to use those skills behind a rickety OL.
If Peters wins the job, that will say both great things about him and good things about the OL.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||Didn't Kalis go from bust to second-team All-B1G?||
That seems like some nice development to me. He was also solid last year after vexing inconsistencies before Drevno, and his UFR grades demonstrate some serious improvement over the last two years.
Magnusen has not taken a big leap, but he has improved at the margins - he's making fewer mistakes and his UFR grades reflect that.
Ben Braden went from a guy who couldn't ID his assignment and would fall over in a stiff breeze to a solid OL with flashes of excellence over the course of last year, and continued to be at worst solid this year. Again, check UFR.
Overall, what I see is an OL which was pretty much the sum of its parts, but where Drevno managed to improve most of the parts.
If you look at how Kalis/Magnusen/Braden were playing before Drevno, and how they're playing now, and you don't think they've "really improved at all", you're not watching the same game the rest of us are.
Our biggest problem is that our OL is not yet championship caliber. With the increased degree of difficulty in picking up Harbaugh's run game, we need top-caliber lineman in waves, so that they have a year of apprenticeship and strength training before we need them to perform.
Our OL recruiting might need to be even better than it has been.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||This year demonstrates our problem||
We had a once-in-a-generation DL, the best CB in college football and a Heisman candidate but couldn't get it done, largely because one of those better-than-us-and-not-going-away teams is in our division. We have to elevate our game just to get to the B1G championship, to say nothing of the playoff.
This is an obstacle we have that the other teams do not. In the long run it matters little - to be the best, you have to beat the best - but in the short run it means that to achieve our goals we have almost no margin for error.
|12 weeks 4 days ago||He did stone the fake punt against OSU||
Just a bad time for a missed tackle.
|12 weeks 4 days ago||We couldn't keep Cook down||
There's a reason he's the best back in the country.
One thing that I think we've all sort of forgotten is that solving your problems with aggression (and Coach Brown practices what he preaches!) means that when a mistake is made, someone is going the wrong way at a high rate of speed, which does tend to lead to big plays. Letting the QB loose on 3rd and long against OSU, and letting Cook loose on 3rd and 22 are two examples where it bit us.
That said, looking at the 8 sacks and general shutdown of OSU after a few years of getting utterly trucked, I think we'd all take that.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||Dalvin Cook is a beast||
He played very well. Losing Pepper beforehand was a major blow, but overall we didn't give up, and kept our heads in the game. They made two more plays that we did and that's the difference.
In the end, we were only going as far as our O-line could take us, and when we lost Newsome that wasn't far enough.
I thik we'll take a major step back next year in terms of quality of play - losing all the guys we do makes it hard to avoid - but we're still on the right track.
|14 weeks 14 min ago||The incentives are completely out of whack||
The only reason for him to play is out of a sense of duty or loyalty.
The risk of injury may be small, but the consequences are catastrophic. If he gets hurt and loses a tiny fraction of his speed or wiggle, that's it for his NFL career. The thing he's worked for his whole life gets ended before it really gets started at all. It's all very well to say he's from a wealthy family and would have a Stanford degree, but his actions make it clear exactly what his priorities among those things are.
The fact is, most of the people who played for Bo were looking at a very different risk reward ratio. A Michigan degree could lead them to a life not too different from most of those who were NFL-bound. But now, the value of that first NFL contract, particularly for a first round draft pick, could be more money than those guys will ever see in twenty years, if not their whole lives.
The rules have changed. The players who do the bulk of the work take on all the risk, and have the least expected value. There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle; no one is going to give up the bottomless trough of money to be made, and as long as everyone else treats it like a business, it is hypocritical to say the players are the only ones who can't.
So get used to players treating it like business. We need to work on aligning the incentives so that their business decisions are the ones that are good for their teams and the sport.
|15 weeks 10 hours ago||The biggest threat to college football||
Is the NCAA's response to these lawsuits. The NCAA exists to transfer money from college football fans to itself and the biggest of its member schools. It is a near-certainty that their regulations were not in tune with current medical thought because that would have risked spilling the gravy train. And because they are incompetent and corrupt, I think they'll pretty much botch the response.
I will have both sadness and schadenfreud when the trials commence and some pitiful NCAA hack is on the stand having to watch some poor kid get hammered in the head again and again while the prosecution asks "Why wasn't this called targeting?" "The ref missed it." "And when the NCAA reviewed it and said it was fine?" "Uhhh ..."