Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 5 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- A. When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team's record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie-breaking procedures), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams.
- B. When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group is unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1); in the case of tied percentages vs. the team or group of 1.000 or .000 the following shall apply: 2-0 is better than 1-0; 0-1 is better than 0-2.
- to anyone if the alleged perpetrator is found to have committed the offense
- only to the alleged victim if the accused is not found responsible. In this case the victim must be told not to disclose the outcome to a third party"
|1 day 12 hours ago||Probably doesn't matter||
I don't think it really matters. Normally, you want to stay away from the 1s, but I don't think anyone on the 1 line is any more scary than anyone on the 2 or 3 line. This is wide open. Personally, as long as Kansas is nowhere near, I'd be fine with the draw.
|1 day 15 hours ago||Florida State||
UM wore the maize as the road team against Florida State in Puerto Rico, so it doesn't seem to be a rule thing. Probably just going with what's working.
|2 days 12 hours ago||Agree||
Give me the Fab Five maize, the '89 Championsiop blue, and the Cazzie white and we never have to think about it again.
|5 days 12 hours ago||#1 Seed||
Small quibble, but I think the #1 seed is guaranteed unless State falls out of third, which is really unlikely (they'd have to lose out while Iowa or Nebraska won out). In a two way tie with Wisconsin, UM would get the #1 seed because, as pointed out in item 2b below, 2-0 against MSU is better than 1-0.
1. Results of head-to-head competition during the regular season.
2. Each team's record vs. the team occupying the highest position in the final regular season standings (or in the case of a tie for the championship, the next highest position in the regular season standings) continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.
3. Won-loss percentage of all Division I opponents.
4. Coin toss conducted by the Commissioner or designee
|5 days 13 hours ago||Ashley / McGary||
I don't think it's really a problem to manipulate it by hand. It makes sense to treat the injuries to Brandon Ashley and Mitch McGary differently than those of Dawson / Payne / Appling. If the entire goal is to predict, you'd be silly not to use that information. Not accounting for injuries (assuming you do it in an intelligent way) is going to make your metric worse.
|5 days 13 hours ago||Some more info||
Here's a table from ESPN comparing some of the popular rankings systems.
They are all best guess ways of predicting. I don't think you can necessarily say the system is crap because it doesn't like Michigan.
|1 week 1 day ago||Maryland||
Didn't see anyone mention it, but it looks like we don't get Smotrycz's return to Crisler next year. That could have been interesting.
|1 week 2 days ago||Agree||
It may just be confirmation bias since I started thinking this, but it does seem to be the case. Ira actually insiuated that Beilein intentionally waited to call the TO with 3 seconds left so he could call the lob to Robinson. One, that is insane if true. Two, it's almost certainly not true. It looked like Beilein wanted UM to run it down without a TO, but Lavert was badly floundering, so he called time out.
|1 week 2 days ago||Agreed||
As much as UM seems to have State's number this year, I wouldn't necessarily like our chances of winning three in a year against them. Wisconsin is still Wisconsin, so I don't want any part of that. My ideal BTT bracket (based on some sense of reality with the standings) would be...
|1 week 4 days ago||well...||
I am a member of the reigning Ann Arbor Parks and Rec E league champions. Yeah, most of the guys in that league had only a basic grasp of the rules of basketball, but hey... And of course now that they moved us back up to the D league, we're 1-5.
Oh, and I made the semis of IM bball at UM, but then a team of incredibly fast and well organized Koreans destroyed us.
|1 week 4 days ago||#1||
They don't have to be a 1 seed to stay in Buffalo. Just not have two teams above them on the s-curve have Buffalo as their closest / preferred spot. Other than Villanova, I can't think of another decent team in that neighborhood (other than us, theoretically).
|1 week 5 days ago||Cult||
I run a cult... awesome.
|1 week 5 days ago||Gilmore||
I got a kick out of their conversation about Uncle Verne getting residuals from Happy Gilmore.
|1 week 6 days ago||??||
I don't get it. Multiple NHL teams share arenas with NBA teams, including the Stanley Cup champs and 4/6 original 6 teams. It's pretty standard. Seattle doesn't even have a basketball team (not sure d the Sonics arena is still around).
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Obvious||
I think this is obvious, but it never really occurred to me before. I'm not sure what that says about me.
But, I agree with this completely. I used to get pissed at my wife for falling asleep when we drove home from things at night. I felt like she should stay up and talk to me or keep me awake. The reality is that she falls asleep immediately whenever she gets in a car and no amount brooding from me was going to make any difference. If I focus on having fun at whatever we do and then having a peaceful drive listening to whatever I want, everyone wins.
Here's my short list to getting students to show up more.
1. Revert to your 1990 policy, full scale. Assign seats, sell your tickets to whoever you want. Kick someone out if they are fighting or causing a real distubrance, but that's it.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||SI||
For what it's worth, I don't think SI is affiliated with CNN anymore. CNN's sports come from Bleacher Report.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Assumptions||
You make a few assumptions about why I said he's a selfish dick. It has nothing to do with him being louder than I'm comfortable with. He was selfish for bringing a personal fued to the head of the coverage of a great team win in a team sport.
I didn't excuse the fan (though I think you're making an unconfirmed jump by implying that he "released a stream of racist profanities"). He should be held accountable for whatever involvement he had, but that doesn't excuse Smart's actions.
We also fundamentally disagree on what violence is. Putting your hands on someone and shoving them in anger is violence. I can't really understand how anyone would think otherwise.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||All in the wrong||
Judging by twitter, this is turning into another Richard Sherman type deal where contrarians get on their high horse and over complicate a pretty simple issue. With Sherman, I don't care if he's a Stanford grad with a history with Crabtree or if he's classy or not. He was being a dick and that was pretty obvious. Leave it at that. He acted like a selfish dick.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Stupid||
Not inviting the people who ask the hardest questions really doesn't show well when the spector of coverup and misinformation is in the air. Just stupid on their part, especially when enough former Daily writers are in the national media now and this is bound to get spread.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Lawful||
I don't think we know that they necessarily thought it was unlawful to disclose it. The law definitely doesn't require them to, as far as I can tell. I am just trying to say that (assuming, like we have both said, that this is about a sexual crime that fits the conditions above) people who claim that they couldn't have given more details about what happened are wrong.
There's a legitimate debate about whether they should or shouldn't have. My inclination is that they should have because it was inevitable that it would come out and avoiding it at the time makes it seem like they were hoping no one would ever find out.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Disagree||
By my reading, your explanation is the partial one. The full explanation has been interpreted as:
So since they concluded that he was responsible, they could have disclosed it to anyone based on this. (The obvious herring is that we don't know for certain what specifically they found him responsible for).
From the government's website.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||disagree||
From the second Daily article:
"Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said FERPA does not prohibit the disclosure of the outcome of Gibbons’ disciplinary case because University investigators concluded that he was responsible for behavior that equates to a sexual offense.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Black Eye||
Overall, it's disappointing that this has become such a black eye for the University and that should fall almost exclusively on Gibbons. He is the one who is alleged to have and has been found likely (at least in the OSCR system) of commiting a violation that is universally accepted as horrible.
But, it does seem like from a University perspective, they did what they could given the rules in place and it seems like they got it right, eventually. The timing looks terrible, but after reading everything, it does seem like it was coincidence that it lined up with the end of his eligibility. It can't be easy when you're trying to figure out if you're dealing with a Duke lacrosse or UVA lacrosse situation. I don't envy them.
I's also pretty clear to me that they should have handled the aftermath better. There's just no way they could have honestly thought this wouldn't come out, so they should have either gotten out in front of it or made damn sure that everything they said on it would look right when people started tracking back after it came out. Hoke obviously has been coached in pressers, so someone should have fed him a line or they should have just put out a release. Being expelled and ineligible in the eyes of the NCAA is just not a family matter. That was a stupid thing to say and it makes them all look bad.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Disagree||
He could have (and in my opinion, should have) said that he won't be playing because he is not eligible. From the Daily's articles, it looks like the University could have said he was expelled because of the nature of the incident, but I can, on some level, understand them choosing not to. But to say that he couldn't have been more direct or truthful due to FERPA seems to be a very limited reading of the rules.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||ha||
" I guess I'm hoping the family issues thing was Brandon's idea because I already know Brandon is a liar and I don't want to live in a world where Brady Hoke is too."
I can sign on with that.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||#1||
As linked above, it appears that he was expelled three days before the family matter statement.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||ok||
Your original title said something along the lines of "making things up" so I guess I took it as an accusation.
It looks like the comments from Hoke were in a more informal setting at the Phoenix airport, not a regular press conference, so my wording could have been better.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Disagree||
I guess we just fundamentally disagree. Employees don't tell their employer how to run their company, but in almost all situatiions, they negotiate the conditions of their employment. In almost all situations, there are competitors who force employers to make an acceptable deal with the employees in order to get them to chose to work for them over the competition. But, since there is no legitimate compeition / other option, the employer in college football is allowed to set its terms and the employees have no other course of action. I think this is fundamentally wrong.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||From Slovin and the Daily||
"KICKING IT: Fifth-year senior kicker Brendan Gibbons has played his last game as a Wolverine. Hoke told reporters Monday that Gibbons isn’t on the trip and will not participate in the bowl game due to a “family matter” in his native Florida."
So unless you're accusing Matt Slovin of making up the quote, I think you're off here.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Interesting||
1. Once someone has been expelled, would it be a violation for someone to simply say they are no longer a student here?
2. Is it plausible that three days after the expulsion, Hoke wouldn't have known one of his players was no longer a student?