chance of bowl: 13.6%
- Member for
- 5 years 16 weeks
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Nope, not at all. Michigan||
Nope, not at all. Michigan Athletics is an integral part of the Michigan brand. As an impressionable 17 year old, I chose Michigan over several other top schools - and candidly - it was because of the Fab Five. Stupid in retrospect? Probably, but that's what I did. I loved my undergraduate experience and went to every single home football game. I went back for a grad degree (paid an unbelievable amount of money to the school for it too), and I now have a successful career, and my wife and I donate to UM every year. I would bet that I am one of tens of thousands with similar stories.
Don't act like we're MIT - we're not. Many of us care about Michigan Athletics, and we should not be apologetic about it.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Just my two cents - I don't||
Just my two cents -
I don't think chants at the game will work, and I think the powers that be (as well as the media) will get used to protests at the president's house. We need to use the media to amplify the message, and I think we do that with visuals. Two that come to mind - rows of empty seats at a home game, and related, if you have tickets to the game but are not attending in protest, video the burning of it and put it on social media. I don't know the in and outs of twitter but it sounds like someone can come up with a clever hastag and get all of these clips linked so that we tee it up for the mainstream media to run with it.
|2 years 51 weeks ago||ah, how our memories are short||
as others have pointed out, we've had some amazing classes in the past.
i believe it was during the year we got antonio bass (what happened to that guy?) that we had 9 (!) recruits in the rivals top 100.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||Personally, it's very telling||
Personally, it's very telling only in that it shows that LES MILES wants to be at Michigan not at LSU. It tells us nothing of Brandon's willingness to make an offer to Les. I am of the belief that Les was never offered by Bill Martin and that he may not be offered again this time.
|5 years 6 days ago||This is an excellent recap.||
Those two message boards are horrid. I seem to notice, however, that this board is slowly changing as well; it's probably the influx of horrid people from those two boards.
Back in the haloscan days, this board was at its best - flight tracking paranoia, the b kelly mafia, gsimmons's one-man campaign for jim grobe, chaos culminating in peanut butter jelly time. Good times...
|5 years 1 week ago||Ark + 24 and Wisc - 1||
Yeah, I agree, 24 is too much. I also like Wisc, which moved the ball well against one of the best defenses in the conference.
|5 years 1 week ago||8-4 + probably bowl win||
Wins = DE St, Ill, Purdue, OSU
Losses = PA St, Wisc
|5 years 1 week ago||I know this sounds a bit paranoid but...||
...given that this issue has been brought up, I'll just note that the UM practice field is in an open area. I drive by Stadium during the day, and you can see the practice clearly from several points along the road. I see other people, such as joggers, casually looking at the practice as they jog by. In fact, I live near this area, and it's occurred to me that I should change my jogging route so that I can catch a few minutes of practice during my jog.
It's really not closed off from public view.
Anyway, if RR's really concerned about this, he might want to look into how visible it is from the surrounding area, particularly for the week leading up to MSU or OSU.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Where were you guys last week?||
Maybe my debating was on another board.
Anyway, you guys are absolutely right: There's a huge difference between field turf dry (or even wet) to natural grass soaked.
I was really surprised last week when I was in the minority for arguing that the weather would be a huge problem for our quick offense. Some said that it would affect both teams equally. Others went even further, saying that it's harder for the defense to adjust in slick conditions.
In my experience, the opposite is true: Speedy teams are hurt far more than slow teams by mud.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||You really misunderstood my post.||
I was trying to show that we should separate arguments from the source (person). Even if OP knows less than Hopson, he should be able to raise the question without his lack of knowledge becoming the subject of someone's response to him.
I know infinitely less football than Tyrone Willingham, but I can question whether he should continue at Washington after an 0-12 season.
We should address arguments not people.
I agree, the team and the coaching staff should be given time to work together. I've worked enough years in various companies to know that it takes some time for teams/companies to reach optimal production. I did not mean at all to imply otherwise in my post; I just wanted to address something else entirely that I see quite often and felt counter-productive to the discussion (because it tends to turn into a food fight rather than reasoned debate).
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...||
...but doesn't your statement support the contrary argument that Donovan excels beyond just the coaching, which is the same for all the CB's?
"Now we see that Donovan's play is much more competent than that of the other CBs, even though they are coached by the same guy."
Also, you wrote,
It seems unnecessary to mock the OP in this way. Why the personal attack? The response to the claim, "David Cone is not a good quarterback, we should replace him," should not be "Well, let's see you be QB." Let's not make things ad hominem when it's unnecessary.
Btw, I take no position as to the Hopson matter. Just thought the caustic reaction was uncalled for.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||This thread is depressing...||
...not because I think you guys are jackasses but because this is standard operating procedure for me.
- Jackass Emeritus
|5 years 3 weeks ago||This exact thing bothers me.||
I would never think a coach would condone something like this. But Dantonio keeps doing stuff that I would never think a coach would do. Off the top of my head -
1 - Engages in verbal spit-spat w/ opposing player and ridicules player's height.
2 - Calls for a moment of silence after another team loses.
3 - Roots for a result that would bar the team he coaches from winning the conference.
4 - Calls another team's record embarrassing.
Maybe my memory is failing me here, but I think all this happened. So pathetic. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I could see a wink and a nod to his DL to lay some questionable late hits on Tate. If Tate is healthy, I definitely see us winning this game.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Effect of weather||
The most significant way weather would change this game is wind. It's been quite windy in A2 this week, but I don't think it will be on Sat. 40 mph wind makes passing plays really difficult. Everyone has to run; that probably favors us.
Rain + first time on grass this season bodes not well for our youngsters. Expect to see a lot of slipping if it rains a lot.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||I have no respect whatsoever for MSU, sorry.||
I respect Notre Dame the most (although not their fans). I respect Ohio State - easily one of the greatest football programs in America. We make OSU better, and they make us better as well.
I hold absolutely no respect for MSU. I just don't. I actually find it demeaning that this is even considered a rivalry, lol. PSU is more worthy (again, not counting the fans such as the BWI crazies, of course).
|5 years 3 weeks ago||It's been awhile since I||
It's been awhile since I studied tax law, and I was never good at it anyway. Here's my best (read: bad) recollection of it.
Individuals are taxed on almost all accretions of wealth. Rich Rod owed $4 million to WVU. Michigan gave him $2.5 m. Let's say tax is 40%. Rich Rod is taxed on this $2.5 m as income because it's an accretion of wealth. That's $1 m in taxes he owes to the IRS (nothing to do w/ WVU).
If Rich Rod pays this $1 m in tax, that's the end of the story. Instead, he did not pay, and Michigan chose to pay the tax as well. This additional payment is also considered income and taxed by the IRS. So, 40% on $1 m is $400 k. If Rich Rod pays this, that's the end of the story. Instead, Michigan pays, and so on.
If I remember right, this is called "grossing up," not sure if that's the right term.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||it's even more than that||
University picked up 2.5 million, I believe. Rich would owe 1.6 million in taxes for that help, and the U paid that as well. So, UM paid 4.1 million for the settlement - 2.5 to WVU and 1.6 to IRS.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Student tics v. Non-student tics||
So, we all know that it's pretty much first come, first serve in the student section. I presume they are much stricter about this in all the other sections?
I just snatched up 2 tics but in pretty different sections. I'm trying to figure out whom I should give the second tic to. If strict rule then some guy friend; if lenient rule then prob ask my father to fly in. Experiences on this?
Btw, thanks to the OP.
|5 years 3 weeks ago||Minor is better imo||
You have to depreciate the value of yards gained that are really due to blocking. The credit for many of Carlos's big runs really goes to our blocking, particularly on the perimeter last game. Minor is a beast. He breaks so many tackles, and he'll wear down a defense w/ his physical running.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Stonum is quite a talent||
I feel that he does a better job returning than Odoms, and during the ND game, it seemed that ND was kicking away from Stonum on purpose.
Sometimes, I see teams line up their top return man and their other return man next to each other in the middle of the field before the kick. As the kicker starts his run to kick the ball, the two separate quickly to the hash marks. I wish we would do this when/if teams start to kick away from Stonum so that the other team can't know for sure where he's lined up.
|5 years 5 weeks ago||Best wishes to Brabbs on his recovery.||
That was easily one of my favorite Michigan moments at the Big House.
|5 years 7 weeks ago||Hiring outside representation...||
...is the furthest thing from objectivity, imo.
God, I can't wait for Saturday; this whole mess just sucks.
|5 years 7 weeks ago||Disagree||
The function of a special prosecutor is completely different.
Here, UM is a paying client to this firm. The firm's ethical duty is to advocate for UM (i.e., present the facts in the most favorable light for UM) not for the NCAA and its own investigation.
It's really different from what a special prosecutor does.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||70% sales is impressive||
In addition to what Brian wrote, each commitment must last a minimum of 3 years. So, given that it is still a year away and the economy is in the toilet, Bill Martin seems to have executed this well.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||Heh, apparently it's possible after all to be civil...||
I find that people thinking or posting about Michigan football during the college football withdrawal period, like the month of March for instance, are far fewer than I would have imagined. Thus, it would be nice if we die-hards could get along...but it seems a lost cause on some of the other Michigan boards.
I understand what you're saying about the "sure points." I do. But you're just looking at it post facto. I was trying to say that when examined prior to the sequence, they would be considered "sure points" in both scenarios. So, a coach calculating his odds at that point in time would correctly apply the same percentages (e.g., likelihood of 2 pt conversion is 42%; likelihood of PAT is 98%). I'm probably explaining this quite poorly.
You are right that under your scenario there are unconditional sure points, but I'm arguing that you would still lose if the 2 pt conversion fails. Over a large sample size, your approach may actually result in more points because the team would have taken the sure points more often. You may be right about that; I'm not sure. But my argument is that ultimately, the team would still lose if the two point conversion is not successful. Thus, under your approach, there would be a higher incidence of closer losses but not wins.
In the end, the "more points" can't overcome the failure of the two point conversion, which is the same conversion rate in either scenario. Under my approach, at least this is my crazy argument, the team will have more chances to overcome the deficit with time on the clock.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||Very well stated.||
|5 years 8 weeks ago||All good points...||
...I DID address in my post the very point that you raise as to fortuitous subsequent events. (It's in the second to last paragraph.)
Yeah, you might be right. It is interesting to me that most people's instinct is to go for the 7 points first. The reason I felt otherwise is that those fortuitous subsequent events tend to be really unlikely (e.g., pick 6 or safety, as you note, as well as other possibilities).
You wrote, "I believe that it is better to take the lower-variance (or "sure points") and live to fight another day, rather than needlessly exposing yourself to the risk of getting behind the eight ball (there may be a mixed metaphor in there somewhere)."
I probably wrote poorly, but I was trying to address this specific issue. The "sure points" are present in either scenario. I would disagree as to "needlessly exposing yourself" to risk part of your statement. The 2 point conversion must be attempted, barring some event such as a pick 6 or a safety, etc. Maybe our disagreement can be resolved after all by an empirical analysis of how often a team needing a 2 point conversion gets a pick 6 or safety, thereby obviating the 2 point attempt later.
My guess would be that this occurs less than 10 % of the time. IF that is true (I really don't know if it is), it's better to have a chance to remedy the 2 point failure than have no chance at all when it fails w/ no time left. Anyway, it appears that the weight of the opinion is against my argument. I can respect that.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||In case there is any doubt...||
...let me assure you that I know that I don't possess half of the football knowledge in Rich Rod's pinky fingernail.
Football coaches are experts in football, but that does not make them experts in math or game theory. I don't claim to be an expert in those fields, but given that football coaches aren't either, it's interesting to discuss whether they've got it right after all.
In recent years, many football coaches have started to use a 2 point conversion chart. That chart was not made by another football coach, but someone outside football. So, discussions outside football can inform discussions inside football.
Or consider, for example, the attempt to go for a first down on fourth down. Is it me, or do Pete Carroll, Charlie Weis, and Urban Meyer seem to go for significantly more of these than any pre-2000 college coaches? It sure seems like it, but I could be wrong. I take no position on this issue, but clearly those 3 coaches think that the preceding era of coaches had it wrong (if in fact these 3 do go for it more often).
|5 years 8 weeks ago||I actually agree w/ most of what you say...||
...situational setting has to play into the decision making - absolutely. If the reason for the TD is that a crucial player on the opponent's defense has gone down w/ an injury, then I agree, stick w/ the kick after because the offense may likely just march down the next possession and again after that.
Given a large enough sample size, however, you would think that this kind of stuff would even out (i.e., it's just as likely that an offensive player on our team would go down w/ an injury). So w/ all things equal, it is surprising that coaches do not try the 2 point conversion earlier and deal w/ the failure of the attempt earlier rather than later.
|5 years 8 weeks ago||Good post||
I support your argument Ezmike. I wish that people would practice some civility and decency on the Internet. Having said that, I find this site a much better place by far than Scout, Rivals, or MLive.
I realized this a long time ago with regard to Internet forums: In addition to MMBhorn's illustration above, there are a lot of 15 year olds that post on the Internet. It's just about impossible to get a teenager to act with some decorum when he's given anonymity and no threat of repurcussions. Just a fact of life, I guess - I'll admit that I was a giant dickhead in high school.