here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
- Member for
- 4 years 40 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 weeks 20 hours ago||This is awesome obviously but||
This is awesome obviously but how many played in 06 mich/osu? We played this game in college once and the number of players we came up with was sizable.
|8 weeks 3 days ago||That might be true, but that||
That might be true, but that would be insane.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Everything you say is true,||
Everything you say is true, but where did I purport to be anything more than a fan?
|9 weeks 2 days ago||My wish list is Jalen Coleman||
My wish list is Jalen Coleman and Eron Harris for our (functionally) 2015 class.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||There's no sugar-coating this||
There's no sugar-coating this one. This is a (1) high-impact player (2) with a skillset that is perfect for Beilein's system (3) who we were in on early and identified quickly and (4) who we have high need for. When you add in the fact that this would give MSU's bleak scoring outlook a much-needed boost, it is absolutely critical that Harris comes here.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Are you saying "we" from the||
Are you saying "we" from the position of an insider? Because I consume more college football media than 95% of the adult male population and all I've heard are a scatterplot of totally shot-from-the-hip rumors.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||I... actually agree. I||
I... actually agree. I didn't think I would ever agree with anything like this. But I agree.
|13 weeks 2 days ago||This is a horrible, terrible||
This is a horrible, terrible blow for Michigan and it's BS to sugarcoat it otherwise.
But: the most important thing for Jon Horford is to do what he has to do. Go get it young man.
|13 weeks 2 days ago||*cough* sammy watkins *cough*||
*cough* sammy watkins *cough*
|14 weeks 2 hours ago||As a substantive comment,||
As a substantive comment, Stallworth is actually the one MSU committ I really feel we missed out on. This is great news.
|14 weeks 16 hours ago||I hope NU has retained very||
I hope NU has retained very capable labor counsel. I also hope Fitzgerald is the kind of leader who can also be told what to do.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Feel absolutely terrible for||
Feel absolutely terrible for Payne and Harris. They left it all out there.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||You are not required to join||
You are not required to join a union at any employer in any state. That is illegal. You have the right to associate as you please. In Right to Work states, employers and unions are free to enter into union security clauses as part of their CBAs. This ensures that all employees pay union dues as a condition of employment, but they still don't have to be union members to work. In RtW states, union security clauses are illegal.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Michigan's Right to Work law||
Michigan's Right to Work law amends PERA, but only with respect to its union security provisions. Your point about Right to Work might (but I suspect wouldn't) hold for other states, but it makes no difference here in Michigan.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||Are you aware that in March||
Are you aware that in March of 2013 Congress - yes, human Congress, not dog Congress, not bizzaro-congress, not shadow congress - passed the SaVE Act, which incorporated a great many of the Dear Colleague letter's provisions into law? Are you aware that the DOE is involved in rulemaking to write regulations interpreting that Act? Are you aware that these are the standards now in play? Because that's how that works.
Again - I don't expect you to be aware of these things. Only big time legislative nerds would be. But perhaps it would alleviate some of your concern about the process and some of your disdain for law.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||Are you aware what happened||
Are you aware what happened in 2013 that, I dunno, might have led to the revision of the policy?
Look, dude, seriously - I think you have a pretty defensible position about how we're moving in a bad direction. I won't agree or disagree. But "haha law" doesn't really have integrity when Congress, you know, passes A LAW by, you know, voting on it. That law explicitly requires universities to adopt DOE-OCR advisory policy as implemented in the 2011 Dear Colleagues letter.
Be mad if you want, but sometimes people pass laws we don't like. Happened to me a bunch of times. Happened to a LOT of people a bunch of times.
EDIT: To be clear, not all of the OCR's advisory policies are included in the Campus SaFE Act. For more details, do your own research on Cornell's excellent online law library.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||I hate the word "should," but||
I hate the word "should," but to be clear - the law requires the University to have a policy allowing for individuals accused of sexual assault to be disciplined by means of a hearing. The law places certain requirements on those hearings which you may or may not disagree with.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||I won't give you the answer||
I won't give you the answer from all angles because I'm not billing for this time. But in short, the "Federal government allows the University to expel a student committing a 'crime' for which he was never tried and convicted" because the Federal government just may have required the University to adopt the disciplinary hearing standard of review used here. The Campus SaVE Act, included as part of the VAWA reauthorization, requires schools to institute a hearing process. Further, a proposed regulation that interprets the SaVE Act might just force schools to utilize that standard of review in the hearing process. Schools that don't may be subject to Clery Act penalties.
I have no interest in a moral/political/normative debate but that's the descriptive legal landscape. Stray from it at your peril. If you want change, write your congressman or something.
|20 weeks 6 days ago||I don't know if we'll||
I don't know if we'll necessarily win but it's fricking incredible we're back in this game.
|22 weeks 3 days ago||This is very sad. Let's be||
This is very sad.
Let's be real: this is Michigan State, not an unaccredited trade school run by Central American drug cartels. Her fears seem... overblown.
|23 weeks 3 days ago||The change in the standard of||
The change in the standard of proof is likely a red herring in this instance as it pertains to unraveling why Gibbons retained his eligibility for so long and why it's coming out now. Instead, I think the bigger issue is eligibility requirements of the moving party (that is, the person or entity who initiated the proceedings). The victim in this case voiced her intent to remain separated from both prosecution and, evidently, from OSCR investigation. Thus, the University's hands were tied at that point - prior to the revision of the policy, no action could have been taken. But under the revised policy, the University could institute proceedings and OSCR could investigate and adjudicate.
I think this changes the focus of what questions we should be asking significantly. Instead, I think, given all we know, the unanswered questions are as follows:
1.) Why, after the "interim" policy was instituted in 2011, was Gibbons not investigated with the University as the movant until 2013? Was it because the University could not do so (was the standard for movant eligibility changed in the interim document?) or did the University simply decline to do so?
If it could not have done so, this puts conspiracy talk to bed. If it merely did not do so, questions about why the delay occurred until near the expiration of Gibbons's eligibility should take center stage.
2.) Once the proceedings began, due process required Gibbons to be able to attend, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. Did this occur before or after the November document was issued by OSCR telling Gibbons that evidence existed to prove the claim?
If it occurred before and the November document was an official decision, that makes it look really bad that Gibbons played in the Iowa game, because a player had been judged to be more likely than not to have raped somebody played in a winged helmet on a football field. If, on the other hand, due process rights had not been afforded, I'm less disturbed by the fact that Gibbons played in that game.
3.) All the above being said, at what point did Hoke know that a University investigatory body had determined it was more likely than not Gibbons had raped someone?
If it is before the Iowa game, Hoke deserves censure, possibly up to and including discharge in my own opinion. If it is before the Ohio State game, Hoke deserves censure as well, but the conduct deserving of censure merely becomes lying about why Gibbons would not play as opposed to playing him despite the investigation. If it is before the bowl game, I don't think Hoke's behavior is deserving of criticism. "Family business" is a broad term and he is surely under pressure to not comment on Gibbons's status with the University. He may not have been candid, but I don't think candor is warranted with respect to the press.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||I'll reserve final judgment||
I'll reserve final judgment until we know more. But I'd be lying if this didn't look absolutely awful on its face given what we know right now.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||I've been critical of your||
I've been critical of your work before, Brandon, but this is excellent reporting. Great article.
|29 weeks 5 days ago||It shouldn't hurt. But it||
It shouldn't hurt. But it does.
|29 weeks 5 days ago||Yes I am glad we all have||
Yes I am glad we all have heard 36 Chambers before. But isn't the bigger news for M (aside from the Bucks getting a great player) that they're basically out of room for both Lattimore and Smith?
|30 weeks 2 days ago||Faces with names is fun!||
Faces with names is fun! I'll list the ones I know:
LEFT TO RIGHT:
Furbush, Canteen, Watson(?), Ways (standing), Harris, Winovich, Bunting, Campbell(?) (standing), Speight(?), Cole, Marshall, Ferns, and Pallante.
|38 weeks 2 days ago||How do you figure? MSU was a||
How do you figure?
MSU was a great team last year, and this year they return almost all of their impact players AND they get a full year of a healthy Gary Harris with another year of experience?
MSU is, in my opinion, the clear (but not distant) preseason #1 team in the Big Ten. I think we're in the next tier with OSU. But I don't object to their #2 ranking in the slightest.
The Big Ten is a meat grinder, and MSU stacks up well.
|38 weeks 2 days ago||I need to think about this,||
I need to think about this, but I can't decide whether it's crazy or brilliant.
I also really like the suggestion about the NCAA athlete solution, but - again - I'll need to think more about this.
|38 weeks 6 days ago||I've thought about this a lot||
I've thought about this a lot because it's an issue independent of player performance. We can go around in circles for an eon debating about why we can't run because player evaluation isn't as objective as it could be to really gain traction.
But what I think the most proximate cause of the loss of this game was the coaching staff's inability to recognize actual probabilities and do risk assessment on our second-to-last drive. What's the risk reward here?
As the Mathlete mentioned, the chances of driving 80 yards with no timeouts for a game-tying touchdown are low. But are they dramatically lower if you manage to pin them, say, at the five? Is it lower by as much as it would need to be to sacrifice the chance at taking a shot at the field goal, which would win the game with virtual certainty (barring onside kick fiascoes)? I don't have the math in front of me but I submit no.
Put another way, I think the 40% chance of winning the game is worth more than the reduction of tying on a touchdown from "almost definitely not happening" to "almost definitely definitely not happening."
|38 weeks 6 days ago||I also want the Mathlete to||
I also want the Mathlete to clarify his point here. I think this is the best way of asking the question which will clarify his answer:
Let's assume that we have the ball on Penn State's 27-yard line. Remember, we are up by 7 points - approximately a minute remains in the game. Penn State has exhausted their time outs. It is third down. This was an actual situation Michigan faced during the game.
What happened next was the five-yard delay of game penalty. But we both agree this was an egregious error on the part of the coaching staff, Gardner, or both. We had a time out and using it wouldn't have spared more than a second of game time. We both agree we should have used it, so let's assume that we did. We are now in hypothetical world.
Third and 9, the ball is on the 27 yard line. Let's even give Hoke and Company the benefit of predictable football and say that they would have run Toussiant again for a loss of three. Do you, Mathlete, based on the math, advocate kicking the field goal or punting on 4th and 12 from the 30 yard line with approximately 50 seconds remaining in the game?
If you do, then the real problem was the clock management. This is, in my opinion, a completely egregious and - pardon the term - inexcusable error on Hoke's part.
If you do not, then we have two problems - the clock management and the conservative strategy.