this guy evidently hired to work for AD
G. Gulo of the Dale
- Member for
- 1 year 37 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 1 day ago||To be fair...||
... It could be the owner of the site's mom.
|1 week 3 days ago||Or...||
|2 weeks 39 min 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.
|2 weeks 1 hour 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.
|2 weeks 4 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.
|2 weeks 16 hours 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.
|2 weeks 16 hours 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.
|2 weeks 19 hours 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.
|2 weeks 5 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.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Hey, man,||
... He's just giving 110% (in case you've ever wondered how to do it).
|11 weeks 1 hour 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.
|11 weeks 5 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.
|12 weeks 23 hours 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.
|12 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.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Worst kick return blocking...||
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Deveon...||
... makin' popcorn.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||TEMPO!!!||
|14 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.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||I certainly not going to argue...||
... that Hoke's Michigan teams have played well on the road. While most college teams play worse on the road, we've had our share of head-scratching disappointments. Still, I'm not ready to draw a conclusion about his ability to win big games from his "entire career," because I think the data prior to Michigan is not very helpful. And, as this data pertains to his ability to win on the road, I think it's unhelpful because, when you are coaching in a lower-tier conference, you almost always play your best opponents on the road. In 2007, Hoke's Ball St. team had a slightly better record on the road (4-3), and all of their losses came at the hands of Big Ten teams--including the relatively famous near-miss (41-40) at Nebraska.
Hoke's record prior to UM suggests that he wasn't at, say, Meyer's level--which is exceedingly rarified territory. On the other hand, Youngstown St. wasn't magically transformed when Tressel began coaching and was still 4-7 his third year. Maybe, if Hoke had stayed at Ball St., and had two more years in which his team won double-digit games, we might think more highly of him (but maybe the success of his final year wouldn't have continued).
Anyway, I'll simply add that I don't think we were "bailed out" in last year's Notre Dame game. We played like the better team, and won by 11--despite Gardner's disastrous pick-six.
None of this changes the fact that Michigan needs to show improvement throughout this season, and Hoke needs more marquee victories.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Sure.||
I don't disagree with you. But I was simply responding to the claim that really good coaches don't lose games by thirty points. Like you, I don't think Hoke has had an "elite" win--although I don't think he had many realistic opportunities for an "elite" win prior to coming to Michigan (you're then entitled to say that's a case for not hiring him). I suspect that his best win is the 2011 victory over Nebraska--who was not an "elite" team but was a top-25 team--and we beat them 45-17.
Just out of curiousity, what games that he's coached at Michigan would have counted as elite wins (genuine question)? I'd say Alabama (2012), OSU (2012), MSU (2013), and OSU (2013). Perhaps South Carolina--but if we beat them then they end up dropping in the polls and aren't that different than beating Nebraska. I guess you could also say ND (2012), given how they finished, although they didn't feel "elite" to me while we were playing them--they felt more or less similar to the team we beat the year before and the year after. To be honest, OSU's 2012 team didn't impress me much more than the 2011 team that got healthier at the end of the year under Fickell, although beating the 2012 team on the road still would have been a huge victory.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Since you asked...||
"What elite coach loses a game like that 31-0? When have you ever seen Tressel, Saban, or Urbs lose a game to a rival like that? Never."
I'm not taking sides here, but see Space Coyote's post from yesterday: http://mgoblog.com:8080/content/mailbag-all-coach-dissatisfaction-you-ca....
I'll excerpt part of it for convenience:
"Urban Meyer lost 31-3 to Alabama. Urban Meyer lost 31-6 (never scored a TD) to Alabama in his 6th year. Urban Meyer lost 31-7 to FSU in his 6th year. ..."
"Nick Saban lost 41-9 to Florida. He lost 44-15 at home his second year. Nick Saban lost 26-8 @ VT, 31-7 @ Auburn, 31-0 @ Bama in his third year at LSU. Nick Saban lost 45-16 his fifth year at LSU."
We can of course debate whether ND is as good as any of the above teams that beat Meyer and Saban, but there's some context.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Nailed it.||
|15 weeks 1 day ago||I'm going to assume...||
... one of them is USC?
Probably couldn't come up with the second without looking.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||+1 Insightful.||
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Absolutely true.||
I was simply making the observation that the poster in question (in all likelihood) meant to use the expression "cheer lustily" (i.e., "vigorously"). Even "lustily" can imply "sexual lust," although this denotation is more remote within the "semantic field" of "lustily" and more proximate within the semantic field of "lustfully."
I don't know why I just wrote any of this on a sports blog--except that it's a Michigan sports blog (fergodsakes).
|15 weeks 3 days ago||I've never played the role of "diction nazi" before...||
... and you're one of my favorite posters, but I need to insist that you not cheer "lustfully" for OSU to lose. Unless, Ohio State losing is actually a sexual thing for you. ;-)
Anyway, "God willing," I'll be with you in 2022 cheering lustily against the Buckeyes.
|18 weeks 6 days ago||I generally agree...||
... I will say, however, that the Kalis situation is especially vexing, not simply because of his high recruiting ranking but because, from what I recall, the "already college-ready" tag was being attached to him when he was in high school. Obviously, the OL position has a steep learning curve, but given more general worries about player development on the OL, Kalis is a bit more of a potential red flag; as has been stated, his problem could be more of a mental/learning issue, which could be reconcilable with him consistently pancaking opposing high school players and showing solid technique in more limited schemes. Moreover, to state the obvious, we really need him, in particular, to live up to his initial billing--at least for the present season. It's a little easier to shrug off, say, Dymonte's apparently slower-than-expected progress, since other (sometimes less touted) players are picking up the slack. I suspect your "whether they move the ball" is pointing in this direction.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||Message for Brandon:||
|19 weeks 2 days ago||No problem...||
... and thanks for taking my comment as the light-hearted ribbing that it was meant to be.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||He aims to bring much needed discipline...||
Players will be abiding by the mantra, "It's Tim's way or the Hardway."
I mean, I'm assuming he did legally change his last name just for the sake of this cheap motivational tactic, right?