“He was on the other side of the court, screaming: ‘Good shot, Kev!’” Durant said, shaking his head in delight. “I’m thinking, this guy’s an All-American type of teammate right there.”
- Member for
- 5 years 1 week
- View recent blog entries
|20 hours 34 min ago||The reason for a boycott is||
The reason for a boycott is to push people to take action. But a boycott should be a last resort -- before doing it, we should give the Board of Regents some time to actually, you know, take action. It is reasonable to wait two or three weeks to fire your athletic director if you are getting your ducks in a row.
It would be terrible to ruin the 100,000 attendee streak for no reason, if Brandon was already in the process of being fired regardless of the boycott.
|21 hours 49 min ago||You're like a dog with a||
You're like a dog with a fucking bone on this. Let it go.
Obviously Magnus was wrong about where Shane got it. For you to extrapolate from that that he is a terrible person who doesn't give a shit about kids' safety makes you look like the asshole, not him.
Magnus has posted here long enough that we know he's a decent guy, even if he made a mistake here.
|1 day 15 hours ago||"[T]o all on this blog that||
"[T]o all on this blog that are willing to promote beyond reason . . . the integrity of a Div I Head Coach . . . ."
|1 day 16 hours ago||The "CC" was necessary back||
The "CC" was necessary back then because whether or not Rich Rod needed to be fired was a major point of contention that was dividing the blog, and a warning was necessary so that people could try to avoid the epic clusterfuck that resulted whenever the topic was broached.
There is no such controversy on the Brady Hoke issue. 98% of this board is of the same mind. Not sure if the CC tag is necessary in these circumstances.
|1 day 20 hours ago||You're missing a bit of||
You're missing a bit of nuance. It was already a near certainty that Hoke would be fired at the end of the season because of the product on the field, and most fans were content to wait for that. The new insistence that he be fired RIGHT FUCKING NOW is because the Shane Morris Incident (TM pending) revealed that he is not just incompetent, but dangerously so.
|2 days 22 hours ago||The negative trajectory was||
The negative trajectory was the performance of Rodriguez's defenses, which were getting worse and worse with no signs of improvement.
You write as though I am somehow defending Hoke respective to Rodriguez, when what I am actually saying is that if Rodriguez had to go, the same holds doubly true of Hoke.
|2 days 22 hours ago||Genius, if a player gets hit||
Genius, if a player gets hit like Morris did and then is "wobbly on his feet," the first thing you do is TEST him for a concussion. That was not done.
That the head coach says after the game that he "doesn't know" if his player had a concussion or not is atrocious. In those cirumcstances, he needed to be evaluated, and the coach should know the results of the evaluation before putting him back in.
But no, you're right, everyone else is wrong. We're all such pussies about this "head trauma" bullshit these days. In my day, we'd always stay on the field after having our "bell rung"! [Insert additional bullshit macho grousing here]
|2 days 22 hours ago||Has to be someone on defense.||
Has to be someone on defense. If Mattison won't accept it give it to one of the position coaches. To give it to anyone on the offensive staff (particularly someone who has been here for half a year) makes no sense from a coaching or optics perspective.
|2 days 22 hours ago||I'm going to steal this.||
I'm going to steal this. Great summary.
|2 days 22 hours ago||Hoke's fourth year is looking||
Hoke's fourth year is looking like it is going to match Rodiguez's first year. But everything is proceeding according to plan! He knows what he's doing! Everyone who can't see it is insane, and I'm the only sane one!
Seriously, what will it take for you to change your opinion and concede that Hoke shouldn't be Michigan's coach? Would a 2-10 season do it? Or would you just claim that is the expected result of an OC transition, and that Hoke should get at least five more years to prove himself?
|2 days 22 hours ago||This is insane. Rodriguez was||
This is insane.
Rodriguez was rightfully run out of town because while his offense ranged from good to excellent, he had committed defensive malpractice, and because of the negative trajectory (and its concomitant effect on recruiting) there was no realistic hope that things would improve.
Hoke is the exact inverse at that (except at least Rodriguez was responsible for the offense -- Hoke is a figurehead that delegates everything. One thing that should be extremely obvious by now is that we need a coach, not a figurehead).
Youth is not a viable excuse for this tire fire of an offense. This is Holk's fourth year. It is his third year with his first major recruiting class, which was universally praised. All of those guys are now juniors or redshirt sophomores. Of course they should not be a finished product yet, but they sure shouldn't be the worst offense in the power 5 conferences, which is what we are.
Hoke chose this staff. Does anyone have any confidence in this staff's ability to identify or develop talent, particularly on the offensive side? Based on what?
Recruiting this year will be a catastrophe if Hoke stays. (Spoiler alert - he's not staying). There is no way he is going to be able to dig out of this hole. Our offense has hit rock bottom just like the defense did under Rich Rod.
The Hoke era is over. This is not a result of fickle fans. This is a result of a guy who is hitting historic lows in his fourth year in the program, with the players he recruited. When the best defense of a head coach is "well he's not really responsible for either the offense or defense so you can't really blame him," that's not a paraticularly persuasive defense.
|1 week 13 hours ago||Fair enough, but with||
Fair enough, but with Harbaugh I would have faith in his ability to establish a coaching tree to leave us in good shape even if he leaves. See Shaw, David.
|1 week 13 hours ago||As alum96 notes, John H. has||
As alum96 notes, John H. has not had experience dealing with some of the elements unique to college football. That said, I'd be pretty damn thrilled to get him as well.
|1 week 14 hours ago||We shouldn't insist on a||
We shouldn't insist on a coach who has Michigan ties. On the other hand, we shouldn't disregard a great coach just because he has Michigan ties.
Harbaugh may still very well be a pipe dream, but can you name one coach with a better resume who would even consider us right now?
|1 week 14 hours ago||I would absolutely love it.||
I would absolutely love it. It would almost make the last seven years of frustration worth it if, at the end of it all, we finally wind up with the right guy to lead the program forward for the next 20 years.
I know OP is going to get slammed for posting speculation, but it does seem that the stars are aligning in a certain way. Four years ago when Harbaugh (supposedly) turned us down for the NFL, we all figured that was all she wrote -- there was no way that Michigan would be looking for a new head coach in just a few years, and if we were there was no way that Harbaugh would be disillusioned with the NFL in such a short time. Yet it looks like that may be exactly what is happening.
|1 week 3 days ago||Silver linings . . .||
Enough people left the stadium early that no one was hit by lightning?
Because of blue laws, all liquor stores in Utah were closed by the time the game ended, reducing the risk of celebrating Utah fand driving drunk?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Fair or not, when you win and||
Fair or not, when you win and you don't talk to the media, it gives the impression that you like to play your cards close to the vest.
When you lose by 31 points and get shut out and don't talk to the media, it gives the impression that you don't know what the fuck you're doing and have no idea how to fix it.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||You mean his post joking that||
You mean his post joking that Bellomy should start because he is the only QB not to throw an incompletion? I read it. Not sure you did.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||No, the definition has not||
No, the definition has not "been changed." A few dictionaries -- the vast minority -- added a second definition to acknowledge a widespread common misuse. While it infuriates me that even a few dictionaries have included this incorrect secondary definition, the vast majority of dictionaries continue to recognize only the correct definition.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Such a good article. But||
Such a good article. But then I get to the end, and all I can think about is this:
Our offensive line is literally one giant question mark.
[To be clear, the "aaaargh" is about the misuse of the word "literally," and not the state of the offensive line, the correct reaction to which is *whimper*]
|14 weeks 1 day ago||The US is out if they lose||
The US is out if they lose 1-0 and:
Ghana wins by two goals, or
Ghana wins by one in a goal blizzard (3-2 at least)
Portugal wins by five
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. If we lose 1-0 and Ghana wins 2-1, we're out based on total goals scored (tiebreaker after goal differential).
|15 weeks 4 days ago||You have to bear in mind that||
You have to bear in mind that courts have already ruled that even professional baseball players don't have a "right of publicity" in connection with their in-game performances. This obviously doesn't mean that pro athletes don't get paid -- they get paid because they can refuse to perform at all unless they get a paycheck. That is what should really be at the heart of the issue here.
Saying that college athletes, like pro athletes, don't get to sue TV stations for broadcasting an event that took place before tens of thousands of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid at all. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to collectively bargain with the NCAA for salaries, etc.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Fair point. Certainly the||
Fair point. Certainly the reason that access to the stadium is valuable is because a game is going on there,
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Apples and oranges. If I||
Apples and oranges. If I control a facility that seats 100,000 people, I can refuse to admit you unless you agree not to film what goes on and sell said film. That doesn't mean that if I appear before 100,000 people I am not appearing in "public."
|15 weeks 4 days ago||No problem, it's nice when||
No problem, it's nice when the weird stuff I deal with at work is actually a subject of interest.
To be clear, no court has ever expressly addressed the question of whether the First Amendment trumps a player's right of publicity for purposes of the broadcast of a game -- I'm giving my prediction of how that will turn out based on analogous cases, but I feel pretty confident in it.
The only case to actually involve athletes claiming that they had a right of publicity interest in broadcasts of a game was decided back in 1986. In that case, a federal appellate court held that a ballclub's copyright interest in the telecasts preempted the players' right of publicity--it didn't get into the First Amendment issue. I think that the decision in that case will be a problem for O'Bannon as well, though as BiSB notes in his post, there are some factual differences (most notably the explicit employment relationship between pro athletes and the ball clubs).
|15 weeks 4 days ago||The antitrust argument comes||
The antitrust argument comes into play with regard to the contract they are forced to sign, which gives the NCAA the right to use their images even on products -- a use that is not protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment issue is a broader one -- is you appear in public and participate in what you know to be a newsworthy event, you don't get to complain when someone puts that newsworthy event on TV, much less demand compensation after the fact. This rule applies to everyone, not just NCAA athletes.
If you want to say that NCAA athletes should be able to refuse to participate in those events in the first place without getting paid by the NCAA for their performance, that is certainly a different issue. But that doesn't mean that, once having chosen to participate, they can retroactively demand payment from everyone who broadcast the game.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, but this is a resolved||
Yes, but this is a resolved issue. Courts have recognized that every expressive work is "commercial" to the extent that it is being sold. But the law recognizes a difference between creative (or newsworthy) works like films, television shows, books, etc -- even though the purpose of such works are to make a profit -- and "purely" commercial works such as advertisements and products (ie, Denard's face on a t-shirt). Films and television broadcasts get a lot more First Amendment protection even though, like everything in our capitalist utopia, they are sold for a profit.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||FWIW, the NCAA has argued||
FWIW, the NCAA has argued that they don’t sell the rights to the broadcast; they simply sell the right to access the premises. Seriously. They argue that ESPN pays the SEC a gajillion dollars for the right to put cameras in the building. The ‘broadcasting football and running ads’ thing is just a nice little bonus.
If you understand copyright law, this is not an absurd argument -- in fact, it is 100% correct.
The NCAA cannot sell the "rights" to a football game, because no one possesses "rights" to a football game. There is no copyright interest in the football game itself -- the game is not scripted in any way, it is not fixed in a tangible medium before the players go out and play, etc. The copyright exists only once the game is filmed, and the copyright subsides in whoever did the filming. So if the NCAA wants to give ABC, for example, the copyright interest in a football game, the only thing they can do is give ABC sole authority to film the game in the stadium.
As for whether the athletes have a right of publicity in connection with the use of their image in an in-game performance, it's really doubtful. Courts have previously held that the copyright in the telecasts of major league baseball games preempts the Players' rights of publicity in their game-time performances. http://openjurist.org/805/f2d/663/baltimore-orioles-inc-v-major-league-baseball-players-association
Also, the right of publicity is sharply circumscribed by the First Amendment, so it only can be used to prohibit commercial uses of a person's image -- ie, in advertising or on a product -- and not "expressive" uses (eg, use in a film or on a television show). The filming of a public sporting event for broadcast is an expressive work. Once a player voluntarily agrees to perform at a sporting event, in public, he loses the right to complain or demand payment for the display of that public performance.
|23 weeks 13 hours ago||Brilliant.||
|23 weeks 13 hours ago||"This issue is NOT about||
"This issue is NOT about politics. It is about States Rights."
This issue is NOT about sports. It is about football.
This issue is NOT about physics. It is about string theory.
This issue is NOT about sex. It is about cunnilingus.
This issue is NOT about oxymorons. It is about jumbo shrimp.