this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
- Member for
- 6 years 6 weeks
|4 years 19 weeks ago||Thanks for your wrestling||
Thanks for your wrestling posts. My middle school wrestler son and I will pray for your father. What's his name?
|5 years 13 weeks ago||Steve O||
Steve Ontiveres(sp?)comes to mind as well
|5 years 13 weeks ago||UM Baseball||
IIRC, Larkin, Hal Morris and Chris Sabo were 2B, 1B and 3B together for the Wolverines and also took the Reds to the Series. The other UM infielder on that UM infield was Jeff Jacobson, who played SS for UM and kept Larkin at 2B at UM. Jeff was drafted by the Orioles; it was tough to crack that line-up as a SS, as they had a fairly consistant performer at that position. Jeff had a UM BBA, and probly didn't want to wait for Cal jr. to retire. Also, Baltimore had Cal Sr as a coach and brother Billy in the system as a 2B.
As you can probly guess, Jeff was a friend at UM.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||Great Post||
I loved reading this post, was at many of those games (I'm old). One nitpick, as I recall, it wasn't LT that messed up Johnny Wangs' knee at the Gator Bowl, it was the opposite NC DE or OLB (name I don't recall) that twisted it (appeared intentional) under the pile. But, a fun post to read, JamieMac.
|5 years 44 weeks ago||I was familiar with the||
I was familiar with the walk-on situation when Carr arrived at Michigan. Way back then, with more scholarships and a consistant program under Bo, there was more depth so freshmen and even sophomores didn't play as much (scholarship or walk-on). In those olden days, my impression was that the young scholarship players got the benefit of more direct coaching and more opportunity to show what they could do. By the time they were upperclassmen, they played and the walk-ons didn't, partly because they blossomed more due to the extra attention when they were younger. I attributed this extra coaching attention to three things: 1)the investment of a scholarship meant the coaches had more of a commitment to developing that investment; 2)the player's receipt of a scholarship meant they were more likely to stick it out through tough times (injuries, family issues, more challenging/time-intensive academic choices) so the extra coaching attention wouldn't "go to waste" if the walk-on left the team; and 3)the scholarship players usually were usually bigger, faster, and had more long-term upside.
I don't know that this really means much in the age of 85 scholarships, but if the depth is thin, RR may be more often faced with the choice of playing a walk-on (who may be more polished or quicker to grasp positional responsibilies but not as phyically gifted) and playing a young scholarship player who's more "talented" but less ready to play now. Or not.
|5 years 45 weeks ago||Headhunting safeties||
I'm glad Brian mentioned the pattern of attempted spearing by ND's safeties. Of all the uncalled potential penalties, these (especially the first by McCarthy)were the one's I found most objectionable. These were attempts to injure, and based on the multiple occurances seemed part of a premeditated plan. By letting the first blatant spearing attempt go unpenalized, the refs set the game up for chippy extracurriculars because it's difficult and usually unfair to pick out a single later chippy event and call it a personal foul. Which, of course, is always a concern in rivalry games. This also makes some of CW's whining seem more hypocritical.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Yes, Tim, I've lurked here||
Yes, Tim, I've lurked here for a long time. And yes, I feel bad that my first post was the critical because I love the site and generally agree with Brian's assessment of the MSM.
As I'm sure you noticed in my first post, I didn't talk to Dann about this so as far as I know you're right on the money that the decision was already made in his mind.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||Yeah that||
|6 years 6 weeks ago||"Breaking" the story||
This blog reported the story on June 5. I assumed readers would understand that my reference to "breaking the story" was to that report. Rodriguez didn't confirm O'Neill's departure until later.
Also, FWIW, I know the freep called and likely got the same info I did on June 3rd or 4th, which may have caused them to hold off reporting O'Neill's departure until the actual decision was final...
Just because Dann eventually left the team doesn't mean the June 5 MGoBlog report was accurate at that time. I hope the resulting premature internet comments didn't affect the final decision.
|6 years 6 weeks ago||"confirmation"||
Perhaps self-congratulation for breaking the Dann O'Neill departure should be a little more muted. According to my source, at the time this blog broke the story, it was not a done deal with all concerned (although I did not talk to Dann and have don't know what he told people). Just food for thought in the race to scoop the MSM.