Hoke was top notch at this aspect of his job.
- Member for
- 6 years 18 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Argue with the umpire and say most anything provided you don't get in his face.
- Issue insults of any kind provided that you're arguably making statements ("hey, you're a dumb### mother----!") and not technically "arguing" the call.
- Violate (1) and/or (2) above, but only if you're a star player and only under vague circumstances depending on game situation
|31 weeks 1 day ago||In which case it takes our||
In which case it takes our esteemed Athletic Department nearly 3 full days just to acknowledge the elephant-in-the-room word (concussion)? Or it takes the Athletic Department "all day" on Monday to draft a multi-paragraph statement that should have been issued no later than Sunday? Was Shane Morris not evaluated for a concussion in the midst of the media snowstorm after the game? If not, why the heck not? If he was, why was Hoke clueless the following day?
The whole episode was an incomprehensible failure to handle a hot-topic media issue.
|35 weeks 2 days ago||Well, sure||
If you consider the traditional stance against doing radio interviews during games. But it should theoretically be possible with the right equipment and headset.
Hey, speaking of headsets, have you heard this thing about Michigan's head coach? There's a rumor going around, I guess...
|36 weeks 5 days ago||Perspective||
Come on, RR obviously wasn't successful at Michigan, but those WVU teams beat good Georgia and Oklahoma teams. And the Big East was much more competitive at that time. And being .500 in the Pac-12 (generally considered the #2 conference) at Arizona of all places is no small feat. And oh, by the way, that Arizona team you're belittling has beaten USC and Oregon the past two years. Which is more impressive than anything Michigan has done in that span.
Let's just focus on fixing our beloved Wolverines. If that's Harbaugh, ok. If that's someone else, ok.
|44 weeks 2 days ago||Goodness||
So much hate for an optional, free night out with the family (or other guests of choosing) on the field of Michigan Stadium.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||The 100-Yard War: Inside the||
The 100-Yard War: Inside the 100-Year-Old Michigan-Ohio State Rivalry (Greg Emmanuel). It was actually required reading for an introductory sports class during my time at Michigan. Quick read, entertaining enough.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||5/10, 14 points, 3 assists, 1||
5/10, 14 points, 3 assists, 1 steal, 0 TO. And you're complaining about people who are excited about this. This board sometimes....
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Not a single person was||
Not a single person was actually making this argument, including the OP who knowingly posted a satirical article.
Time to let it go.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||And this line of reasoning||
And this line of reasoning has been duly noted. Thank you. But this particular discussion relates to the strength and conditioning program and that coach's ability to physically develop players. In that context, it's not exactly controversial--or it shouldn't be--to say that younger players are not are strong as older players. You can't turn a freshmen into a senior overnight, no matter who you are.
Now, whether the position/OC/head coaches maximize the available talent and skills on the field? Different question entirely.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Far, far less than 100%?||
Imagine this: You are a young but talented employee at a busines of whatever character you choose. Being young, you are inexperienced and not well schooled on the traits that breed long-term sucess at a high, consistent level. Being talented, you are capable of that same success and show the occasional flash of brilliance that justified your initial employment.
You may not have personally witnessed this, but if not you will.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||Well, Denard turned the ball||
Well, Denard turned the ball over at will against ND last year. At ND. At night. And Michigan still lost by only one score. So there's that.
I think you have some valid concerns about the 2 INTs, but you're going a little far here with the now-or-never angle. It's not like the team has a lot of other options at QB.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||For what it's worth, I did||
For what it's worth, I did get group tickets, was not part of some remarkable group of rich alumni offspring, and scored Row A (front row) tickets my sophomore year. Sometimes you're just lucky.
A year later we managed Row 25 with the same group. And you know what? Those seats were better. A lot of people do not realize just how little you can see from the field.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||So, to recap: You||
So, to recap: You can:
If you argue, you can be ejected. Period. You are whining because you didn't like the call. And maybe it was a bad call. But it's ultimately the player's fault for allowing it to happen. Arguing calls mid at-bat is never wise.
Bottom line: There will always be a gray area for interpretation. Players have to deal with it and fans do, too.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||No cleats?||
Honestly, think this through. Do you know how many more serious ankle injuries there would be if not for cleats? Imagine trying to plant and block in the rain or snow without them (or doing a hundred other things). Good luck. And to my knowledge there's no evidence linking cleats to concussions anyway.
And as another poster astutely observed, the rest of your proposed "rule changes" basically gut the game and leave you with flag football. A hit can't cause an incompletion? How do you even enforce that? Who's to say whether the ball would have been caught or dropped? An interval between a catch and permitted tackling? Throw the ball to the sticks and let receivers gain automatic first downs because the defense is standing there stupid. That's not exciting; it's immensely frustrating. Nor can I remember a player sustaining a head injury while scrambling for a fumble.
Lastly, making helmets smaller is not at all an intuitive solution. It might make players less likely to lead with their heads--I don't know--but it could also increase the chance of a head injury for inadvertent collisions--which are going to happen no matter what.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||Because--and this may be||
Because--and this may be shocking to you--the coaches sometimes know in advance where recruits are going to commit. It's not exactly a coincidence that everyone recently predicted Scott to Clemson. Don't you think, just maybe, the coaches know something to which we are not 100% privy?
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Your negative Nancy shtick is||
Your negative Nancy shtick is truly getting old. Kindly refer to your previous post and point out, oh where, it refers only to last-minute victories against GOOD teams. It's not even a defensible retort really, since you're the one who brought up this year's PSU basketball game, and I highly doubt you would tout them as a "quality" team. Viva revisionist arguments, I guess.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Protip: You are devaluing||
Protip: You are devaluing the word "epic." Data sugests there is virtually no advantage to fouling in that situation (as discussed ad nauseum earlier). Hardly epic. Falling behind big in the first half to talented teams on their court? Happens all the time, even to good teams. Not epic. Making a huge comeback only to lose steam after finally pulling even (Indiana, OSU)? Also not uncommon. And not epic.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||"It's not good playcalling if||
"It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of executing the scheme."
So, just because a play doesn't work (you know, that one time) means that the players are incapable of running it? It must be a joy to watch games with you.
Michigan's defense overachieved relative to personnel this year: there was no consistent pass rush from the front four, the safeties were solid but unspectacular, and Michigan fans everywhere were praying for just basic competence out of the DTs. Not to mention the absence of Countess, the team's best cornerback, practically from the season's first snap.
And here you are claiming that Mattison put the players in a position to fail. Fascinating.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Ok, when did we all become a||
Ok, when did we all become a bunch of whiny ninnies?
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Your approach is terrible and||
Your approach is terrible and not even reasonable. Denard Robinson is not Tom Brady. Nobody disputes this. Denard Robinson is not a good pure passing quarterback. Nobody disputes this.
But Roy Roundtree did just fine in 2010 (72 receptions) with Denard at the helm. So you need something other than "Roy Roundtree is catching more passes" to back up your argument.
And if you anticipate "butthurt" and feel the need to drop that gif, well, there's probably no help for you.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Not saying you're||
Not saying you're automatically wrong, but you're making a huge assumption that someone is a diehard just because they are on a waiting list. Example: I might join a class waitlist because it fits my schedule better or any number of reasons that may have nothing to do with my educational interests.
Remember, many of the same alumni who are frequently chastised for not being louder were once on a wait list, too.
And, now that I think of it, how are you even defining "die hard"? Is it sometime who shows up on time? Is there a requisite amount of cheering that must be done? If you wear something other than maize or blue to a late November game, are you disqualified? (I'm posting on a Michigan blog at 10:30 on a Saturday night. So you know where I'm at.)
[EDIT: This should be in response to Blazefire. That's what I get as a frequent reader but infrequent contributor]
|2 years 27 weeks ago||The content of your post is||
The content of your post is hilariously in contrast to your "tradition" avatar. Just an fyi.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||An obligation? No. Just no.||
An obligation? No. Just no. I would love to believe in a world where only the most dedicated, fanatical fans get tickets, attend the games, and cheer appropriately loudly. But tradition does not equate to an obligation. Not even close. At least, not in the way you mean.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||I do not buy this. As others||
I do not buy this. As others have mentioned, this is a fairly recent development. Yes, there will always be latecomers. But the blatantly empty swathes of bleachers are an unwelcome and relatively new phenomenon, in my opinion.
As a freshman in 2003, I remember having ample company in the student section. In Row 92. And not just for the Ohio State game.
|2 years 29 weeks ago||And now...||
I'm afraid we've swung too much in the other direction. Let's be objectively honest: It's not unreasonable to expect any quarterback, even a redshirt freshman with more than a year in the system, to throw fewer than 3 interceptions, complete more than 3 out of 16 passes, or average more than 2.4 yards per pass. In one half.
Look, nobody should personally attack any player for any reason. But to suggest that Bellomy's performance (emphasis on performance) was anthing other than terrible is, quite simply, untrue. Yes, it was at Nebraska. Yes, there were lights and much drunken debauchery in the stands. Yes, Denard, of dilithium, was unexpectedly hurt. But Nebraska isn't the '85 Bears (or insert your preferred impenetrable NFL defense)
It's ok to expect a modicum of mediocrity even under the circumstances. It just didn't happen. That doesn't mean hope is lost for Bellomy's future, and it doesn't mean that he was put in the absolute best position to succeed on Saturday.
He played poorly, and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it. But in any event, I'm glad that Taylor Lewan is standing up for him. That's leadership.
|2 years 29 weeks ago||Ah, the||
Ah, the you're-so-old-and-still-live-with-your-parents quip. Very creative, you are.
|2 years 29 weeks ago||Yeah, and let's blame them||
Yeah, and let's blame them for that drive that started around the Michigan 5 yard line because of Belomy INT #1 or 2 (I honestly cant remember). How dare Nebraska get a field goal there!
|2 years 32 weeks ago||This sort of logic rarely||
This sort of logic rarely translates well to college football. Not saying it's impossible, but extrapolating from one team's output in one half is unreliable. Even if it's Indiana.
|2 years 37 weeks ago||You shouldn't put your||
You shouldn't put your starting CB as a gunner when you lack proven depth at the position. There's no upside. At best, Countess is going to be, what, marginally better than another scholarship player on punt coverage?
Most people here aren't questioning the practice of putting starters on ST generally, but Countess is a key defensive player at a position of need. Hoke is not above reproach simply because he led the team to a Sugar Bowl victory. This just seems like a common-sense thing to avoid.
|2 years 37 weeks ago||It's Denard's running ability||
It's Denard's running ability that gets those receivers open in the first place. That's the trade-off with Denard. His running ability opens passing lanes that sometimes he can't take advantage of. Which is exactly what happened last night.
Denard had a bad game against one of the best defenses in the country. He won't be the first or the last. Heck, it'll be interesting to see how many teams score two touchdowns against Alabama's defense this year.
But after the last two years, and OSU last year, people are seriously calling for the backup? Holy hell.
|2 years 47 weeks ago||Who is to say what Lebron's||
Who is to say what Lebron's "ultimate goal" should be? Lebron isn't obligated to adhere to some fans' notion of greatness just because, well, they think he should. He should use his talent in whatever manner he sees fit. This will sound corny, but heck, it's his life. Why should he sacrifice his happiness just to satisfy those who think he should behave in a certain way?
Your goal in his situation might be X. Lebron's goal might be Y. And that's ok.
It's perfectly fine to be disappointed by his decision, but I always felt that the vitriol was ridiculously overboard.