Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
- Member for
- 2 years 10 weeks
|9 weeks 5 hours ago||Nobody likes Skyler?||
Yeah, how dare she not want Walt to be a drug dealing devil. Why doesn't she let him be kewl.
Skyler4L. It's clear that Walter Jr got his morals from his mom.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||If the Pac-12/Big 10 deal had||
If the Pac-12/Big 10 deal had gone through, Notre Dame would have lost 5 games out of their schedule (USC, Stanford, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State). According to Notre Dame writers and ACC folks, the talks between the two leagues heated up at the same time the B1G-Pac deal seemed to become a done deal. The fact that the Notre Dame/ACC deal includes ND playing 5 ACC teams a year lines up fairly well, no?
It was the Pac side that ultimately canceled the deal, and at the time it was reported that a major sticking point was USC and Stanford not wanting to lose the Notre Dame series. Add in what we know about Dave Brandon's general cluelessness and his gung ho support, and you have your answer.
|13 weeks 2 days ago||Dave Brandon lost the Notre Dame series||
He was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Pac 12- Big 10 scheduling deal that was the cause of Notre Dame seeking the ACC membership-5 game a year schedule deal. Dave Brandon was cool with ditching the Notre Dame series so Michigan could play Pac 12 teams that there is no relationship with or longstanding rivalry with. Then he seemed absolutely shocked when USC and Stanford killed the Pac 12-B1G deal and Notre Dame dropped them.
It's just a pattern of Dave Brandon overplaying weak hands and then being shocked when shit blows up in his face.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||The Union Boss...||
....is a psychology senior in college. This ain't the daggum Teamsters we're talking about.
I don't get why we'd assume they're full of shite when they've done nothing deceitful to this point. Their opposition couldn't even do a press release without lying about their position. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that to this point has done nothing unethical or untowards, especially given the other side is complicit in all manner of fraud. I
And even if the players did ask for an increased stipend, WHAT'S SO WRONG ABOUT THAT? What's so wrong with them being able to hire agents? What's wrong with them doing local commercials or being sponsored by Nike? EVERYONE ELSE IS BECOMING A MILLIONAIRE and they're getting a scholarship, medical bills and having to constantly worry about whether their coach will find a way to grey shirt them and pull the little compensation they do get. They can't even switch schools without a headache.
So, NO I don't think this is just about health insurance. This is about players vital to a billion dollar enterprise (that masquerades as a non-profit, further defrauding tax payers) wanting to be treated like grown ass men who are vital to the whole system instead of being treated like an irritating batch of cattle that have to be herded about and controlled.
|18 weeks 2 hours ago||They are treated less than employees||
They are currently treated like they are somewhere between an "indentured servant" and "an intern at a really type A company." Employees are allowed to look elseware for employment if they don't like their current situation, for example. They aren't subject to constant online supervision.
Also they aren't asking for money. They want insurance, ability to transfer and independant medical staffs that can't be fired by the coaching staff when they make a health decision that might impact his win-loss record.
|18 weeks 3 hours ago||Preposterous||
We just watched over the last few years as dozens of longstanding and excellent rivalries were torn apart in the name of TELEVISION MARKET SIZE and MAXIMIZING TV REVENUE. Even the conferences that have "won" realignment have seen their existing rivalries diluted because teams in different divisions no longer regularly play each other. AD salaries are climbing higher and higher, and hell, Michigan hired A CORPORATE CEO to be their AD. Coaching salaries at the top are creeping closer and closer to 10m a year territory.
BUT PAYING PLAYERS ANYTHING WILL RUIN THE SPORT(S) WITH DIRTY MONEY.
You have to be completely clueless about the level of money in major college athletics to think that pay-for-play will fundamentally alter college football in any way shape or form. Major college sports basically exists to make middle aged white dudes in bad clothes absurdly wealthy. It's gonna be ruined by the actual athletes having health insurance? Seriously?
|20 weeks 6 days 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.
|23 weeks 2 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?
|24 weeks 2 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."
|25 weeks 2 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.
|25 weeks 2 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.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||What the Podcast Title Made Me Think Of:||
BIT BY BIT, THE PIECES FIT! THE SOVIET MACHINE AD-VAAAAAAAAAAAANCES.
|28 weeks 2 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.
|29 weeks 19 hours 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.
|29 weeks 20 hours ago||As long as it's not Scot Loeffler||
It's going to be Scot Loeffler, isn't it?
|29 weeks 21 hours ago||Also||
"Don't ever hire Scot Loeffler, he's stupid"
|29 weeks 21 hours 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.
|30 weeks 7 hours 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.
|30 weeks 22 hours 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.
|30 weeks 1 day 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.
|30 weeks 3 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.
|33 weeks 3 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.
|34 weeks 23 hours 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!
|34 weeks 2 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."
|34 weeks 2 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?
|34 weeks 2 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?
|34 weeks 2 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.
|34 weeks 5 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.
|35 weeks 1 day 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.
|35 weeks 1 day 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.