At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”
- Member for
- 6 years 34 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|22 hours 1 min ago||Baxter||
Special teams is where I'm most confident we'll see improvement. Baxter's record is almost incredibly strong, and there are plenty of good athletes on the roster for him to work with.
|23 hours 11 min ago||8-5||
My guess is the defense and special teams will be pretty good and the offense will be mediocre at best.
|23 hours 14 min ago||Kauffman Stadium in KC (Royals)||
It's not terrible so much as very empty and boring - or at least it was when the Royals were bad.
|2 days 23 hours ago||Ace||
Any sense of which five star kid will eventually commit to MSU because of this?
|3 days 5 hours ago||Well, that's just great.||
You hear that, Ed? Bears. Now you're putting the whole station in jeopardy.
|1 week 2 hours ago||Nice job||
Thanks for posting this.
|1 week 22 hours ago||Michigan football and MBB are No. 1||
2. ) any other Michigan sport
3.) test cricket
4.) limited overs cricket
5.) The Thomas Cup (international badminton)
6.) Jai alai
8.) Gaelic football
9.) bonobo rugby (not rugby played by common chimpanzees, which is too violent)
10.) Major League Baseball
|1 week 2 days ago||Everything is fine||
Harbaugh doing this is fine, and Heitzman saying what he did is fine too. No animals were harmed during the making of his film.
|1 week 2 days ago||We need to learn from history||
First they said chewing tobacco causes oral cancer, and I didn't say anything because I didn't chew tobacco.
Then they arrested all the communists, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a communist.
Then they sheared all the sheep, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a sheep.
And, anyway, I'm sure you can see where this is going...
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I appreciate you posting that, but...||
...I also wish I didn't know. I liked the idea that Battle's commitment cost Michigan Langford only in theory.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||There's nothing inherently wrong with it||
My only point was that teams aren't having $300 million gifts dumped on their doorsteps without twisting some arms.
Where I would and do take exception is when business and business leaders cry about keeping government out of their way but then milk federal, state, and local government for as much as they can get. I don't know enough about any given pro football owner to say whether he is or isn't guilty of that.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I haven't seen this episode yet....||
...so I may not be speaking to what Oliver says. But have there been any situations in which teams have been offered new stadiums without first threatening - implicity or explicitly - to leave town?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Yep||
I don't know what you do differently here. It would have been crazy to turn Battle down because you thought might still land Langford.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||This sucks for so many reasons||
I hate college basketball recruiting - and to some extent I hate college basketball generally.
|3 weeks 23 hours ago||FFCB05 is the objectively correct answer||
Anyone who doesn't agree is probably going blind from syphilis.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I've been listening to that too||
They bring back '80s-ish rock in a better way than I thought possible.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Fair point!||
I forgot about the Dee Brown shoes.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I think this is maize, which is darker than Iowa's yellow||
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I feel the same way about the brand issue||
It reminds me of being a little kid and having friends who thought they would run faster or jump higher because they got new shoes.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I'll take it||
I like the Kings' owner, but I very much question if he knows what he's doing.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||That all makes sense||
I appreciate your thoughts here - you helped me clarify what I was saying. And apologies for my jerkishness earlier. I have a bad habit of sometimes letting work stress affect my posts on the blog, which isn't an excuse. It's just a (bad) reason.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||no,please feel free to respomd||
I apparently don't know where to respond to you either either (though I try a bit below), and it would be nice to know where to start.
As for your desire to talk about real-world examles rather than hypotheticals, you my want to Google "Jamel Deam Ohio State." The fact that you haven't heard of him doesn't make his situation any less illustrative of one of the quandaries this issue presents.
I will say this: I should have framed the question as "When, if ever, should a program pressure a player into a medical redshirt?" The above is written from the point of view of the school.
As for the notion that it's unethical to even consider ramifications of a medical hardship other than those directly relating to the player, that seems almost willfully myopic (it's also nothing but a conclusory statement and a value judgment, which is fine but not convincing). A great many people benefit quite a lot when Michigan has a winning football team. A program would be derelict to not at least consider the effect a medical hardship might have on a program. So, yes, I did consider that. And then, in four out of five situations, I said I at least lean toward believing the school should not press a medical hardship on a kid.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||"morally bankrupt"||
That's a perfectly valid viewpoint. But you may well not be in the majority here, so saying "this is morally bankrupt" and walking away doesn't accomplish much of anything.
As for Michigan not being Alabama's competitor, they are competing with them for recruits right now. And they played them a couple of years ago. There's a pretty good case to be made that they are competitors.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Isn't it obvious that I'm talking at least in part...||
...about cutting players to make room for other players? Why else would we be talking about this? No one is arguing that Michigan's doctors (or Pipkins' outside doctors) are wrong in a medical sense (because we have no idea).
As for this:
But what seemed to be a focus of your OP was what the player could do for the team, how many receptions and yards the team can expect from the player (and these are probably WAGs), and that what the team could expect from the player would affect their decision to medical hardship him. That is your ethical problem - that particular factor should not effect the decision to medical hardship the player.
I argued after each example that the player should not be forced to take a medical hardship except in the case of the player facing a debilitating injury. Yes, I considered other factors, but then I said they were trumped by SU's duty to the player. Your self-righteous lecture is based on nothing but me thinking things through out loud.
While I take your point that every player faces a debilitating injury to some extent, some players (like Steve Young at the end of his NFL career) are much more prone to suffering such injuries b/c of preexisting conditions. Here, I addressed possible risks to players and how increased risks should change a school's approach to a medical hardship, and you are brushing this off as if the risk to a guy who's had five concussions is the same as the risk to a guy who's had none because, hey, everyone can get hurt.
Either the player can be cleared medically or not; what he can deliver on the field is ethically (for the coaching staff's decision) completely irrelevant.
This dodges the issue. Jamel Dean was not cleared by OSU's doctors, but he was medically cleared by Dr. James Andrews. The same thing seems to have happened with Pipkins. What do you do in those situations?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Does one say "retire" when a vampire...||
...begins a long sleep in its coffin?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||What's the feeling that's...||
...somewhere between melancholy and congested?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||No||
Rigid as in not letting Eron Harris bring his friends on a visit.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I don't mind this post||
I think Brown may have committed to Michigan at one point (BA's tweet and one or two other things suggested this). And we know Battle loved Michigan recently. And as much as I love Coach Beilein, I sometimes get the sense he's overly rigid when it comes to recruiting (he wouldn't let Eron Harris bring his friends on his Michgian visit, for example). It may not just be bad luck that Michigan missed on Brown like they did and that they now face the potential loss of Battle.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||That's not what I said||
I said the consideration that dwarfs all others is whether the risk to the player's health is worth what *he* might gain from playing. What the team might gain is a very small issue compared to that.
As for taking potential production into account, I do argue that it is easier to justify pushing out a guy with little potential (this is undeniable from a utilitarian perspective). But I also say that, despite this, I don't want teams to cut guys unless they're facing the risk of debilitating injury (I argued that teams are only free to force a medical on the player in Situation No.5). I say above that the teams's ethical duty to the player - as far as his scholarship goes - trumps all other considerations.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||"Nick Saban thinking"||
Isn't asking whether someone is healthy enough to contribute a form of asking about his ability to produce? What's the difference between contribution and production?