yes plz
Kilgore Trout
History
- Member for
- 4 years 13 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 2
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week 1 day ago | Agreed |
He really should do this. |
| 1 week 1 day ago | Yikes |
That is the worst home schedule I've ever seen. Doubt they'll reduce the $2100 tab for two tickets. |
| 3 weeks 12 hours ago | Shared Bowl |
I like the idea of sharing / owning a bowl like the SEC and B12 did. How about a shared bowl between the B1G and the P12 where the site alternates? Even numbered years it's in Chicago / Indy and odd numbered years it's in LA or Denver. Could do the same thing with the B12 with Dallas or Houston. |
| 5 weeks 2 days ago | Point |
I think the whole point is that if you start calling the actual fouls, teams will learn to stop fouling. There was a tweet from one of the NCAA games that someone basically said, "instead of getting pissed at the refs for calling so many fouls, tell the teams to stop fouling." My compromise is to call all of the off ball clutching and grabbing that restricts movement and call most plays where a ball handler drives with their head down through the lane a charge. That would fit my vision of basketball as a skill and passing game (I recognize everyone doesn't share the same vision). |
| 6 weeks 5 days ago | Thanks |
You guys have all confirmed my instinct. I'll stick with what I have. |
| 6 weeks 5 days ago | Not that simple |
If he had established legal guarding position before Triche left the ground (hard to tell) he is allowed to slide laterally as long as he maintains vertical space and doesn't move into the offensive player. I think it's clear that Morgan was straight up and that he didn't move into Triche. If Morgan established position before he left the ground, it's an easy charge call. |
| 8 weeks 4 days ago | I respect your overall point, |
I respect your overall point, but I disagree about the refs not deciding a game with a call. By not calling something that is a foul, you are allowing one team to break the rules to gain an advantage, so you are helping to decide the game. There was something in the sports freakanomics book (can't remember the name) that basically said people prefer passive intervention (no call) to active (call), but they both still equally affect the outcome. |
| 8 weeks 4 days ago | Good point |
I think people go all the way to the rim with the intention of drawing a foul on the defense. With a little practice, a pull up 10 footer has to be equally as easy to make than a layup / dunk while colliding with a 6'10" 240lb man at full speed. |
| 8 weeks 4 days ago | Agreed |
Refs have created an environment where you have to flop over to get a charge. If you have position in the post and the guy just shoulders into / through you, it should be a foul, regardless of how you react to it. |
| 8 weeks 4 days ago | Disagree |
I think, if anything, more charges should be called. Dribbling straight into people is not basketball either. You shouldn't be able to just plow through people. If you look at the definitions of the rules, way more charges should be called. Once a player gets legal guarding position, the offensive player has to get their head and shoulders past the defender or any contact is an offensive foul. The definition of legal guarding position is a little murky for secondary defenders, though. I am fine with a game where the offensive player has to legitimately beat the defender and can't just plow through them. There is nothing in the rules about being "set" or not moving for a defender. That is a creation of analysts. I think that scoring is down because of off the ball clutching and grabbing and restricting the movement of people without the ball (Wisconsin). I would also add hand checking to that list. If a player has the ball and the defender reaches out and puts their hands on them, that should be a foul. |
| 9 weeks 2 days ago | Agreed |
Sports are a lot like politics. Morals tend to be flexible when it comes to getting what works out best for you. If the players negotiated a compensation it might change the game significantly and we all really like Michigan baskeball and football, so that is scary. |
| 9 weeks 2 days ago | Unions / Collective Bargaining |
I think the flaw in your argument is that he does not have the ability to go make millions if he chooses to. A union that he is not allowed to be part of collectively bargained with the entity that could pay him and took that right away from him without him having a say in the manner. I think this whole argument shouldn't be about whether or not a college education is fair compensation, it should be about the fact that the system has been set up by the NCAA, NFL, and NFLPA to dictate conditions for college aged football players and they have absolutely no say or representation in the process. EDIT: Also, I do not follow your MDs on the assembly line analogy at all. People that work on the assembly line are paid in accordance with supply and demand and with the value they provide to the auto company. MDs that practice medicine are also paid in line with supply and demand and the value that their practice or hospital can get reimbursed for their services. The difference in college football players is that there is a relatively small supply that can perform to the level that will keep cable viewers watching and seats full. They provide a significant value to the school that they attend and they are not able to fully negotiate a compensation package. They are told what it is and can take it or leave it. I don't think that's right, but maybe that's just me. |
| 9 weeks 3 days ago | My solution... |
I think a relatively simple, two pronged solution could go a long way here. 1. Take a set percentage of TV and group licensing rights (done at a conference level) and set it aside in a trust type situation for the players to use after their eligibility has expired for further education or a qualifying business investment. Think GI bill. 2. Anything revenue generated from the sale of an item with a direct likeness (image or jersey) of a particular player must be shared with that player. |
| 9 weeks 3 days ago | Devil's Advocate |
To play devil's advocate, why does the athlete care if it's anti-competitive for the schools? The whole system is created and dictated by the school's to their advantage and the athlete has no say because they don't have an alternative in most sports. If every athlete had the option that hockey players have of choosing between juniors and college, I would feel a lot more sympathy for the schools. |
| 9 weeks 3 days ago | Agree |
I think this is really the most fundamental oddity that causes this entire problem. When you really think about it, it's ridiculous that there are millions if not billions of dollars spent on school sponsored athletic teams. People like to see high quality athletics, but it doesn't really need to have anything to do with universities. It's just a cultural oddity that has spun itself out of control. |
| 9 weeks 3 days ago | But |
Is there anything inherently wrong with that, other than it isn't "fair" for schools with less money? Terrelle Prior can win games and generate money for whichever school he attends, why should he not get the best arrangement possible for himself. Isn't that part of the basic fabric of capitalism and America? |
| 9 weeks 5 days ago | FWIW |
The tickets come in two sessions on Thursday. I would guess there are a decent amount of MSU fans who will sell their evening sessions and UM fans who will sell their afternoon sessions. Going from 12:15 to literally close to midnight is a long day. People may try to get some of their money back when their team isn't playing. Saturday would be interesting with UM and MSU theoretically playing back to back. |
| 11 weeks 2 days ago | 3 or 4 |
3 if MSU beats Wisconsin, 4 if it goes the other way. |
| 11 weeks 2 days ago | Eh |
We could have lost the home games to OSU and MSU just as easily. We're probably close to where we belong. |
| 11 weeks 4 days ago | Not Likely |
I'm not sure that's possible. That would put UM at six losses. Either MSU or Wisconsin has to have six losses as well (they play each other). Assuming Indiana beats OSU, that would put... 1. Indiana (3 losses) If MSU wins Thursday in this scenario, UM is in a 3 way tie with OSU and Wisconsin. Winning percentages within the group... Michigan (.333) Make Michigan the 5 seed. If Wisconsin wins, UM, OSU, and MSU tie. Michigan (.500) None of the three have a win against Indiana, so it moves on to record against Wisconsin and UM is the loser there, so they're the 5. Losing the one off to Wisconsin is going to end up being the death of them. So, unless one of the other teams loses an unexpected game to drop themselves into the 5 slot, I don't see how UM can get in the top 4 without winning out. |
| 12 weeks 1 day ago | Agreed |
And that is likely to hold true even more this year when there really isn't a top of the line dominant team out there. As long as UM can do well enough to get placed in Auburn Hills, I don't think there's a huge difference between a 1,2, or 3 seed. I don't think a Final Four run is out of the question. |
| 12 weeks 2 days ago | BTT |
I think whichever school did better in the btt would get the Midwest region. |
| 12 weeks 3 days ago | Refs |
It would be nice if the refs were made available for comment at some point. It would be interesting to hear how they saw that live. Clearly that was way too much contact to not call anything. And then they call the ticky tack reach in on the iSU player who has a kansas player laying on him and ku player has touched the ball while out of bounds. You're not "letting the players decide it" when you let them break the rules to do it. |
| 13 weeks 4 days ago | Agreed |
The whole Craft / Hardaway thing earlier in the year got me to read the actual rules and I was surprised that I didn't really know them that well and it's pretty clear that most TV color guys (especially former players) don't know them either. If you read the rules as written, a lot more charges should probably be called. Once a guy gets legal guarding position (still a little ambiguous to me) the offensive player needs to get their head and shoulders past the guy or any contact is the offensive player's foul as long as the defender doesn't reach over or move into the offensive player. |
| 14 weeks 14 hours ago | Dakich |
I agree with those saying he's over rated. Saying controversial things strongly doesn't make you a good analyst. Him trying to say that Nix's foul on Morgan wasn't a foul because he had his hand on the ball while completely ignoring the fact that he put his body through Morgan to the point of Morgan going to the floor was silly. The real key to me was when Tirico pointed out the body and and he just chose to ignore it becuase it didn't fit his original theory. It's amazing how there are so many color analysts who just don't know the rules. Whoever was doing the Wisconsin / Minnesota game last night completely botched that late charge / block call, even when watching it in slow motion. Carrot top not only moved into the Minnesota guy's path after he left the ground, he leaned into him. All the analyst could see was that he was outside the half circle and he ignored everything else about the play. |
| 14 weeks 1 day ago | Eh |
If I understand it right, this is basically what the NCAA already did with signing day. They can visit their senior year and can't make a real commitment until signing day. I don't see how the NCAA can regulate someone telling a coach or reporter that they're going to a certain school. |
| 14 weeks 2 days ago | 2 slots |
There are two preferred seeds at each location. Assuming no implosions, both should be there. |
| 14 weeks 2 days ago | Few things |
1. You have the um / Indiana game as a possible loss for both teams and seem to have counted it as a loss in each's predicted record. |
| 14 weeks 2 days ago | Soft |
Got pushed around and couldn't do anything about it. Very early 2000s like.
|
| 14 weeks 3 days ago | Alternative |
Your alternative to Morgan? Seemed to be clearly superior defensively to any other option UM has inside. |
