dragonchild

History

Member for
31 weeks 6 days
Blog
View recent blog entries

Karma

Current value
2

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
1 week 23 hours ago It IS spin

Of course it's spin.  Few schools will claim to recruit from a position of weakness; they're going to tell every kid they got exactly what they were looking for.  So of course it qualifies as spin, depending who says it.  However, when you say it's a "compromise" it's only in the context that scholarships aren't unlimited -- it's not like Hoke is leaving superior talent on the table, per se.  The distinction here is that Hoke's crew has been reeling in 4-stars like gangbusters.  So when they commit to a 3-star early, frankly, the claim that they "think they're unlikely to get 4/5 stars" doesn't hold water.  The rankings were FP-ed for eff's sake.

This is kind of like, well, we have the budget for a luxury car, but I fell in love with this model and stopped shopping right there.  Unless you're rich you certainly limit your future [car-buying] options, but that doesn't make your early decision ill-advised if you know you made the right decision.  Whether it is the right decision is beside my point, though.  My point is they're taking in guys they want, not necessarily finding the best recruits (though there's strong evidence they're doing that too).  Even a 5-star can flop (*cough*Campbell*cough*).

You're right about one thing, though. . . what matters is the results.  In the end, the rankings aren't going to matter if these teams don't win games.
1 week 1 day ago Not turn away, per se

"I think you're point is that Michigan is choosing these 3-star types in preference to 4 and 5-star types, but I'm not sure you can say that."

Well, let me rephrase that a little.  I think they'd prefer a 4- or 5-star, but in absence of an immediate availability they're willing to commit a 3-star early.  Even if there may not be a pending 4-star commitment, they've taken a scholarship off their books (at least unofficially) and unlike some scummy bastards there's no word that Michigan is oversigning.  This IS significant because when you commit to a 3-star earlier than you need to and DON'T oversign, you've limited your own future recruiting options.

Consider a team that committed a 3-star QB early.  Then a 5-star recruit becomes available.  What's your pitch?  If you have NO QB commits (e.g., having turned down a 3-star) you can say, "We're a top school and you're our guy."  Kids like hearing that.  If you've already got a 3-star, you CAN assure the 5-star that he's "the guy", but you leave some lingering thoughts you pray don't get asked:

1) Would I really be competing with the 3-star for a spot?

2) You recruited him first; what did you tell him?

3) If I'm "the guy", why'd you sign the 3-star?

I'm not saying these questions can't be answered.  There are just a lot of reasons to not nab a 3-star early if you think there's any reason at all why you can't recruit a 4- or 5-star later.  Kids may be commodities to coaches and may even realize that on some level, but they don't like being TOLD that.  So when Hoke takes a 3-star it's not because he can't do better, he's willing to risk a weaker future recruiting position to take this kid.  He may whiff on his assessment, but there has to be a degree of confidence in what they saw.  This is different from a school that's recruiting a 3-star because every 4-star is already taken or unlikely to sign.
1 week 2 days ago I like the why and how

When Michigan takes a 3-star, it's because they saw something they like.  They're not relying exclusively on ratings, and they're not taking 3-stars because the 4-stars turned them down.  These are both positive developments that indicate the incoming 3-stars aren't necessarily second fiddles.
2 weeks 23 hours ago Flawed methodology is flawed

If we had a huge sample size I wouldn't be picky, but we don't.  I know, I know, it's all in good fun, so just consider this a disclaimer of sorts.

Personnel changes, coaching changes, injury, schedule, evolution of the game and Tacopants having a bad season can all contribute to seasonal variations.  I would expect a trend of improvement if we had, say, 300 or so senior QBs to study, but 14 going back to 1970?

Now, I get the point of the first part of the post is that Michigan has had relatively few senior QBs, but you can't have it both ways.  If we're lean on data, we're lean on analysis.  As for Michigan having good seasons with senior QBs, the sample size is small AND missing context.  We had a few bad years but Michigan IS a traditional powerhouse.  I mean, Wolverines call 8-4 a mediocre season; WSU would be ecstatic to do so well.
2 weeks 5 days ago A better way to limit concussions. . .

. . . is to just not tackle with your effin' head.  Honestly, this has been perpetuated by idiot coaches and players.  Not only is it dangerous, it's bad technique.  Any DC that demands, even permits their players to use their head as a weapon should be fired on the spot.  You don't bring down a 200-pound ballcarrier with the lightest extremity of your body.

Some of my favorite defenders are sure tacklers, and AFAIK NONE of them use their heads except to think.  The head isn't heavy compared to a torso, it's an extremity attached by a series of flexible joints.

One example:  Jordan Kovacs is a joy to watch.  He knows how to use his body to bring a guy down.  I majored in physics so seeing him on the field fires vectors in my nerdy brain.  If he has to make a stop at the first-down marker, he'll throw his torso into the guy's chest to absorb all the momentum over a large area.  Against a big dude, he'll barrel into the legs, converting his linear momentum into torque that flips the guy over.  If the ball carrier is near the sideline, he'll deliver a lateral blow that very efficiently knocks the guy out of bounds.  And in the open field, he'll wrap-and-roll with beautiful form.

The problem is that Kovacs' technique isn't desired by modern defenses that expect linebackers and defensive backs to basically stop running backs by themselves, and as close to the LoS as possible (so every yard counts).  Bringing the guy down isn't enough; his forward motion has to be stopped.  To equalize the momentums (and p=mv) they have to make up for any lack of mass with speed, so the punishment they're inflicting on themselves is like repeatedly throwing yourself at a brick wall at full tilt.  Even without direct head impact, the brain is constantly exposed to G-shocks, and the cumulative damage is equivalent to trauma.  This is a major problem and tougher to fix, but when I'm also seeing head hits at the NFL level I can't help but think that no one cares what happens to these people.
4 weeks 5 days ago To explain where the MMB is coming from

Disclaimer:  I'm not part of the band now, but if the MMB today is anything like what it was 10 years ago, I think I can speak for their mentality regarding this trip.  Also, this isn't to dig up yesterday's flamewar.  This is just me channeling my inner band nerd:

The MMB is NOT treating this as being robbed of a free vacation.  As I said yesterday:

". . . the band can be rather 'gung ho' about its duty.  Honestly, Dallas sucks.  But if you're told there were plans to send you somewhere and then you're dropped off those plans like you don't matter, you get insulted.  It doesn't matter if 'there' is Detroit or Dallas.  If you hear you were supposed to go, you want to go."

Honestly, road trips suck.  They're not fun.  And Dallas sucks.  But if the MMB hears there were plans to deploy them, and they're nixed for reasons that -- good or bad -- could in no way be unanticipated, it's insulting.  They don't want to go because "yay, free vacation" -- frankly it's a lot of work and lost time and travel fatigue.  It really sucks hauling your textbooks around and doing homework on a plane or bus.  No, they want to go because they felt they were wanted -- and nowthey feel like they got tossed out the back of a truck.  The band practices many hours a week to represent the University, so they take it rather personally when they're tossed aside.
4 weeks 6 days ago OK, I can't speak for everyone

But if you're gonna go there, you can't speak for them either.  FWIW, I was in the band so I know pretty well what the road schedule (or lack thereof) is like.

"why would anyone think this year's band would get special treatment?"

Because it was in the contract?  I'm not complaining that I never got to go to a road game outside the Midwest.  But the band can be rather "gung ho" about its duty.  Honestly, Dallas sucks.  But if you're told there were plans to send you somewhere and then you're dropped off those plans like you don't matter, you get insulted.  It doesn't matter if "there" is Detroit or Dallas.  If you hear you were supposed to go, you want to go.  At least, that's the way we saw it when I marched.

"And enough with that contract nonsense, none of you had any idea that was in there."

No we didn't.  I read the whole story all at once, and given the facts at hand I'm pissed they were in the contract and now are getting written off.  I wasn't aware there was some unspoken rule that I had to know some part of the story in advance of others.
4 weeks 6 days ago Correction

Sticking to a budget is tough if you're like me, a common shlub with a fixed income and a job in a high cost-of-living area.

Sticking to a budget is tough if you're Congress when just about anyone will want free money and no one likes paying taxes.

Sticking to a budget is tough if you're the owner of the New York Mets.  Because, well, they're the Mets.

But, you know, you can kinda stop talking like the University of Michigan Athletic Department is on food stamps.
4 weeks 6 days ago Fine

Just don't have Dave Brandon effin' lie to me saying he can't afford it.  That's BS.  I may not agree with whatever reasons you're coming up with but at least they make some level of consistent sense.  But these are not the reasons DB is stating.  Don't carry water for this dude when he's making outrageously obvious lies.  He should have the guts to speak for himself.

Michigan's getting a lot of money to play this game and he is nixing pre-existing plans for alleged monetary reasons.  I'm only 5% pissed the team will be taking on Alabama without the band (again, you and I know the band doesn't travel often in the first place) and 95% pissed about the snow job.  Honestly and in all seriousness, he'd do less damage to his rep with me if he just stopped the political BS and just said something like, "Well, I just decided I'm a greedy stingy corporate bastard and don't care about the band so I'm gonna have the team face Alabama without their support to save a measly $400k."  Of course I wouldn't be happy to hear something like that, but at least I'd know what to expect.  You know what I hate about liars?  It's very, very difficult to get anything done around them because nothing they say can be considered information.  It's not ideal, but I can work with an asshole.  Telling me we're getting paid a lot of money but there's no money. . . WTF am I supposed to do with that?
4 weeks 6 days ago Except you're wrong about one thing.

This isn't "everyone's" niche project.  This "niche" project is Dave Brandon's himself.

If Dave Brandon thought this was a bad idea for monetary reasons, he could've easily omitted the MMB from the contract in the first place and probably gotten away with it.  But setting aside seats and then crying "no money" is what makes that surplus a very conspicuous thing.

A surplus isn't something to piss away, no.  I certainly wouldn't advocate pissing away a surplus on any random road trip.  But gee, I'd say

FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS OF A CONTRACT BRANDON ARRANGED HIMSELF

is a rather justifiable reason to dig into money you know you have.  Especially when it's a one-time expenditure that would consume less than 4% of that surplus.
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.