Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 3 years 12 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- The case for the Everyone Murders soliloquy being The Most OSU Thing Ever is that a person actually got on camera, with time to prepare his answer, and stated "everyone kills people, murders people, ..."
|3 days 10 hours ago||Correct||
And as someone who has been around far too many kids with cancer, my experience is there are some athletes/celebs who show up to help, and some athletes/celebs who show up to be seen helping. I think its more the former than the latter by a considerable bit - but there is an element that uses very sick children as a prop.
I have no idea whether Payne's motives in striking up this relationship are pure or not. But if you've been around this enough, you come to understand that there are varying motives for visiting these kids.
Either way, get better Lacey!
|3 days 15 hours ago||A Few Points||
I agree that Holland's not made the noise the past couple years that he did earlier in his career, but it is a different environment with the new cap structure. But I don't mind the Mike Modano signing one bit, just as an example.
What you overlook is that Holland has kept the core of a great team together: Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, Niklas Kronwall and Jimmy Howard come to mind. Keeping the Eurotwins on the roster in particular is a great bit of management. And he helped keep Niklas Lidström engaged in the team for many years while Lidström's family wanted to move to Sweden.
I think it's a mistake to focus primarily on trades and free agent signings, when the Wings run one of the top scouting/draft departments in sports, and tend to their own quite well.
|4 days 7 hours ago||Ken Holland||
Your view that Ken Holland "is the most overrated GM in sports" is contrary to popular opinion. I get that not every signing or trade has panned out well (Weiss, for example), but given Detroit's success since 1996, I think he's one of the best GMs in any sport. Not that Sports Illustrated's opinion is dispositive, but they had him RANKED as the second best GM in all of sports for the 2000s, including NCAA ADs. He can't just wish for high draft picks every year, especially given their perrenial playoff team status.
Do you have a counterargument? Or is your post more of an emotional reaction to a trade you don't like? (One counterargument would be that the same SI article had Joe Dumars ranked as No. 9 overall, which, like ... yeesh.) By most measures Holland's stewardship of the Wings seems to have been very solid.
|4 days 14 hours ago||Sit Belein||
Sit Belein for the game. Have Jeff Meyer assume coaching duties, and run up the score.
Seriously, screw Tom Crean.
|4 days 15 hours ago||Eliminate the kicker/punter positions?||
I'm Danny White, and I approve of this message:
|4 days 16 hours ago||1986 in popular music / TV / Movies||
On TV, Fox was just getting started, with their top show Married With Children. The Tracy Ullman Show would ultimately give birth to The Simpsons. ABC had a strong ratings lineup with Who's The Boss, Growing Pains, and Moonlighting. NBC really dominated with shows like The Cosby Show, Family Ties, Cheers, Golden Girls and Night Court. Dallas and Falcon Crest sustained CBS, along with Murder She Wrote and the stalwart 60 Minutes.
In motion pictures, Stand By Me, Top Gun, Aliens, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Platoon, Pretty In Pink and Crocodile Dundee were among top performers.
Many great albums from that year that did not get mainstream airplay, of course, but as far as hits went if I turned on the radio I was pretty likely to pop in a cassette after one or two songs. For every Sledgehammer we had two On My Owns. I pinched this from Billboard:
|1 week 4 days ago||Missed that.||
But if the concern is that the names are too cute for 16-17 year-olds, how about if we just renamed Sad Josh "Not Offered" and renamed Nefarious Eduardo "Behind" (as in we've got some catching up to do)? And maybe make the icon-formerly-known-as-Josh a different smiley face, like one looking hopeful or this . It's hard to believe that anyone would get too worked up about the balance of the names and icons. And the icons were fun and gave you a quick idea of where a recruitment stood without the illusory precision of a numerical system.
Just one reader's thoughts... .
|1 week 4 days ago||Too cute? No such thing.||
Years ago Brian developed a system that essentially achieves your "interest rankings" that you may want to appropriate (including the wonderfully-named Nefarious Eduardo):
These guys were on the MGoRecruiting Board, and served the function that your numerical rankings did. And dang it, they were cute. Much cuter than arabic numerals.
A bit more detail (I think this all predated your involvement on the MGoStaff):
|1 week 5 days ago||Seems like a very broad request.||
The letter makes a pretty sweeping request for a documentation of the schools' sexual harrasment policy and other records, together with incident reports, etc. Notably, they cite a regulation that purportedly says that they are entitled to full disclosure, without regard to privacy.
That seems like a lot to get together in two weeks. Based on your experience, will the school request an extension of time to reply? And are such extensions routinely granted?
Also, they are acting in response to a complaint. Does the complainant have to be the victim, or can an individual who has not been harrassed make the complaint - like the self-styled gadfly from "Washtenaw Watchdog"? Put another way, who has standing to make these complaints?
|1 week 5 days ago||NFL and Steroids||
Here's how I like to imagine a typical Max Bullough interview went down (at least the first few):
NFL GM - So Max, we saw you were suspended for the Rose Bowl. Of course we want to know why.
MB - Well, it's embarrassing, but I got caught at MSU with steroids present in my system.
NFL GM - That's serious. What do you have to say for yourself?
MB - First, I should not have taken a shortcut, and ensured that any supplements I took were allowed. Second, I feel like I let my team down. Third, I think it risked besmirching my family name.
NFL GM - WTF are you talking about? We don't care that you used steroids.
MB - Excuse me?
NFL GM - We want to know how did you get caught? You realize there are ways to mask use, right? Don't they have catheter tubes and one pint of clean urine in all of E. Lansing? Jebus, kid - make a Mormon friend, and buy his piss. This ain't rocket science. Will you promise to do that if we draft you?
MB - Yes sir. I'll have some top shelf clean urine stashed away at all times. I don't know what I was thinking.
(Again, not sure that it was steroids that caused the Bullough suspension. However, seems like a reasonable conclusion.)
|1 week 5 days ago||Steroids?||
That possibility had not occurred to me (in my mind MSU doesn't seem like a "ferret out the roid-users" type of place), but upon reflection your suggestion seems credible.
Also, it's interesting that if it is steroids, and if Bullough really did disclose the issue to all the NFL teams, that Bullough feels that such a disclosure would not trouble those potential employers. A sad commentary on the NFL if the common thinking is that getting busted for roids won't affect your draft stock in a negative fashion.
Second, it's interesting that MSU has at least evolved to the point that they would suspend a player for steroids. (Picture of Tony Mandarich goes here.)
But steroids at MSU? I'm shocked, shocked to find that doping is going on there.
|1 week 6 days ago||You build bridges your whole life ...||
So, you build bridges your whole life. Do they call you "Bridge Builder Joe"? No.
You do all you can for your family. Do they call you "Family Man Joe"? No.
But you have sex with one lousy cow ... .
|1 week 6 days ago||Training Weapon?||
I know what training pants are. I know what a training bra is. I know what Training Day is.
But what the heck is a "training weapon"? Presumably it's the sort of thing you drill with if you're ROTC or something, but is "training weapon" an accepted term for all you gunslingers out there?
|2 weeks 2 days ago||At first not much.||
Initially, you'll just feel a tingly feeling in your toes and finger tips. Perhaps a slight fever. You'll think "oh, it's just that burrito I bought at lunch not settling well."
You may then feel a bit euphoric, and a light chill. Your skin will turn blotchy, and you'll start laughing hysterically for reasons you can't discern. You'll salivate uncontrollably, and suffer some shallowness of breath and heart palpitations. It's likely you'll then feel like there is an unseen mouse travelling down your spinal cord, gnawing at your sacroiliac. You may start spontaneously beat boxing. Your eyelashes will feel like tiny spears, and you'll almost certainly smell lilacs.
Then you'll have an erection that will last more than four hours. A lot more than four hours. You'll probably want to get medical attention at that point.
So yeah, I'd take this seriously if I were you.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||This Goes Here|
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Should be. But probably won't.||
The Ravens have shown a high tolerance for criminal acts from high-performing players named "Ray".
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Funny you ask that.||
I live on a street that is blocked in once a year by a multi-day art festival with 100K plus folks walking about, in warm weather. And yes, I've had parents walk 30 feet off the street, next to my porch, and toss a dirty diaper in my trash. (Oh yeah, and once in my recycle bin.) And when I've asked them to remove it, they've gotten self-righteous because "what else am I supposed to do with it?" and other whinging. Never underestimate the potential rudeness of a sleep-deprived parent.
And you really would like to visit the n'hood. It's nice (older houses, tree-lined, etc.), including during the festival. Just don't toss your dirty diaper in my trash can, and we'll get along just fine.
I've also been to concerts and games where folks toss their deuce-laden diaper in the trash in the food concourse or wherever. We are all accustomed to our own kids' crappy diapers, but nobody really wants to be confronted with other folks kids' diapers.
I agree re: separate bags for all occasions being wasteful, especially if your kid has just peed. But dumping the diaper in the trash of a rest room? To me, that's almost akin to taking a dump in a trash can in the bathroom.* And we're not Buckeyes here, people. We're better than that!
*Grudging exception for when you can neatly fold the diaper and contain it so it's not leaking all over - or, as we used to call it, diaper oragami.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Diaper Bag Advice||
The key thing here is to get a bag with a separate waterproof and wipeable compartment for dirty diapers. Don't be that parent who walks up to the trash can at any venue (or trash can outside a house) and tosses their dirty diaper for all to smell until the trash is removed. Put it in a plastic bag, put that bag in your diaper bag, and dispose of it at home.
The rest is a matter of taste, but this is a matter of manners and is really not optional.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Devil's Advocate||
Recognizing your question as rhetorical, I'll still make an argument to make us feel better (although I'm not sure it's correct):
Overall, one would expect these metrics to remain relatively stable at the majority of programs, because on a year-over-year basis offensive systems tend to remain stable and year-over-year schools tend to recruit the same sorts of linemen. And there are reasons for that this stability in rankings may not control w/r/t Michigan.
Look at Wisconsin (as an example of a school with historically good line play). They are going to recruit the same offensive line candidates from the same basic pools of talent year-over-year. They are following the same figurative recipe, with essentially the same ingredients (outliers like Joe Thomas notwithstanding). So we would not expect a lot of movement. And being at the bottom of these listings does not necessarily mean coaching heads will roll. Akron, UMass, CMU - they'd not admit it aloud, but they are lining up about where they should expect to. So with the same staffs coaching the same sort of athletes, we'd expect relatively stable rankings at the lower end too. That there are not a ton of quantum leaps seems intuitively correct.
Now look at Michigan. We have had generally depleted line classes since Carr's exit, for various reasons. Now, at last, we have some retention of linemen. And we have an OC now who we can expect to have a consistent philosophy and not "Borges" our line by tinkering and slavishly trying complicated schemes that don't work. All those factors suggest a fundamental change that does not exist in many of the other low-performer's programs. While the Arizona example stings, it also is a data point involving a significant change of offensive philosophy and approach resulting in a big jump. And the quality and size of our line recruits continues to improve. Essentially, we have a new (simpler) recipe, with better (and more mature) ingredients.
See - that should make us happier.
(Pay no attention to the fact that Schofield and Lewan have left the team, so our tackles are a huge question mark. And to the fact that Butt is hurt, so TE help will be scarce. Oh Jebus, where were those canned goods?)
|2 weeks 5 days ago||How steep is the curve?||
Is this a bell curve with a chunky middle, with "awful" and "elite" a relatively small slice on the periphery? If so, maybe those numerically small incremental improvements could yield tangible results.
If not, Imma buy some canned food and head down to the cellar once the B1G season starts.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||A bigger issue.||
First off, if Davis and White didn't go to Michigan I would have zero interest in ice dancing. Their ties to Michigan make me pull for them, just as I pull for our solar car to do well.
Whether ice dancing's a sport or not depends (duh) on how you define "sport". Ice dancing seems difficult, and they seem athletic, so calling it a sport bothers me not a whit. But it sure doesn't smack of sport the same way, e.g., hockey does.
So why the hell did I reply? Because I saw a tweet today that noted that Meryl Davis looks like a Disney Princess. I thought that's ridiculous, and then I saw the photo below. Holy cripes!
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Look for the magazine||
Darling Nikki's the one in the hotel lobby. With the magazine. Uhm, that's "making her own fun".
(Couldn't find a copy of the original on YouTube, but for any of you that missed 1984, here's the reference.)
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Allow me to retort.||
But choosing between these is understandably difficult - it's like picking between Sparty No! moments. All three incidents are so over-the-top it's hard to pick a clear winner. (My original "Reshuffle the Deck" comment was purely tongue-in-cheek, and driven by my user name.)
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Shuffle that deck!||
Sorry, but: "(n)ot everybody's the perfect person in the world. I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever" wins Most OSU Thing Ever. It's not even close.
(Of course, I may be biased.)
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Some Thoughts||
My prosecution experience is pretty stale, and I've not been involved in criminal law for several years. So I want to be careful not to overstate my expertise here. Furthermore, I've not seen the full files involved and don't really know the FERPA angles well. No darts from my glass house of partial ignorance.
That stated, I agree with you that Gibbons has not been convicted and we should not presume his guilt as a matter of principle. But I disagree vehemently that the fact that alcohol was involved is a relevant factor w/r/t a determination of guilt. You're not saying this, but the fact that the woman was drinking is no license for nonconsensual sex. The booze is almost a non-factor (it does impact the witness's credibility). As far as her not wanting to pursue, if that was really her intent the prosecution would typically respect that but not always. In my experience, individuals don't press charges - the state does.*
You also raise a very interesting point. The change in evidentiary standards moved the goal lines on Gibbons, and it seems like a bit of a raw deal. I'm not sure that there's any legal recourse for him, but I get it. Then I read the police report and makes it really hard for me to be sympathetic to the guy. Especially after the (allegedly) Lewan threat follow-up business. Until I see something more I'm in the pro-alleged victim camp - pretty squarely.
Finally, we don't know what the evidence was at the expulsion hearings. We know the result, but per FERPA I don't know that we get too much more of a look than what we've seen.
With that, it's Valentine's Day! I'm done thinking of the Gibbons ugliness for the night.
* I always smile at the "This Store Will Prosecute Shoplifters" signs you see from time-to-time. You will? In what court? The Court of Walgreen's?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Fair Enough||
Recall I was replying to Hipster Cat's questions which were more general in nature (at least as I read them). I agree with your point about the shifting burdens of proof. If you move those in favor of making expulsion easier, then a certain number of valid claims will get through that would not have before. (And a certain number of falsely accused will be screwed.)
And the fact that you can neatly explain the situation in your two paragraphs reflects well on you (and poorly on Michigan's PR - they ought to be better at explaining things than someone casually posting on a Michigan sports-fanatics message board). So this plus one's for you.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Good Questions||
These are reasonable questions. Here are some answers, based on my experience - others may disagree.
It's very common for victims to initially be reluctant to press on. They feel ashamed, perhaps somehow guilty, and generally awful. Wanting to put the whole situation behind them is a very common reaction. The question is does the institution (law enforcement or univ.) leave it be at the first or second "I don't want to pursue this"? Many of us think that you need to revisit the situation with the victim after they've had some time to process what's happened to them. It's a process, and if you stop too early in the process, you can game it into the victim not pressing charges even though they really want to but just aren't ready to say it. (And some never get there, which is fine too - the point is give them a real chance.)
Correct - they seldom do. Part of what makes rape cases so hard to prosecute is they are largely based on circumstantial evidence, so there's a lot of he-said/she-said involved. But rapes do get prosecuted, and code-violators expelled, so it doesn't end the inquiry
Here I disagree with you almost 100%. The physical evidence of vaginal tearing, etc., that shows up in the police reports is consistent with forcible penetration, and inconsistent with consensual sex. That's a presumption - there can be other explanations for the tearing, but if I'm prosecuting a case and there's vaginal tearing, it's convincing evidence.
This is back to the he-said, she-said. But here's where weight of evidence comes in, and - in particular - credibility. If her testimony is more credible than his, it gets more weight. And vice versa. You'd need a trial to really get to the bottom of this, but as a prosecutor you make an evaluation as to whether your victim is credible. Also, her post-incident (and pre-incident) behavior can fortify or detract from her credibility. Other factors, too, come into play. Does she have any reason that we know of to fabricate this charge? Is she generally reliable? All of that impacts the weight accorded to her testimony.
The bottom line is you've pointed out some reasons that rape cases are hard to prosecute. But that doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted.
Hope that's responsive (and your avatar is 100% win).
|3 weeks 2 days ago||That's a Bingo!||
That is such a huge element of this story. Although this gets cast in "gosh, this looks like the PSU situation" it's a fundamentally different situation. There was really very little "upside" in Michigan expelling Gibbons other than the university's determination that it was the right thing to do.
That's nearly the antithesis of PSU.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Not just PR - not by a long shot.||
It wasn't by accident that I said "the university made itself look really bad through a combination of its own behavior and clumsy PR" above. It also wasn't by accident that I put the school's behavior in front of the PR team's competency issues. So I agree with you completely.
The bottom line is it sounds like the school did not handle this well at all. It did a disservice to the victim first and foremost, and the school at large, by appearing to sweep this under the proverbial rug. And if it did sweep this under the rug, that issue deserves some sunshine. It should not take some self-styled gadfly to get the school's attention on something like this.
(My sense is that the school did not actively sweep it under the rug, but was all-too-happy to have the victim express reluctance to press on and use that as cover to drop the investigation. Sort of the obverse of the institutional edict "don't ask permission twice". And that's not how I want my school to act.)
But I still feel the school's PR approach has only made a bad situation worse. One prominent example being Hoke fibbing about the reason for Gibbons's absence at the bowl game (for which I don't fault Hoke - I fault the legal/PR team).
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Rape||
Rape is also not inaccurate, if you read the Police Reports. The horrible events the victim alleges constitute "rape" in common parlance. In some instances this is a close case, but here ... not so much.
I hate that this is true, but I think given the facts SI is well within its rights to say "alleged rape" here.