- Member for
- 5 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 hour 40 min ago||Relates directly to the issue||
Relates directly to the issue at hand. Without the expectation that universities handle sexual assault cases internally, the victim in this case doesn't sue the school and Oregon has no reason to go digging in her private counseling records. This only happens because Oregon is being expected to be both her health provider and her legal protector from assault, creating the conflicting interests.
|1 hour 49 min ago||Yes. OCR has recently||
Yes. OCR has recently (current administration) pushed hard on an interpretation of Title IX that requires every institution to adjudicate sexual assault accusations, and sets certain standards for punishments and standards of evidence. Look up the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter for more information.
|5 hours 1 min ago||Honestly this is just one||
Honestly this is just one more reason why universities shouldn't be adjudicating felony accusations. They aren't equipped for it, there's too much conflict of interest (in ways that can hose both accuser and accused), and they generally do a lousy job of it. Now this comes up, and it's clear that even the laws aren't equipped properly for universities to handle this. Something serious enough to be a crime should be an issue for the police and courts, and no one else. If universities want to offer counseling, or temporarily separate accuser from accused while the justice system works it out, fine, but anything else is going to create way too many sad cases like this.
|1 day 7 hours ago||I still don't think you can||
I still don't think you can call Norfleet overrated on this list, given that the point of the "27 tickets" is to rank who is most likely to contribute, not who is the best player.
Somebody is going to play at slot receiver and kick returner - given that Norfleet was the starter in both positions last year competing against the same guys, I don't see who else you'd put ahead of him in that role. Maybe Peppers passes him at punt returner, but unless Canteen blows up I think we still see Norfleet with a lot of PT.
|1 day 12 hours ago||Beilein can't fix the lack of||
Beilein can't fix the lack of depth this season. But he could adjust the two-foul policy to accommodate the lack of depth, so it's a fair criticism. You don't win a game like this one without taking some risks - keeping MAAR on the floor seems a risk worth at least some consideration.
|1 day 12 hours ago||But we wouldn't lose him for||
But we wouldn't lose him for the last 10 minutes! Maybe the last five, if we'd played him the whole first half. So you're trading ten minutes in the first for five minutes in the second, which seems bad.
|1 day 12 hours ago||Sorry, you're right. It was||
Sorry, you're right. It was the vastly superior Sean Lonergan who got 11 minutes.
|2 days 22 hours ago||So instead it's better to sit||
So instead it's better to sit your best players for 10 minutes in the first half, so the game gets out of reach before the final 10. That makes perfect sense!
|2 days 22 hours ago||If going after MAAR to make||
If going after MAAR to make him foul is bad strategy in the second half because it takes you out of the offense, it's still bad strategy in the first half. The only thing that makes it reasonable in the first is the willingness of most coaches to bench players with two or three fouls.
|2 days 22 hours ago||Uh, except that Dakich played||
Uh, except that Dakich played the last 10 minutes, and MAAR finished with 3 fouls. Think I would have rather played MAAR for a few more min in the first half.
|2 days 22 hours ago||So now every player who picks||
So now every player who picks up a foul, whether a good one or not, starts defending at half aggression for the rest of the half.
|3 days 3 hours ago||So we sit MAAR and Izzo goes||
So we sit MAAR and Izzo goes after the walk-on we send out to replace him instead. That doesn't seem like an improvement.
|3 days 3 hours ago||So instead opposing coaches||
So instead opposing coaches tell their players to go hard after MAAR after his FIRST foul because they know Beilein will auto-bench him and Michigan is much worse without him. How is that better?
|5 days 8 hours ago||I mean, other than the helmet||
I mean, other than the helmet wings those look nothing like the football uniforms. The key element of the home football uniform is solid blue top, solid maize pants - that could be interesting as a basketball jersey, though contrasting pants is really a football only thing (not just at michigan)
|1 week 5 hours ago||I don't even think the clip||
I don't even think the clip is that different - before a larger chunk of the clip was under the cage. Probably depends on the angle of photo too.
|1 week 12 hours ago||What gets me is how many of||
What gets me is how many of them clearly aren't selfies, and yet he still stamps that damn watermark on all of them like they're his work. Like, he wants to be a photographer but he's too much of a damn narcissist to stay behind the damn camera. Peak douchenozzle.
|1 week 1 day ago||Just chrome 'em and cover 'em||
Just chrome 'em and cover 'em with Lisa Frank stickers, amirite?
|1 week 1 day ago||I mean, worst case is that||
I mean, worst case is that this effectively makes the face value of total ticket package (for resale purposes) $75 less. So maybe it makes the "buy tix and sell them even though I won't go to any games" route less appealing for people who don't qualify for reduced price tickets. Which... actually seems like a plus. If you're just selling a marquee game or two to more-or-less break even on the whole package, I don't think this changes a whole lot.
|1 week 1 day ago||If your household income is||
If your household income is $20k and you're attending UofM, football tickets are a reach at any price. But $75 is nothing to sneeze at for a lot of students. Let's not crap on a good idea because you think it could be better.
|1 week 1 day ago||I see a bit more than a 40% difference.||
I see a bit more than a 40% difference.
|1 week 4 days ago||I feel like this should be||
I feel like this should be added to the OP. Might change your opinion, might not, but it's only fair to post the whole quote and not a snippet extracted to provoke maximum outrage.
|1 week 4 days ago||He can take responsibility||
He can take responsibility for putting himself in a bad position and reacting badly. That doesn't mean the woman involved didn't start the fight (which, according to her own statement, she apparently did).
Assuming she did initiate the physical violence, what would you expect him to say? I don't think he's obligated to lie to make himself look worse.
|1 week 4 days ago||I mean, that's not||
I mean, that's not inconsistent necessarily with "the woman involved started the physical phase of the altercation, and, barring her actions, no physical altercation would have taken place". Of course, and most importantly, "she started it" is not at all inconsistent with "Clark then took it too far".
All we have here is a tweet though, and, devoid of context, it's hard to draw the conclusion that Clark is an unremorseful victim-blamer that everyone seems to be leaping to. The last part about being surprised about his combine invite could be read as him at least recognizing that he did a bad thing. Would need to see the whole interview at a minimum.
|1 week 5 days ago||Cost of living may be vastly||
Cost of living may be vastly different, but a lot of things cost the same regardless of where you live. An iPad costs the same, a car costs (mostly) the same, a plane ticket costs the same, a brand name jacket costs the same. A family that makes $250k in a high cost area and a family that makes $80k in a lower cost area may have to spend the same percent of their income on "essentials" (food, housing, utilities), but if both can set aside 5% of their income for luxury consumer goods, the family with $250k will still be able to buy much more.
And that's where her tone grates - she may be choosing between Versace and European travel, but most "middle class" people don't get to choose either, at least not very often.
|1 week 6 days ago||I'm not sure where you're||
I'm not sure where you're going with that - the AD wasn't responsible for investigating, and the 2009 investigation didn't find Gibbons guilty of anything (that didn't happen until the case was reopened with changes to the standard of proof). Campus disciplinary proceedings aren't (and aren't supposed to be) public - I don't think it would have been appropriate for Martin to do anything about it publicly at the time.
And I think it's fair that Hoke/Brandon didn't do anything until Gibbons was found responsible, though it sounds like that was before the OSU game and certainly well before it was ultimately announced.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||"I would have much rather||
"I would have much rather lived with trying to stop Lynch than relying on a Hail Mary attempt against the Seattle secondary." How are the two mutually exclusive? If you think you can stop Lynch, call the TO - the Seahawks had plenty of time, and a TO, to run Lynch at least twice anyway if they wanted to. At worst calling the TO gives them one more chance to run where they'd otherwise need to pass. For that you trade significantly more time to respond if Seattle scores on the first or second try. All else equal, it seems like that favors the TO.
The "Belicheck liked what he saw and didn't want to give Seattle a chance to change their mind/get better organized" seems much more plausible and defensible.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||"maybe one year a walk-on||
"maybe one year a walk-on gets a scholarship and then the next year it is cut because the team took more kids"
That can already happen now. What about the yearly cap would make it substantially more likely? And it seems like the current move is toward mandatory 4 year scholarships, so that would fix the issue anyway.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Doesn't Seattle passing make||
Doesn't Seattle passing make MORE sense in the scenario where the Patriots don't call timeout and the clock winds down? Without a Pats TO, Seattle pretty much had to plan on calling at least one pass. Had the Pats called the TO, Seattle may have run the ball to burn more clock in case they didn't score.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Re: Walk-ons/transfers with a||
Re: Walk-ons/transfers with a per-year cap, I think #1 it won't be a huge issue because the "smart" move is to never give walk-ons scholarships anyway (the guy's already playing for you...), and yet coaches do because of the motivational and general not-being-evil benefits of it. Also, it's not like you see a vast number of non-scholarship players loading up the rosters of competitive teams in the current system.
But if it does become an issue, just declare that any non-scholarship player that participates in more than X games counts toward your 25 player cap for this season (if you signed less than 25 players) or towards next season's cap if you already signed 25. This would encourage coaches to "bank" a couple scholarships for walk-ons if they can't fill their class with likely contributors.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||So track isn't a sport,||
So track isn't a sport, because there's no defense? That's an odd definition...