further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
- Member for
- 5 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|35 min 3 sec ago||Well it's just that you're||
Well it's just that you're acting like some sort of sartorial authority on here and snarking at people who know less and how terrible "American males" dress, and yet you apparently don't even know the difference between a suit and a sport coat, which is sort of men's business wear 101.
|38 min 32 sec ago||"Slim" trousers on a guy with||
"Slim" trousers on a guy with big thighs (a lot of our football coaches) tend to look ridiculous. Well fitted, sure, but let's not go overboard. Jackets need to be tailored better - guys with big chests look super boxy if they don't bring those sides in. Drevno should probably lose a button too - looks like he's wearing a black cardboard box.
|47 min 33 sec ago||Does he not own suit hangars||
Does he not own suit hangars where the trousers hang with the coat? And he should at least know not to wear a sport coat with pants the look like they match in the dark. Then again, fitting any coat at all on that chest/torso can't be easy...
|51 min 52 sec ago||Can you imagine the horror DB||
Can you imagine the horror DB must have felt when he heard Harbaugh wears WalMart khakis? From a guy who considers JC Penney sport coats too low class?
|56 min 27 sec ago||Fine if you don't prefer it,||
Fine if you don't prefer it, but don't call it a "suit". Sport coats / blazers are SUPPOSED to be worn with contrasting pants.
|2 hours 16 min ago||It's not a suit, it's a sport||
It's not a suit, it's a sport coat, and that's the traditional way to wear it.
|1 day 25 min ago||It doesn't change the answer||
It doesn't change the answer to question 1, but shouldn't the NIT count as "making the postseason"? I'd argue that it should, if we're going to count all bowl games. Not sure the 2014 BWW Bowl is harder to reach than the NIT.
|1 day 18 hours 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 day 18 hours 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.
|1 day 21 hours 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.
|3 days 12 min 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.
|3 days 4 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.
|3 days 4 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.
|3 days 4 hours ago||Sorry, you're right. It was||
Sorry, you're right. It was the vastly superior Sean Lonergan who got 11 minutes.
|4 days 14 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!
|4 days 14 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.
|4 days 14 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.
|4 days 14 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.
|4 days 19 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.
|4 days 19 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?
|1 week 1 hour 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 1 day 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 2 days 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 2 days ago||Just chrome 'em and cover 'em||
Just chrome 'em and cover 'em with Lisa Frank stickers, amirite?
|1 week 3 days 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 3 days 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 3 days ago||I see a bit more than a 40% difference.||
I see a bit more than a 40% difference.
|1 week 5 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 5 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 6 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.