- Member for
- 6 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Tale of 2 games||
I've now taken my 4.5 year old son to two Michigan games. They won both by stopping 2 pt conversions to win the game. The first game featured over 130 points. Today was... Different
|4 weeks 17 hours ago||NO ENTRY - IM official||
I officiated IM Sports in 1996-1997.
I was calling the Open League Men's Basketball championship game which was essentially between the football team and the athletic department.
I whistled Jon Jansen for an offensive foul. He politely explained to me that despite the fact that the far smaller gentleman went flying across the floor, that doesn't necessarily make it a charge. I choose not to disagree to his face. (he clearly lowered the shoulder and initiated contact FWIW).
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Reception Rule||
The rule is silly, but when you read it in full - it makes the call and the non-overturn at least understandable. Arguable, no doubt, but it wasn't the obvious call that both logic and our hearts wanted it to be:
See clauses B & D. It's tough, is he still in the process of making the catch?
New language to clarify “catch” (2‐4‐3) E
Catch, Interception, Recovery
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the ball
touches the ground, and
2. touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act
common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it,
avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
4. satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without
contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of
the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to
make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses
control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it
is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the
ground it is a catch.
c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the
ground with any part of his body, or if there is doubt that the acts were
simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight
movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose
control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.
d. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control and
continues to maintain control, and the elements above are satisfied, it is a
|12 weeks 22 hours ago||24-20 Michigan||
Defense steps up
|21 weeks 18 hours ago||collective licensing||
Keep in mind that when you buy Denard's NFL jersey, he doesn't get an extra cut of that either. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but NFL licensing is split amonst the teams and the players. The NFLPA has agreed to all sorts of uses of the players names and likenesses (Madden, jerseys, t-shirts, etc.). For those, the NFLPA receives some amount which is then distributed to the players in equal proportions.
|21 weeks 18 hours ago||that just forces another trial||
Obviously a lot of speculation about possible outcomes involved in both the article and your comment, but supposing that all comes to pass ...
While the Big Ten may not be immediately the subject of the ruling, the ruling would establish the precedent by which a similar case could immediately be brought against any conference attempting to do those things that the NCAA was just told it couldn't do. I doubt they'd bother.
That said, there would be a lot of change coming and a whole bunch of schools and conferences would have to establish their own rules for dealing with whatever the new landscape looks like.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||will M be this "zoney" though?||
The Bears have run the over since Lovie arrived, but they ran it with a lot of zone behind it. When they were at their peak, it was almost exclusively zone. They were essentially Bend but Don't Break except with lots of turnovers. Blitzing was rare.
I'm assuming (with no source at all), that Michigan is planning more of an aggressive 4-3 that sees Ryan playing aggressively down hill and uses more man concepts in the back.
Do we have any idea whether that's the case?
|23 weeks 2 days ago||K down BB up||
His K's are down (6.4/9 vs career # of 8.4/9)
His BB are up (3.8/9 vs career # of 2.8/9)
This is typcial of a pitcher who doesn't have the same stuff.
Beyond that I can't say as I haven't seen a ton of him throwing, but I'd cast a suspicous gaze toward that 2011 season where he threw 251 innings plus another 20 in the post season. It was one of the best seasons seen in MLB in recent years. Then he followed it up in 2012 with 238 innings plus 28 more in the post season.
By 2013 his #'s look like a solid starter in a 2 or 3 spot, but not the ace he was previously. This year, he's stepped down another notch.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Tired but happy||
Eating breakfast in bed made by my 4 year old while my 2 week old sleeps on me. Tough to beat, though the hourly wake up calls since midnight might have been over the top.
|23 weeks 5 days ago||Freddette||
Jimmer Freddette, was a college superstar at BYU a few years back and a 1st round pick. The Bulls signed him off the street late in the season to add shooting.
|23 weeks 6 days ago||what's the floor||
If the ceiling is Curry-level, what's the floor?
Keep in mind this is a Bulls team that had the Jimmer firmly stapled to the bench down the stretch because he can't play D. That's the #1 concern for Stauskas as well. I loved watching him play, but in the NBA, it's easy to isolate a sub-par defender. IF that's what he turns out to be, it's going to be really hard having him in the game down the stretch at the 2 or the 3.
I hope Nik becomes a star - and I'm a Bulls fan, so all the better if that stardom is in Chicago, but let's inject som realism here. There is a long list of really good players at hte college level that could shoot and score (Bo Kimble, Steve Alford, Adam Morrison, JJ Reddick, Shawn Respert, Kyle Korver), but who had average (or worse) NBA careers because they couldn't play D or generate their own shots. He'll have to do both of those things to become a star.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||drafted but never played||
As pointed out by others, Suton was drafted (2nd round, 50th overall), but cut in the preseason. He's been playing in Europe.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||and Randolph, Richardson||
Hard to figure this list. According to Wikipedia (I'm too lazy to do real reasearch)- 13 guys who played for Izzo @ State were HS All Americans of one flavor or another.
He's had 13 guys go to the NBA - this list:
Jamie Feick, Mateen Cleaves, Morris Peterson, Jason Richardson, Zach Randolph, Andre Hutson, Charlie Bell (Undrafted but played), Marcus Taylor, Erazem Lorbek, Alan Anderson, Shannon Brown, Maurice Ager, Paul Davis, Goran Suton, Draymond Green
|27 weeks 6 days ago||Not an Accurate passer||
Right on point yellowdart
He's just not that accurate a passer. At Michigan he was a 58-60% passer all 4 years. I understand that he was in an "NFL-style" vertical passing offence, but if you look at those years, the top QB's were routinely in the 65-70% realm. If you take the top 5 in 2006 (Henne's Jr year) passer rating - Brennan, Beck, J. Russel, Palko, Kolb (I think they all at least played in the NFL) the lowest completion % was 67.6%. It's far from a perfect stat and has loads of dependency on scheme, protection, receiver talent, etc., but it's one reason he's struggled.
Part two of my theory - Henne was always seen as a pretty finished product coming out of HS. The advanced training he got made him ready to start as a freshman at Michigan. But, it also left him with little room to grow. That's why his numbers didn't improve appreciably over a very nice career.
Fast forward to the NFL, and he's yet to have a season with more TD than INT. It doesn't help that he's been on bad teams, but that's a lack of accuracy (and poor decisions as others have pointed out).
|27 weeks 6 days ago||There's still competition||
That content needs to make into your home somehow. You have the option of using the internet, but only if the channels choose to distribute that way. Something tells me if you're paying $37 a month to get ESPN via a cable or satellite provider (and actually choosing to do so as opposed to having little choice), then ESPN won't be likely to stream their content for free. If the cable/satellite providers are going to remain competitve, they'll have to deliver value adds to differentiate themselves.
Niche channels can still exist as long as they keep their costs down, just like today. Except, instead of getting $0.03/month from every cable/satellite subscriber, they'll get $1.50/month from the much smaller # of subscribers that choose to pay for them.
|28 weeks 11 hours ago||lots of assumptions||
It's an interesting take and I think these economists have some useful theories. The one glaring omission I saw was anything about competition. Right now, the competition for everything that's on "standard" cable (think you're typcial package), competes only with the other channels in that lineup for viewers, and hence ad rates.
If you unbundle, all of those channels will now have to compete to convince you to subscribe before you can watch. Economic theory would tell us that this would have a positive impact on both quality and price, as one of the ineffeciencies in the market (the bundling of packages) is removed as an obstacle to competition.
You also have ot factor in alternative delivery methods. What happens to streaming video, netflix, youtube, etc. Viewers and providers are going to have to consider the benefits and costs of delivering and consuming content in a way other than via cable tv.
|28 weeks 11 hours ago||amen||
I've been a ref (at the rec level) and this stuff happens all the time. You overlook the ticky-tac foul but give the ball to the right team.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||tackle data sketchy @ best||
Isn't tackle data notoriously unreliable?
I know in the NFL the coaches typcially update the tackle stats the day after the game. This can lead to big inconsistencies in how things are counted between different teams. Does anyone know if college works the same way?
|28 weeks 2 days ago||uh 4 starters as rookies last year||
Bama had 4 guys picked in the 1st two rounds of the 2013 draft
1-9 Dee Milliner (CB) NYJ - started 12 games, 3 int, 45 tackles - struggled, getting pulled a few times, but rookie CB rarely are anything better than passable
1-10 Chance Warmack (RG) TEN - started all 16 games, that's pretty good for rookie OL though he was thought to have just an ok debut
1-11 DJ Fluker (OT) SD - started 15 games, holding his own @ RT but stuggling at LT. He graded out ahead of the 3 big-name OT from his class (Fischer, Joeckel, Johnson)
2-61 Eddie Lacy (RB) GB - started 15 games despite a training camp injury and ran for 1178 yards, 11 TDs, 4.1 YPC
It's early, but I wouldn't say any of those guys are looking like busts at this point. Fluker and Lacy look like excellent players and Milliner & Warmack need time for a fair evaluation.
|29 weeks 11 hours ago||surplus||
My point is they're not losing money at all. At least not the big programs like Michigan. They're just choosing to plow the "surplus" into facilities and other things that would make no sense in a true "business" sense.
|29 weeks 14 hours ago||define "money loser"||
Being a money losing department doesn't mean it's a bad business for the school. When you build $20 million practice facilities and other top-shelf amenities for revenue and non-revenue generating sports, you may lose money on an accounting basis, but you're not really losing.
Schools are not-for-profit, so when they have excess revenue, they plow it back into things like coaches salaries, facilities, and whatever perks the NCAA allows. This isn't unlike "not-for-profit" outfits that pay enormous salaries to their CEO's and other top employees (see many hospitals, NGO's, and Charities).
"Profitability" is just a bad measure in this cirucmstance. Successful atheletic departments bring prestige and attention to their university. They increase alumni involvement and offer many opportunities for student athelets and others around them. Measuring success at the criteria with something like "profit" is like saying we "won" a baseketball game because we got more shot attempts.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||I'll take ...||
PG - SO Trey Burke
SG - 89 Glenn Rice
SF - 66 Cazzie
PF - SO Chris Webber
C - JR Juwan Howard
That leave a bench with Stauskas, Jalen, Rumeal, Terry Mills, and Tractor Traylor
|30 weeks 1 day ago||What if he keeps it?||
Imagine for a second that he just decides to keep it. This isn't totally outlandish as any forced sale tha he opposes might be tied up in the legal process for years.
If he continues as the owner next year, even if he can't really be involved in any way, won't sponsors and fans just boycott the place? I have a hard time believing that too many companies will want to be associated with the Clippers as long as he is.
Some have placed the value in the $700 million range. Assuming that's true, how much of that value is destroyed by him keeping the franchise? It's almost ceratainly in his best financial interest to sell the team soon for the best offer he can get.
That said - the dude is clearly crazy, so he might not care.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||better pro than college player||
I have to disagree with those of you saying he should have stayed. As a Michigan fan, I would have loved to have seen him back, but he's the type of player that's going to be a better pro than college player in my opinion. He'll thrive with the more wide open game and more opportunities to showcase his athleticism.
|39 weeks 3 days ago||Risking Ryan||
Moving Ryan to MLB scares me. Is he still going to be the disruptive player at MLB that he was outside? I've always felt like he was at his best making plays in spce that nobody thought a guy his size could make. When you put him @ MLB, he's going to be dealing with a lot more traffic. That doesn't mean he can't do it - he might be great at it, but until we see it, we don't know.
We do know that the winner of the SAM position will be a downgrade from what Ryan brought. So, Ryan really needs to be a top notch Mike for this to make sense.
All that said - the coaches see a heck of a lot more of him that we do, so the must see something.
|43 weeks 2 days ago||Eric Swann||
He couldn't get into college, but played semi-pro ball instead. He was drafted 6th overall by the Arizona Cardinals in the 1991. He had a solid, if unspectaular NFL career until 2000.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||recruiting titles - no something I care to expect about||
Winning some mythical recruiting title isn't all that important to me. Yes, I'd like us to recruit well as that's a big factor in being successful. But, to say we'll have the top class in the conference with some expected frequency just doesn't do much for me. All the other stuff, worth discussing.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||clash of opposites||
Wow - playing them will be a clash of opposites.
1 team can't play offense but has a fantastic defense.
The other has struggles on defense but one of the top offenses.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||That was my point||
right - because Schiano has no NFL head coaching options. He wants to be a coach, he's going to have to do it at the college level. My point was, few people competitive and talented enough to be NFL Head Coaches voluntarily step down a level in competition. When it's not voluntary, sure.
|47 weeks 3 days ago||The best of the best||
Because successful coaches, like successful athletes are hyper-competitive. Hyper-competitve people want to test themselves at the highest level. For football coaches, that level is the NFL. If you reach that peak of your profession, you stay there as long as you can, you don't step back a level.
Sure there are exceptions, but as you point out they're exceedingly rare. Most of the guys that move from pro to college take a step up in level (say from coordinator to head coach) or their opportunity at the NFL level has vanished.