...talks about how UConn hasn't been in contact and how they're out. (HT: UMHoops)
- Member for
- 3 years 39 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|15 weeks 6 hours ago||I think based on impact, this||
I think based on impact, this is Muppets worthy. WOOOO!!!
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Not quite =. Neither play a||
Not quite =. Neither play a lick of D, but Stauskas actually makes 3s. I like Vogrich, he seems like a nice kid, but he is not a good shooter.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||Not that my opinion means||
Not that my opinion means anything, but I think you and BiSB are both good mods. It's a big forum and I'm sure it's a (typically) thankless and (occasionally) stressful job. Don't leave, maybe take a step back. IMO Bolivia is for McFarlin and his ilk and PEOPLE WHO JOKE ABOUT KOZAN AND DIGGS IT WAS NEVER FUNNY, not benevolent goofballs like Herm and His Dudeness.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||I REALLY don't have a dog in||
I REALLY don't have a dog in this fight. But your judgment lately (this obvious overreaction, the two-hour NO TE'O nonsense) has been sort of iffy.
On the other hand, you prefer BF3 to CoD, which is good judgment. Lot of ins and outs here.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||You're 100% right, he's such||
You're 100% right, Denard is such a terrible representative of the school and program we should probably cut ties with him altogether. He always has been a black eye on the program. And what a mediocre, boring career he had here.
They should go with Kovacs, or Brady, or Harmon, maybe Baas. I certainly wouldn't want Woodson, or Desmond, or Braylon, or Manningham, or Hart for sure. And I think Dileo or Jake Ryan could be great representatives in the future.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Eight-year-olds, Dude.||
|20 weeks 1 day ago||And the best part is that||
And the best part is that when you ask people who actually have some idea of who can really coach - fellow NCAA coaches - they consistently say Beilein is among the best in the profession. That's what counts, and now that he has real talent, our success isn't a surprise to anyone who was informed in the first place.
I can't say I miss the days when people with no idea about basketball were ripping Beilein on this board a couple of years ago because MOAR REBOUNDZ. Now someone just convince GRIII to stick for another year and we'll be all set.
|20 weeks 6 days ago||Michigan 83-73.||
|21 weeks 6 days ago||Particularly when an article||
Particularly when an article is researched in such obvious detail. The "more credible outlets" PGB wants to hear from were the ones almost certainly printing nonsense about an imaginary person without looking into it further.
|21 weeks 6 days ago||That article is better||
That article is better researched than 95% of the stuff we discuss on here. Deadspin =/= Bleacher Report, particularly in this case.
It's notable that SI, a source PGB would likely argue is "more credible than Deadspin," almost certainly printed a bunch of nonsense about an imaginary person without looking into it.
|22 weeks 2 days ago||1) You've come out against||
1) You've come out against Beilein and his system many times in the past, so you must have been waiting eagerly for this one.
2) Anyone calling for a football coach's firing after a close loss to a top 15 team on the road is an idiot, and it's not common here (and I know you're aware of this). "Fire Borges" didn't appear the first time his playcalling appeared to doom us - it started in full force maybe the fifth time.
3) As our resident basketball expert, please explain your evidence that we were "clearly [not] ready to play." Our extremely young team came out intimidated for 10 minutes in its first extremely tough road game of the year. You can only coach that out so much - the guys just have to experience it. Beilein proceeded to make adjustments and nearly made up a 21 point deficit. He allowed Burke to settle down and (IMO) expertly used Morgan and McGary in the second half.
Losses (certainly close ones on the road) can prove that you've got a rock solid coach. I'm not sure this one really did, but you can't put this game on the coaches simply because a young team fell behind early.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||That's a historical||
That's a historical footnote. Should we say "no history of succes"? How about "no games worth replaying on BTN"?
If you want to say Rutgers has a halfway decent football program in 2012 and justify it that way, OK. If you want to say that NYC's imaginary Rutgers fans will cause this move to "deliver the NYC market," I disagree, but OK. Let's just not be ridiculous and defend Rutgers as some great football tradition.
Just for fun, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_Scarlet_Knights_football . Four paragraph summary of Rutgers football history. Two on the first season, two on "The Remaining Years (1870-2011)." You can't make this stuff up.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||I got into this discussion||
I got into this discussion with someone the other day. Rutgers and UMD don't come close to selling out their stadiums. They have lower attendance than Illinois and Purdue, higher than Indiana (NW didn't come up so I don't know). Edsall was bitching within the last week that nobody wants to watch his tire fire in person, so there's that.
Not to claim you're doing this, but: other programs in the B1G with relatively low attendance =/= justification for adding more of them, particularly a school like Rutgers with essentially no athletic history of note in any sport, ever.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||2011 stats (attendance per||
2011 stats (attendance per game):
Illinois - 49,548
So you're broadly right. You could more fairly rip Indiana and its 41k per game. But even if RU and UMD are no better than Illinois and Purdue (something I'd obviously argue), how is that a justification for adding them?
Of course Illinois and Purdue have outstanding basketball programs with great history, as does Maryland. And traditional rivalries within the conference. Rutgers has low football attendance and doesn't even bring basketball. The difference between adding Rutgers, UCONN, or Syracuse is negligible - the only difference is two of those schools play great basketball. That doesn't justify adding any of them to the B1G, of course.
PS, there were about 5000 fans at the Rutgers game I saw. It was snowing (not like a white-out, just cold crappy weather), but there were no more than 5000 people there regardless of the paid attendance stats.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||Purdue and Illinois||
Purdue and Illinois basketball (and their die-hard fans) think that you have no idea what you're talking about. Illinois is popular in-state as well, and it has football fans too when the team is mediocre or better (more than you can say for Indiana).
No sane person in this thread is ripping Maryland's basketball program. But RU and UMD are not football powers by any stretch and nobody goes to their games. The ADs of both schools are bleeding money. I was watching a Rutgers home game last year that had *maybe* 5000 people there. You're probably just trolling, but come on now.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||If that's actually true, then||
If that's actually true, then I'm assuming Time Warner doesn't have it in their basic package. That seems plausible - they're the other cable option in NYC. I find it hard to believe a school with next-to-no NYC fanbase changes that, but it's possible. This is not an opinion: Michigan has more fans in this city than Rutgers, and it's not close.
I don't think Delaney is an idiot. I firmly believe that he has a master plan here, and if we're doomed to expand, hopefully it involves schools like UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, UVA, etc. at some stage. I just don't agree that adding two schools with crappy football programs, athletic departments that are losing money, and fundamentally tiny fanbases is the right next step.
Ask your friends what football fans who live in MD and NJ watch on the weekend. I'm willing to bet their answers will involve a lot of "Giants, Jets, Ravens, Skins" and next to no "Rutgers and Maryland." This is an NFL region.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||You can't make this argument||
You can't make this argument with someone who actually gets basic cable in NYC. I have the basic Verizon package (one of only two options in the city along with Time Warner) and get BTN. So you're just making things up.
Maybe all of NJ and MD will DEMAND watching games on TV that they certainly won't attend in person. Unlike you, I won't speculate on things I know nothing about. But as you're talking out of your ass re: NYC cable, I'm assuming everything else you've said is pulled out of thin air as well.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||Don't be ridiculous.||
If the B1G goes to Texas, it's UTEP or bust.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||I can't speak to DC or||
I can't speak to DC or Maryland demographics. I can say that if there are enough B1G alums there now, they would already have the BTN (if they don't currently). BTN is already on the basic cable package in NYC, and it's because we have a zillion B1G alums here.
Literally in the last week Edsall begged more fans to go to Maryland games. I think "DO NOT WANT" is the only sensible reaction.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||Thanks for the link. This||
Thanks for the link. This still blows my mind. The Big Ten is "itchy" (per the article) for two schools with no fans but a big "footprint."
The BTN is already on every TV in NYC - it's part of the standard Verizon package here. Rutgers doesn't change that. I've wasted too much time in bars in this city, and I've literally never 1) seen any Rutgers gear or 2) heard "Turn on the Rutgers game." I'm sure they're big in central NJ.
Everyone involved with the B1G should be against expansion for expansion's sake. These schools aren't just not near Nebraska's level - they're not near Minnesota's.
FEAR THE FOOTPRINT
|30 weeks 3 days ago||This is the Rutgers argument||
This is the Rutgers argument all over again. There is nobody watching Maryland football, it wouldn't matter if they played their games on the White House lawn. Nobody anywhere is upping their cable package to watch that team.
As of 2010: 39k fans per game, stadium is 72.5% full. And they bring more to the table than WISCONSIN? Uh, if you say so.
|31 weeks 2 days ago||Do you post ANYTHING that||
Do you post ANYTHING that isn't critical of Hoke or a complaint that more people should be allowed to criticize the coaches on the board? There's room for debate, but you're straight trolling and add nothing to the discussion with comments like this. I can get you a link to MLive if you need it.
|33 weeks 6 days ago||Michigan 34-17||
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Michigan 31 MSU 13||
Michigan 31 MSU 13
|46 weeks 4 days ago||Best part remains...||
"A Michigan Man, or Woman, does not discuss Purdue."
|46 weeks 6 days ago||I agree with this, but would||
I agree with this, but would like to emphasize just how great No Man's Land is. It's not the quality of writing you get in Year One, Long Halloween, or Dark Knight Returns, but it's a great story and extremely fun if you have decent familiarity with the Batman universe.
A more complete No Man's Land just came out on Amazon - I've only flipped through volume 1, but it looks like it's the way to go.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Grass not tall enough at SC||
Grass not tall enough at SC for layin in the weeds.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||No LJ, not saying that at||
No LJ, not saying that at all. I'd say 60% got BigLaw (estimate - 2011 grad). My less-than-clear point was that the top 1/3 are the only people guaranteed BigLaw.
Many of my friends who struggled to find anything were around the median or just above that. Once you're outside of the top third at Columbia, you're no longer a lock, and firms want other things - connections, diversity, maybe work experience, etc. It's not that people from 50% to 33% uniformly had issues, just that the guarantee disappears after 33%.
And because you can't guarantee top 1/3 going in (especially at a school like Northwestern, for example, but also anywhere), taking the necessary debt on can be more than a little dangerous.
I'm lucky to be at my first choice firm, but I recognize that it easily could have gone differently if I had screwed up a couple of tests first year. Law school + massive debt is risky at a T14, it's nuts almost anywhere else.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Just to emphasize, since the||
Just to emphasize, since the other person agreeing with this got moderated into gray - THIS IS BAD ADVICE. You absolutely cannot justify going into $180k-ish of debt to go to the schools you're thinking about. It's a dangerous risk at the T-14 schools, but it's batshit crazy at anything outside of them.
You've got a big enough scholarship at MSU that, if you are dead-set on being a lawyer, it would not be insane to take it. But you have to 1) deeply consider the opportunity cost, as others have mentioned, 2) understand that only 5-10 people (if that) from MSU per year get jobs paying $160k, and 3) assume that you will not be one of those 10 people.
Way too many of my classmates at Columbia figured that they would be in at least the top 1/3 of the class and would be guaranteed BigLaw (something more plausible there). Some were, but others were not, and now they face crippling debt that is essentially permanent with gov't jobs paying very little. And that's at a top 5 school. At MSU, you have essentially no chance at getting a job that pays a great deal of money, and "MidLaw" jobs (aka those that pay $80k-100k per year) are outrageously competitive and there are almost none of them.
So if you're set on law school, it would be criminal to your family not to take the money unless you're going to Michigan, Columbia, NYU, Harvard, etc. Think about any other option you might have, but if you pick law school, you HAVE TO take the money, period.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Quick edit:"GET INTO THE||
"...GET INTO THE OTHER LANE AND SLOW THE FUCK DOWN."
Can't imagine something like this happening at 18. My heart goes out to the kid.