G. Gulo of the Dale
- Member for
- 2 years 34 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 hours 50 min ago||AP 17?||
Wasn't 12 last week?
EDIT: Sorry, that's 19. I think ESPN had the rankings briefly mislabeled and now it's clear that we are 17 in their "Power Rankings."
|2 weeks 21 hours ago||Please tell me...||
That the double-post negates the veracity of this statement.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Given his recent post-game comments...||
... Perhaps this guy should have sprung to mind:
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Well, that's...||
... easy for a koala to say.
|3 weeks 19 hours ago||Let's not...||
Look, I was plenty upset about the reffing in the first half, and the targeting call that was overturned was pretty ridiculous, but your comments are just going to fuel the fire unnecessarily and deceive people who didn't see the play.
"... how is [Butt] supposed to go out wide to start the play? By walking?" Not only did Butt break the huddle before any of his teammates did, he broke the huddle before the players entering the game had even made it to the huddle. The way in which he went out wide was hardly typical and was clearly meant to deceive Rutgers.
Secondly, the ref did not wait to throw the flag until after the completion. The ref standing by Butt threw the flag in the air as soon as Michigan snapped the ball, which was evident on the replays the BTN showed during the game. Dierdorf himself noted this in the radio broadcast, and assumed that Michigan was going to receive some sort of procedural infraction.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Indeed.||
That second photo of Gunner as a high school senior was unmistakably taken in 1992, so that means he's now 40 or 41. So, good eye.
|7 weeks 21 hours ago||Technically, he's right...||
... he said "twelve straight quarters"--not three whole games. That Alabama team did play 12 consecutive quarters of shutout football, but those quarters spanned four games and began in the fourth quarter of their opener against us.
Bama also did this against the likes of W. Kentucky and Florida Atlantic. I like our streak better.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah...||
... At the very least, if the loss to Utah needed the "mouthwash" of a victory over Oregon St., this win will require the mouthwash of a win over BYU.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||That win...||
... didn't feel easy at all.
I think OP meant "comfortable win"--not "win against an easy opponent."
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Ha. There might be...||
... multiple reasons why you shouldn't have had a picture of Kelly Holcomb in your wallet.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||Pre-Madonna||
But Madonna attended Michigan. Thus, if Chris Clark is currently a "Pre-Madonna," that means he'll eventually enroll at Michigan, right?
But then, in fulfilling his destiny as a second Madonna, he'll subsequently drop out of Michigan...
... then we're back to the issue of his ability to stay committed to a school. *sigh*
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Ouch!||
No one deserves that!
But I may or may not have chuckled at that comment.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Right, though...||
... Butt also admitted recently that, while he thought he was close to 100% last year, he only more recently came to realize that he wasn't fully recovered. My uneducated guess is 1.) that Drake isn't going to 100% at this point in the season, even if he's cleared for contact and gets carries, and 2.) Having a running back who's less than 100% will be harder to hide within the offense than having a top tight end who's less than 100%.
|19 weeks 1 day 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.
|19 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.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||+1 Propitious||
(I know, not a real category... but relevant)
|23 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.
|23 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.
|23 weeks 6 days 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.
|27 weeks 6 days 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.
|28 weeks 18 hours ago||Well, you said there are "now" five...||
... so Cabrera is the fifth?
|28 weeks 18 hours 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.
|30 weeks 22 hours 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.
|48 weeks 4 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.
|48 weeks 4 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.
|50 weeks 1 day ago||To be fair...||
... It could be the owner of the site's mom.
|50 weeks 3 days ago||Or...||
|51 weeks 2 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.
|51 weeks 2 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.
|51 weeks 6 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.