- Member for
- 4 years 51 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Lost @ Oregon by 4 with a net turnover margin of –3; ‘nuff said.
- Lost @ Iowa by 3. Carr punted from the Iowa 35 in the first quarter, team failed to score a TD after 1st @ Goal from the Iowa 8 in the second quarter, had a punt blocked in the third quarter leading to a 3 and out FG for the Hawkeyes.
- 2003 - better offense and better secondary than 2006
- 2000 - got beat by drew Brees; inexplicable ATrain fumble
- 2005 - never got blown out despite a ton of injuries
- 2007 - Appalachian State penalty: engaged. Probably too harsh.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||I dont understand soccer but||
I dont understand soccer but I wish I did. Seems like a intense game to watch as a fan and with so much tension built up inside it's no wonder people respond the way they do in victory and defeat.
Good on y'all and thanks for the updates.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||whatevs||
I just want the schedule to not be an abomination and for the football team to be competitive against our real bench marks (OSU, MSU, top 25, bowl games). It hasn't consistently been that way for 10 years; 2006 was the only season during that span when the team was truly good. God, dammit... I don't see how these endowments do anything whatsoever to improve my experience as a fan of Michigan football so I'm not impressed. In fact, I can only think of 1 thing Brandon has done that fits the bill: night games. How hard was that to figure out?
|7 weeks 1 day ago||2003 over 2006 for me||
To recap, 2003 team:
Scoring differential says a lot IMO.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||I will give you that Cook was||
I will give you that Cook was a better QB in December than he was in September but while those defenses are household names, they weren't that good. OSU's Pass D was flat out bad, Minnesota's wasn't much better and at that point we run into sample size problemts. He actually had a favorable schedule last year and was only OK... strip out Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio State...
Anyway, I dont mean to bust your chops too hard because I definately agree with your essential point: Miller, Gardner, everyone else.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Cook||
No way Cook is number 3, certainly not after last year's performance. His completion percentage is solid but not great. What he has going for him is an impressively low INT rate but I think that's due to the role he was asked to play in the offense.
Gimme Sudfeld over Cook all day. I might even mess around and take Stave over Cook also...
|8 weeks 3 days ago||With all the money on the||
With all the money on the line I would think that this is an issue that can be engineered around somehow.
Short of that, I think a simple and enforceable strategy would be to impose weight limits on players. Not sure what those limits should be but I'd expect theres a value that makes sense for each position group.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||I have beef*||
I think its reasonable to say that offensive efficacy is scheme independent but I think there's a problem with how this data is presented. There's an underlying assumption that the variance between styles is the same. Turn each color in your first chart into a histogram and I bet you'll see that the warmer colors have a tighter distribution which would indicates that they might be high performers more consistently than the cool colors. That is a good and worthy thing.
If you share your data, I'll show you what I mean.
*I do not consider myself a spread zealot
|17 weeks 3 days ago||Rankings||
Brian touched on this point in his section but a straight ranking can sometimes be misleading when it comes to things that are quantified. Often there is a lump of teams that are within 2 or 3 points of eachother yet are seperated in the rankings by 30 rungs or something. I think a more appropriate way to look at this is to use percentiles which helps discount some of those minor differences between teams in a purely objective way. It's literally grading on the bell curve.
Michigan's Defensive Kenpom is currently 100.5, ranked 94. Georgia's is 98.5, ranked 60. So, while there is a measurable difference between the two defenses, Is there actually an appreciable difference between them?
Also, Michigan's D has been fine against some pretty good offenses according to kenpom: in Iowa (1-1), Michigan State (2-0), and Wisconsin (1-1). The worry needs to be about teams that can catch fire from 3 IMO.
Finally, It's all about the O, if that's on I think we'll be alright.
|17 weeks 4 days ago||NW Home Court Advantage||
Northwestern's oppenent freethrow percentage is indeed significantly lower than the pack and definately lower than Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan State. So concluding that there is a Home Court Advantage there is supported by the data. What is actaully causing the advantage is a totally different question.
The 95% Confidence Intervals for all other teams overlap so, Northwestern seems to have the only gym worth investigation with the question being: what about that environment makes opponents shoot poorly? Compare and Contrast vs Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan State might lead to interesting ideas. Sippin' on Purple: do something, or something.
|21 weeks 2 days ago||I want Nussmeier to be my Valentine||
Love seeing the Nussmeier quote in regards to goals by down and distance. A while back I wrote a diary on the subject. Check it out HERE.
|23 weeks 1 hour ago||Perception being the operative word||
The handling of Gibbon's eligibility looks like ameteur hour at first blush. It is only after you take the time to dig through some pretty complicated and obscure legalese to understand what might have plausibly happend that the situation drops from disgraceful to embarrassing. We will never know what actaully happened so all we have is a plausible understanding of what might have gone down. We're operating with a heavy dose of benefit of the doubt here because we want the best for Michigan, others will not be so generous.
MGoBlog gets a lot of traffic; sounds like about 280k unique visitors per month. How many people have passed judgement on Michigan because of this story? Way more than that. So, add this to all of the other perceived and real hijinks that have come out of the Athletic Dept. over the last several years and what does the AD look like to the vast majority of people (skywriting, etc)?
I dont care that much what people think of Michigan, but I care a little. Don't you?
|23 weeks 17 hours ago||I beleive this is what||
I beleive this is what happened. I also believe this reality further adds to the perception that our Football Operations are a daggum clownshow, which is not so good for the program.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||Come on man||
It's the case that is high profile. All I'm saying is that accusations of violent crimes involving student-athletes as respondents should be passed along to the athletic department so they can prepare an appropriate reaction if/when the time comes.
I'm talking about a very limited territory, but that's getting snowed under by the rest of the discussion.
Look at the situation we have here. The athletic department was not involved in the investigation until the punishment had been rendered. Yet, the perception of an impartial system tilted in favor of athletes is exactly what is being bantied about by rival factions. It looks like the University delayed their reaction until Gibbon's athletic eligibility had been exhausted. No one who is unaffiliated with Michigan in some way cares to dig out the information that has been uncovered and discussed by this community. We're a sliver of people who heard the initial news. Everyone else thinks that Michigan Athletic Department is slimy and still smarmy.
The perception you are trying to avoid is unavoidable, it will exist no matter what you do. So, design your internal policies so as to maximize your objectives in these situations. Those objectives, in order: 1) maintain unimpeachable integrity, 2) appropriatley manage the negative publicity that these cases will inevitably produce.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||I was trying to present the||
I was trying to present the duality of opinions regarding the handling of it by the athletic department. Obviosuly not everyone agrees as to how well the public aspects of this situation were handled. Personally, I would have preferred that Hoke had been given the opportunity to think of something better to say but he was denied that opportunity because of the internal policy choices of the University. I agree that with the information available now, it looks like they got this mostly right. But I think they could have done better and I would like them to in the future.
I guess if you have anything to say other than unflinching flattery then you're a nay-sayer. Whatever.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||Thank you for the clarification||
However, the downside you mention *already* exists and is not going away. The Athletic Department is more privileged than every other area of the University AND they are already more scrutinized. That scrunity is exactly what this is all about, IMO. You seem to think the downside you fear is hypotheticalw when it is, in fact, the grim reality. There is no way to avoid the perception that athletes get special consideration, they already do in every aspect of university life. And in this case, that special consideration isn't a good thing. If you get in trouble, then you get even more eyes on you,so avoid trouble at all costs.
You also dismiss the upside as "not real", why? The negative attention that the athletic department is getting as a result of its (mis)handling of this situation is a cost everyone associated with the University is paying for: University Staff, Students, Alumni, Supporters. If you fall into any of those categories then you're dealing with this story at some level.
The Univeristy of Michigan needs to be aligned, from top to bottom, in order advance and enhancing its image as a intergalactic-class institution of higher learning. That is something we certainly agree on. The President establishes the mission and hires an Ahtletic Director that supports the mission. The AD needs to hire a coach who understands what the mission and is capable of executing it. Its that simple.
The Penn State situation occured because of an extreme lack of courage and perspective at EVERY SINGLE RUNG in the ladder within the Athletic Department. Their Athletic Department didn't have special access to the information, they had the EXCLUSIVE access to the information. I am *certain* that if Penn State's version of the OSCR had been privy to the information, the outcome would have been different. No one acted upon what they knew, so nothing changed.
You're giving the Michgan's Athletic Department more credit than they deserve and the President/OSCR/OIE less credit than they've earned. I trust all of them to get it right because there is no other choice.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||You don't understand what it is I'm advocating for||
I'm not advocatiing that the university allow the Athletic Depertment to influence in any way the investigation or disciplinary outcome of "high profile" incidents. I'm merely saying: "hey, its in the university's overall best interest to give the AD a heads up when something like this is brewing."
The travesty that occurred a Penn State is exactly the right thing to be concerned about. What happened there has nothing to do with who was informed and has everyhting to do with how they acted upon that information. No one did anything. JoePa, the Athletic Director, the President.
Another example: the Gordon Gee Tressel thing. "I hope he doesn't fire me." Disgraceful.
I've already spelled out what I think should happen but I'll do it again:
The OSCR informs the President and Athletic Director when a case that has been predetermined to be High Profile blips the radar. The President reminds the Athletic Department that any perceived or real attempt to interfere or otherwise influence the investigation into the matter will result in termination of employment of the Coach and Athletic Director if appropriate. Any real or perceived resistance to cooperate in the investigation will result is termination.
At that point the Atheltic Director and Head Coach need to decide how they want to handle the player's eligibility. And its their responsibility to ensure the Values and Priorities of the University of Michigan are well represented: 1) Maintain Unimpeachable Integrity, 2) Win Championships. That's their job. Help them do it well.
We all want the same things, homeboy.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||They also do not "enjoy" the||
They also do not "enjoy" the same level of anonynity that every other student would enjoy. My position is that student associated with the revenue sports in particular are celebrities and forfeiture of *some*, I repeat SOME, privacy is the natural consequence of being a celebrity. It sucks but that the reality of modern American Society.
These guys receive extra benefits and come to Michigan specifically to represent us in a very public way. The enjoy the benefits that the public interest the University of Michigan Athletics derives, unfortuantly that also comes with certain burdens. They are given access to educational resources that every other student does not have acess to. That's OK by me. However, that access comes at the price of being held to a higher level of accountability to the people providing them that access.
Yes, these expectations should be disclosed during the recruiting process. Furthermore I believe ther are disclosed, particularly by Brady Hoke. We have a term for it: Michigan Man. I hate the way the term is applied and flaunted in the public domain, but its a real thing that I personally respect and appreciate.
"Do not accept this scholarship if you do not accept everything that comes along with it. You represent Michigan. Do not [mess] this up, son." If that means we miss out on the Brendan Gibbons of the world, cool beans with me.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||I think the the massive||
I think the the massive public scrutiny that the Michigan Athletic Department receives in its handling of situations like this justifies giving cases involving *some* athletes "special case" status. Especially the football and basketball programs, maybe hockey.
Mind you not in all cases. Sexual misconduct and physical assault: yes. Vandalsim, Jaywalking, and parking tickets: no. Substance abuse, DUI: not sure but I lean toward yes. You get the picture...
Also, not for all individuals. A situation involving someone on the track or swimming team would of course be just as serious but the attention would likely be non-existant. A musician on scholarship: no. A full-ride student in a research lab: also no. Normal knucklehead student: no. A good place to start would be with an answer to the following question: are there any bloggers that focus specifically on this aspect of the University? Go from there.
It really is only the "major" sports that I think need to be reconsidered specifically becuase of the PR aspects and media attention in those instances. I would expect that the offices within the Univerity would be able to strike an appropriate balance as to where, exactly, the lines are drawn.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||It's insane to me that the||
It's insane to me that the University's own policy is to keep the Athletic Department in the dark about this stuff for this long. That choice is what is making Hoke look foolish and further adding to the University's embarrassment over this situation.
I understand the confidentiality thing when a normal student is accused, but when its a student-athlete there needs to be a synapse mechanism between offices that at least keeps them informed of what is going on.
The president makes it clear that any tampering with the investigation to protect an accused player will result in the firing of the head coach and athletic director. No one else needs to know. Coach, AD, and player talk about the situation and they cook up whatever story they prefer to spin.
I dont see why this could not or should not happen and it pisses me off that it did not happen.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||It’s the OSCR policy that I||
It’s the OSCR policy that I think creates the PR problem for the AD. That's what my complaint is when you boil it down. There is no doubt that the University at large is in a bad public light because of how this all went down and I see the three primary possibilities as to why that is: dumb AD, evil AD, dim OSCR policy. This back-and-forth has centered on the policy at OSCR to not inform the Athletic Department because of confidentiality concerns for the *respondent* is dim.
I think this policy is terrible in the specific case of student-athletes. If you want to be a represent Michigan then you should forfeit a predetermined amount of confidentiality in situations like this. Of course if the player is a complainant, cool AD definitely does not need to know. But if the player is the respondent the AD should be informed that the player is under investigation and the reason why.
I think all of that because that is the rhetoric that we as a community spew from sea to shining sea, internationally, and all the way to the bleepin moon. We are Michigan, for God's sake and we have a higher moral standard. Am I confused about that notion? I think its whack, but that's our shtick. So, let's either end the charade or call this policy what it is: dim.
There is no reason why a unilateral confidentiality policy is needed and I think it’s dumb that OSCR 1) has such a policy and 2) went ahead and applied it.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||This is not a criminal||
This is not a criminal proceeding. The University selects its policy. Its has elected to treat all students equal in this situation, and I beleive that they have reached that conclusion in good faith. I, however, disagree that scholarship-student-athletes should be entitled to the same level of confidentiality than non-scholarship or non-student athletes *in this situation*. I've detailed why I think that previously but to summarize: they receive extraordinary benefits and are public representatives of the univesity. They are not common students.
So, being jane/john doe student involved in an OSCR proceeding is different to me than being Brandon Gibbons involved in an OSCR proceeding. I agree with keeping the AD out of the investigation, but I disagree that they should be kept in the dark of the simple fact that it is happening.
Not everyone is the same in all ways, it's OK to acknowledge and be mindful of that. To whome much is given...blah blah blah.
And I have a different question for you. Should it be kosher by the Universtiy of Michigan Code of Conduct for any student to threaten violence against another student? I say no. what say you?
|23 weeks 2 days ago||yep||
not all investigation will warrant action by the athletic department. We need to rely on the leaders within the department to make good decisions regarding when to take action and to which degree to take action. My faith in our current leadership has shaken yet again. Any questions?
|23 weeks 2 days ago||We disagree on the *degree*||
We disagree on the *degree* to which confidentiallity is needed by *athletes* who receive *special benefits* and are *very public representatives* of the Univesity. I'm really, really hoping you aren't in a profession where dealing with ambiguity ever comes into play.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I do have a problem with that||
I do have a problem with that but rather than taking it up with OSCR I'll just consider them dim. Do i have your permission?
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Seperation of Power and||
Seperation of Power and Seperation of Information are mutually exclusive to me. OCSR: Hey Athletic Department, persuant to current University policy, we're (re)opening and investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct by Brandong Gibbons stemming from an incident that occurred in 2009.
Where's the confidentiality breach?
As for your strategy to climb the depth chart, its delightfully absurd. If a player can anonymously produce a police report and rape kit and trigger a OIE investigation then we have a new Machiaveli. Come on, man.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Regarding Gibbons: the past||
Regarding Gibbons: the past was irrelevant. If a player is under investigation for violating either the Law or the University's Code of Conduct then it is incumbant on the Head Coach and/or Athletic Director to decide whether or not the player is eligible to play. Gibbons was under investigation for a serious and credible accusation with an available police report.
Regarding Lewan: I'll give you that it may be less reasonable, but I still would have done *something* bench him a quarter, a series, strip the C off his chest. Something to send a message to the rest of the players on the team at a bare minimum.
Brady Hoke and David Brandon are responsible for the most visible aspect of the University of Michigan and a big source of pride for those that love it. One or both of them botched the series of events that occurred after the 20th of Novemeber.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I dont think that informing a||
I dont think that informing a department within the university of this investigation is a breech of condifentiality. It's your prerogative to disagree.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I'm getting trolled, aren't I?||
Whateves, let's keep going...
Cynical might be a better characterization but, whatever.
The athletic department, is not an external entity to the University of Michigan. And this isn't something new we're talking about...Police report was almost 4 years old, holmes. Thats all the detail you need to make a call here.
Furthermore, if the policy of the University is to keep the Athletic Department in that dark about these things then they're stupid too.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I dont have beef with the||
I dont have beef with the University though I think they could have acted sooner if they werent afraid of legal reprisal from Brandon Gibbons. So...we're cowards but at least we have integrity? I'll take it, I guess.
I specifically talked about the Athletic Department and their handling of the events once the 2013 investigation officially began.
Also, the behavior by Taylor Lewan is really bad. But, hey, Snitches get stiches...amiright? I would have benched his ass too. Our season was already lost, sending a message to the rest of the team and the future of the program would have well been worth it. And, oh, btw, we lost all three of those games anyway!
Awesome work, AD. Yeah I answered my question. They're just dumb.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, man I understand.||
Not being allowed to play is not a witch hunt IMO. And the FSU Athletic Department has not positioned itself as having higher moral standard the everyone else like ours has. How many times have we heard rhetoric along of the lines of "we dont develop players, we develop Michigan Men" or whatever?
You get accused of sexual misconduct, you sit out. I think thats a reasonable upfront policy to have if you're going to pretend to be holier than everyone else.