mesmerism! presidential assassinations! circuses on fire!
- Member for
- 5 years 41 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Offensive Pass Interference Non-Call||
What made the PI non-call even more infuriating was the fact the official pulled his flag to call the obvious PI and then for some reason put it back in his pocket after the WSU receiver made the catch. I noticed this in realtime from my seat (I was in the endzone stands that WSU was driving towards), but you can also see the official pocket the flag on the replay.
I was not alone: a good chunk of the Michigan fans sitting in that endzone were livid with the non-call. If WSU had scored on the subsequent hook and ladder, that official probably would not have made it to the tunnel.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Which one?||
He broke off 2 long ones in the 1993 Rose Bowl and 1 in the 1992 Rose Bowl (granted, this one made the score 35-14 Washington--that 1991 Washington squad was awesome).
|15 weeks 4 days ago||J Hackney||
because you could get a contact buzz off his posts.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Faith Mostly Restored||
Firing Borges restored about 33% of my faith in Brady Hoke. This hire restores most of the remainder. I love it.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Faith Mostly Restored||
Firing Borges restored about 33% of my faith in Brady Hoke. This hire restores most of the remainder. I love it.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Strong move||
This restores a good portion of my faith in Hoke. The guy is not afraid to go for it on 4th down, go for 2 in the biggest game of the year, or fire a guy whom he probably respected a lot.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||I agree with the OP||
This is the most plausible explanation for what we have been seeing. To say this is not to defend Borges as an OC, but rather only his raw intelligence.
If I were Borges, I'd have had DG primarily practicing about a dozen plays featuring short, quick passes during the two weeks leading up the the MSU game so those 12 plays would be second nature. Hell, didn't Brian (or was it EDSBS) once show how Mike Leach was winning big at Texas Tech with a small number of passing plays?
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Not sure . . .||
Not sure if this is what you are asking, but the NCAA has required (and still does, I believe) student athletes to sign away their right of publicity in their likeness in perpetuity when they sign their letter of intent. Having acquired a monopoly over the likeness of all current and past student athletes, the NCAA then sells those likenesses to EA Sports, which in turn creates current teams and legacy teams stocked with these likenesses.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||AC Did Not Win the Heisman||
But when the AP or some other organization I can't recall came out with its All-Time All-American team in the late 1980s or 1990s, AC was one of the WRs. I believe he was a 3-time first-team All American and finished in the Heisman top 10 3 times as well, culminating in 1982 when he finished 4th behind Herschel Walker, John Elway, and Eric Dickerson.
He's the first Michigan football player I ever remember idolizing (I was born in 1971), and the reason my first and only jersey was #1.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Me too||
I just passed the 4-year mark with an account, but I've been on here pretty much every day since Fall 2006 and have rarely posted due to the demands of law school, then work, and now work and 2 young boys.
My favorite MGoBlog moment is whenever Brian mentions Jim Grobe when discussing the 2007 coaching search, as I'm the poor fool who suggested via email he might not be a bad choice.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Dukes is a huge case||
and there have been a couple other big Supreme Court class action decisions recently that will make it hard, in my opinion, for the damages class to be certified. The damages class is the one that only former student athletes belong to, and the chief reason it should not be certified is that ascertaining each former student athlete's damages will require an individualized inquiry (e.g., Ed O'Bannon's likeness is worth a lot more than some benchwarmer's who also happened to be on the 1995 UCLA basketball team). As a result, common issues will not predominate over individual issues, and a class action is not the superior means of adjudicating the claims of the putative class members.
If I were the judge, I'd definitely deny certification for the damages class and probably grant certification for the injunctive class.
It is easier to certify an injunctive class because the plaintiffs do not have to establish that common issues will predominate over individual issues or that a class action is the superior means of adjudicating the claims of the putative class members. This makes sense if you think about the fact that the relief the injunctive class is requesting is simply to have the court void the NCAA's contractual provision requiring current and former student student athletes to assign their right to sell their likeness to the NCAA as a condition of playing NCAA sports. By granting the requested injunctive relief, the court would be remedying the same injury for every member of the putative class in one stroke. The result would be that all current and former NCAA student athletes could now sell their likeness without worrying about breaching the NCAA contract. This is a very efficient use of the legal system, and is the reason why Congress authorized class actions.
Having given my personal view on the merits of this class action, I should add that this case is pending in federal court in California, where the trial courts liberally certify class actions, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for this region of the country (the 9th Circuit) rarely reverses such decisions. I therefore think it is possible the trial court certifies the damages class as well as the injunctive class.
If I were advising the NCAA, I'd appeal the damages class issue all the way to the Supreme Court because I'm 99% sure any damages class would be de-certified. As for the injunctive class, my sense is the Supreme Court would find this class properly certified but I would need to analyze the relevant case law more closely before offering a solid prediction. I know less about injunctive classes because my cases are consumer fraud class actions--so of course the plaintiffs are always seeking money damages.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||This lawsuit will have small impact on current student athletes||
I defend class action lawsuits for a living, and I think this lawsuit is actually very unlikely to impact current student athletes in the ways that people are concerned about.
Current student athletes are included only in the lawsuit's “injunctive class,” not the class that is seeking monetary damages, which is limited to former student athletes (there are legal reasons for the plaintiffs' decision to define the classes in this way). The Complaint says:
“For purposes of the injunctive relief class only, the Antitrust Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of current student-athletes competing on the teams described above, as well as former student-athletes, as both groups’ future compensation rights are impacted by the anticompetitive practices described herein.”
The Complaint also alleges:
“The Antitrust Plaintiffs, on behalf of both former and current student-athletes, additionally request injunctive relief permanently enjoining the NCAA and its members from utilizing the provisions Form 08-3a, the ‘Institutional, Charitable, Educational, or Nonprofit Promotions Release Statement,’ and any similar forms that purport to deprive former student athletes of licensing and/or compensation rights, and further enjoining Defendants from selling, licensing, or using former student-athletes’ rights.”
Even if the plaintiffs win, this just means that the NCAA cannot make current student athletes sign a waiver releasing their right to make money off their likeness. If a current student athlete attempts to sell his likeness while still playing college basketball or football, the NCAA will be free to declare that student ineligible. This is a powerful disincentive to start selling your likeness.
As a practical matter, then, I think very few if any student athletes will try to sell their likeness while still in school. The smart thing for almost every person to do will be to milk NCAA exposure for all its worth, declare for the pros, and then start selling your likeness to the highest bidder. This means that Anthony Carter, not the NCAA, will be the one selling his likeness to EA Sports if EA Sports wants to have AC on its 1980 Michigan team.
The Devin Gardners and even Jadeveon Clowneys of the world will almost always wait until after going pro to sell their likeness because the benefit of remaining a student athlete will almost always outweigh the cost of being declared ineligible.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Well said||
The first half was the most exciting and interesting first half of basketball I've ever seen, and the second half was a great display of college basketball as well.
Even if I were a neutral observer, I'd be viscerally pissed about the foul on Burke's clean block (I was viscerally pissed at the quick jump ball whistle at the end of the UL-Wichita St. game because it robbed fans of a potentially great finish).
Although I think Louisville was the more complete and therefore better team, that call changed the complexion of the last 5 minutes and might have robbed college basketball of an all-time great finish. Both teams were playing at such a high level and the game was so interesting in multiple respects--I would have liked to have seen Trey Burke with the ball and Michigan down 2 points with 30 seconds left.
That said, my two emotions today are sadness that I'll probably never see Burke play for Michigan again--and pride for my alma mater. Go Blue.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||English major correction||
As an English major (LSA '1993), I have a correction to your thread title, which should read: "Michigan has an 81.45 percent chance of winning the NCAA tournament." But your maths look perfect to me--that's the important part.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Bo Ryan is the grinch who stole basketball||
As a Google search on "Bo Ryan looks like . . ." reveals, I'm not the first to point this out:
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Agreed||
I said this when the Freeh Report came out and the NCAA imposed its sanctions: even if the Freeh Report had 100% vindicated Joe Paterno (which obviously it did not), Penn State should still get massively sanctioned because the fucking President, AD, and a high-ranking VP of the university clearly made a decision not to report credible allegations of child sex abuse to the proper law enforcement authorities.
The fact that the President, AD, and a high-ranking VP failed to report McQuery's allegations shows a greater lack of institutional control than if Paterno was solely responsible for the cover up--a university's adminstrators are supposed to be a check on the football coach, not his protector or (if you think JoePa was in on the conspiracy, which I do) his enabler. As someone who worked in academic adminstration at another Big Ten University (not UM or PSU), I actually find the actions of the President, AD, and the VP more shocking and appalling than anything JoePa might have done.
This is why all the PSU apologists need to STFU. Even if JoePa was an angel, your school's administration was completely corrupted by the football-first culture.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Fear the turtle?||
Adding Maryland to the BIG makes even less sense now.
I thought I read somewhere that after losses, Woody would hold court with the press in the locker room wearing nothing (except perhaps a snapping turtle).
|2 years 12 weeks ago||My last sentence wasn't clear||
I was operating on the assumption that class cert would be denied (which is most probably the right ruling), at which point the NCAA would already be on record saying some players create value and some don't.
My take is that class cert should be denied due to the problem of allocating damages among the class members (there are probably additional reasons for this ruluing). But California courts - even the federal ones - are notorious for liberally certifying classes.
Even if the class is not certified, however, I think there are enough high value former NCAA athletes to incentivize plaintiffs' attorneys to bring individual suits. The class action mechanism is there so when we all get overcharged $3 on our ComEd bill for a year, we can bring 1 lawsuit to recover.
Either way, I look forward to the NCAA going down in flames on this one.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||Class action||
The plaintiffs are limited to MBB and football players because that is the only plausible way to define the plaintiff class with any hope of getting the case certified as a class action.
Even then, it is going to be difficult to get class cert because the class will consist of players of varying skills, marketability, and accomplishments, and thus arguably the class will not be able to satisfy the legal standard for being granted class treatment.
The present motion appears to be a motion to strike some new allegations that I assume O'Bannon et al. added in an amended complaint. There are procedural rules about whether and when you can add new allegations, and the NCAA was hoping to strike the new allegations so the plaintiffs would be limited to recovering money only for rebroadcasts, not live broadcasts. It's a big win for plaintiffs because the potential damages just increased several fold, but the real battle is going to be over class cert.
The NCAA's position against class cert is interesting because I assume they will have to argue that it requires an individualized inquiry to determine each player's value. If that is true, which certainly seems the case, class treatment is probably not proper because there is not an efficient way to allocate damages between the walk-on benchwarmers (who deserve very little $) and the superstars (who deserve lots). In arguing this, the NCAA will be conceding that players create value, which is probably not a position they want to be taking post-class cert.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||We should add them to the BIG||
and put them in the same division with Maryland. Then Delaney can name the divisions Debtors and Creditors.
|2 years 23 weeks ago||Pathological state of denial||
It's really amazing to see such denial. Franco Harris has convinced himself that because McQuery didn't see "intercourse," therefore what McQuery did see was not a sexual assault. Because, you know, there is nothing sexually inappropriate about a grown man pressing his naked body against a naked prepubescent boy in a shower at 9 p.m. on a Friday night. I wish they had gotten the death penalty for 4 years.
|2 years 28 weeks ago||You recall correctly||
Alexander's injury opened the door for Desmond to be the go-to receiver - which resulted in Hello Heisman!
|2 years 36 weeks ago||One of my favorite adages||
"Luck is the residue of design."
|2 years 37 weeks ago||Be careful what you wish for, BOT||
I hope this appeal progresses because it is going to bring to light only more bad facts for JoePa and the PSU administration who conspired to cover up Sandusky's crimes. I'd love to be the prosecutor handling this case.
JoePa’s handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement contract are probably the most damning piece of evidence in the Report. They show that as early as 1999, Paterno was sufficiently aware of Sandusky’s status as a likely pedophile to jot down a note to this effect while reviewing Sandusky’s retirement contract. Think about this scenario for a minute—JoePa is reading a longtime colleague’s retirement contract and the salient fact that occupies his mind when reading the clause about ongoing facility access is: “Hey, this guy may try to abuse Second Mile kids in our facilities, so we better not let him bring the kids here.” This concern is so significant to JoePa that he actually writes it down in the margin of the contract. This is a remarkable fact that would have been the centerpiece of any criminal prosecution of, or civil trial against, JoePa.
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the damning import of JoePa’s note is delusional. When you combine this fact with McQueary’s eyewitness report to JoePa in February 2001, no rational person could conclude that JoePa did not have a reasonable basis to report Sandusky as a possible pedophile in 2001. Despite the apparently commonly held belief among PSU fans that the evidence against JoePa was miniscule, rest assured that the evidence Freeh found would have been sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction of Paterno for failure to report likely child abuse. It's a shame JoePa didn't live long enough to be cross-examined under oath about his notations and the other undisputed facts in the record.
|2 years 37 weeks ago||JoePa's estate's recourse is probably to sue PSU, not NCAA||
The NCAA is not a state actor, so there is no constitutional basis for JoePa's estate to bring a cause of action against the NCAA based on a due process violation. PSU is of course a state actor, so the estate could theoretically sue them for violating procedural due process. The estate's best basis for suing PSU probably lies in contract--but I suspect PSU can argue that JoePa breached some provision of the contract by participating in the cover-up. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
|2 years 38 weeks ago||Anyone old enough to remember Bill Bonds||
spoiling the 1980 miracle on ice for those watching the tape-delayed broadcast in Detroit? What a jackass. OP should have his avatar changed to a pic of Bill.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||Why did the PSU Administration decide not to report?||
I agree the NCAA's decision had nothing to do with any supposed competitive advantage (see my comment above). However, I disagree with your statement that this "entire action was based on moral outrage at the non-action of PSU, not on anything at all to do with football."
The NCAA punished PSU because the school allowed its culture to reach such a point that the President, AD, and Sr. VP of the university chose to protect the PR image of the football program over the welfare of boys whom, they had very strong reasons to suspect, were at grave risk of being abused by a former assistant football coach. If the accused pedophile was a physics professor with the same track record as Sandusky, do you think Spanier, Curley, and Schultz would have behaved the same way? Hello no!
That's why this whole scandal was all about the warped culture that had grown up around PSU football. The football-first culture is what corrupted the university's highest ranking leaders. And for this massive and reprehensible failure of leadership, the NCAA was warranted in punishing PSU's football program.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||I agree||
The competitive advantage argument is pretty tenuous, but I think the sanctions are justified for the reason you give (LOIC).
If a PSU fan ever complains to me about the sanctions, I'm going to pose this hypothetical: Suppose the Freeh Report completely absolved Paterno of any responsibility (e.g., McQuery went to the AD instead of JoePa and JoePa never knew anything at any time), but the report still leveled the same charges against Spanier, Schultz, and Curley with respect to failing to report someone whom they had very strong reason to believe was a pedophile. Would anyone have any problem with the sanctions handed down yesterday? I would not.
Under this hypothetical, the only sanction that seems dubious is vacating the wins, particularly from 1998-2001. All of the other sanctions would be justified because PSU's President, AD, and Sr. VP chose to prioritize the football program's and school's PR image over the safety and welfare of children whom, they knew, were at grave risk of being abused by a pedophile. Setting aside JoePa's involvement in the cover up, this is a textbook case of lack of institutional control - protecting the football program was dictating the decisions made by the school's purported academic leaders.
Having worked in the central administration of another Big Ten school - not Michigan and not PSU (thank god) - I cannot imagine the president of a university making a decision as morally bankrupt as the one Spanier did. It just goes to show you that the tail was completely wagging the dog at PSU (congrats, Pres. Gee, you are no longer the worst school president ever in this category). For that, PSU has to pay a massive price regardless of Joe Paterno's role in the cover up.
So I wonder if you remove JoePa from equation, would more PSU fans be able to recognize why the NCAA was warranted in handing down a very severe punishment? I don't hear many PSU fans defending Spanier, Schultz, and Curley, probably because you'd have to attack McQuery's credibility to make this argument.
Note: based on the evidence in the Freeh Report, I personally believe JoePa played an instrumental role in the cover up and find the JoePa apologists' attempts to deconstruct the Freeh Report idiotic.
|2 years 40 weeks ago||Creepy behavior by Sandusky was probably well known before 1998||
I've heard (admittedly second-hand but from two different people who are close friends) interesting stories relayed by two different former PSU players dating from the mid-1990s. One said that a nude Sandusky would come up behind nude players in the shower and give them "bear hugs." Sandusky would also work out in just a jock strap, peddling away at his workout bike while the players were working out. This behavior was characterized by the former player as weird if not creepy but obviously this was a far cry from serial child molestation.
The other former player, whose dad was a high school football coach in Pa., said that it was something of an open secret among Pa. high school coaches that Sandusky had a weird thing for boys. I don't think people suspected at this time that he was a serial pedophile, but clearly Sandusky was engaging in behavior that struck lots of folks as highly unusual and at least a little suspicious.
If anyone read the Sally Jenkins article, she dropped a line about it being a running joke among PSU administrators that you didn't want to drop your soap when Jerry was in the shower. I suspect she heard stories similar to the one relayed to my buddy by former PSU player #1 re Sandusky's bear hugs. Perhaps this behavior was discussed in the Freeh Report (I read only portions of it).
At any rate, take these second-hand anecdotes for what they're worth.
|2 years 40 weeks ago||I agree with Costas||
If this had happened at Michigan, I would have already written a letter to the university President saying we should voluntarily put football on hiatus for a year, maybe longer. It's the most appropriate way to show remorse. This shameful cover-up happened because football was king at PSU. Show that something matters more than football by voluntarily suspending the program for a year (or more).