LIST OF WWE PERSONNEL?!?
- Member for
- 4 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|23 hours 15 min ago||Every offseason||
Every offseason fans of every school that changes S & C coaches says this same damn thing. To give just the exmaples from Michigan, people said it with Barwis while they bitched about Lloyd Carr giving everybody pizzas. They said it with Wellman while they bitched about Barwis. Now they'll say it about Tolbert and bitch about Wellman, even before a single game is played. And if Tolbert gets fired, they'll say it about the next guy while they bitch about Tolbert.
|23 hours 33 min ago||I'd rather do||
I'd rather do what maximized my expected minutes from my best player, whether or not those come in the first or second half. What makes you think that MAAR was going to foul out with five minutes left if he isn't benched after two fouls but Dakich only plays three minutes in the other situation? Do you think MAAR is somehow more likely to pick up fouls in the first half than in the second?
Why do you think 3 minutes at the end of the game is more important than 3 minutes at the start? That just seems like narrative trumping fact. The only argument I could see is that Dakich would play worse during the final 3 minutes compared to the opening 3 minutes because of nerves, or that MAAR would play better in the final 3 minutes than the first 3 minutes because of magic reverse nerves. I've seen anything to suggest that from either guy. But still, even if you accept that you have to weigh the improvement in play in the final minutes against the reduction in time played for your better. If MAAR was very foul prone, then maybe he needs to sit a lot of the first and second halves to save him for the final minutes when he (for some reason) plays better. But he's not. Unless you think Maryland "going after him" in the first half was going to vastly increase his expected rate of fouling, you should play him. After the fact, we can see that he only committed one foul going full tilt in the second half. Hence benching him was wrong in this game unless he would have picked up two fouls during the time he was benched. May be he would have, but it's very unlikely. So it looks like it was wrong to bench him.
|1 day 4 hours ago||Would you rather have MAAR||
Would you rather have MAAR playing soft defense and his usual offense or Andrew Dakich going full tilt? All due respect to Dakich, I will take the limited MAAR. The auto bench just ensures that the other team gets more time playing against Dakich. When the bench is this thin, you can't do it. Coach B is screwed because guys like Dakich have to play to keep the starters somewhat fresh, regardless of fouls, but his foul policy hurt him here.
|1 day 4 hours ago||I'm puzzled by this and||
I'm puzzled by this and MGoBender's response. Do points scored in the first half count less than those one the second half? Why wouldn't Izzo go after MAAR to start the second half to get him his third foul? It's not like Izzo has a magic foul wand that only works in the first half of the game. The idea that games aren't won in the first half is exactly the traditionalist argument that this blog and other game theory analytic people oppose. Points are points,regardless of when or how they are scored. This is no different than kneeling out the first half in football.
|4 days 1 hour ago||Interesting||
Interesting. I struggle to get that reading of Brian's piece, since he has no problem with cutting through nuance in other works. E.g., would the nuances of Frank Clark's case be best captured by calling Clark a "dog shit human being"? Because, ALTHOUGH I don't think it's fair to call Clark that, as a domestic abuser with little appreciation of the immorality of his actions he has a far greater claim to that description than some jackass CEO type who raised ticket prices. Maybe it's just an inconsistency between the pieces, but Brian seems more than happy to offer a full-throated moral assessment when someone has done bad things. You might think the difference between Brandon and Clark's issues is epistemic-- we just don't have enough info to judge Clark. But at this point that seems silly. We not only have evidence of what he did, but also that he doesn't appreciate the seriousness of what he did. Of course it's possible he comes to appreciate it, but it's also possible Brandon sees the light and recants all he's done to Michigan. Neither seems very likely.
|4 days 8 hours ago||Good Brian is around to||
Good Brian is around to chastise everyone for chastising Clark. I'm sure all his critics really regret what they said now that he's told his side of the story. /s. Seriously though, Clark's response in an interview setting with time to prep was terrible and screams repeat offender.
|1 week 7 hours ago||Here to take some negs. I've||
Here to take some negs. I've dumped on Chatman in game threads, but he played well in his limited time today. So now I take my medicine.
|1 week 8 hours ago||Don't worry guys, we got this in OT||
Don't worry guys, we got this in OT
|1 week 8 hours ago||1 3 1, in bounding fuck up,||
1 3 1, in bounding fuck up, please change the ending of this movie
|1 week 8 hours ago||Fucking 1 3 1||
Fucking 1 3 1
|1 week 4 days ago||For what||
I ask honestly, good motivation for what? The next game? The NIT? The players don't look unmotivated. They look young (in most cases) and not all that talented (in a few cases I won't mention by name). This loss didn't cost Michigan anything important, but I find it hard to believe Michigan gained anything by it either.
|1 week 4 days ago||You might be right||
You might be right, but it's a bit like rain your wedding day to see posters blame all this on injury and attrition when people absolutely shit on MSU for doing the same thing last year.
|1 week 5 days ago||At least this one||
At least this one isn't on the coaching. Team is vastly under-talented. MAAR, Dawkins, and Doyle should be much better next year, but if Caris leaves I worry we still won't have enough to compete for a Big Ten Title/Final Four. Hope he sticks around.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||You mean when he didn't go to the back court?||
On the 5 second call? That was a mistake, but it's inaccurate to say that was why they lost. Hell, if Irving makes one more 3 pointer Michigan wins but I don't think he lost the game for Michigan either. If they run a half decent inbounds at the end of regulation, they have at least a chance to win. If they don't go to the 1-3-1, they might have won. Anytime a team loses both the players and the coaches have a hand in it, but this loss was firmly on the coaching side of the spectrum.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||First time||
First time in a long while I've seen Michigan basketball get outcoached badly. It's a bummer.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I have a||
I have a hard time believing that Spike just threw a half-court bomb on his own accord. I suspect the play has that motion to the basket built into it with an option to throw it, but the coaching staff also has to prioritize the reads, just like you would do for a QB. Given that Spike thre that bomb pretty quickly, I would assume it was the first or second read and that's dumb-- it's too difficult of a throw and they had plenty of time. Maybe Spike just lost it, but given Michigan's constant struggles to inbound regardless of the inbounder, I think it is more likely a coaching problem.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Well||
He keep going to 1-3-1, including a variant with Spike playing the back 1, when it was getting shredded for 3s and Michigan had some success in man-to-man. He didn't draw up a decent inbound play and Michigan turned it over on a 5 sec call. He called TO with 30 seconds left which allowed the Illioni to orchestrate their fouling strategy and run the clock down to 4.5 seconds. This also forced Michigan to inbound the ball multiple times despite their being terrible at it. Finally, he drew up and ran an awful inbound play with 4.5 second left. He had the smallest player trying to inbound around the biggest opponent and called for Spike to throw a half court bomb to Dawkins.
Good coache sometimes have bad games. This was one of them for Coach B. The shitty thing is that the inbound problems are systemic. Whether they have 3 NBA draft picks on the floor or 5 walk-ons, Michigan struggles to inbound the ball under Beilein. They struggle inbounding from under the basket after a make, which is obscene because you can run the baseline, and they struggle after outbounds and foul calls.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Between starting Chatman and||
Between starting Chatman and the Hokeian level failures to inbounds, this isn't Beilin's finest hour.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Coach b getting outcoached here at the end.||
Coach b getting outcoached here at the end.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Maybe offensively. On defense he's way behind mentally.||
Maybe offensively. On defense he's way behind mentally.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Irvin is really busting his||
Irvin is really busting his ass on the defensive end. Starting Chatman shows how desperate Coach B is to get a working line given the injuries.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Rick Ross could be an unknown||
Rick Ross could be an unknown janitor and you still would have been literally ignorant of the reference. But please, keep bitching.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||A long overdue experiment. 35 is too long.||
A long overdue experiment. 35 is too long.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I'm pretty sure you're trolling||
I'm pretty sure you're trolling. You told me you thought "it was bullshit that you [me] think that . . ." but then you throw out a paragraph calling me a barabarian for not being civil when I said you were an "asshole." Whatever you need to do to feel smart, I guess.
I'll give substantive argument one last try here, but I suspect it's pointless. First off, Tom Brady was a good college quarterback, but not a great one. You're "we might have gone undefeated" claim is impossible to disprove, but the fact that Brady didn't win the job outright probably shows he wasn't great. Just to be clear, Brady in the NFL has been all-time great. But in college I don't think he was that much better a QB than Schilling was as a lineman.
It's not fair weather fandom to celebrate the success of alums. I said in my own post that I want Michigan alums to succeed. This holds for athletic and non-athletic endevours alike. If the Seahawks won, be glad for Schilling. If the Patriots won, be glad for Brady, Branch, and Gordon. That's fine, and why I apologized for posting this as a general response to WD. But it is fair weather fandom to root only for the alums who have been successful. It's fair weather fandom to root for Brady and the Pats but not for Woodson and the Raiders (or Packers in years past). It's fair weather fandom to root for Brady over Schilling just because Brady has already won more. Favor Brady because you like the Patriots, or like his hair better, or whatever. But don't pretend that Michigan fandom generates some reason to prefer him to Schilling. Would you rather see Steven Ross close a deal over a lesser known Michigan alum, just because he's Steven Ross?
It's one thing to be proud of people connected to your institution. It's another thing to hope for the success of some alums at the expense of other alums. I just don't see the grounds (with respect to Michigan) for rooting for Brady over Schilling in this Superbowl. Is it so you can say the greatest NFL QB ever when to Michigan? You could have said that before this game, and the same people who would have agreed would agree and the same people who would have disagreed would still disagree. There seems to be an equally strong reason the other way, in that Schililng winning one would have been another success a long line of Michigan O-linemen in the NFL.
To put it another way, if the only reason I have to like Brady and Schilling is that they went to Michigan (which happens to be true in my case), then I don't see how that reason weighs heavier for the one than the other. I suspect, as I said in my last post, people are inclined to think this favors the more successful alum, but that's because they like to root for a winner.
An interesting objection to my view is that Brady's accomplishment as starting QB is greater than Schillings as a back-up lineman, so we should root for Brady because his success would be a greater accomplishment. But this seems post-hoc. Prior to the game, one could be rooting for Schilling to get put into the starting line-up and play the game of his life, starting a dominant career, and then the accomplishments look similarily important.
Further, to be honest (an maybe this is the crux), I don't take much pride in alum accomplishments at all. I take pride in Michigan teams, because they are directly representing the university and feel a strong (perhaps irrational) connection to the university. Once that cord is cut, I would like to see them succeed, because I know they worked hard to represent the university. But I don't really take much pride in their successes in their careers, because the relationship between that success, the university, and myself becomes increasingly tenuous. E.g. for a football player, a successful draft is very closely tied to the quality of the university coaching and so on. A successful rookie year is less so, and so on until the university (my only connection to the player) is so distant that my taking any pride in the accomplishment seems silly. I'm already many degrees removed from the player as a non-coach and so on, ten years or whatever after his graduation I'm even further removed from him. I think pride in the actions of others requires a degree of personal closness, so once that's lost its over. So even if Brady's victory would be more worthy of pride (a greater success) than Schilling's, I don't take that as a reason to favor him.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Well, you're wrong.||
First off, I'm a Raiders fan, asshole. Second off, Schilling played multiple games this year. Thirdly, in college, you know, when they both actually played for the University of Michigan, both topped at honorable mention all Big Ten. It is some serious revisionary history to act like Brady was a great, Woodson-level, player when he was in college. He was a good QB, but truth be told, I'd much rather had Troy Smith than Tom Brady, because Smith was far better in college (just like Brady was light-years better as a pro).
?? I never said Schilling winning a ring would beneft UM's reputation as much as Brady doing so. Schilling winning would probably have no effect on U of M's reputation. But you're fucking kidding yourself if you think Brady's latest Super Bowl is going to help Michigan in any appreciable way. He's been an all time great QB for years and years, and Michigan's still been playing, in your words, "very forgettable football." When Michigan stops playing forgettable football, Tom Brady's latest Superbowl will have had nothing to do with it. Did Wisconsin have a QB recruiting bonanza after Wilson won a title? Has Purdue dominated on the wings of Drew Brees? Has Aaron Rodgers raised Cal to national prominence? I mean really. Having successful pro-players helps a colllege program's reputation, but there is a limit to how much a single successful individual can help.
I like to see Michigan alums be successful, so I don't want to sound like I'm dumping on Brady. But Michigan doesn't get any magical NCAA title for producing a great NFL QB. Just like I don't think the lack of any OSU QB with a Superbowl ring has hurt them at all, I don't think Brady getting yet another ring helps Michigan in any significant way. I think we, as a fanbase, should be much more concerned with a Michigan QB winning a college title instead of vicariously winning a Superbowl.
What happens is this: People like rooting for winners, and Brady is a incredible winner. So Michigan fans latch on to him, in part because he's an alum, but in part because he's been successful. The more he wins, the more Michigan fans want to associate him with program, i.e. the more they cast him as the embodiment of the Michigan Man ideal. It's simple fair weather fandom, Brady winning yet another SuperBowl doesn't make him any more representative of the university. He's no more respresenative than Michigan than Schilling. You just want to see him that way because he is more successful. But Michigan football produces NFL stars and guys who never play in the league, and they are all representative of the program. A guy like Martavious Odoms is just as much a part of the tradition as Tom Brady. It's sad that Michigan fan's take more pride in the success of the one instead of the other, simply because the one is more successful.
|4 weeks 6 min ago||Yeah,||
I apologize for posting this as direct response. I should have said, that I don't see anything wrong with congratulating the Michigan players on the winning team. I was more upset by the "fuck the Seahawks," "Tom Brady= Michigan Man," and so on later in the thread. The initial post was fine.
|4 weeks 19 min ago||Because everyone was nutting||
Because everyone was nutting themselves over Brady and the Pats representing Michigan, but no one seemed to care that Michigan alums were on both teams. Acting like this was somehow a victory for Michigan Men overlooks the fact that Steve Schilling plays for Seattle. I don't care if people want to root for the Pats, if that's your team, congratulations. But to act like they somehow represent the U of M football more so than the dozens of teams with Michigan players strikes me as bullshit.
|4 weeks 28 min ago||Guess we stopped caring about||
Guess we stopped caring about Schilling, eh? Because he's less of a Michigan man than Tom, somehow.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Okay.||
First off, it was a bad foul because he was badly beaten. Second, to answer your question, hHe was dramatically out of position on a corner three later in the second half by Wisconsin. I don't know why you think you have to physically in attendance to see that. I also don't know what meme I'm beating to death. The one that claims Chatman is not very good? I hope he ends up great, but he looks completely lost.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Yes there is, and he is a||
Yes there is, and he is a terrible defender. He commits awful fouls like the hold on Kamisky in OT. He is not good.