|18 weeks 1 day 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.
|25 weeks 10 hours 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).
|25 weeks 13 hours ago||J Hackney||
because you could get a contact buzz off his posts.
|1 year 24 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 24 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 24 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 32 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 47 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 48 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 49 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.
|2 years 1 week 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.
|2 years 1 week 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 11 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 13 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 21 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 21 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 21 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 33 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 37 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 46 weeks ago||One of my favorite adages||
"Luck is the residue of design."
|2 years 46 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 47 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 49 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 50 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).
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Elvis Grbac||
Why did Bob include Elvis among the most memorable people he dealt with? I graduated in '93 and knew some guys on the team then. Based on what I heard from them, I would not be surprised if Elvis was not among Bob's favorite people. Are you at liberty to confirm this speculation?
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Still holding a candle for RR||
For the record, I agree Snyder and Rosenberg authored a hatchet job that significantly harmed the program and our already unfairly beleaguered coach at the time, and the Freep's editors committed journalistic malpractice in allowing their "expose" to be published.
But every time I read one of Section 1's open letters, I have two thoughts:
|3 years 10 weeks ago||I hope||
our fearless leader Brian Cook doesn't get any ideas from this.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||That's||
The Michigan Difference.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||You are poorly informed in many respects||
As the posts below show, your understanding of Chris Webber's role in the Ed Martin scandal is poorly informed. And your argument that the NCAA rules don't proscribe a booster from paying a student-athlete's family members is simply wrong. See, e.g., the Reggie Bush scandal. I blame Steve Fisher as much as I blame Chris Webber; Fisher let Ed Martin get close to the program despite Perry Watson telling Fisher that Martin was bad news.
Also, off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 teams that have gone to back-to-back championship games since the Fab Five did it--and one that went to 3 straight title games:
The Fab Five's two Final Four runs occurred during my junior and senior years at Michigan. I went to the Sweet Sixteen games in Lexington in 1992 and the Final Four games in New Orleans in 1993. Those were two of the most memorable weekends of my 4 years at Michigan. Unfortunately, those banners should never be displayed due to Steve Fisher's and Chris Webber's misconduct. You can cherish your individual memories of the Fab Five and still recognize that those banners should never be hung in Crisler.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Brother Rice||
For whatever reason, Brother Rice recruits tend to go to MSU more often than Michigan. There was a period in the late 1980s/early 1990s when Rice sent some guys to UM (most notably, Paul Jokish (sp?) and Steve Morrison - but even Jokish arrived as a basketball player, IIRC). But I bet the MSU:UM ratio for Rice recruits has been 3:1 over the last 35 years. As a Rice and UM grad, it kind of hurts to point this out. I don't think Coach Fracasa's MSU connection is the driving force behind this, by the way.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Love the Six Clips reference||
They did rock. That is all.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||How refreshing . . .||
to have someone connected with the Penn State story express appropriate remorse.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||A Train didn't drop the ball||
Everyone always says Thomas simply dropped the ball without being touched. Just as Thomas was bursting through the hole, a Northwestern player who was engaged with a blocker reached in and got a couple fingers on the ball. He barely got a hand on it, but it was enough because Thomas wasn't expecting anyone to reach in. I think Thomas might have been adjusting the ball too as he accelerated into all-out sprint mode.
I was at the game and based on the way the play looked from the south endzone, I thought Thomas must have simply dropped the ball. When I got home, replays showed otherwise. I just tried to find a good replay on YouTube but no dice. I think NU #44 is the guy who got a finger or two on the ball. Brutal loss.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Another over/under still in play||
Whatever it is, I'll take the under for some genius to explicate Brian's Star Wars allusion.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||Rosenberg's rendition of Brian Cook "berating" him||
"What's a countable hour!?! You Dolphin puncher!!"
|3 years 35 weeks ago||If Hoke was a done deal . . .||
A good reason no one seems to be mentioning is that Hoke was a done deal in DB's mind, so he didn't have to worry about finding a new coach. Bacon's story about former Carr players saying, at a golf outing in May 2010, that Hoke would be the coach in 2011 offers some support for this theory.
If you have the new coach already in hand, waiting until after the bowl to fire RR is probably the best option because:
The only negatives are:
None of these 3 came to pass, so maybe the pimp hand was extant in this case.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||But that's OK||
because the Spartan called him Tom.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||A full investigation will take seconds, maybe a minute||
A comprehensive investigation of this matter is warranted, and we Michigan fans need to recognize the complexity of this situation. High-definition video of a player intentionally jerking another player's facemask after the whistle sounds can be incredibly misleading. We must avoid a rush to accuracy and accountability. Indeed, if you watch the video closely, you'll notice Denard's head moved back and to the left, not down and to the right. This conclusively establishes that Taylor Lewan called Gholston "Tom" from the grassy knoll. That's one magic loogie, Jerry.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||Game ball to Moosman, Graham et al.||
Can we just fucking beat Ohio State this year and give the game ball to the guys who stayed and worked their tails off during the RR years? At this point, that's what I want most out of this season.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Facemask on the A-Train fumble?||
You could argue that the Illini who caused the fumble face-masked Thomas before he jarred the ball loose. That's what I tell my Illinois friends, at least.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Scratching and biting||
I've heard from several former Big Ten players, including non-Michigan players, that MSU was the most annoying team in the conference to play because their players would scratch and bite opposing players in the pile. You can rest assured, now that Saint Dantonio is their coach, Spartans never resort to such tactics. /s
|3 years 37 weeks ago||You're right||
Since I've been following Michigan (~1980), we've never won a football game against MSU thanks to a dramatic bullshit call.
They've been screwed a few times in the NCAA basketball tournament, but I'm pretty sure those pre-dated the 1990 MSU-Michigan football game (Kansas in 1986, GaTech in 1990).
It's actually more effective to parrot their excuses when Sparty didn't get obviously screwed or the situation is not as dramatic as a blown call with 7 seconds left that cost a team its #1 ranking.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||1990 Game||
For me, the hatred was truly born after Desmond was tripped at the end of the 1990 game. It was bad enough to have the refs blow an obvious pass interference call after Michigan made a great comeback and Moeller went for 2 to preserve Michigan's shot at a national title.
The worst part was hearing the MSU fans and their media enablers rationalize why the result of that game was just:
Whenever Sparty gets screwed by a bad call, I like to recite these same bullshit rationalizations to the Spartan faithful and watch their heads explode.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Interesting read||
I found this transcript a fascinating read. As a lawyer, I expected the NCAA interviewers to adopt a more adversarial stance toward Tressel. Their approach was basically to let Tressel hang himself. I guess you can do this when you have emails showing that Tressel lied to the NCAA on multiple occasions.
Anyway, I'd like to know what the ground rules are for this kind of NCAA compliance interview. Clearly, they aren't the same ground rules that apply in a deposition for a civil case. One moment that stuck out was this exchange after Chuck Smrt (OSU's outside counsel) asked Tressel whether he thought he promoted an atmosphere of compliance:
Jim Tressel: I think we definitely do it generally in our program. I don’t think it’s just my doing. But I think we do that, you know, very, very well. Did I do it in this particular situation?
Doug Archie: Can we take a break for a minute?
Chuck Smrt: Okay.
Tim Nevius: Okay. All right. 1:09. We’re taking a short break. Yep, definitely. Oh, back on the record at 1:15 PM with Coach Tressel.
Chuck Smrt: Coach, I had asked you about an atmosphere of compliance, and I think you’ve answered that question. So is there anything else that you wanna add that haven’t talked about?
Jim Tressel: I don’t think so. No, sir.
I don't know why one of the NCAA guys didn't jump back in and ask whether Tressel thinks he promoted an atmosphere of compliance in this instance. It's clear that Smrt and Archie knew the implications of such testimony.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||That's an amazing family history||
There's a Michigan pennant in my 22 month old son's room. Whenever he sees a pennant--no matter the colors or the school--he says, "Michigan . . . . Hail!"
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Anthony Carter||
AC is my earliest Michigan football memory. I remember other kids talking about AC and wearing the #1 jersey on the playground when I was in 4th grade in the fall of 1980. The 1980 Ohio State and 1981 Rose Bowl wins are my earliest game memories.
For Michigan fans, like me, who are now around 40 yeard old, I bet AC high stepping into the endzone is one of their earliest memories of Michigan football.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||Yep||
This is why UM was deemed a repeat violator for stretch-gate, as the Ed Martin scandal sanctions were handed down sometime in spring 2003 (IIRC) and the improper stretching occured just barely within 5 years of that date.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||I disagree||
Say what you will about "The Process," but I think the Miles interview was a show to appease the pro-Miles crowd. DB didn't need to interview Miles because he's known Miles for 35 years, and I doubt Miles needed to be interviewed to decide whether he was interested in being UM's next coach.
|4 years 13 weeks ago||Bobby Hurley||
Jalen is an idiot, but I wonder if anyone in the MSM will remember Bobby Hurley's DUI, which occurred not long after Duke beat the Fab Five for the title.
BTW, I don't want to sound callous given that Hurley later almost lost his life when a drunk driver hit him. The point is that Hurley committed his crime while still a Duke student, while the Fab Five were labeled a bunch of thugs even though I don't recall any run-ins with the law other than Jalen's infamous "crack house" incident.
|4 years 15 weeks ago||Timing of Walton's comments||
My recollection is that Walton made the comments on Roy Firestone's show shortly before the 1993 NCAA tournament. So by this time the Fab Five had taken Michigan to the Final Four. I remember the timing of Walton's comments because it made Michigan's comeback win over UCLA in the second round of the 1993 tournament that much bigger--Walton would have been impossibly insufferable if UCLA had pulled off the upset.
That said, the nay-sayers had some ammunition in that Michigan did not win the Big Ten title their sophomore year (got swept by Indiana and lost in overtime, I believe, to Iowa), plus they had several close calls to perceived lesser teams (the OT win at Illinois was featured on the documentary . . . there were a couple others). There were a lot of haters during the 1992-1993 season. That's why the win over Kentucky was so huge.
|4 years 15 weeks ago||FWIW||
Michigan made the title game in 1965, too. Although we are 1-4 all-time in the title game, we lost to 3 of the greatest teams of all time in 4 of those losses: UCLA '65, Indiana '76, and Duke '92.
The '93 UNC team was no slouch, either. The documentary did not mention that UM beat UNC earlier in the 1992-1993 season in a very close game in the semifinals of a holiday tournament (Webber made a ridiculous play near the end to win the game). Then UM destroyed Kansas in the final of that tournament. I have not been able to find a copy of that game on the internet. It's worth another watch if someone can locate it.
Another point not noted in the documentary: Indiana was probably the best team in 1993. Alan Henderson got hurt right before the tournament, which is the only reason why Kansas was able to beat IU in the Elite Eight. Otherwise, all four 1 seeds would have advanced to the 1993 Final Four. Part of the reason UNC beat UM in the Final was because UNC's Final Four game against Kansas was much less draining than our overtime win over Kentucky. I attended that entire Final Four (class of '93), and my recollection is that UNC was in total control of that semifinal game, whereas the UM-UK game was a dogfight. In the lead up to the Final Four, all the pundits were predicting Kentucky to beat Michigan - with many predicting a convincing UK win. Partying on Bourbon Street after that win over UK is one of my two best Michigan sports memories - #1 being celebrating in Pasadena after the 1998 Rose Bowl win.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||Confidentiality story||
It wasn't the first thing Tressel asked because Cicero didn't ask for confidentiality in the first email. That's why Tressel's story is obviously BS.
There are major problems with Tressel's story even if you set aside this obvious one. Tressel's story (which OSU has swallowed hook, line and sinker) is that he didn't forward the emails to OSU's administration and legal team because he was concerned about preserving the confidentiality of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. This was supposedly Tressel's only motivation. Never mind that the emails did not come from a federal prosecutor or, in the case of the first one, even a guy who identified himself as an attorney.
At any rate, even if you accept the notion that Tressel viewed Cicero's emails as a confidential request from a lawyer (as opposed to a helpful fan who happened to be a lawyer), Tressel's alleged motivation is obviously BS because:
Tressel's story stinks to high heaven and anyone with a brain knows it. Michigan fired Steve Fisher because he lied about initializing some documents giving Ed Martin free tickets. Fisher's story didn't pass the smell test, and when UM caught him in a lie, even a minor one, they fired him. OSU is choosing to believe Tressel's BS story--and for that they should fry.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||OSU's angle||
Based on its letter to the NCAA, OSU had to propose a lenient punishment because OSU is buying (and selling) Tressel's story that he buried the emails from "the attorney"* to protect the federal investigation.
OSU's theory is that Cicero's emails forced Tressel to choose between reporting a potential violation to the NCAA and preserving the integrity of an ongoing federal criminal investigation, the disclosure of which could endanger the lives of some of his student-athletes. This is how OSU's letter frames the issue (in particular, re-read the last few sentences of the letter). If you believe that Tressel was confronted with a genuine moral dilemma and chose the lesser of two evils, the punishment announced by OSU actually seems reasonable. If you are OSU's president or AD and you don't believe Tressel's story, then you have to fire him. Guess which version of events OSU chose to credit.
The only problem with OSU's theory is that, much like Taco Bell's beef, it is a purely theoretical concept. [HT: Colbert.]
As numerous people on here have noted, the first email shows that Tressel's story is 100% bullshit. In the initial email, "the attorney" does not identify himself as an attorney and he does not request confidentiality from Tressel. The "tenor" (Tressel's word from the presser) of the initial email is this: "The feds know your players have been involved in shenanigans down at the tattoo parlor, and this thing is about to blow up because Rife is in deep shit for dealing drugs, so I wanted to give you a friendly heads-up, Coach. Have a blessed Easter! Go Bucks!!"
The NCAA's response to OSU's punishment will turn on whether they can disprove OSU's theory. I have to think that the NCAA folks are not dumb enough to actually believe this crap. However, whether they can debunk the story is another matter. To feel justified in calling Tressel's story BS and bringing down the ban hammer, they probably want evidence beyond the emails.
At his presser, Tressel really played up the notion that he was presented with this incredibly murky moral choice, and he thought he was doing the right thing even though he knew he was violating an NCAA bylaw (again, the letter reiterates all of these points). To prove that Tressel was not motivated by these "extenuating circumstances," but rather by his desire to field a championship football team, will probably require evidence in addition to the emails we already know about.
* Note that OSU's letter refers to the emailer as "the attorney" throughout. This lends believability to Tressel's story, even though it's clear in the initial message that the emailer was a fan passing along helpful info, not an attorney advising Tressel about an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Of course, we now know the emailer is a former OSU walk-on (who is about to be disciplined by the Ohio Bar).
|4 years 16 weeks ago||Do we know who Yahoo!'s source is?||
I figure it has to be someone inside the OSU administration, and presumably someone who was disgusted by Tressel's actions and the administration slow playing their investigation.
Not surprisingly, the original Yahoo! piece refers to the source only as "the source."
|4 years 16 weeks ago||I think the four 16 seeds are||
I think the four 16 seeds are there simply to be mocked and destroyed in the first round. No other explanation.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||You are right about the||
You are right about the practical significance of the ACP issue--Cicero's disciplinary hearing should provide a way to subpoena Tressel and force him to testify under oath about his communications with Cicero. The Ed Martin scandal didn't get serious until witnesses started getting put under oath by the feds.
My comment was focused on whether Tressel was under a duty of confidentiality to Cicero or anyone else. He wasn't. Even if OSU argued that Cicero was acting as Tressel's lawyer at some point in this mess, the duty of confidentiality is a one way street--only the lawyer is under the duty. The client can waive the duty at any time.
As for Rife, he has a good malpractice case against Cicero because it is clear that Cicero betrayed his confidence. Likely, the only issue is what are Rife's damages.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||ACP issue is a red herring||
The existence of an attorney client privilege between Cicero and Rife is irrelevant to Tressel. Tressel owed no duty of confidentiality to either Rife or Cicero at any point in this mess. Tressel's duty was one of loyalty to OSU, and he failed miserably to perform that duty.
Also, note that Cicero's first email to Tressel makes no mention of representing Rife and no request for confidentiality. This is why Tressel's confidentiality excuse is total BS. It also shows that Cicero learned of the investigation from his law enforcement buddies and he was giving Tressel a friendly heads-up. There's simply no evidence of an attorney-client relationship between Cicero and Rife at this time.
The more I analyze these emails and the issues they raise, the more I think this will spell the end of Tressel one way or another. It's just a matter of time.
|4 years 16 weeks ago||Geaux Blue is right on|
|4 years 24 weeks ago||That's easy||
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Correct||
This is why Brian agreed RR had to go and why Dan Mullen is Brian's #1 choice:
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Mini-Ditka v. Chuckie?||
"I gotta go with mini-Ditka."
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Exactly||
Michigan got manhandled in all 6 of their losses, and struggled to beat ND, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, and, to an embarassing extent, UMass.
Anyone who thinks RR's firing is shocking or unfair is being unreasonable--even Brian lost faith in RR after the Gator Bowl. It was time to move on, even if JH wasn't already in hand. If you can't deal with the uncertainty right now, that's a reflection of your character, not a sign that Brandon has failed. We won't know if Brandon screwed the pooch for 3-5 years.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||RR got fired based on the on-field data points, not PR||
As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, even Brian agreed that RR had to go after the Gator Bowl. Keeping RR was no longer an option--if you don't accept that fact, you are living in an H.S. Thompson-esque fantasy world.
All the uncertainty right now stinks, but we were in a similar situation 3 years ago and Martin pulled RR out of his ass. Most of us--myself included--were very excited about that seemingly unlikely turn of events. I think Brandon will do something similar over the next 7-10 days--except this time the guy who accepts the job will have a much better idea of the institutional context he's walking into. The sky is not falling.
|4 years 25 weeks ago||Agreed||
Why are so many of the Brandon haters acting like keeping RR was an option after the Gator Bowl?
Read Brian's "Moon Disaster" post from 2 days ago. Brian's mantra ever since the "When Can We Fire this Guy" post from November 2009 was that we need more data points before we can fire this guy. After Michigan got mauled for the sixth time this season, Brandon had to fire RR. Brian even noted that some players and their parents had lost faith in the coaching staff. Keeping RR simply was no longer an option.
I like RR and wanted him to succeed, but the last 3 games of this season caused me, like Brian, to have little confidence he could get it done here in the short term or the long term. Brandon was wise enough to know that it was time to move on--even if the future looks very uncertain right now as we face a "national search." I want an AD who is not afraid to confront an uncertain future. The sky is not falling, chicken littles.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||No||
Although I was a tad surprised by the utter emo-ness of yesterday's post, I feel like Brian has been building to that moment ever since, after a game late last year, he asked: "So when can we get rid of this guy?"
My sense is that - like me - Brian feels that a perfect shitstorm has combined to send Rich Rod's tenure into a likely death spiral. We can still pull it out - and I am hopeful - but the odds are not looking good right now. No sugarcoat.
|4 years 44 weeks ago||Wonderful post||
Your post makes me think those of us with kids should send pictures of them in Michigan gear to the powers-that-be, noting that our sons and daughters will not experience The Game as it should be: outdoors, on a damp, drizzly November afternoon with the stakes at their highest.
|4 years 47 weeks ago||Sparty and the Freep: Great Legal Minds Strike Again||
Plus, what's up with Spartan fans not understanding what assault is: "BJ Cunningham pled to 'assaulte' and 'conspiracy to commit assault' because he held someone away from a teammate and tried but failed to kick someone else."
In other words, Cunningham committed assault, which is an attempt to hit someone or conduct that puts another in imminent fear of being hit (such as throwing a punch at someone even if you didn't intend to actually hit the person).
The Freep had the same problem. It tried to downplay the assault charges in the same fashion, even going so far as to ask its trusty legal expert about assault when it covered the Rather Hall "incident."
I understand assault is an abstract concept, one that may strain the intelligence of many Spartans and Free Press reporters. But the rest of us can agree assault is a good law to have on the books, right?
|4 years 50 weeks ago||Game 5||
I agree about Game 5 being the real issue. "The Decision" was awkward and, yes, self-aggrandizing, but it didn't really get under my skin all that much. It was about what I expected, so I was neither insulted nor offended. Plus, it's kind of fun to watch Jim Gray and Stu Scott look like absolute fools.
Nor do I consider LeBron's decision to leave the Cavs a betrayal, let alone a cowardly one. He didn't owe Cleveland anything when it came to deciding where to sign. LeBron did, however, owe Cleveland his best effort in Game 5 and he clearly didn't provide that. I'm sure many suspect that Game 5 shows the South Beach fix was in long ago. I doubt that's the case, but it does show that LeBron doesn't have great leadership abilities--at least not yet. Perhaps this is why he wants to play with Wade, who is cut out of the Jordon mold whereas LeBron strikes me more as a Magic type (as Bill Simmons has argued, Magic didn't fully develop his killer instinct until after the Lakers lost to the Celtics in 1984).
I've found Gilbert's childish antics much more problematic than the theatrics surrounding LeBron's decision. As many have pointed out, Gilbert had no problem seducing Izzo away from his home state and Gilbert's own alma mater, but now he's calling LeBron a coward and a Benedict Arnold. Another f'ing ridiculous Sparty moment.
I also find it odd that quite a few of us (i.e., MGoBloggers) have jumped on the LeBron-betrayed-his-home-town bandwaggon, despite our universal criticism of the RichRod-betrayed-his home-state meme propogated by the MSM. RichRod had every right to break his contract (and to try to get a potentially punitive buyout clause declared unenforceable), and LeBron had every right to sign with the Heat. It's business, not personal.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||"pure conentration" defined:||
displaying your phat rapping skills while making a spectacular catch intended for Tacopants.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Cosign with jg2112||
I heard Bill Buckner called Joyce last night to welcome him to the "immortality" club. [sarcasm alert]
|5 years 4 weeks ago||There's a huge difference||
Blowing a call is negligent, punching your co-worker is battery. That's why Joyce won't get fired and your coworker got summarily fired.
Given the great Stretchgate scandal, you'd think all of us Michigan fans would know how to distinguish between an act of negligence and a willful act of violence--you know, like a certain mass co-ed beatdown carried out at Rather Hall.
Come on people: the call sucked. When they showed the replay, I screamed at the TV and woke up my 11-month old son. But let's show some intelligence if not class.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Did I say everything should||
Did I say everything should be "okay" for Joyce? There should be--and will be--professional repercussions for him.
My point is simply that sometimes you fuck up royally and the true test of your mettle is how you respond to the fuck up. I think Joyce has revealed himself to be a decent guy. No sugarcoat.
Meanwhile, Galarraga's response has been incredibly gracious and he deserves massive credit.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Joyce also personally apologized||
After the press conference, Joyce personally apologized to Gallaraga with tears in his eyes. It was a terrible call, but we should all take our cue from Gallaraga's gracious response, and recognize that Joyce deserves credit for admiting his mistake.
|5 years 5 weeks ago||I concur||
with jg2112. Be prepared to work harder than you've ever worked before during the first year--it is all important, especially in the current economic climate.
As for "recession-proof" practice areas, product liability defense is more recession proof than most. The major downside of product liability is the size and duration of the typical litigation, which involves hundreds if not thousands of individual cases, and often drags on for the better part of a decade. An upside is that it is always interesting to learn about the scientific and technical aspects of whatever product is at issue.
However, I would also seriously consider doing something else, at least until the legal market improves. Get a CPA if you think you might want to do tax law someday, get a scientific or engineering masters if you think you might want to do product liability law, etc.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Wake and BC Are Great Schools||
Both are in the top 35 nationally--comfortably ahead of Illinois and Wisconsin and just behind Michigan. Although they are not research grant giants, there's no need to make an "exception" for either.
I agree that the ACC schools are more attractive than the Big 12 and Big East teams being batted around. Assuming we go to a Big 16, my ideal scenario would be to add ND, BC, UVa., UNC and Duke. If we went to 18, I'd add Ga. Tech and Wake. Neither scenario is going to happen, but it's a nice dream.
Edit: I see a couple people beat me to the punch. I need to take a typing class.
|5 years 15 weeks ago||Because they proudly name their bars Plan B||
Seriously, the Sparty bar in my Chicago neighborhood is called Plan B. Its motto: "You can always go to Plan B." Indeed.
|5 years 16 weeks ago||I was 13 too||
I was 13 too in 1984. That's just about the perfect age to have your favorite team win it all (baseball was my first love--Michigan football was a close second then). I hope my son gets to experience that with one of his teams (preferably Michigan football).
I vividly remember being in the car driving home from Up North listening to Ernie Harwell calling the last couple of innings. IIRC, Tony Gwynn popped out to Larry Herndon down the left field line to end it. Great day.
|5 years 29 weeks ago||Freep Bias||
Did the Freep ever consult a legal expert when they were covering RR's attempt to fight his buyout clause? I don't think so. The Freep's columnists (and others) acted like challenging the enforceability of a buyout clause could be the move only of a greedy, unprincipled weasel. RR was clearly just a promise breaker.
In truth, former employees challenge the enforceability of contract clauses (especially a potentially punitive buyout or non-compete clause) as a matter of course. It’s business, not personal. All the Freep had to do was talk to a "legal expert"--hell, law students learn this in the first semester of Contracts. The only reasonable explanation for this blindspot in the Freep’s coverage is that the Freep couldn't find a qualified legal expert to opine on such arcane matters. [Sarcasm alert]
Meanwhile, note how the Freep made no attempt to connect the dots when Williams, their legal expert, noted "it was possible that some of the players did not strike anyone. 'If I walked up to you and reared back my fist and made you flinch, that's assault,' he said. 'Conspiracy is when you plan to do it, like two or more people getting together saying, "Let's go kick his butt."'"
Williams' quote explains why the players may be guilty of assault and conspiracy even if (as Mr. Dell, Sr. insists) they did not hit anyone. Of course, the sub-headline for the article ("Charging many players could be way to get to truth, experts say.") discounts the very point that Williams makes. And Williams' analysis is buried at the end of the article. The other possibility--which the Freep's own expert explains--is that some of the players could be guilty of assault and conspiracy even if they did not actually hit anyone.
Of course, Rosenberg was all-too-happy to connect the dots when he framed the media day comments of Michigan freshmen J’Ron Stokes:
As numerous people (including Bryan and Jon Chait) have pointed out, the final sentence misleadingly suggests that what Hawthorne and Stokes had described was a blatant rule violation. This is where Rosenberg should have asked an expert well versed in the NCAA’s countable/non-countable distinction to opine on Hawthorne’s and Stokes’ descriptions, and the unnamed player’s allegations. Instead, Rosenberg assumed the existence of the very violation that he was purportedly investigating.
|5 years 30 weeks ago||2002 MSU-UM Game||
I disagree. Michigan would have killed MSU in 2002 even if Smoker had played. At the time of the 2002 UM-MSU game, Smoker was reportedly abusing drugs big time. In that condition, he would not have helped Sparty much, if at all. Plus, Carr was out for blood after Spartan Bob's timekeeping shenanigans at the end of the 2001 game.
Also, the fact an alleged drug addict was not charged with a crime has no bearing on whether a coach should be fired for presiding over a team that apparently had a hankering for nose candy.
|5 years 31 weeks ago||Basically, this is how I felt after the Iowa game.||
The result sucked once again, but when I saw those Buckeye fans holding up the sign thanking Coach Rodriguez, I wanted to ask them what game they were watching. A clearly inferior Michigan team threw away at least 13 points, gave up a defensive TD on a play when the QB wasn't even touched, turned the ball over 5 times total, and lost by 11.
Keep GERG and give RR another year. Like Bryan, I need to see significant improvement and 8 wins next year to believe that RR can get it done at Michigan. My faith in RR has been shaken, but I want to see what happens next year before cutting bait. This is what passes for optimism these days. Go Blue!
|5 years 32 weeks ago||Slight corrections||
Michigan had only 3 losses heading into the 1996 game and Eddie George was already in the NFL. Orlando Pace was OSU's Heisman hopeful in 1996. Of all the Michigan wins over Cooper (bless his soul), the '96 win was by far the most improbable. I expected UM to win in 1993 and 1995 when OSU came to AA with top-5 teams. The 1996 game felt like stealing.
|5 years 36 weeks ago||Freep Lead||
When Sheridan was handing off to Kevin Grady in the third quarter, I foresaw the Freep's next lead story: Michigan disgraces itself by allowing 2008 starting QB and 5-star running back to run up score against lowly Delaware State. Oh the humanity!