Brian, I see you must have had a lot of free time around 2004, with 458 definitions including milf and abs. But come on, "Oh man, Brian looked so sexy today!" I do find your example for sexy a little self-centered.
Keep adding teams until there are 10 divisions so that the name Big 10 makes sense. You'll probably need to look outside the US to get enough teams though. Get into the emerging markets before it's too late and the SEC gets there first. China is basically one market, just one school and BTN will be included in the basic package for all 1 billion people. India might require more teams to be profitable, but think of the potential.
There are differences between men and women. Yet we create title IX in the name of equality. Something needed to be done to ensure women were given an opportunity to participate in sports. What title IX should do is strive for fairness, not equality. That is, there doesn't need to be the same number of male and female athletes or varsity sports teams for women to still be treated fairly. Men shouldn't be denied the opportunity to play varsity sports simply because there isn't a comparable women's team to make varsity as well.
You sure are setting the bar pretty low for women there. How dare you suggest they couldn't compete with men. Its that type of historical bias that has lead to the need for title IX in the first place.
But seriously, if you don't think the teams should be co-ed then you are asking for the same thing as segregation, separate but equal.
There's nothing stopping women from having varsity sports teams and they likely would continue without title IX the same way many mens teams exist even though they don't generate revenue.
We would not survive if we could not make predictions. Every choice we make is based on our prediction of the best outcome. Gambling is one example. While pocket aces is the best hand pre flop, it doesn't mean you will win the hand, it just gives you a better shot. Did we hire an AA or 72 or something in between? Since what we say doesn't affect the outcome of the games, what's wrong with voicing our opinion about this hire? Isn't that the point of this blog, to discuss Michigan football?
From what I saw this year, when Denard dropped back to pass he stayed in the pocket. In my opinion, he didn't run enough. He was inconsistent, but showed great touch and arm strength as a passer. He just happens to also be rediculously fast. The potential is there and I don't see why he should be anything but a qb. I guess what I'd like to hear is what his limitations are as a qb that would prevent him from becoming a pro. How do his mechanics compare to Vince Young?
People are setting their expectations of Hoke based on his past performance. It happens to be 47-50. You might say that you need to put it in the perspective of the teams he was coach for and I'd agree. I put RR's Michigan performance into the perspective of his previous acheivements at WV and the supply of players he inherited. RR had a track record and I was confident we would become elite.
I'm also setting my expectations of Hoke based on Carr (to me that's what we're going back to with this hire). Remeber the pain and agony of a few games I won't mention? Punting on the opponents 35 yard line? Getting run over by spread team after spread team? I wasn't excited with the trajectory our program was headed.
While our performance was terrible the last three years I still had optimism. We could have had supperior players and a supperior system. Now my feeling goes back to where we were 5 years ago. Please explain the pure simple hypocrisy of putting context into the W-L record of a coach.
If you want to be specific, what were your expectations of RR and what are your current expecations of Hoke then next few years?
Did you watch any of the games this year? Denard throws the ball pretty damn well. If I was Denard, I would be insulted by talk of being anything other than a qb.
Mathlete, I'd like to see you include statistical significance testing in all of your articles. Also, you could include ranges, ie the benefit is 1.2 +/- X ppg for each sack. In this instance X would be large which means a sack is not a strong predictor of score.
This is what I think you said:
1. A good O line requires cohesiveness
2. First team injuries result in less second team cohesiveness
3. Don't worry because injuries affect one person, not the entire line
2 affects the first team as much as the second. 3 results in a loss of cohesiveness which is detrimental based on 1. Which do you think is more important, individual talent or time spent together?
The fact that there's been an investigation leading to allegations justifies the Freep. The fact that we complain about their article justifies the Freep. Whatever their motives, all of our cries regarding 'journalistic integrity' will be heard as sour grapes and only legitimizes the Freep's relavence. The best thing we can do is never mention the Freep or anyone reporting from the Freep again.
I will attempt to patiently wait and see what happens.
To me, being drafted is too large of a bucket for this comparison. There is a pretty big difference between the first and last round. I suggest weighting their draft status by round (or multiple round buckets). If three stars are being drafted two rounds ahead of two stars, then they aren't really equal. Your sample size is probably not large enough at this point for this kind of resolution.
You also take away a lot of resolution by averaging the percentages drafted. At the very least, give us the standard deviation. I'm forgetting the specific test you would want to use, but you can show whether or not the two percentages are statistically different. You might have done this and I just missed it while skimming the article.
Ban one thing, cell phone use, and you eliminate a huge percentage of distracted driving that occurs. Banning drumming while driving is rational but its impossible to create an exhaustive list of what you shouldn't be allowed to do while driving.
I think the right kind of bar could work on North Campus. First, its not going to be a stay open until 2am kind of bar. Its going to have to be more of a happy hour bar, catching people before they head home to central campus and drawing people to N. Campus due to rediculous specials. Most of the people on N. Campus are upper level undergrads or grad students, people that are 21 and could go to the bar. My whole senior year I had wished there was a bar on N. Campus so that I could grab a beer between classes, or celebrate after handing in a group project, or take a break from studying, etc. Plus, N. Campus is (at least was) lacking a place that serves good food (yes I do love me some panda). A bar could be a reason people stay on N. Campus. The major issue would be leasing land close enough to campus for it to get traffic. I think near the bus stop would be best.
I think the initial poster had it backwords. The gov't is saving trillions (okay i'll give you billions) of overhead for a few million dollars in discoveries.
I agree with focusing on better robots to send to the moon or Mars. They can look for valuable minerals, start contructing base camps, explore, whatever we want. And they can handle huge g-forces and lack of oxygen much better than people which hugely increases the design space.
I do see how this would be demoralizing for someone working at NASA but unfortunately there are plenty of other workers facing budget cuts to empathize with.
I am aware of the following additional technologies to come out of the space program. Hopefully this sparks others to add to the list.
-Tang
-Velcro
-Anti-gravity pen
From the initial comment:
"I agree that Gardner probably has a better long-term upside than Forcier, but do you really want to be starting a true freshman for the second consecutive year? More importantly, would Rodriguez want to take that risk? My guess is that, unless something goes seriously wrong with Forcier between now and then, Rodriguez will want his experienced sophomore under center."
I believe someone made an argument for starting Forcier because he is older.
If Gardner gets significant playing time for reasons other than Tate or Denard being injured, I see that as a net positive for the team next year. It should mean that we've upgraded from the previous season.
I agree that in general its better to have experienced players starting and I think Tate will probably be the starter next year. I disagree with the tone of comments stating that experience == better player and that Rich would be taking a risk by starting Gardner over Tate.
I doubt it is safer than flying.
"Four hundred and fifty people died in 12 fatal U.S air-transport accidents from 1996 to 2000. Meanwhile, 209,117 people, including 30,189 pedestrians and bicyclists, died in 186,474 fatal traffic crashes. In 2000 alone, 37,409 crashes killed 41,821 people.
That's 114 people, per day, who died on the highways--the equivalent of a large commercial aircraft crash every other day!
In the same five-year period, there were 50,141,570 aircraft departures. These flights totaled 31,535,345,000 miles and 77,682,791 flight hours. So your chances of being on a flight that crashes and kills people would be 1 in 4,178,464. You could fly one flight per day for more than 11,000 years without incident."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_4_47/ai_86504189/
I work in the chemical industry and we've run our plants in a completely redundant fashion since the 70's/80's: boards, cpus, comparing outputs, etc. Very comforting to know when you're riding 6 miles in the sky or reacting chemicals. Just wanted to clarify your statement 'it's a modern marvel', this stuff's been around.
This is how I understand it as well.
3 early enrollees
28 normal enrollees down to 25 by the start of the season
31 Total 'signed' recruits down to 28 when season starts
In my mind, this allows us to take a chance on kids that may not qualify but also risks screwing someone over if everyone ends up qualifying.
Agreed. But I'm more disapointed in the people that are buying the shirts with (ohio) than the makers.
The best part are the confused looks I get wearing this thing in CA. I tend to tell people that it's Poland.
I think a lot of my (our?) initial anger at the free press was due to the fact that the "story" became a "story". I read the claim, saw Brian's first post response break the argument piece by piece, wondered who would print such garbage, and immediately moved towards freep-hate. From there things just sort of digress. I started worrying about the discussion surrounding the article, "ESPN said what!?", when I should have let Brian's first post and the testimony of CURRENT players and parents stand on its own. Then all anyone has to attack is the single argument,
whether or not the evidence substantiates the claim. Instead I hear talking heads circle their own wagons around our circled wagons. We could spend years arguing about journalistic integrity and get no where. I'm going to try and move on to something more productive. I hope I have better things to do.
Recent Comments
Brian, I see you must have had a lot of free time around 2004, with 458 definitions including milf and abs. But come on, "Oh man, Brian looked so sexy today!" I do find your example for sexy a little self-centered.
Brian, can you post the raw data (google docs?) where you got the R values from?
Keep adding teams until there are 10 divisions so that the name Big 10 makes sense. You'll probably need to look outside the US to get enough teams though. Get into the emerging markets before it's too late and the SEC gets there first. China is basically one market, just one school and BTN will be included in the basic package for all 1 billion people. India might require more teams to be profitable, but think of the potential.
They aren't Bayern, play champions league, have a cool coach and I'm already a fan. I suggest an mgokicktipp league. http://www.kicktipp.com/
There are differences between men and women. Yet we create title IX in the name of equality. Something needed to be done to ensure women were given an opportunity to participate in sports. What title IX should do is strive for fairness, not equality. That is, there doesn't need to be the same number of male and female athletes or varsity sports teams for women to still be treated fairly. Men shouldn't be denied the opportunity to play varsity sports simply because there isn't a comparable women's team to make varsity as well.
From what I know, men can play but they have to raise the net.
You sure are setting the bar pretty low for women there. How dare you suggest they couldn't compete with men. Its that type of historical bias that has lead to the need for title IX in the first place.
But seriously, if you don't think the teams should be co-ed then you are asking for the same thing as segregation, separate but equal.
There's nothing stopping women from having varsity sports teams and they likely would continue without title IX the same way many mens teams exist even though they don't generate revenue.
We would not survive if we could not make predictions. Every choice we make is based on our prediction of the best outcome. Gambling is one example. While pocket aces is the best hand pre flop, it doesn't mean you will win the hand, it just gives you a better shot. Did we hire an AA or 72 or something in between? Since what we say doesn't affect the outcome of the games, what's wrong with voicing our opinion about this hire? Isn't that the point of this blog, to discuss Michigan football?
From what I saw this year, when Denard dropped back to pass he stayed in the pocket. In my opinion, he didn't run enough. He was inconsistent, but showed great touch and arm strength as a passer. He just happens to also be rediculously fast. The potential is there and I don't see why he should be anything but a qb. I guess what I'd like to hear is what his limitations are as a qb that would prevent him from becoming a pro. How do his mechanics compare to Vince Young?
People are setting their expectations of Hoke based on his past performance. It happens to be 47-50. You might say that you need to put it in the perspective of the teams he was coach for and I'd agree. I put RR's Michigan performance into the perspective of his previous acheivements at WV and the supply of players he inherited. RR had a track record and I was confident we would become elite.
I'm also setting my expectations of Hoke based on Carr (to me that's what we're going back to with this hire). Remeber the pain and agony of a few games I won't mention? Punting on the opponents 35 yard line? Getting run over by spread team after spread team? I wasn't excited with the trajectory our program was headed.
While our performance was terrible the last three years I still had optimism. We could have had supperior players and a supperior system. Now my feeling goes back to where we were 5 years ago. Please explain the pure simple hypocrisy of putting context into the W-L record of a coach.
If you want to be specific, what were your expectations of RR and what are your current expecations of Hoke then next few years?
Did you watch any of the games this year? Denard throws the ball pretty damn well. If I was Denard, I would be insulted by talk of being anything other than a qb.
I didn't discover his blog until the end of last year and the link today reminded me of how perfectly he was able to capture the Michigan zeitgeist.
Mathlete, I'd like to see you include statistical significance testing in all of your articles. Also, you could include ranges, ie the benefit is 1.2 +/- X ppg for each sack. In this instance X would be large which means a sack is not a strong predictor of score.