Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 1 year 41 weeks
|18 hours 57 min ago||The biggest issue with NBA-college basketball reform is||
They're competitors, in a way that NCAAFB and NFL are legally not allowed to be. The NFL's antitrust exemption is contingent on them not competiting head to head on Saturdays and Fridays with CFB and HSFB. So the NFL can put in rules that help the college game and strengthen it.
But NBA and NCAA don't have that kind of relationship, and often have games on at the same time competiting with one another for ratings. Hence why the NBA has spent the last 20 years undermining and (successfully) harming college basketball. They're never going to do anything that helps college basketball unless it's an overwhelmingly positive thing for the NBA, and even then, they're more likely to continue undermining.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||These numbers bring up one question||
Which member of the Harbaugh coaching tree will be the new head coach at Michigan next year?
|3 weeks 3 days ago||If you listened to that tape||
and heard anything other than LOUD NOISES, you're a better man than me. We don't know what was said, other than "Piece of crap" seems awfully tame for that kind of reaction. AND there's no discussion of what might have been said throughout the game leading up to that point.
So yeah, let's not act like we know for sure what happened there, other than, "Jerk said stupid things and got a weak shove from a ballplayer with bad judgment."
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Well||
All that does is punish good programs who can recruit at a high level for having the temerity to recruit good players. You don't necessarily know if a kid is going to be one and done until he gets on campus and lights it up. And then you'll be stuck with major, name brand programs who drive revenue for everyone else being on weird cycles where they're good one year and then godawful the next.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||How could the NCAA end one and done?||
It's an NBA policy. The NCAA has never been in favor of it. The NBA could easily cut back on the one and done rule by either 1) dumping age requirements 2) moving them up to 3 years 3) getting creative and doing something like count college years towards NBA veteran service time so that kids who stay in college and develop are also working towards their payday, instead of treating all rookies the same way service time wise.
They don't want to do any of that, or didn't in the Stern era, because the Stern NBA couldn't give two shits about colleges.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||What the Podcast Title Made Me Think Of:||
BIT BY BIT, THE PIECES FIT! THE SOVIET MACHINE AD-VAAAAAAAAAAAANCES.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||"Do we really believe at this point"||
Yes, he no longer has the village idiot calling the plays and organizing the offense. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to improve.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I'm just going to guess||
that the idea of it just makes Brian so sad that he wants to put off having to talk about Scot Loeffler bringing the Punt and Shoot (Yourself) offense to Michigan until the last possible moment. It certainly worked wonders for Auburn and Virginia Tech.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||As long as it's not Scot Loeffler||
It's going to be Scot Loeffler, isn't it?
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Also||
"Don't ever hire Scot Loeffler, he's stupid"
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I love Mazzone||
He's a guy who has spent the better part of 10 years coming up with pro style takes on common spread concepts. Aka, what Borges has spent the last 3 years trying and failing to do.
The only school with comparable resources as Michigan who had an OL as inexperienced was UCLA. They won 10 games in a stacked Pac 12. Yeah, that would be a kick ass hire.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||Oh you misunderstand me||
I don't think Penn State should turn up it's nose because of a lack of ties. I don't see HIM taking the job. I'm reading Penn State folks who think OH FRANKLIN WOULD LOVE TO COACH HERE, SEE, HE'S FROM PENNSYLVANIA! as if nothing happened in the past few years to make a 40-something year old coach being courted by Texas think twice about Penn State. With Schiano, he'll take the job if he has to walk from Tampa to get it.
And no, if Rutgers was still a 1-2 win a year program like it was pre-Schiano, it would not be in the Big 10. No amount of TV market projection is going to cover up a program that has literally never won in its history. Schiano won there. He put them on the map and made them something other than, "Well, if Rutgers ever gets its shit together, it could maybe be something!"
Even if Schiano only won 8 games a year there, that would be an insanely good accomplishment given Rutgers' history. People have made a big deal about Franklin having winning seasons at Vandy, and he deserves credit, but what Schiano did at Rutgers was a tougher accomplishment.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||^^^^THIS||
I've been amazed to see so many Penn State people losing their minds over Schiano. I mean, sure, getting Franklin would be a great hire, but he has no real ties to Penn State other than he's from the state and there's no real word out there that he's even interested. Schiano has a FAR stronger track record than Al Golden, who seems to be the It Boy (God I want his publicist).
If you give me the choice between a guy who is the difference between Rutgers dropping to FCS and joining the B1G versus a guy who can't beat Duke for a division championship with Miami, I know which guy I want.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Texas State football makes no sense anymore||
It's weird enough to see Texas A&M being a successful offensive program that lights up scoreboards and highlights. But seeing the most Texas A&M-like coach in the country go to Austin would just break my brain irrevocably.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Speed||
On those jet sweep deals, the runner typically has to slow down a bit at the mesh point to make sure he doesn't screw up the handoff exchange. With the Mine Sweep (Damnit, that name should really take off, the play was invented at Colorado School of Mines and the name rules so damnit), the guy can take the ball at full sprint without worrying about an exchange.
|12 weeks 4 days ago||Peach is coming back||
It's getting added to the playoff rotation, and they wanted to give it class back. So it'll be the Peach Bowl again.
It's a great development.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||The theory isn't so bad.||
It's the choice of Rutgers. If the Big 10 had taken UConn, I don't think it would be AS rough a sell. UConn might be poop at football right now, but they DID win the Big East a few years ago, and they've been elite at basketball, so you're getting SOME present day value. And honestly, the Big East already died on the Hey maybe Rutgers will one day get its shit together Hill.
Or if you're obsessed with Rutgers, leave out Maryland. If a court rules Maryland has to pay that entire absurd buy out from the ACC, it's going to be Big 10 schools swooping in to pay it, because they're completely broke. And what will B1G schools be getting for all that money? A DC market that doesn't care much about college athletics and a school that has never consistently gotten its shit together that relies on an overcrowded recruiting footprint. Oh and a basketball team that had a brief shining moment in the early aughts when UNC was terrible.
Yay, can't wait to have that in the conference!
|13 weeks 3 days ago||The constant switching is the biggest problem||
I totally agree there, and I can't imagine a sane person not agrreeing. Switching wildly from one system to another is just setting yourself up for failure.
But as far as Michigan: pro style quarterback factory, most of those names are from an era in which being a drop back passing team with pro style quarterbacks was a bit novel. That's not the case any more. You don't see 4-4 defenses that smart drop back passers can just pick apart.
And at the end of the day, what did most of those guys win at Michigan? Griese won it all, but most of those more recent guys were associated with teams that never fully played up to their potential. All those future NFL quarterbacks, and what? From 1997-2007, 1 national title, two big ten titles, a 2-4 record in BCS bowls and one of those guys was MAYBE THE GREATEST QUARTERBACK TO EVER PLAY. You've GOT to have that level of talent to make a pro style team work, and Michigan WAS able to assemble that level of talent, but it still didn't get the job done.
I just have a hard time thinking that a 90's pro style offense is going to be a better mouse trap than "option offense you can't play 8 in the box against."
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Well||
I feel pretty confident Devin would have replaced 90% of Denard's production, maybe even been better in a spread system because of his better ability to throw down field. It's FAR FAR FAR easier to find an athlete capable of executing option reads and one read passes than finding a guy savvy enough to manage the audibles of a deep pro style playbook while also having the arm and touch to fit balls into tighter windows. Like, there's a reason this is what college offense has been for our entire lives+ (I dunno how old you are, but you're on the internet, so I'm assuming you weren't a big single wing fan from the 1930s).
And ya know, who needs to pass when you can run the ball for 300-400 yards? That's another reason why shotgun option teams like to push tempo: it allows you to move the ball quickly while still running your base offense. Auburn ran a 2 minute drill with option runs that set up that option pass that tied the game. They did all this to ALABAMA. With a DB at quarterback, not a guy who can throw at the level of Devin or even Denard.
Like, sure, it would be great to be able to run for 7 yards a carry and also average 11.5 yards per passing attempt with a killer drop back playaction passing attack. But who is doing that? And which teams usually look clueless in a come from behind scenario? The pro style teams or the no huddle spread teams?
|13 weeks 3 days ago||That's true...sorta.||
Sure, any offense can win and succeed if you have the players for it. If you have Dan Marino, you don't ask him to run the zone read 20 times a game. But I think recent history has shown that a pro style offense is far more quarterback dependent than a spread offense. Now, I don't mean that to say that the spread doesn't run plays through its quarterback, because obviously it does. But option football is far easier to teach, is played far more extensively at the high school level, thus guaranteeing that your players will have far more background with what you want to do, and there's just a wider net to cast to find a good quarterback.
If you don't have an Andrew Luck, your pro style offense will probably be at best mediocre. So why base your attack around schemes that require you hitting the recruiting jackpot? Wouldn't you rather have an offense that can function with a converted defensive back at quarterback?
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Re: The Endless Arguing about Manball/Spread||
I wish people would stop acting like the spread is some kind of newfangled communist ball. It's just the latest way to run the option. Option football is pretty synonymous with college football, and has been for what, 70 years? If it was the 60s, these teams would run the split T. The 70s, the Wishbone. The 80's and 90's, the I formation.
That's all the spread and shred is. A way to run the option while still being able to recruit top wide receivers and have a passing threat that goes beyond the EVERYONE RUN DEEP AND LET'S PRAY passing offenses a lot of option teams used to have. Bo Schembechler ran the option. If he was coaching today, he'd probably run a spread offense.
In the history of college football over the last 70 years, if you couldn't recruit future NFL QBs, you ran the option out of some formation. Why people continue to resist it is beyond me.
But maybe Ohio State's offense is just a mirage, and Minnesota being able to run the ball as well as anyone in the conference with 2 star talent is just a strange fluke.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||Clarification without dickery||
Those schools you mention aren't anything like Michigan offensively. Stanford (and Wisconsin) does line up with a lot of 2 back sets, but they employ shifting on nearly every play. Unlike Michigan, which gets to the line with 8 seconds left on the clock and runs its play with no time to audible or shit or make the defense confused. The major benefit of being spread no huddle is that the defense is constantly on its heels because it doesn't have a ton of time to figure out what you're doing before the ball is snapped. Teams like Stanford and Wisconsin replicate that (while still being able to chew clock) by shifting dudes around so that the defense can't just line up and see the formation immediately. They also give their quarterback time to audible if the defense is cheating, which Michigan does not do.
Alabama doesn't shift as much, but they do NOT run 2 back sets either. They are a one back team, and thus they have the ability to release 4 guys down field if a team is playing tons of cover 3 to take away their run game. So again, they're able to do a lot of the same stuff a passing spread team would do to beat defenses, but they do it with lots of tight ends instead of slot ninjas. And again, they give their quarterback the ability to audible. And Alabama has all but abandoned power O this year BECAUSE THEIR AWESOME LINE HAD ISSUES WITH PULLING. Novel, they scouted an issue in the spring and adjusted by spending all offseason running nothing but inside and outside zone. And that's with seasoned Alabama linemen. Does that sound like Michigan to you?
What Michigan is doing is more akin to what Virginia Tech or Florida do on offense. Line up in I sets because that's what we think is football, and when it fails because the defense is overloading the box, switch to some shotgun option-y stuff that tips off the play and ultimately only does so much because you have no counters. The basic theory of Michigan's offense is, "Ours'uns are better than your'uns, and we're not gonna disguise or do anything to confuse you. We'll just come right atcha!" There's nobody doing that and having ANY success in college football today. Nobody.
Basically, those teams you mentioned wanting to emulate are not OLD SCHOOL. Nobody in college was doing what they do in 1985. They are modern takes on how to move the ball through the air and on the ground while being able to slow the tempo down and be physical. The only thing old school about them is their use of a slower tempo and big ass linemen.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Other programs to add:||
- The 70's Switzer Oklahoma wishbone teams that broke every rushing record.
- The U Hurricane teams
I'm not trying to minmize what Alabama is currently doing, but the BCS system (while shitty) isn't nearly as capricious as the old WELL WE'LL JUST VOTE FOR THE CHAMPION system. Even the 90's Nebraska teams at least got a chance to play a 1-2 game unless the Rose Bowl had a top two game, and even then they got to play the 3rd ranked team in a pseudo championship game. As convoluted and stupid as that was, it was still better than jerks voting BEFORE THE BOWLS WERE EVEN PLAYED and that somehow meaning something.
Basically, if you're the best, you've had a better chance to actually prove it on the field since the BCS and it's non-Rose Bowl predecessors came into existence. That doesn't mean that teams like Oklahoma that just won 2 titles in the 70s weren't just as dominant.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||I like to imagine||
Him and LSU's John Chavis meeting up and going on all kinds of wacky adventures together. Just two super competent lifelong DCs that don't give a damn about a head coaching job and probably have a VCR recording of quarterbacks getting knocked out somewhere in their house.
|14 weeks 3 days ago||Re: Ticket Prices||
Ya know, CEO business bros like Dave Brandon like the come in and talk about how his predecessors did such a poor job of monetizing the school's brand, and how they failed to utilize so many revenue streams. "Gosh, those old idiots must be fools," he probably thinks.
Never once has he stopped to realize that it's idiots like him that are going to kill the whole golden goose. 30 years ago, when schools weren't nakedly proud of all the money they raked in from athletics, it was a pretty hard sale to convince people that college athletes should be paid. But when you're charging for tickets at the same level the pros do, you give less access than the pros do, and you have more advertising and are tighter clutching to your "intellectual property" than the pros are, people start saying, "Hey, this is basically pro ball, you should pay the players."
Newsflash Brandon. It's not that EVERY OTHER AD wasn't smart enough to think about goughing the shit out of their fans. They just didn't do it because it undermined the basic product they were selling, and it's better to make 60% of what you can make than max out your revenue streams and end up driving everyone away or causing the federal courts to blow the whole system up and leaving you with 0%. You shit heel.
|14 weeks 3 days ago||None of what you said is what people who mock Michigan Man mean||
Those of us tired of "Michigan Man" being used as a way to hold the team back are upset with the idea that you have to be able to somehow trace your coaching career back to the program in order to be considered head coach. There's a finite (and small) number of coaches out there who are qualified and capable to coach a place like Michgian. When you obsess over hiring a guy with ties to the program, you slice the number of potential candidates into a number so small that you practically doom any chance of finding a good coach.
Brady Hoke would have never been considered for a program of Michigan's stature if the AD wasn't obsessed with finding a "Michigan Man" who worked for Michigan at some point in his past. It was his sole qualification for the job, and that qualification was so absurdly overvalued that it got him the gig. THIS IS INSANE AND HAS TO STOP.
For 20+ years after Bear Bryant died, you couldn't even get considered at Alabama if you didn't play or work for the Bear. And because of that, they had one decent coach in that entire time. Eventually they decided to just go find the best coach and now he's won all the titles all the time. Michigan has to stop looking for coaches on the polluted coaching trees of its past few head coaches.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||If Glanville hadn't flopped at Portland State||
This would be almost interesting to see. I imagine if he got the EMU job he'd bring in Mouse Davis to be OC, and to be honest, even June Jones isn't running the Run and Shoot any more. And Glanville had a really tough time getting college kids to understand his blitz heavy 80's 3-4 stuff at Hawaii and Portland State.
But oh well, at least it'd be insane.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Don't make same mistake twice||
Firing Rich Rod after only three years was a collossal mistake, especially with the timing of the way he was fired. He should have been given a 4th year on a short leash a la Lane Kiffin and if he couldn't fix it in year 4, let go with Brandon having a full season to find his replacement. If that would have happened, Michigan wouldn't have ended up with an unproven sub-.500 coach with a career in the little leagues of college football.
And since we've all seen where 3 and Out gets Michigan, anyone talking about doing the same thing to Hoke is certifiable. This is the bed that was made. Maybe he'll hire a better OC and get it going in the right direction, maybe not. But a coach oughta get enough time to coach his own seniors.
Now, anyone still defending Borges is just a zealot for his brand of football and won't change their mind despite any evidence you give him. The game passed him by and he was put out to pasture in '07 and should have stayed there eating oats or whatever. A good OC would have put the team in position to win at least 10 games this season with this schedule. The Michigan State and Ohio State games might not have gone well due to the youth on the line, but we wouldn't be talking about losses to sorry teams like Penn State and near misses against the worst teams in FBS football.
Hoke's a CEO coach, and that means you got to fire people who suck at their job. A CEO coach who won't fire anyone is just a buffoon who could be replaced by a guy with a stats degree.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||There's lots I don't get about Borges||
But I'm really confused with the obsession with max protect. This guy was known for translating a west coast offense into something college kids could run. They nicknamed his Auburn offense "the gulf coast offense." Why is he now allergic to using his running backs in the passing game? Especially when he has no running back who can block.
I think it's another data point in support of the, "Hoke is part of the problem" conclusion. them. I refuse to believe an offense this awful can be the product of a guy with 30 years coaching experience with some pretty good offenses on the resume. Not that he's a genius, but we long since entered, "GERG as Michigan DC territory" and that guy turned out not to be such a dummy either when he didn't have a desperate head coach demanding he run defenses that don't make sense.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Funk has been with Hoke longer than Borges||
If Borges was the sole guy removed from this staff, I am convinced the next OC would fail too due to the inability of the offensive line to do anything correctly. Maybe a super brilliant genius bro could improve the offense marginally, but when you have a failure on this level, there's nothing that can be done to suddenly turn you into the Lombardi Packers. This has been a consistent problem since this staff came on board, and it's only gotten worse as the line has gotten less experienced. This is their 3rd year. Their system is supposed to be in place by now.
You can win games in football running any damn X's and O's you want if you have talent and can teach them what you want them to do. We can argue that certain philosophies might give you an edge over others, but if Michigan taught the Delaware Wing T properly and ran that it would work. But if you can't teach guys how to run POWER O of all things and you can't handle a blitz up the middle, you're dead.