landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
- Member for
- 6 years 35 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 days 23 hours ago||It's a free rider issue. If||
It's a free rider issue. If a magical genie were to tell me today that football as a sport would cease to exist if I stopped watching, I would feel morally compelled to stop watching for the health benefits of those who play. But that's not going to happen -- if I, individually, stop watching, it's not going to change a damn thing.
|5 days 2 min ago||It's not that complicated.||
It's not that complicated. The game is tremendously entertaining -- I'm sure that all of us became fans long before we knew of the long term health problems caused by playing.
Now that we know of those health consequences, if any of us individually were to stop watching, it would not change a thing -- the game would still be played, so we might as well enjoy it. (I acknowledge there is a major free rider phenomena occurring here.) But we can control whether our own children suffer from these health problems, so we do.
Also, you seem to present the issue as football or nothing. There are other sports that we watch and enjoy in addition to football. If our children aren't playing football, odds are that they're playing soccer instead, or something else. If, among the many sports I enjoy, I encourage my kids to do something other than football, that doesn't mean that I am only allowed to follow the one sport that they play going forward.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||During that time frame the||
During that time frame the Big 10 has produced two of the greatest quarterbacks of all time (Brady and Brees), and one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL today (Wilson). So I think this stat says a lot more about NFL drafting than the quality of Big 10 quarterback play.
Brady, Brees and Wilson versus JaMarcus Russell, hmmm. Tough call.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||I don't see this as||
I don't see this as hypocritical at all. No reason they should put themselves at a competitive disadvantage -- if other schools are going to come into their territory, they should be able to go to other areas.
The problem was that they were trying to force their self-imposed protectionist measures on the rest of the NCAA. Now that that ploy has failed, I have no problem with them participating on an even playing field.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||It's pretty great. If he were||
It's pretty great.
If he were here, Chuck Norris would slap you.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||I never doubted it for a||
I never doubted it for a minute.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Irvin under 65% from the line||
Irvin under 65% from the line for the season. That's terrible.
Good job here, though.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Holy shit Irvin hit a||
Holy shit Irvin hit a shot.
Hey and Walton apparently only play well with a minute or less left.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||If only there were some way||
If only there were some way you could send an email to the site's proprietors, perhaps using a link labeled "contact," so that you could contact them directly about this rather than start a thread about something that is of absolutely no interest to anyone else on the board.
Alas, that technology is still decades away.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me????
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me???
|11 weeks 1 day ago||One weird thing about this||
One weird thing about this season -- I don't think we've had a single heartbreaking loss. No game that we should have won but gave away in the final minutes. No buzzer-beaters made against us, or missed by us. Every single game we lost, we just straight up LOST. There's not a single game I can point to and say "oh, if only that play had gone differently, our it would have changed our whole season."
Not sure whether that makes me feel better or worse.
|13 weeks 4 days ago||"If we pull off a huge upset||
"If we pull off a huge upset against a top 10 team on the road, we shouldn't have to worry about making the tournament!"
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Deleted and moved -- this was supposed to be a reply to someone
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Rutgers is ranked 72 in US News and World Report college rankings, only slightly behind Maryland (57), and ahead of numerous Big Ten schools including Indiana, Michigan State, Iowa, and others. Not sure where the belief that Rutgers is poor academically comes from.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||How does fact that BC games||
How does fact that BC games were low scoring show that defenses have an "inherent advantage" over offenses? That's like saying that the fact that Baylor games are high scoring means that offense has an inherent advantage over defense.
Offenses don't put up points in a vacuum. The number of points an offense scores depends, in part, on the quality of the defense they play. If you play a terrible defense you usually score more than your average number of points, a mediocre defense you score your average number of points, and a good defense you score less than your average number of points.
If a great defense plays a great offense, the offense will score less than it usually does, but on the other hand the defense will give up more point than it usually does. This doesn't mean that one has an "inherent advantage" over the other.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||It is a truism in football||
It is a truism in football that if a great defense plays a great offense that the great defense usually wins. I have seen this happen so many times that I pretty much expect Bama to win.
Well, I dispute your overall premise. I haven't seen any stats or evidence showing that a "great" defense beats a "great" offense more than 50% of the time. Those terms are subjective in any event, so what you consider "great" can be altered so that the results meet your expectations. I mean, by most metrics Boston College had a "great" defense this year, yet they barely won any games, even against mediocre offenses.
As for your Alabama point, when you're using Alabama as an illustration the real question is "why does a team with the best defense in the country and also a pretty darn good offense usually beat its opponents?" The answer is pretty obvious. A team with a great defense, by definition, will usually hold a great offense to less than its usual number of points. So, for example, a Baylor or Oregon will score 28 points instead of 45. Combine that with a darn good offense as well, and it's hardly a surprise when a team like Alabama wins championships.
Hopefully it is a model that we follow next year.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||In addition to all the||
In addition to all the factors Brian noted, we simply can't get away anymore with having one big man surrounded by four wing players.
It worked when we had six NBA players on the roster, but even then we had problems defending and rebounding against the Michigan States of the world, and needed ungodly offensive performances to pull out victories. You simply can't count on that, game-in and game-out, no matter how much of an offensive genius Beilein is. It's a lot easier to win games, even when your shots aren't falling, if you can outrebound your opponent and defend inside.
This team desperately needs a true stretch four who can play alongside a center, instead of masquerading as one. I hope, hope, hope that after this year, the plan is to play Wagner as a four, and have him play alongside Doyle, Teske, etc. (If Kam can ever learn to shoot a 3 he would be an ideal backup -- I'm not giving up hope on him yet). We need to have two people taller than 6'9 on the court at all times. Forcing the Irvins and Robinson's to guard power forwards is not going to work in an ordinary (read, non-Trey Burke, Stauskas, and/or Hardaway) year.
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Maybe not this year given the||
Maybe not this year given the makeup of our roster (read, plethora of talented wings and dearth of big men), but in the long run is there any possibility of Moe playing power forward, next to a more traditional center (Doyle or Teske)?
For the entirety of Beilein's tenure he's been forced to play undersized guys at the 4, leading to major issues when we play teams with multiple big men. It would be so nice if, for once, we could trot out a true stretch four, rather than forcing a natural small forward to play that role. We'd be able to compete better on the boards and defensively without sacrificing spacing.
|32 weeks 2 days ago||Makes little sense? He||
Makes little sense? He viciously took out Tejada without even pretending to go for second base, breaking the guys' leg. What makes little sense -- actually, no fucking sense whatsoever -- was that Utley was called safe even though he left the basepath and never even tried to touch second base. The suspension is warranted. Unfortunately it is too little too late, as the Dodgers got an undeserved win as a result of Utley's dirty play and umpire incompetence.
|33 weeks 3 days ago||Actually, he's saying that||
Actually, he's saying that Rudock doesn't see the field well, and because of that Michigan is making it simpler for him by having him only look at half the field.
And he's right. How many times this year has Rudock simply not seen a wide open receiver? Field vision is a skill, just like any part of a QB's game, and one in which Rudock is lacking.
|34 weeks 2 days ago||Well, I for one think Mgoblog||
Well, I for one think Mgoblog is the perfect place for you to tout your skills as an airplane pilot and air your passive aggressive views of Captain Sullenberger. I mean, what else is this site for if not that?
|34 weeks 3 days ago||Disappointing ending. Allowed||
Disappointing ending. Allowed them to break 100 yards at the end. This unit better figure out how to close games or it's going to be a long season.
(I don't really have to add a /s, do I? That was freaking awesome.)
|35 weeks 6 days ago||As a NJ native, I can tell||
As a NJ native, I can tell you that your ranking of colleges is way, way off. Lafayette and Lehigh are not particularly impressive schools, and Rutgers and Maryland are certainly not "safetey" schools if you don't get into them.
|37 weeks 6 days ago||But you didn't say "he's||
But you didn't say "he's there because he wasn't going to get the opportunity to play multiple positions here." That would have been unobjectionable. Instead, you said that he transferred because "he was going to have to compete for it everyday" here, making it seem like he was afraid of competition. Which was a complete misrepresentation of what was in the article, and a dick thing to say about someone who played hard for Michigan for years.
|46 weeks 6 days ago||The checkmark shows up next||
The checkmark shows up next to his name in his biography, but not on each individual tweet.
|46 weeks 6 days ago||I haven't seen this||
I haven't seen this supposedly-deleted Harbaugh tweet discussed anywhere on this thread, so apologies if it's been posted already. Anyone know anything about whether this is legit? Truly hope not.
|49 weeks 4 days ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, but in the first film didn't Sam Neill's character have a similar arc, in which he didn't like kids at first but then discovered a paternal side in protecting Hammond's grandkids from velociraptors (as one does)? I recall one of the final shots of the movie was the kids resting against him in the helicopter, while Laura Dern looked on approvingly.
As a larger issue I agree that popular media sometimes suggests to women that their greatest value is as a set of ovaries, but given that this franchise has already done a similar arc with a dude in this instance it may be a case of homage, rather than retrograde misogyny.
|49 weeks 4 days ago||Dear god people. No, it was||
Dear god people. No, it was not a serious question.
|49 weeks 4 days ago||"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic||
"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic Park, not Game of Thrones.
I haven't seen it yet, but here are some spoilers nevertheless . . .
Someone will express concern about keeping all these dinosaurs in a theme park. Those in charge of the theme park will pooh pooh those concerns, claiming that their systems are state of the art, and there is no possibility that dinosaurs will escape.
Dinosaurs will nevertheless escape.
Some people will be eaten. The audience will not really care because wooh, dinosaurs!
Children will be in danger. They will not be eaten.
At the end of the day, the children, the hero and his love interest will be saved, and most people at the park will escape from danger. We will all learn a valuable lesson about attempting to bend nature to our will. But it will be clear that some have not learned that lesson, and that danger will again rear it's ugly head in oh, let's say three summers from now.
Apropos of nothing, I remember seeing the first Jurassic Park in theatres. Before the movie started, the woman in front of me was asking her friend about the title -- "What does Jurassic mean? Is that just a made-up word?" Anyone know the answer to her question?