spoiler alert: i linked this
- Member for
- 6 years 40 weeks
|6 years 7 weeks ago||McCamey isn't going anywhere.||
McCamey isn't going anywhere. His relationship with Weber has been up and down but its nowhere near Harris and Beilein levels. He's still in an NBA or bust mindset according to everyone around him. Harris is looking to get out, even if it means going D-League.
As for the other examples, you think Lucas is going, except for that he really has no incentive to go. Purdue returns two of their top three players for sure, may return Johnson as well, and they were a top five team before Hummel was injured. LewJack will also be around the entire season. OSU loses Turner but is getting a monster recruiting class. Minnesota loses no one particularly special and will get their point guard back from ineligibility. Northwestern gets back their best player. Illinois returns everyone and will be on their second top-10 recruiting class in a row.
And, although I hate to repeat myself, Michigan's recruiting class just isn't that good. You guys sound like Michigan State football fans when you try puffing it up. It's definitely a better class than what you've been getting, but even if you get Zeigler (which you're won't) it would still be behind OSU, MSU, Illinois and Purdue.
Michigan was a two man team this year. They will lose both players. If you want to read improvement into that, by all means go ahead. I'm just looking forward to the threads in 2011 when Michigan is 11-19 (5-13) and people are angrily calling out the haters for all the pessimism.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||It's true: Brian Cook runs||
It's true: Brian Cook runs the best blog in the Big 10. I'd read it if it were an Iowa blog or a Wisconsin blog or whatever.
It's just fun to watch the hive mindset kick in after every bad event. A little bit of trolling helps bring unpopular opinions to the foreground. The Michigan fans won't say them because they don't want to be negged. I don't mind.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Yes, truly I have been||
Yes, truly I have been schooled. By misspelling a name, you have proven everything I said incorrect.
In about a month you'll start seeing the first projections for 2011. Also in about a month you're also going to see dozens of butthurt threads about how nobody has any respect for Michigan or Beilein the Magnificent. I'm sure they'll be wrong too.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Except for that it's not||
Except for that it's not going to be four returning starters, it's going to be three. And the two starters you are losing are the only two players you had this year that could have played for MSU, OSU, Wisconsin, etc. Douglas, Novak, and Lucas-Perry are Iowa-level talent. Morris may develop into a better player than that, but hasn't yet. And none of the players you have coming in are game changers as freshmen. They're decent players that might develop in time.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Sorry FRIEND. I'm doing||
Sorry FRIEND. I'm doing multiple things at once and flubbed the name. Clearly that means Michigan is tournament bound next year.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||You are right. Returning||
You are right. Returning starters, experience, and recruiting classes don't matter in college basketball. I was blind and now I see.
Although I should point out that your statement reflects rather poorly upon Supreme Basketball Tactician Beilein.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Well, since Sims is a senior||
Well, since Sims is a senior that's pretty easy.
As for Harris, the fact that he an Beilein don't get along is the worst kept secret in Big 10 basketball. I'm certainly not the only one who things he's splitting (see: Cook, Brian).
Draymar Morgan has been a huge disappointment for MSU. Losing him isn't that big of a deal. Lucas might split but it's highly doubtful.
|6 years 7 weeks ago||Eight of the eleven teams in||
Eight of the eleven teams in the Big 10 will be better next year than this year.
MSU loses no one important and gets a top 10 recruiting class nationally
Purdue loses no seniors (though Johnson may declare) and gains a top 25 recruiting class. Hummel and Moore will be seniors.
Illinois loses no one, was starting two freshman for most of the season, and adds a top 10 national recruiting class
Minnesota's best players, minus Westbrook, return and their strength is on the inside, where they are still young. Al Nolen will likely return as well.
Northwestern will get back Coble from injury, and Juice Crawford is only a freshman.
Indiana was extremely young this year, and their monster class enters their sophomore season.
Iowa was also extremely young. They'll improve, though they'll still be bad.
Penn State returns Battle for his senior season
That leaves OSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan. OSU loses Turner but will get one of the top three recruiting classes in the country. Wisconsin loses Hughes and probably Leuer, but they always seem to reload and never miss the tournament. Even if both are worse next year, history says they won't be much worse.
Michigan will lose their best player (Sims), their second best player will probably declare because he can't stand the coach, and they're bringing in -- at best -- the fifth best recruiting class in the conference.
Plus, Michigan missed two potential losses on the schedule, playing Purdue only once and not traveling to Champaign.
Even without taking their opposition into account, Michigan will be noticeably worse next year. Compared to the rest of the Big 10, Michigan will substantially regress.
|6 years 9 weeks ago||Mgoblog: come for the||
Mgoblog: come for the irrational coaching exuberance, stay for the witty repartee
|6 years 9 weeks ago||"Tubby Smith hasn't done shit||
"Tubby Smith hasn't done shit at Minnesota. They got knocked out of the tourney in the first round last year, didn't make it his first year, and aren't going to make it this year."
Thank God you won that game against Clemson, or else that comment starts to hit a little close to home, no?
|6 years 9 weeks ago||At least now you guys are||
At least now you guys are underperforming ethically.
Tommy Amaker never could have gotten this team onto the CBI bubble.
|6 years 9 weeks ago||Tubby has had the better||
Tubby has had the better record so far, but Beilein will probably do better when the two NBA talents he didn't recruit leave and he's left with three starters that wouldn't ever see the court for 7 of the ten other conference teams and the 6th best recruiting class in the Big 10.
|6 years 10 weeks ago||In a word, no||
Illinois is still on the bubble and needs to win two more regular season games to be safe. That would put them at 11-7, 18-12 with wins over Vanderbilt, and Clemson at Littlejohn OOC. If Illinois goes 10-8 they're probably out, even with two good OOC wins.
If Michigan goes 4-1 in conference, they'll have the exact same record as Illinois (actually, they'll be 17-12 instead of 18-12 because one of their wins doesn't count, but that's not a huge difference) but with a signature OOC win over Connecticut, who definitely isn't making the tournament.
In other words, Michigan would need to go 4-1 in the last five just to get to a point slightly behind an Illinois team that probably wouldn't make the tournament at 10-8. That's ignoring the fact that Michigan's conference wins at this point are Iowa twice, Penn State, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio State without Evan Turner, so 4-1 is wildly optimistic.
And the committee is explicitly downplaying the role of conference tournaments in selection decisions, so outside of winning the thing outright or a performance that involves ripping through two of the heavy hitters, probably neither Illinois or Michigan would get in at 10-8.
|6 years 34 weeks ago||http://smartfootball.blogspot||
Also, Michigan's offense in 2009 looks a lot more like Walker's offense in 2000 than Rodriguez's in 2000. Go watch the old Tulane tapes if you don't believe me. Some of you people act like RichRod split the atom.
|6 years 34 weeks ago||Actually, you have that||
Actually, you have that backwards.
|6 years 34 weeks ago||FO generally does good work...||
but their college stuff is absolutely awful. Their projections are based almost entirely on record over the past five years. The rationale is that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams stay bad, which is probably generally true in college football, and certainly has some extremely broad predictative value, but leads to ridiculousness on an individual level like "Boston College is the 14th best team in the country in 2009".
|6 years 38 weeks ago||Yes, and yes. Most of the||
Yes, and yes. Most of the schools in the Big 10 have higher standards than the NCAA bar.
|6 years 38 weeks ago||There's actually a sliding||
There's actually a sliding scale, where the higher your GPA, the lower your ACT has to be. But there are multiple "clearinghouses", so to speak. There's the GPA/ACT restriction which you mentioned, but you also have to have your diploma. My guess is that Turner isn't officially a graduate until the test is passed. Also, individual schools can set higher (though not lower) bars. Most of the Big 10 schools (usually by dictate outside of the athletics departments) have higher standards than the baselines set by the NCAA.
|6 years 38 weeks ago||I think you're right about||
I think you're right about everything you said there. The process is just much more subtle. The one thing that I'd point out is that the books tend to move together because the lines (mostly) come from the same consortium, and because there's no value from being the one oddball in the group. If every book on the strip has Rice -4, -110 and I have them -3.5, -110, the only people who will bet on the Rice game at my casino will be betting one side. There's no value in sticking out.
And hey, maybe you guys clean up every season. I'm sure some do- I have seen it. But it's rare, and I think everyone overestimates how good they are and how easy it is. I suffered several years of losing before I learned that.
|6 years 38 weeks ago||"The only thing I can add to||
"The only thing I can add to those reading this diary is dont over analyze what Vegas or the oddsmakers want you to do. They want one thing, for you to lose. I believe that Vegas both wants to set lines for even money, but also has their eyes set on games they can trap a bunch of one sided action and rake."
This is the credited response.
|6 years 38 weeks ago||Almost everything you said||
Almost everything you said was wrong.
1.) Not true, and the longer you study line databases, the more you come to appreciate just how consistently right the books are. These are the guys with a vested interest in getting things right. Over the long haul, they consistently do.
2.) Not true again, or at least not always true. If the books know they can set the line too far to one direction and still take in more of the money, they'll do so. So if they know that they'll still get %70 of the money at -24 for Florida, and they think the "true line" is -18, they'll leave it there. They might even move it to -23 or -22 before gameday. Different lines serve different purposes, and you need to learn how to read them.
3.) There's two ways to look at this. True, individual bettors are not smart. But bettors in the aggregate are very smart. Otherwise, why would money so often balance around a number which, over time, turns out to be the median of a bell curve of expectations for a given game? The median and mode score of all NFL games over the past twelve years with the line set at home team -3 is home team -3. Same with home team +3. Same with -7 and +7. That is truly remarkable, when you think about it.
But here's the thing: the unsophisticated people think they're sophisticated. This is the trap I see everyone else falling into here as well. I guarantee you that if we took 10 readers and had them pick ATS every Big 10 game this season, at least 8 would finish below 52%. You could run the same experiment with any 5 NCAA or NFL game per week, and you'll get the same result, and I don't care how sophisticated you think they are. Vegas will beat you. It's their job.
The other way to look at this is that the books don't care a whit about the $100 bettor. They care about the syndicate and whales that drop $500,000 a game. Their lines better be good for the whales, because if they're not, they're getting cleaned out. And those guys are sophisticated.
4.) Sports betting is winnable, but not by many. I don't care how much research you do. I've only met one person in my life that claimed to be a sharp, could do actual research, and come out ahead, and I've traveled in gambling circles for quite a while. More consistent- but still difficult- are people who do market analysis type plays. But that's not easy either.
I think your perception is skewed by knowing people who do this locally as bookies. They, by and large, get their lines from people who are thinking about something different entirely. Do bookies try to balance the action to come ahead? Of course- these are penny-ante players that don't have the capitalization or the know-how to play the way that the Vegas books do. It's just a different world in the big leagues.
Your point 6 is probably accurate, and I bet you could win a fair amount of money in the long run and bet every single game where your bookie gave you a two point advantage over where the Vegas lines are set. But that just speaks, ultimately, to the accuracy of the Vegas lines
|6 years 38 weeks ago||"If the lines were "shaded"||
"If the lines were "shaded" as you say the lines would not move as the money poured in."
They very often don't. It depends upon what purpose the line is serving. It's not altogether rare for 60%-70% of the money to come in on one side and the line to move in the other direction, encouraging even more action on one side. If you're a small time bookie, yeah, you want even action, because you don't have the capital to survive otherwise. If you're a Vegas book, you'll gamble, because you're privy to all sorts of information and expertise that the ordinary person isn't. It's a winning bet for them in the long run.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||That's a myth. Vegas lines||
That's a myth. Vegas lines tend to balance money most of the time only because they are the most accurate predictions available. If that weren't true, sharp bettors everywhere would be using their more accurate predictions to clean up on a yearly basis. That's not happening. Plus, there are a whole bunch of times that the Vegas books actively discourage balancing money, if they think they have a favorable line that's likely to play one way or another against square bettors. Think Notre Dame: especially in the 70s and 80s, Vegas would consistently shade Notre Dame a point off the true line, still take a majority ND money and win. If they wanted to balance the money, they could have.
I hear the misconception that the lines are just to balance action a lot, and I feel I need to uproot it. I've done hundreds of hours looking at NFL lines, and you quickly learn just how efficient betting lines are. At any given line, all games tend to assemble at a bell curve which peaks at the score. All games with home team -3 curve around that point, etc. Vegas really does a remarkable job, on the whole.
Now, lines are not destiny, of course. But these are the guys with a vested, monetary interest in getting things right, more than any analyst out there.
For the record, Michigan was -3 against Utah and -17.5 vs. Toledo.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||I didn't get my invite||
I didn't get my invite
|6 years 39 weeks ago||1.) The NCAA answer is that||
1.) The NCAA answer is that FSU got the Seminole tribe to agree while Illinois couldn't get the fig leaf. The more likely answer is that FSU is a major player in college athletics and Illini is a mid-tier power, so if you're going to show off your PC bonafides, best to do it where it won't hurt too badly. It's really a shame; the undergrad vote always ran about 70-30 for the chief, and in honesty, Chief Illiniwek and the 3-in-1 at halftime was one of the few distinctive things about Illinois football. Now we're just Purdue without the giant drum or train whistle, or (shudder) Indiana.
2.) I've read the site for a couple of years now. I read a lot of the Big 10 sites, but most of them stink, and this one is very good.
3.) 95% he's going pro.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||That's the million dollar||
That's the million dollar question about the schedule. I don't know how much I buy into momentum or any of that, but starting 1-4 (which is a little to realistic of a possibility) would be a major blow, even if the team could still be plausibly favored in the last seven games. Of course, the other side of that is that if the team starts 4-1 or (unlikely, of course) 5-0, they may run away with the Big 10. It'll be an interesting test case.
As for the mental toughness, there was a win against a decent Iowa team in there, so I'm not really sure. The only game I can really point to and say that it didn't seem like the team was completely into it was the Northwestern game, but then again, Northwestern was pretty decent last year, so maybe it was just a good defense.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||I actually know this one,||
I actually know this one, because it was bothering me once. It's a shortening of the phrase "have sand in your craw". I've heard the phrase "stuck in your craw" before, but this one must have died away, as did the shortened phrase "have sand", although, interestingly, a somewhat more, er, modern phrase has developed (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sand%20in%20your%20pussy). It means feisty or aggressive, something like playing with a chip on your shoulder. I guess other cliches have simply had more staying power.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||OK, that's your prerogative.||
OK, that's your prerogative. I find it hard to believe that a team that gave up 45 points to Illinois at home last year is going to hold them to two TDs, but hey, that's what makes preseason predictions fun.
I think MSU is going to be very, very disappointing this year.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||I didn't know it was possible||
I didn't know it was possible to hate Minnesota. They are the team I invariably forget when trying to count the 11 teams in the Big 10.
As for the Illinois/Michigan "rivalry", I don't know if it's really even considered much of a rivalry at Illinois anymore. There is a lot of hatred of Bo Schembechler for reasons too arcane to go into here. A lot of Illinois fans think they were screwed in 2000 as well. Most of that is water under the bridge though.
I will say that (speaking in generalities) the Michigan fans that travel to Illinois games have, overall, been douchier than most team fans. That seems to be a general consensus amongst most people I've talked to. The odd part is that people were very nice the one time I went up to Ann Arbor, but Michigan fans carry that reputation on a lot of campuses. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's true of all Michigan fans, and every team has their jerk fans (I sat in front of 4 of the most obnoxious people I've ever met at the Illinois/Northwestern game last year, and they were Illini fans).
If you were to ask most Illinois fans who they most want to beat year in and year out, you'd probably hear Iowa more than anyone else, partly once again because of the fanbase, and partly because of some bad history between the two programs.
|6 years 39 weeks ago||I'm just not buying into Penn||
I'm just not buying into Penn State this year. The WRs made that offense run, and they're gone. Not a huge fan of Darryl Clark, and PSU is in the same one-injury-and-they're-toast situation OSU is in. The back end of the defense might be scary bad too.
They'll probably win 9 games because they didn't schedule anyone, but I think they go 5-3 or 4-4 in conference play. PSU will be better than Michigan to start the season, but by the end of the year the gap will be closed (or in the other direction).