Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
- Member for
- 4 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 hours 36 sec ago||Props to Brian for||
Props to Brian for (hopefully) killing the "Good Ol' Boy" theory for "why we still have Funk". Funk is a relatively recent addition to Hoke's crew, as was Borges, and Hoke has had plenty of turnover on the staff at his previous stops. So the idea that he'd overlook their flaws out of some misplaced loyalty was always odd, or at least unsupportable. For better or worse, Funk is on the staff because Hoke believes him to be better or at least as good as any available alternatives.
|23 hours 9 min ago||Pure offense? Probably||
Pure offense? Probably Ovechkin, or at least it's damn close. All around player, in terms of pure skill? Possibly Datsyuk. That guy makes magic with the puck on his stick, and actually hustles back on defense too.
Crosby's pretty clearly in the top 5 players in the NHL right now, had a fantastic season, and that's not arguable.
|23 hours 19 min ago||Well, he was The Captain for||
Well, he was The Captain for 23 seasons, serving longer than any other captain in North American major league sports history.
He actually holds the record for 3rd most points scored in a season (155, bettered only by Lemieux and Gretzky).
He would have likely won many more individual accolades had Scotty Bowman not made him focus on his leadership and defensive game (and had he not been playing with Sergei Federov in his prime).
I don't think there's a player out there that would trade a Cup for a Hart trophy, so those three Stanley's loom large for Yzerman.
Also Sidney's grown up a bit, but he WAS pretty damn whiny (as voted by other players, even), and had a bad habit of laying cheap shots and diving. He's clearly immensely talented. But he stole a gold medal from USA and a cup from the Red Wings, so to hell with the bastard.
|1 day 9 hours ago||I didn't see a lot of||
I didn't see a lot of complaining about it being simple, although Brian noted that it probably will be. I personally expect the offense to be a little more simple than ideal, and often frustrating because of that, with the understanding that doing a few things pretty well is better than doing too many things not well at all.
The complaints I saw in this post are more geared toward the choice of personnel and formations, which seems valid. It appears that our TEs are well behind the WRs in terms of both raw talent and skill (and, seeing as we're somewhat desperately plugging in Heitzman and Houma, that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future). Even if that's not the long term plan, it seems odd to emphasize the weaker group at the expense of the stronger.
Maybe for the spring game they just wanted to focus on the run, but if we're going to need to operate out of heavy formations just to get a couple yards at a go, the running game is going to be really painful to watch - and pass pro is going to be scary.
|3 days 2 hours ago||No it won't, not for more||
No it won't, not for more than a couple years anyway. Calipari will still be sending 5 guys to the NBA, they'll just be sophpmores. He'll still have room for 5 new NBA ready guys every year. If anything it would free him up to consider more guys with high potential who need a year of seasoning.
|3 days 4 hours ago||This strikes me as right. A||
This strikes me as right. A Hoke knowing this was coming, not wanting Gibbons playing, but wanting to keep it quiet would probably have sat him earlier. A "win at all costs" Hoke wouldn't have sat him at all (at least until he was actually expelled). A "wait and let the investigation complete" Hoke would probably do the same.
I just don't see the line of reasoning that says, "I am worried enough about the outcome of this investigation to suspend Gibbons proactively, but not worried enough about being caught in a lie to tell even a partial truth about it. So I am going to voluntarily sit Gibbons for the biggest game of the year, lie about the reason why, then change to a totally different lie right before the bowl game".
|3 days 4 hours ago||As far as I'm aware, "public||
As far as I'm aware, "public shaming" is not part of the OSCR dictated punishment. So no, I don't think we necessarily have the right to know. And given the severity of what he was accused of, but the lack of a formal legal investigation, maybe "expel him, but do it quietly" really is the best approach, I don't know.
In any case, Gibbons was not formally informed his expulsion was finalized until at least December 19th, well after the Ohio game. It seems odd that Hoke would punish him, but not tell anyone he was being punished, even vaguely. If he was trying to cover it up, why sit him at all? Why change the story for the bowl game? Wouldn't a coach trying to cover it up just let him keep playing? Or at least maintain the injury story?
Several other players have had serious, potentially embarassing legal issues that caused them to miss games. As far as I know, Hoke has never claimed a fake injury to cover it up. It's always been "violation of team rules" or "he's not playing, that's all I have to say about it". Those taking the "Hoke was bad" line here don't seem to have a plausible reason for why Hoke changed his MO for this one particular case.
|3 days 4 hours ago||Eh, the problem with minimum||
Eh, the problem with minimum age rules are that there definitely are kids who are ready to go. You're doing them (and other kids who could use the scholly) no favors by forcing them to "play school".
I do think the "one and done" age limit is particularly dumb though. If you're going to have a limit, it should be three years a la football. Maybe the best would be "enter the draft or D-league your first year out of high school, or at least three years after". But that seems unworkable and the NBA has no incentive to do it.
|3 days 4 hours ago||Last year, I think they were||
Last year, I think they were more of a package deal. This year, I doubt it. It seemed like Mitch was more of the driver between the two staying last year. If I'm Mitch, how has this year changed the analysis I ran last year? Any reasons he had to stay then are equally valid now. This doesn't mean he stays, I just don't see an obvious reason for him to stay last year, then leave now. If he stays, he's really going to feature next season.
For Glenn, he sees his stock fallen a bit, probably another season playing in a non-ideal position, and no guarantee he gets that stock back next year. Plus he's always seemed more like he's got one foot out the door (nothing wrong with that, the guy's got NBA dreams and he's earned them).
|3 days 7 hours ago||Four days is a blink of an||
Four days is a blink of an eye in your typical large bureaucracy especially near a holiday, and Dec 19 is just the date the letter was generated. It's entirely plausible that Gibbons got the letter, told Hoke "I can't travel, it's a family thing" and Hoke was not given word through any official channels prior to the press conference.
|3 days 9 hours ago||I don't believe Gibbons had||
I don't believe Gibbons had been officially expelled by the time Hoke made the "family matters" statement. I just want to make sure we don't entrench a misconception that Hoke not only (may have known) that Gibbons was under investigation, but actually knew he would definitely never be coming back.
|6 days 2 hours ago||"In contention in November"||
"In contention in November" is kind of a dumb standard anyway, since it is highly dependent on scheduling and which B1G teams happen to be good that year.
|6 days 9 hours ago||Former players aren't who I||
Former players aren't who I had in mind, it's just an example that was posed to me. I'm more thinking about the guys giving $500 hand shakes. Since their whole purpose is generally to buy access to the program and players, the prospect of being cut off from that access would be a powerful stick. These are rich superfans who want to rub shoulders with the athletes - they aren't going to do something that threatens their ability to keep doing that.
|6 days 10 hours ago||So your point was more||
So your point was more nuanced. But so was the poster you were responding to so flippantly. You may not see hundreds of drugged out kids on the field, but the football team alone does have multiple drug and alcohol related offenses almost every year, and those are just the ones we know about because the law got involved or the punishment rose to suspension.
|1 week 1 hour ago||It seems that you are||
It seems that you are defining "compel" too narrowly. You don't think Michigan telling Desmond, "please cooperate with this investigation, or we have to give you the Chris Webber treatment" would be at all compelling?
|1 week 2 hours ago||I feel the same way about his||
I feel the same way about his character. The best satire is willing to skewer everybody, an it's hard to do that when your whole central character is built as an exaggerated parody of one side. It just doesn't hold up for a long time.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Ferguson is the best||
Ferguson is the best interviewer of the bunch, I'd say. He would have been a good, but not splashy, pick. Haven't seen Colbert do an interview that's not a set up for whatever character Colbert is playing at the time, so it will be interesting to see how he does.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Sudden access to liquid cash||
Sudden access to liquid cash never ends badly.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Yeah, because giving an 18||
Yeah, because giving an 18 year old male sudden access to
|1 week 3 hours ago||Young adults often do stupid||
Young adults often do stupid shit when they suddenly have no-strings-attached access to large quantities of cash. Often this stupid shit involves drugs and booze, which in turn reduce inhibitions to do other stupid shit, from jumping on car hoods to sexual assault. All of this is known, and equally true regardless of what color you are, and it's understandable that coaches would probably prefer their players to not be carrying big stacks of cash for that reason. Maybe a bit paternalistic, but not racist.
|1 week 3 hours ago||Why, in principle, can't the||
Why, in principle, can't the NCAA compel someone to speak? They can't subpoena them, but they could certainly say, UofX, we have determined this person qualifies as a booster, and we have reason to believe they are breaking the rules. Either the booster shows up to talk to us on date Z, or we punish UofX with Y. If we later find proof that the booster lied to us, punishment is doubled.
|1 week 3 hours ago||In the QB controversy thread,||
In the QB controversy thread, someone asked why we can't ever have an honest conversation about race. This is why. Inevitably, no matter how good the initial intention, someone shows up to turn "conversation" into "shut up while I lecture you, you racist".
|1 week 1 day ago||I definitely see Urban as a||
I definitely see Urban as a #2. At least 80 Courics, I'd reckon.
|1 week 1 day ago||I don't think many (some, but||
I don't think many (some, but not that many) people are honestly arguing that Hoke couldn't coach high school or that they could literally jump in and do a better job. But while it's inconceivable that Hoke is stupid and incompetent compared to the average football fan, it's entirely plausible that he's "stupid and incompetent" relative to the average FBS AQ coach (and I think that's what is usually meant).
|1 week 2 days ago||So, in your opinion, no coach||
So, in your opinion, no coach should ever do anything for the benefit of the patrons. Guess the Nebraska guys are real schmoes for letting some sick little kid cut into their practice time. And Meyer and Saban are real idiots for putting on more entertaining spring games (and then beating us in the fall despite giving up such a key practice).
|1 week 2 days ago||At this point I'm reasonably||
At this point I'm reasonably convinced Brian talks up Norfleet at least in part to provoke a response. He is trolling.
|1 week 2 days ago||If a Spring Game is really||
If a Spring Game is really detrimental to the team, don't have it at all. Just say, sorry everybody, we really need to focus on practice, so there will be no public practice.
|1 week 2 days ago||Plus it's not like Bellomy||
Plus it's not like Bellomy was a prime option A target the way Morris and Speight were. He was a late addition picked up mostly to plug a body into a hole in the roster. Anything we get out of him is a bonus.
|1 week 2 days ago||Yes, non fans would say Final||
Yes, non fans would say Final Four is better, but that's because they ignore the whole season outside the tournament. If you're following your team the whole year, the regular season gains importance.
And it's not like Michigan underachieved in the tournament or anything. Would have loved to see them win 3 more games, but losing in the Elite 8, given our expectations going into the season is still a great outcome.
|1 week 2 days ago||I can see your last point,||
I can see your last point, but losing in the Elite 8 is hardly a flameout. To me, two things make Michigan's season better:
1) Regular season banner means beating your rivals throughout the year - that's really fun to watch, and a regular season win over Sparty will be remembered longer than your average tourney win over a team you rarely play.
2) Final 4 is great, but what's so magic about getting bounced in the semi finals vs. quarter finals? You're still not playing on the last day of the season. Not saying it's not a major achievement, but it's not an "automatically trumps everything else" achievement.
3) Wisconsin had a really, really rough stretch in midseason. That had to be tough on a fan. Michigan was pretty rough around the edges to start the season but you got to watch them grow into a really dominant offensive team, and win consistently. There were no stretches of despair once conference play started. As a fan, I'd say Michigan's season was more fun to watch.