I GIVE UP ON HATING WISCONSIN
- Member for
- 5 years 27 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 1 day ago||The long wooden instrument in the picture||
The musical instrument pictured here—and which plays the rhythmic background in the song-- is a didgeridoo. Some evidence suggests that playing it strengthens certain throat muscles and is thereby helpful in treating sleep apnea—characterized by symptoms such as snoring, poor concentration, daytime fatigue or sleep attacks. If you have such symptoms—or your spouse often wakes you with snoring—both of you might benefit from leaning to play “tie me kangaroo down, sport” on your didgeridoo.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Did Dantonio ever say the exact cause||
for the suspension of Bullough? I recall evidence against academics or legal problems causing the suspension.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Road Rage?||
or Roid Rage?
The kid did have a prior drug arrest. And violent behavior is a risk factor for suspected PED use.
If--that is, if---the charges are true, he should be randomly tested more often.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, I forgot that the NCAA is not only unethical but stupid||
Contrary to what the NCAA thinks, the RPI is not predictive of future results—as in the case of KenPom or Sagarin. Ironically, the NCAA's belief in Harvard’s high RPI is totally debunked by a team of statisticians from Harvard.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Also, UM could deserve a HIGHER ranking than the bracket||
Consider Harvard which the bracket puts 3 spots above UM. I do not discount the bracket's comprehensiveness but by including so many polls, it includes some with dubious methods.
According to a highly predictive poll like Sagarin, however,
UM is 20 spots ahead of Harvard.
UM had the #10 SOS in the country.
Harvard was #179.
UM would be favored over Harvard today by 3 pts, and
that gap would increase with a loss to Yale.
I do not think it unreasonable that UM could jump Harvard as well as some other teams.
But iI have been only talking about possibilities. I agree that there are many other events that could dash UM's hopes.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||possibly other teams above us in the bracket could fall||
2 of the teams above us, in the march 12-based bracket, Memphis and UTEP both lost yesterday. Although UM did too, Memphis did not lose to a #1 NCAA seed. Also, the UTEP loss was particularly bad. I'd be surprised if they do not fall below us; and currently we only need to move up one place--that is, if no additional spots are taken.
The intangibles argument that could help UM is very recent performance. Suppose Illinois becomes a #1-2 seed in the NIT. UM won the season series, alsoi just blew them out by nearly 20 points, so how could UM be worse than a #7-8 seed in the NIT?
I agree that Yale will probably be ahead of UM in the NIT bracket--if only because they were previously projected as an NCAA team. But even before their loss to Harvard, they were 18 spots below UM in the Sagarin rankings.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Thanks for the clarification||
It seems then that our hopes rest on
1. Hoping several NIT teams currently listed in the bracket actually make the NCAAs (eg Tulsa by winning the AAC tourney)--also hoping they do not displace current NCAA bubble teams and send them instead to the NIT.
2. Other current NIT teams fall out (eg possibly Harvard by losing the Ivy title to Yale today); and
3. Hoping the NIT committee considers factors that the Bracket Matrix left out---like the upside in UM's very recent performance, the downside in others' performance, and the possibility that UM could get back walton (if that is indeed possible).
|2 weeks 4 days ago||please explain further||
If UM was the top #7 seed, as it appears, how do those games alone make UM fall 8 places, so that they are not even the bottom #8 seed? Are that many of the places below us "locked in" from conference tourney results?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Certainly, the bracket makes UM's chances look good||
As noted in the "let's go Albany" thread below, that bracket does not reflect March 13 games. Our game vs. wisc may not hurt us, especially if wisc is a #1 NCAA seed. I am not sure about the effects of the other games. However, we could fall 4-7 places and still make the NIT according to your bracket. Also, it seems to suggest UM was the top #7 seed, so our margin of safety could be closer to 7 places than 4.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||which teams in this list do we want to win?||
Since conferene seeds do not always reflect national rankings, and since some teams may be on the NCAA bubble and others the NIT bubble, it is tricky to know who to root for.
Clearly, we now should not always root for a #1 seed to in the conference tourney. For example, in the AAC--another conference relevant to UM's hopes, the #4 seed, Temple, could solidify their NCAA bid by beating the #1 seed, SMU today (3pm, ESPN2). .
At the same time, we also cannot assume that it’s better for Temple to actually win their conference tourney tomorrow. They would probably make the NCAA without doing so. Ironically, that is not the case for a higher seed,Tulsa (the #2 seed), if Tulsa makes the AAC finals tomorrow. Tulsa is more likely to need an AAC tourney win to make the NCAAs.
In summary, today, we should root for Tulsa in their semi vs. UConn 5pm ESPN2); and if they win today, even if they play vs. Temple in the finals, Sun, we should root for Tulsa.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Also root for Yale over Harvard today||
Today, Harvard plays Yale for the Ivy title and the right to go to the NCAAs. Yale is ranked higher than Harvard, and is projected to make the NCAAs according to the Bracket project. Harvard is projected to make the NIT. UM probably has a better chance to knock Harvard out of the NIT with a Harvard loss today. I am not sure they would be knocked out in favor of UM. But the Sagarin ratings have UM ranked 20 spots ahead of Harvard. So, apologies to Tommy Amaker, but I hope Yale beats Harvard.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||As of March 12, UM could fall >= 4 spots and still make the NIT||
According to the NIT Bracket project, which is pretty comprehensive, UM was solidly in the tourney as of March 12. That is, it was not among the last four in. This result did not include UM’s game yesterday, but I would guess that a respectable loss to a probable #1 NCAA seed would not hurt too much. I am not sure how many spots were lost due to yesterday’s games elsewhere. But according to the Bracket Project, UM could fall at least four spots and still make the NIT.
According to precedent, it would seem that our overall record would hurt us. But since the NCAA took over the NIT tourney, the .500 Div I record requirement was dropped. Also, we had an impressive overall SOS (#12 nationally)-which the Bracket Project does take into account.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||As Einstein once said||
We need to make things as simple as possible but no simpler than that.
The OP is far too simplistic and is misleading.
The reasons why are clearly stated in my post
|4 weeks 6 days ago||a hypothetical example illustrates why such data can mislead||
For the past 10, past 20, past 30 and past 40 years years, let's say that team A beats team B in win pct 100 to 0, 65-30, 53-40 and 48-45.
We can conclude that Team A consistently dominates team B over the past 40 years, right?
The actual records used to generate these “cumulative’ results derive from the following results for each decade:
Years 1-10 A > B 100-0 %
Years 11-20 B >A 60-30%
Years 21-30 B >A 60- 30%
Years 31-40 B >A 60-30%
Thus Team B doubled the win pct over team A for 30 of the 40 years. Team B was the best except for one decade which clearly was an outlier.
Yet because that difference was large. occurred first, and was the only decade that was repeatedly counted in ALL of the OPs cumululative 10, 20 30 and 40 year periods, it appeared that team A dominated team B for all 40 years.
Clearly, that was wrong.
A similar but less extreme distortion occurs when the OP repeatedly includes Michigan's (team B's) worst ten years and Ohio's(Team A's) best, both of which came in years 1-10. I am not saying that MIchigan dominated Ohio in all the other decades, as did team B over A nor that the percentages were equally extreme. But a similar, less extreme distortion is likely to have occurred when the OP reported cumulative statistics repeatedly for a series of decades.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||ad hominem attacks--calling somebody a "homer"---||
do not advance the discussion. Let's stick to the facts.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Over the past 10 years, OK||
They have done better. But how about the prior decade? And the decade before that? And the one before that, etc?. Those are the questions that need to be answered. Cumulative data do merely repeat the most recent periods.
Also, to say a team has done better than others requires considering strength of schedule. The OP suggests that in the past 10 and the past 20 years, OSU was #1 in the nation. But to say that their win pct shows they were better than everyone is patently absurd. Their schedule was nowhere near as tough as was the case for recent SEC teams.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Prior to having one of the most dishonest coaches in history||
OSU went 2-10-1 vs UM.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||or you could just report each decade separately||
That would more accurately present a picture of each time period.
I never said that you intended to distort anything. That said, I do still think the analysis does distort the program's performance by not excluding vacated wins by OSU, by repeating some of the worst win pct years in UM program history, and by ignoring the high SOS of UM and the extremely low SOS of OSU in recent years.
I recall once computing an SOS-weighted win percentage for UM all time, and UM had by far the highest score--way above ND---and OSU barely made the top ten.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||UM has a higher all-time win pct than OSU||
Anybody can distort the data by selectively reporting only particular periods.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Indeed, it distorts the relative performance even more by||
1. ignoring SOS. During the Meyer era, for example, a recent mgoblog diary showed that UM had the toughest schedule. OSU was virtually tied with PSU for the worst SOS in the B1G--in fact, by far the worst.
2. truncating the data at 31 years so that all but a few of Bo's years were excluded (overal win pct 78%)
3. making it appear that these flawed win pct data accurately describe the most recent state of the program--which hardly could be more inaccurate. UM now has a coach with one of the top 5 win percentages all time at the highest level of competition: the NFL.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||This post essentially triple counts the most recent 10 years||
That makes UM look worse and OSU look better. Instead, the post should look separately at the different decades eg 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 years,
As noted by the OP, the data also do not correctly subtract OSU wins that were vacated several years ago. That further increases the distortion, which then is repeated in every time frame. I also wonder whey the OP reports such odd periods, 11, 21, 31 years, rather than 10, 20, 30.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Those kids in Ohio were staying in Ohio||
because Tressel was getting them paid.
Maurice Clarett, even after being rehabilitated and mending fences with Tressel, said he got paid far more at OSU than he ever did playing pro football.
The NCAA did nothing about Clarett and his cohorts--even Troy Smith who was caught taking money from a booster. Terrelle Pryor's under-the-table payments later should have made OSU a repeat offender.
In the words of Jim Harbaugh, if you cheat to win, you've already lost. So how many games has OSU lost---really?
|5 weeks 16 min ago||Harbaugh's coming speaks volumes about UM's program quality||
What other college program has been able to take from the NFL one of their all-time winningest coaches (ie top 5 in alltime win percentage)?
Granted, Harbaugh may have come to Michigan rather than another school in part because he went to Michigan. But what other school has been able to wrest away from the NFL an equally distinguished alum in the prime of his career?
What team has the most wins in the history of college football?
Who's got it better than us?
|5 weeks 3 hours ago||An even nuttier student idea came in 1972 at Northwestern||
Students proposed changing the nickname of the team from the Wildcats to the Purple Haze. The latter referred to a very popular Jimi Hendrix song about his hallucinatory experiences on LSD.
The majority of the student body, which was then in a drug-induced delirium, voted to adopt the nickname. Several national newspapers reported that the Wildcats were now the Purple Haze. But the administration vetoed the change. Students protested to no avail.
More recently, the desire for change peristed. Somebody suggested changing the name to the Fighting Armadillos but they were judged insufficiently fierce. Since Northwestern was basically the college team of Chicago, somebody suggested a name related to the Chicago Bears---like the Colbears in honor of alum Stephen Colbert (class of 1986).
|5 weeks 2 days ago||I also forgot to DVR||
I wonder if there are any online replays of the game. It looks like CBS just has highlights.
|6 weeks 4 hours ago||sounds like an Engelbert Humperdink song||
Please delete me, let me go
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Time pressure and Belichick's end-of-game strategy||
Belichick said he did not call a time out due to the "flow of the game." His decision did speed the flow and increased the time pressure placed on the opposition. That, in turn, could have made their decision less than optimal. When people are under time pressure, they put on their mental emergency lights and often oversimplify choices--they do not consider all of the alternatives. Thus, Carrol might not consider the myriad of difficult-to-anticipate options in his playbook. The Seattle players too might have carried out assignments more mechanically and not modified their play in response to defensive actions. The Seattle OC, in fact, said that the receiver should have pursued the ball more aggressively as Butler approached. Also, a young Russell Wilson might have altered the pass so that—even if it was more likely to go incomplete-- only his own receiver could possibly catch it.
Granted, no one really knows how much the increased time pressure from Belichick's choice mattered. Based on objective statistics, it does seem like he should have instead called a TO. But the time pressure he created could provide some rationale for his choice.
|7 weeks 6 hours ago||actually||
he said he already went on a manned Mars mission--via helicopter.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Urban Liar||
A paper trail of Urban's past fibs has been accumulating. A few of the items are now cartooned in a blog.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Ohio newspaper questions Meyer's ethics||
Cleveland.com calls Urban Meyer's tactics with Weber at best questionable and at worst exploitative.