G. Gulo of the Dale
- Member for
- 2 years 17 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Roxy Music||
"Mother of Pearl" (1973)
... Followed closely by "If There is Something," "Pyjamarama," "Psalm," "The Thrill of It All," "Prairie Rose," "Grey Lagoons," and a host of others.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||To be fair to the Worldwide Leader...||
... During prime time last night, ESPN aired a program aimed solely at understanding prominent athletes and the qualities that make them excel by comparing them to various super heroes within the Marvel universe. This was done without irony.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||+1 Propitious||
(I know, not a real category... but relevant)
|6 weeks 4 days ago||"They are making $88,000 (and that's just the average)"||
This statement is quite misleading--though I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally.
The article states that the average "full professor" is making $88,000. "Full Professor" does not mean "any professor who teaches full-time." It means a professor who's ascended the ranks to receive the highest position for a college educator (unless you add on administrative posibilities, such as "department chair," and even they would be included as "Full Professors"). If you click through, you'll see that "Full Professor" is listed above Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Instructors, and Lecturers. Any of those positions can be "full-time" loads, and the former three always are. Becoming a "full professor" is somewhat analogous to making partner at a firm, and it usually requires at least ten years of teaching in a tenure-track position. I don't know this as a fact, but I'd guess that something like a quarter of teaching hours at a college are taught by full professors. Montgomery College's instructors--also full-time--make an average of $54,200 a year, and some of that is higher than the national norm due to geography and cost of living. Instructors in the Midwest would generally make closer to $40,000, at least as a starting salary, and they'd have a very low ceiling unless they received a tenure-track offer.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Indeed||
I'm a young college professor with an average teaching load, and during the first three years of my career I worked far more than 40-50 hours a week--even factoring in summers and holidays. Outside of celebrating major holidays (I confess, I'm no Jim HARBAUGH), I spent almost every waking hour of my first couple years of employment teaching, meeting with students, prepping, and--during the summers--researching and writing furiously. I rarely went to bed before midnight, and I was working moments before my head hit the pillow. Adjusted for inflation, my salary is pretty much equivalent to what my dad was making at my age, and my dad was a blue-collar worker with a high school degree. I have plenty of friends in academia whose experience is identical to my own; in any case, we didn't pursue teaching because we thought it was in our best interest financially. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't some older professors at colleges and universities that aren't living fairly comfortably with a light work load, but this is the exception, and it takes twelve years of college education and a couple of decades of work experience to find oneself in that position.
In the end, I'm exceedingly skeptical of the fact that the basic structure of a professor's hours of employment is contributing in any significant way to the skyrocketing costs of education--costs which, from my perspective, are an enormous problem.
|7 weeks 9 hours ago||"Will Cleveland even it up?"||
Well, I'm going to go with arithmetic on this one and say there's a 0% chance of that happening. ;-)
... But in answer to the heart of your question, I would think Golden State is the safer pick at this point.
EDIT: A day late on that observation. I need to type faster.
|11 weeks 9 hours ago||While on the topic of trivia (and Evans)...||
... I believe the announcers said that Cabrera was the eighth-youngest player to reach 400, which got me thinking about who was the youngest to reach that milestone. I suspected it was A-Rod, which turned out to be right--though I didn't realize that Mark Mcgwire actually reached 400 in the fewest at bats. So, anyway, in fact-checking my A-Rod guess I discovered that Darrell Evans was actually the oldest player to reach 400 (I think I read that he was about 41-and-a-half at the time), though others have taken more ABs to enter the 400-club.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Well, you said there are "now" five...||
... so Cabrera is the fifth?
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Two of the three spring to mind...||
Darrell Evans and Juan Gonzalez, no?
I was at the first game a Tigers' home run was hit at Comerica Park... by none other than the best non-signing in Tigers' history.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||Devil's Advocate...||
... This isn't meant to be wholesale defense of the previous coaching staff (obviously), but it seems a little disingenuous to claim that Hoke et al. completely stunted the devolopment of Ryan, Funchess, and Clark, given that all three were Rivals three-stars coming out of high school, and when the former two were dealing with injuries as upperclassmen. None of the three had the final season that most of us expected, but those expectations were in many ways set prior to Ryan and Funchess getting injured and after all of them had outstripped initial expectations coming out of highschool during the early Hoke years.
Again, I'm not saying that Hoke's staff is free of blame--even in the case of the development of these players--but it just doesn't make sense to say that Hoke simply impeded their development, when, coming out of highshool, it would have been just as likely that none of them would have matured into mid-round draft selections as it would have been for all of them to do so.
|31 weeks 5 days ago||Don't worry...||
... I already jinxed NJIT in the Kansas-Temple thread below just before you posted this thread. On the other hand, as an alum, I have a personal interest in Villanova winning, so maybe, according to the scientific laws that govern jinxing, I can't actually jinx a team that I'm rooting against.
Anyway, this game turned into a beatdown in a hurry. Thanks, if you're the cause.
|31 weeks 5 days ago||Congratulations...||
... to ClarkiefromCanada. If I'm remembering correctly, he's a Temple alum.
A Villanova Alum
P.S. NJIT is beating 'Nova in the second half right now (yes, I'm trying to (reverse?) jinx them), so Michigan's loss is looking a little less flukey.
|33 weeks 1 day ago||To be fair...||
... It could be the owner of the site's mom.
|33 weeks 3 days ago||Or...||
|34 weeks 13 hours ago||Basically...||
... He was mystified as to why the committee would rank TCU #3 one week and then drop them all the way to #6 when they did all they could do against their opponent. So, he wasn't "hating" on OSU directly so much as finding TCU's drop of three spots to be unjustified. He was clearly viewing the committee's criteria for ranking as being more similar to how the AP and Coaches' Polls normally work: i.e., he thinks that calling TCU #3 is tantamount to saying that "we think they're the third best team in the country, period." Thus, blowing out ISU this week should have done little to change that. Herbie, of course, countered by emphasizing that the committee "hits the reset button" and re-evaluates resumes every week.
I don't normally care for Joey, but I was happy that he was at least putting his argument out there for consideration--despite it having unfavorable implications for the Buckeyes--because I think it captures certain basic expectations that fans have, given the polling process we're used to seeing.
EDIT: To be clear, Joey still believes that the committee got the four teams right, even though they got the process wrong.
|34 weeks 14 hours ago||Right...||
... but I don't think your argument and Bordon's arguments are so opposed. I don't think TCU thrashing ISU earns them a whole lot more in the bona fides department. However, the committee ranking them above FSU, OSU, and Baylor in the previous week seemed to signal exactly what you are saying: they believed TCU was simply the better team, and that their close loss @ Baylor, assisted by screwy reffing, was offset by their better out-of-conference schedule and lack of a loss to a team like WVU. If this is so, then killing ISU should do nothing but reaffirm what the committee already thought about their body of work, even if it doesn't add much. Just as Baylor beating KSU at home--a KSU team that TCU already beat, and Baylor was favored to beat--confirms what we knew about Baylor.
Clearly, though, (as Herbie argued) the committee was ranking the teams very differently than the polls do. They were (as you suggested as well) awarding points based on quality of opponent, reassessing each week. TCU and Baylor were so close going in (despite their 3 vs. 6 ranking) that factoring in their respective wins over ISU and KSU--and even taking into account the TCU margin of vicory--was still enough to switch their positions. This is a logical explanation, but that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about this actually being the true account, especially given that TCU was previously ranked above FSU. I think (and you seem to) that TCU just has a better overall resume than Baylor. I'm willing to hear arguments in favor of OSU, but the committee slotting TCU at sixth in the end leads me to believe, not just that the data changed, but that some of them changed their minds about how they were interpretting the data.
|34 weeks 17 hours ago||If a conference...||
If a conference decides that they'd like to determine their conference champion by in-conference record and then use the results of head-to-head matchups to break ties, that's their prerogative. The Bix XII decided not to do so, and, as far as the national championship is concerned, TCU seems to have a better overall resume than does Baylor. "Won their conference" doesn't help us discriminate in this case since it doesn't seem to capture anything relevant, except for obliquely noting that Baylor beat TCU by 3 at home, which is a mark in Baylor's favor. I just think the circumstances of that win, considered together with the quality of Baylor's loss, and TCU's greater number of top-25 wins (by virtue of their stronger schedule) tip the scales in TCU's direction.
|34 weeks 1 day ago||AND...||
Baylor finished their comeback at home against TCU by virtue of a completely bogus PI call at the very end of the game (a call that TCU did not receive on their previous possession). AND TCU has a quality win out of conference over Minnesota, whom they beat convincingly. Baylor played no one out of conference. I can't make an argument for Baylor being in the playoff.
|34 weeks 1 day ago||Not sure how this would be possible...||
The committee currently has Baylor sixth. How are they going jump OSU based on an 11-point home win over KSU when OSU just obliterated a similarly ranked Wisconsin team on a neutral site?
To me, Baylor seems like the one team of the six that is most likely on the outside.
|34 weeks 1 day ago||Indeed.||
In my opinion, it's about as aesthetically pleasing as offense gets. Switch out those honeycomb GT helmets for maize wings, and I'd be on cloud nine.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Your first point...||
I think you were the first to mention this in the thread: not only did TCU have a 21-point lead in the fourth quarter, and was playing on the road, but Baylor completed their comeback only by virtue of a bad PI call in the closing seconds. Moreover, on the previous TCU drive, the refs failed to call PI (probably rightly) on more or less the exact same play when TCU would have benefited and so would have been given the chance to put the game away.
In other circumstances, I'd be willing to give Baylor the nod based on their head-to-head win, even if I think TCU would have won on a neutral sight... but not when considering the officiating in that game, along with Baylor's loss to WVU, and the fact that Baylor doesn't otherwise have a better resume in conference, and the fact that Baylor didn't play a quality out-of conference opponent. TCU did play a quality opponent (Minnesota), and they thrashed them. I respect the opinions of others but I just really don't see an argument for Baylor, unless something unexpected happens this weekend.
|34 weeks 6 days ago||Hey, man,||
... He's just giving 110% (in case you've ever wondered how to do it).
|43 weeks 14 hours ago||What does "Rutgers" mean?...||
Mike, I'm glad that you don't want to make excuses, and Michigan did plenty of things wrong in this game, but I think people are being a bit overly dramatic when saying things like "this is Michigan and Rutgers" (implied "fergodsakes"). While Rutgers hasn't exactly been playing in the SEC the last eight years, they've been winning more than we have. Rutgers has won at least eight games six of the last eight seasons and may do the same this year. From 1988-2004 Rutgers enjoyed exactly one (!) winning season. Since then, they've gone 9-4 three times and 11-2 once. From what I can tell, a number of people are hearing "Michigan and Rutgers" and thinking it's 1997. From my perspective, no Michigan team should be complaining about winning a close game in a hostile environment against a team that's gone to a bowl seven of the last eight years. This is the kind of game that even a healthy Michigan program drops once in a while. In the end, our defense played very poorly, yes, but I thought the whole team played less than terribly "in a vacuum"--unfortunately, when you remove the vacuum, we are 2-4 and coming off an unacceptable season.
|43 weeks 18 hours ago||There were multiple bad calls...||
... that went both ways. The OP is referring to a call that went our way on the right sideline when both our WR and their DB were coming back to the ball. The ref behind the play had a bad angle that did make it look like pass interference against Rutgers--but it seemed like the wrong call. With that being said, the refs blew an obvious pass interference call earlier in the game when the Rutgers DB hit Chesson while the ball was in the air. And, as always, there were many overlooked holding calls--and a pretty questionable one against MIller.
Insisting that we shouldn't be upset about the Darboh incompletion because there were calls in our favor seems unreasonable to me, since, again, there were many bad calls both ways, and everyone knows how critical the Darboh call was--and it occurred at a point where we couldn't overcome it. I think there are a number of people overlooking the bad call as a way of placing more blame on the coaching staff. While I wish we could beat Rutgers by multiple TDs, we're not that kind of team right now. And I don't buy this "Losing to Rutgers... LOL" sentiment either. Rutgers circa 2014 is not absolutely horrible, even if a good Michigan team should beat them. They played in a bowl game last year (even if a bad one), and were at home in a very loud stadium. Unless you're a top-ten power house team, you take road wins against teams like Rutgers any way you can get them. The loss at home to Minnesota was embarrassing, was completely on us, and we quit in the second half. The loss to Rutgers was competitive, and painful, and a horrible call was a contributing factor--even if by no means the only one. The players deserved better. Despite all of their failings, even the coaches deserved better. If the refs make the right call, and we lose anyway, so be it.
|44 weeks 1 day ago||Not as bold as you think...||
... Yesterday MGlobules suggested to Sten Carlson that he/she wasn't a man, so I'm assuming he/she's just referring to cutting off hair.
|44 weeks 1 day ago||???||
That timeout back inside Minnesota's 10 was the right call--and ended up mattering little, since Minnesota drove down the field and was well within field goal range with a timeout in their pocket. Our porous defense was the problem.
|44 weeks 1 day ago||Worst kick return blocking...||
|44 weeks 1 day ago||Deveon...||
... makin' popcorn.
|45 weeks 1 day ago||TEMPO!!!||
|46 weeks 2 days ago||Very slight correction...||
I think you're counting Ball State's 2008 GMAC bowl appearance, which they lost, but Hoke had already left to take the job at SDSU.