This concept that bone adapts to pressure, or a lack of it, is known as Wolff’s law. . .
But this adaptive measure goes only so far. Despite one misconception, there is no evidence that a bone that breaks will heal to be stronger than it was before . . .
Dr. Amaral said that in studies in which healed bones were subjected to bending and twisting forces, the repaired bones were capable of breaking anywhere, including the fracture site. “They never comment that it’s stronger or weaker than the rest of the bone,” he said.
Sam Webb stated that Brown was basically Jay Harbaugh's understudy the last couple years, and so he may be asked to help coach the secondary along with his special teams duties. Jay, of course, was the special teams coordinator and safeties coach last year. Sam also mentioned that Michigan might have a former Michigan DB as a GA this year, and he could be given some secondary duties.
I certainly hope at least one of those things happens. With the number of nickel and dime defenses these days, the secondary is basically half of the defense. I would prefer having more than one coach back there, as Harbaugh did over his entire tenure.
1) Without details it's impossible to say for sure. But I think you probably are on the hook. Inasmuch as these were necessary tasks to close out the case, I don't think it's surprising that an attorney charged for them, though I understand that it seems unfair given the change is happening due to the attorney's incompetence.
On the bright side, it seems like in a few years, the tree will have sprouted so many branches that if our next defensive coordinator gets hired away, we should be able to find a replacement.
I thought maybe soccer, as I remember that Messi's biggest contract during his heyday at Barcelona was about that much, but according to ESPN, that contract was only for $674 million.
Sam Webb and Brice Marich did say that Michigan's optimism around Underwood is perhaps just a little bit lower than it was, but Michigan is still recruiting him hard and he is still considering them. I think he is expected to be at The Game.
As I understand it, the calculus regarding going for two when down 14 in the NFL changed in 2015 when the extra point was moved back. The article you cite mentions extra points being made around 94% of the time, which is very low compared to the percentage before the move. In the five years prior to 2015, the extra point percentage was above 99 percent, and the chances of scoring on a two point conversion were closer to 48%.
So I'm not certain whether you should go for two when down 14 late in the game in college. I am certain you should plan to go for two when down 15 though.
As Brian was saying above, I understand this is a commonly-held view, but I think you've completely missed the point.
Think of it this way. Let's start by assuming that you're correct, and missing the conversion means the game is over.
Even if that's true, waiting to try until later does not actually improve your chances of winning at all, as long as it's true that the chance of making the two point conversion early is equal to the chance of making the two point conversion later. Even if you're correct and the game is over after the try, then trying early and trying late are still totally equal propositions!
But, in fact, the game is not actually totally over after the try. There is still time left for some unlikely stuff to happen, and you are better off if you know that you've missed with 5 minutes left than to learn that you've missed with only 1 minute left.
Sorry, but this take is clearly wrong, and it's precisely the opposite of what Brian is saying.
You don't go for two when you're down 14 because you don't need to. What you need are two touchdowns and you can just kick the extra point after each touchdown.
When you're down 15 is precisely when you should be going for two earlier rather than later. The idea is that you are going to need a two-point conversion no matter what, so you are going to have to go for it either earlier or later. Assuming the chance of making the two point conversion early is equal to the chance of making the two point conversion later (a pretty safe assumption), it is better to make the try early because it gives you more information about what you need to do later.
By refusing to take the early try, you are not increasing your chances of winning. You are only putting your head in the sand by putting off the key moment to later in the game. You don't gain anything at all from putting off the key moment, and you do lose something. Information with time to act on it.
A lot of Judges, in fact, require mediation for all civil cases, so I could see it happening here eventually. But setting up mediation generally takes time. The parties usually have to agree on a mediator, and then mediators themselves are often busy and you have to find time on their schedules, a time which also works for the lawyers and the parties. I don't know if you could conduct the mediation prior to the next game.
1) No, courts have pretty strict rules regarding televising hearings. They do allow it sometimes, but it's a whole process and usually involves the Judge issuing an Order. You can't send in someone with an iphone.
2) It should be a normal courtroom proceeding. Lawyers arguing from each side, and then the Judge usually asking some questions.
3) Probably no witnesses, because they can just use sworn written affidavits to introduce facts, which is easier when you have to cram these hearings in on relatively short notice. Likely just lawyers arguing, but it will depend on how the parties and the Judge want to play it. Live witness testimony is not impossible.
4) The Judge could either rule from the bench at the end of the hearing or take Michigan's motion under advisement for a later written ruling. No idea which it will be or how long a ruling will take.
I'm from rural Michigan, actually! I grew up about 45 minutes from Ann Arbor. I have never been to Philadelphia, but I would like to visit. I want to see the Liberty Bell, and I hear the sandwiches are good.
It's a great play, and it takes real skill and timing to execute properly. Note the Giants' failed recent attempt.
I would nevertheless be fine seeing it banned, but only if there was real evidence that the injury rate on this play was higher than on other plays. That's why I've come around on cutting down on kickoff returns, for instance. A study was done and they really did find an elevated injury rate in a statistically significant sample size.
I don't totally understand why the tush push should be more dangerous than a regular QB sneak. Maybe others have an intuition as to why it is more dangerous, but I would like to see real evidence of an elevated injury rate before they change the rules.
As I understand it, one reason they changed the rules to allow this sort of pushing is because it was really difficult to enforce. Offensive lineman push forward running backs on running plays all the time, and it essentially never got called. The same with the Bush-Leinart thing.
I don't think we need to be further restricting what teams are allowed to do, unless there is good reason to do so. More rules just expand the zone of referee discretion, which, I think, is generally not good for the sport.
In fact, there is a First Amendment test for both this hypothetical situation and Mr. Palepale's current situation. It is called the substantial disruption test or the Tinker test from the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
The answer to your hypothetical question is no, teachers are permitted to prevent substantial disruptions of their classrooms by restricting student speech along certain lines. I think Mr. Palepale's case is a closer one though.
There is, for instance, an analogous recent Supreme Court case where the Court sided with a cheerleader who got suspended from the JV team after posting some stuff on social media.
I appreciate your view on this, but this also feels non-responsive to me, as if you are conflating my arguments with a larger ideology I do not subscribe to.
As I noted above, my argument is narrow: the US News rankings are not "bullshit." They measure some things very effectively.
I am not sure what you are referring to here, but I am always happy to provide data. The points I'm making are quite narrow and, I think, quite straightforward:
1) There is an academic hierarchy in America where the smartest young students mostly go to certain schools. 2) The US News is a useful source for information on the structure of this hierarchy. 3) Test scores and GPAs, the measures upon which this hierarchy is based, are strong predictors of success in many fields.
These are both interesting responses. My reply to wolpherine2000 would be that I completely agree with his second sentence. The US News is a system that simply affirms that elite schools create elite graduates out of elite applicants. It does not measure value-added very well at all.
But note, again, that this does not prove the rankings are useless, only that you should be careful what they are measuring. After all, say you were a student who really wanted to go to a school where you were surrounded by super smart people that you could talk to and bounce ideas off of. The rankings would be a good way to tell where the brightest young people tend to congregate.
To JMK, I think you're correct that people often try to game the system, but I think we can clearly see evidence of the remaining effectiveness of the rankings from the external data. If, say, you were a super ambitious law student who wanted to clerk for a Supreme Court justice, the history of that endeavor seems to demonstrate that there really is a big difference between the #25 ranked law school and the #5 ranked law school.
I appreciate the engagement. I think your response is interesting and nuanced but also misconstrues some common arguments.
I agree that different schools have different focuses, and in that sense, there is no way to say what school is the "best" for a particular person. But that's a far cry from saying the rankings have no value, which is the claim I was responding to.
In fact, as I said earlier, the rankings are really very good at one particular thing: relating the relative prestige of particular institutions in our hierarchy. You can see this in a hundred different ways: the test scores of incoming freshman, the incomes of graduates, the number of alumni in elevated positions in government and industry.
I mean, the list of schools that have law clerks working in the current Supreme Court session is almost literally a list of the US News top ten law schools.
Now, to some extent, this might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. People publish the rankings, other people believe them so they want to go to the high-ranking schools, and then the high-ranking schools get all the smartest young students, which only reinforces their high place in the rankings. Then we repeat. But note that this does not actually support the view that the rankings have no value. If you were a potential student and prestige mattered to you, the rankings would provide useful information. This only means you have to be careful as to what is actually being measured.
People do try to game this system and sometimes they succeed. But some gamesmanship certainly does not prove the rankings are "bullshit."
That's interesting. I'm definitely not going to tell you your experience is wrong, but my personal experience is precisely the opposite. In my career so far in my field, the smartest people I have met have all been graduates of precisely the sort of graduate schools that you would expect. People don't like to say it, but the truth is really high test scores and GPAs really do correlate pretty strongly with success in many fields.
It's just not accurate to call the rankings "absolute bullshit." Like virtually any measurement, there have been and will continue to be attempts to game them, and the ranking criteria could certainly be refined and improved, but the rankings are still very good at measuring what they are trying to measure.
It's undeniable that the US News rankings are a very effective measurement of the relative prestige of different institutions in America's collegiate hierarchy. Say whatever you like about the existence of this hierarchy, but it does exist, and the US News provides accurate and useful information to readers about its structure.
I always think of UC-Berkeley, Michigan, and Virginia as the three best public schools in the country, so I was wondering who had passed Michigan and Virginia to make them numbers 3 and 4.
Turns out it's UCLA, which I guess is fine. UCLA has always been a really good school.
According to 247, he does not have a Georgia offer, and I would be surprised if he gets one. Definitely a good player, but the way Georgia is recruiting these days, they don't take many guys ranked where he is, unless they really disagree with the sites' evaluation.
Georgia leaves several in-state top 400 talents without offers every single year.
Welcome to Michigan! Bennett Warren would be an incredible get. We might start considering this the greatest offensive line recruiting hall we've ever had.
What stops the NCAA from saying that's cool now if you don't follow our rules you can't participate in postseason play for your other sports.
I think the Texas law itself does. Refusal to allow participation could be considered a "penalty" and the Texas law expressly prohibits the NCAA from penalizing schools for certain actions. If the NCAA refused to allow participation by the Texas schools for actions that are expressly permitted under the law, they would be in violation of Texas law and Texas could use its sovereign power to levy fines or even more severe punishments on the organization (I don't know what the law specifies as far as penalties for noncompliance).
This entire reply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire American legal order.
What legal statute permits the state of Texas to control what the NCAA does or doesn’t do?
This question is just incredibly confused. Texas, like any other state, is a sovereign entity under the American constitution with its own legislative powers. Texas does not need an external body to implement a "statute" to permit it to do anything. Texas's own statute passed by the Texas legislature is sufficient.
My guess is you mean that the federal government would need to pass a statute to permit Texas to regulate the NCAA, but that is contrary to American law. State's powers to make their own laws do not flow from the federal government. Rather, such powers are entirely independent of the federal government.
Now, I do think that you raise an important point about extraterritorial application of state law (that is, application of Texas law beyond the state of Texas), and that is actually a complex issue that has only gotten more complex with a recent Supreme Court decision. But limits on extraterritorial application of state laws are actually pretty weak, and they certainly do not prevent a state from regulating the way a multi-state or even multi-national organization operates in relation to schools within its own borders.
The NCAA could try to get out of Texas regulation by leaving the state of Texas entirely, but I'm not sure even that would work. If people in Texas were still watching NCAA games and the NCAA was still benefiting from those eyeballs, that could itself establish Texas's jurisdiction over the NCAA. Again though, jurisdiction in American law is complicated so that would probably take a long time and a lot of legal fees to work out.
I think most of the Michigan recruiting reporters have indicated he's being recruited for a hybrid role, much more like a linebacker than a safety. He will probably play a lot of linebacker and will be placed in interesting positions in exotic formations.
It hasn't changed. Ivy League schools signed an agreement years ago that bars any member institution from providing any type of financial aid except according to individual need. There are no athletic scholarships or academic merit scholarships either in the Ivy League. What you pay is entirely decided by how much money your parents make.
I think everyone comes out of this looking absolutely terrible. The Reynas look terrible but so does Berhalter. Besides the domestic violence issue from decades ago that just came to light, there was just no reason for Berhalter to publicly criticize the 19-year-old in the media. Berhalter didn't mention Reyna's name, but it was obvious who he was talking about, and everyone understood.
The matter should have been handled internally. Reyna acted badly. He didn't get to play much. Hopefully he grows up. It should have ended with people wondering why Reyna didn't get much action, and instead, it's ended in this huge scandal because Reyna's parents got mad at Berhalter taking to the press to admonish their son. Just an absolute disaster for everyone involved.
Wish them both the best. As for Jeter specifically, he started a little slowly but he ended up having a solid Michigan career. He was an important contributor on one of the best Michigan teams of the last two decades, a team that won a Big Ten Championship. That's not a bad legacy at all. I will remember him fondly.
Didn't Seth just say this rumor was suspect a couple days ago?
I certainly have never had access to any inside information, but this seems ridiculous to me. Sainristil was a solid contributor at receiver last year. Now he's going to move to a new position he hasn't played since high school in his 4th year in the program?
It's not like cornerback is super thin either. We've got guys coming back there and some really highly rated freshmen coming in. I seriously doubt Sainristil would move up the depth chart by flipping sides of the ball, especially since he's already a solid contributor at receiver.
It's more a "sell and move on" thing. What's interesting to me is that the people he sold Rivals and 247 to don't seem to have required him to sign a non-compete agreement. Or maybe they live in California where that stuff is illegal? But creating a successful recruiting news site, then selling it, and then creating another successful recruiting site and then selling it must be good business.
I would go a little earlier than that. I think Mike D'Antoni is going to go down as one of those coaches who is famed not for winning championships, but for the way he helped revolutionize the game. Those Steve-Nash-led Suns teams and the way they spaced their shooters and ran up and down the floor were really the vanguard for the new style of basketball.
I think so. Seth's statement that "he's still with the team" seems to imply that he is still eligible to do what team members do, which includes playing in games.
If so, this announcement doesn't actually have any effect at all on the depth chart this year. Rumler would still be available on the off chance that he is needed. It is just an announcement about next season. That's how I understood it anyway.
I noticed this too, and I definitely thought it was intentional. The hurry-up is a really powerful strategy, but it can't really be used if you're substituting. You have to give the defense time to substitute as well. That doesn't just run time off the clock; it also breaks momentum and gives the defensive players who stay on the field a longer time to get ready for the next play. It felt like Michigan was taking advantage of this, which was a smart play.
Recent Comments
I think the notion that, after healing, formerly broken bones are stronger at the point of the break is a myth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/health/19really.html
Edit: I will just quote the relevant section.
Sam Webb stated that Brown was basically Jay Harbaugh's understudy the last couple years, and so he may be asked to help coach the secondary along with his special teams duties. Jay, of course, was the special teams coordinator and safeties coach last year. Sam also mentioned that Michigan might have a former Michigan DB as a GA this year, and he could be given some secondary duties.
I certainly hope at least one of those things happens. With the number of nickel and dime defenses these days, the secondary is basically half of the defense. I would prefer having more than one coach back there, as Harbaugh did over his entire tenure.
1) Without details it's impossible to say for sure. But I think you probably are on the hook. Inasmuch as these were necessary tasks to close out the case, I don't think it's surprising that an attorney charged for them, though I understand that it seems unfair given the change is happening due to the attorney's incompetence.
2) It might be. If you would like to submit a complaint, the Michigan Bar Association has a mechanism for that: https://www.michbar.org/professional/disciplinary
3) I think the board post is probably fine.
On the bright side, it seems like in a few years, the tree will have sprouted so many branches that if our next defensive coordinator gets hired away, we should be able to find a replacement.
I've heard that too, but those guys are pretty old so I don't think that the total amount of their full contracts exceed the $700 million.
I thought maybe soccer, as I remember that Messi's biggest contract during his heyday at Barcelona was about that much, but according to ESPN, that contract was only for $674 million.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37613511/lionel-messi-leaked-barcelona-contract-biggest-sports-history-report
So yeah, I think this might be the biggest.
…
Not out of the running, no.
Sam Webb and Brice Marich did say that Michigan's optimism around Underwood is perhaps just a little bit lower than it was, but Michigan is still recruiting him hard and he is still considering them. I think he is expected to be at The Game.
As I understand it, the calculus regarding going for two when down 14 in the NFL changed in 2015 when the extra point was moved back. The article you cite mentions extra points being made around 94% of the time, which is very low compared to the percentage before the move. In the five years prior to 2015, the extra point percentage was above 99 percent, and the chances of scoring on a two point conversion were closer to 48%.
So I'm not certain whether you should go for two when down 14 late in the game in college. I am certain you should plan to go for two when down 15 though.
As Brian was saying above, I understand this is a commonly-held view, but I think you've completely missed the point.
Think of it this way. Let's start by assuming that you're correct, and missing the conversion means the game is over.
Even if that's true, waiting to try until later does not actually improve your chances of winning at all, as long as it's true that the chance of making the two point conversion early is equal to the chance of making the two point conversion later. Even if you're correct and the game is over after the try, then trying early and trying late are still totally equal propositions!
But, in fact, the game is not actually totally over after the try. There is still time left for some unlikely stuff to happen, and you are better off if you know that you've missed with 5 minutes left than to learn that you've missed with only 1 minute left.
Sorry, but this take is clearly wrong, and it's precisely the opposite of what Brian is saying.
You don't go for two when you're down 14 because you don't need to. What you need are two touchdowns and you can just kick the extra point after each touchdown.
When you're down 15 is precisely when you should be going for two earlier rather than later. The idea is that you are going to need a two-point conversion no matter what, so you are going to have to go for it either earlier or later. Assuming the chance of making the two point conversion early is equal to the chance of making the two point conversion later (a pretty safe assumption), it is better to make the try early because it gives you more information about what you need to do later.
By refusing to take the early try, you are not increasing your chances of winning. You are only putting your head in the sand by putting off the key moment to later in the game. You don't gain anything at all from putting off the key moment, and you do lose something. Information with time to act on it.
I don't think this is correct. E-signing is just an electronic method of signing Orders. Written orders are often e-signed.
A lot of Judges, in fact, require mediation for all civil cases, so I could see it happening here eventually. But setting up mediation generally takes time. The parties usually have to agree on a mediator, and then mediators themselves are often busy and you have to find time on their schedules, a time which also works for the lawyers and the parties. I don't know if you could conduct the mediation prior to the next game.
1) No, courts have pretty strict rules regarding televising hearings. They do allow it sometimes, but it's a whole process and usually involves the Judge issuing an Order. You can't send in someone with an iphone.
2) It should be a normal courtroom proceeding. Lawyers arguing from each side, and then the Judge usually asking some questions.
3) Probably no witnesses, because they can just use sworn written affidavits to introduce facts, which is easier when you have to cram these hearings in on relatively short notice. Likely just lawyers arguing, but it will depend on how the parties and the Judge want to play it. Live witness testimony is not impossible.
4) The Judge could either rule from the bench at the end of the hearing or take Michigan's motion under advisement for a later written ruling. No idea which it will be or how long a ruling will take.
I was thinking Nova Scotia.
I believe you're thinking of Ivan Ooze.
https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Ivan_Ooze
Nikhai Hill-Green transferred to Charlotte after the Spring Semester.
https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2023/04/michigan-linebacker-back-from-injury-enters-ncaa-transfer-portal.html
I'm from rural Michigan, actually! I grew up about 45 minutes from Ann Arbor. I have never been to Philadelphia, but I would like to visit. I want to see the Liberty Bell, and I hear the sandwiches are good.
It's a great play, and it takes real skill and timing to execute properly. Note the Giants' failed recent attempt.
I would nevertheless be fine seeing it banned, but only if there was real evidence that the injury rate on this play was higher than on other plays. That's why I've come around on cutting down on kickoff returns, for instance. A study was done and they really did find an elevated injury rate in a statistically significant sample size.
I don't totally understand why the tush push should be more dangerous than a regular QB sneak. Maybe others have an intuition as to why it is more dangerous, but I would like to see real evidence of an elevated injury rate before they change the rules.
As I understand it, one reason they changed the rules to allow this sort of pushing is because it was really difficult to enforce. Offensive lineman push forward running backs on running plays all the time, and it essentially never got called. The same with the Bush-Leinart thing.
I don't think we need to be further restricting what teams are allowed to do, unless there is good reason to do so. More rules just expand the zone of referee discretion, which, I think, is generally not good for the sport.
In fact, there is a First Amendment test for both this hypothetical situation and Mr. Palepale's current situation. It is called the substantial disruption test or the Tinker test from the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
The answer to your hypothetical question is no, teachers are permitted to prevent substantial disruptions of their classrooms by restricting student speech along certain lines. I think Mr. Palepale's case is a closer one though.
There is, for instance, an analogous recent Supreme Court case where the Court sided with a cheerleader who got suspended from the JV team after posting some stuff on social media.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
I appreciate your view on this, but this also feels non-responsive to me, as if you are conflating my arguments with a larger ideology I do not subscribe to.
As I noted above, my argument is narrow: the US News rankings are not "bullshit." They measure some things very effectively.
I am not sure what you are referring to here, but I am always happy to provide data. The points I'm making are quite narrow and, I think, quite straightforward:
1) There is an academic hierarchy in America where the smartest young students mostly go to certain schools. 2) The US News is a useful source for information on the structure of this hierarchy. 3) Test scores and GPAs, the measures upon which this hierarchy is based, are strong predictors of success in many fields.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/20/heres-how-much-your-high-school-grades-predict-how-much-you-make-today/
These are both interesting responses. My reply to wolpherine2000 would be that I completely agree with his second sentence. The US News is a system that simply affirms that elite schools create elite graduates out of elite applicants. It does not measure value-added very well at all.
But note, again, that this does not prove the rankings are useless, only that you should be careful what they are measuring. After all, say you were a student who really wanted to go to a school where you were surrounded by super smart people that you could talk to and bounce ideas off of. The rankings would be a good way to tell where the brightest young people tend to congregate.
To JMK, I think you're correct that people often try to game the system, but I think we can clearly see evidence of the remaining effectiveness of the rankings from the external data. If, say, you were a super ambitious law student who wanted to clerk for a Supreme Court justice, the history of that endeavor seems to demonstrate that there really is a big difference between the #25 ranked law school and the #5 ranked law school.
I appreciate the engagement. I think your response is interesting and nuanced but also misconstrues some common arguments.
I agree that different schools have different focuses, and in that sense, there is no way to say what school is the "best" for a particular person. But that's a far cry from saying the rankings have no value, which is the claim I was responding to.
In fact, as I said earlier, the rankings are really very good at one particular thing: relating the relative prestige of particular institutions in our hierarchy. You can see this in a hundred different ways: the test scores of incoming freshman, the incomes of graduates, the number of alumni in elevated positions in government and industry.
I mean, the list of schools that have law clerks working in the current Supreme Court session is almost literally a list of the US News top ten law schools.
Now, to some extent, this might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. People publish the rankings, other people believe them so they want to go to the high-ranking schools, and then the high-ranking schools get all the smartest young students, which only reinforces their high place in the rankings. Then we repeat. But note that this does not actually support the view that the rankings have no value. If you were a potential student and prestige mattered to you, the rankings would provide useful information. This only means you have to be careful as to what is actually being measured.
People do try to game this system and sometimes they succeed. But some gamesmanship certainly does not prove the rankings are "bullshit."
That's interesting. I'm definitely not going to tell you your experience is wrong, but my personal experience is precisely the opposite. In my career so far in my field, the smartest people I have met have all been graduates of precisely the sort of graduate schools that you would expect. People don't like to say it, but the truth is really high test scores and GPAs really do correlate pretty strongly with success in many fields.
It's just not accurate to call the rankings "absolute bullshit." Like virtually any measurement, there have been and will continue to be attempts to game them, and the ranking criteria could certainly be refined and improved, but the rankings are still very good at measuring what they are trying to measure.
It's undeniable that the US News rankings are a very effective measurement of the relative prestige of different institutions in America's collegiate hierarchy. Say whatever you like about the existence of this hierarchy, but it does exist, and the US News provides accurate and useful information to readers about its structure.
I always think of UC-Berkeley, Michigan, and Virginia as the three best public schools in the country, so I was wondering who had passed Michigan and Virginia to make them numbers 3 and 4.
Turns out it's UCLA, which I guess is fine. UCLA has always been a really good school.
According to 247, he does not have a Georgia offer, and I would be surprised if he gets one. Definitely a good player, but the way Georgia is recruiting these days, they don't take many guys ranked where he is, unless they really disagree with the sites' evaluation.
Georgia leaves several in-state top 400 talents without offers every single year.
Bell's Pizza.
They should give him back his money.
Welcome to Michigan! Bennett Warren would be an incredible get. We might start considering this the greatest offensive line recruiting hall we've ever had.
I think the Texas law itself does. Refusal to allow participation could be considered a "penalty" and the Texas law expressly prohibits the NCAA from penalizing schools for certain actions. If the NCAA refused to allow participation by the Texas schools for actions that are expressly permitted under the law, they would be in violation of Texas law and Texas could use its sovereign power to levy fines or even more severe punishments on the organization (I don't know what the law specifies as far as penalties for noncompliance).
This entire reply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire American legal order.
This question is just incredibly confused. Texas, like any other state, is a sovereign entity under the American constitution with its own legislative powers. Texas does not need an external body to implement a "statute" to permit it to do anything. Texas's own statute passed by the Texas legislature is sufficient.
My guess is you mean that the federal government would need to pass a statute to permit Texas to regulate the NCAA, but that is contrary to American law. State's powers to make their own laws do not flow from the federal government. Rather, such powers are entirely independent of the federal government.
Now, I do think that you raise an important point about extraterritorial application of state law (that is, application of Texas law beyond the state of Texas), and that is actually a complex issue that has only gotten more complex with a recent Supreme Court decision. But limits on extraterritorial application of state laws are actually pretty weak, and they certainly do not prevent a state from regulating the way a multi-state or even multi-national organization operates in relation to schools within its own borders.
The NCAA could try to get out of Texas regulation by leaving the state of Texas entirely, but I'm not sure even that would work. If people in Texas were still watching NCAA games and the NCAA was still benefiting from those eyeballs, that could itself establish Texas's jurisdiction over the NCAA. Again though, jurisdiction in American law is complicated so that would probably take a long time and a lot of legal fees to work out.
I think most of the Michigan recruiting reporters have indicated he's being recruited for a hybrid role, much more like a linebacker than a safety. He will probably play a lot of linebacker and will be placed in interesting positions in exotic formations.
It hasn't changed. Ivy League schools signed an agreement years ago that bars any member institution from providing any type of financial aid except according to individual need. There are no athletic scholarships or academic merit scholarships either in the Ivy League. What you pay is entirely decided by how much money your parents make.
"Computer access crimes" is basically legal parlance for hacking.
Thailand is a wonderful place. Sounds like this guy is living the life.
I think everyone comes out of this looking absolutely terrible. The Reynas look terrible but so does Berhalter. Besides the domestic violence issue from decades ago that just came to light, there was just no reason for Berhalter to publicly criticize the 19-year-old in the media. Berhalter didn't mention Reyna's name, but it was obvious who he was talking about, and everyone understood.
The matter should have been handled internally. Reyna acted badly. He didn't get to play much. Hopefully he grows up. It should have ended with people wondering why Reyna didn't get much action, and instead, it's ended in this huge scandal because Reyna's parents got mad at Berhalter taking to the press to admonish their son. Just an absolute disaster for everyone involved.
Don…
Pearl Jam's Last Kiss
Don Mclean's American Pie
Drive-By Truckers' The Deeper In
I'm surprised we got through a discussion of recent Michigan Edges without mentioning Josh Uche. There have been a lot of good ones though.
Wish them both the best. As for Jeter specifically, he started a little slowly but he ended up having a solid Michigan career. He was an important contributor on one of the best Michigan teams of the last two decades, a team that won a Big Ten Championship. That's not a bad legacy at all. I will remember him fondly.
Didn't Seth just say this rumor was suspect a couple days ago?
I certainly have never had access to any inside information, but this seems ridiculous to me. Sainristil was a solid contributor at receiver last year. Now he's going to move to a new position he hasn't played since high school in his 4th year in the program?
It's not like cornerback is super thin either. We've got guys coming back there and some really highly rated freshmen coming in. I seriously doubt Sainristil would move up the depth chart by flipping sides of the ball, especially since he's already a solid contributor at receiver.
https:/…
Long story:
https://247sports.com/college/auburn/Article/bryan-harsin-auburn-football-182578739/
It's more a "sell and move on" thing. What's interesting to me is that the people he sold Rivals and 247 to don't seem to have required him to sign a non-compete agreement. Or maybe they live in California where that stuff is illegal? But creating a successful recruiting news site, then selling it, and then creating another successful recruiting site and then selling it must be good business.
I would go a little earlier than that. I think Mike D'Antoni is going to go down as one of those coaches who is famed not for winning championships, but for the way he helped revolutionize the game. Those Steve-Nash-led Suns teams and the way they spaced their shooters and ran up and down the floor were really the vanguard for the new style of basketball.
He can't preserve a year, though. He redshirted in 2019. There is no reason for him to decline playing time this year if it is available.
I think so. Seth's statement that "he's still with the team" seems to imply that he is still eligible to do what team members do, which includes playing in games.
If so, this announcement doesn't actually have any effect at all on the depth chart this year. Rumler would still be available on the off chance that he is needed. It is just an announcement about next season. That's how I understood it anyway.
I noticed this too, and I definitely thought it was intentional. The hurry-up is a really powerful strategy, but it can't really be used if you're substituting. You have to give the defense time to substitute as well. That doesn't just run time off the clock; it also breaks momentum and gives the defensive players who stay on the field a longer time to get ready for the next play. It felt like Michigan was taking advantage of this, which was a smart play.
Does marmalade count? If so:
1) Grape Jelly
2) Orange Marmalade
Great win by the Ducks.
I will definitely donate to this if a legitimate organization (like Mgoblog) sets this up.