at least it's not just us?
- Member for
- 5 years 25 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Majority of screen is showing the play and replay
- A small dedicated portion shows score, time, down/distance, TOs
- An even smaller portion is constantly cycling through other stats, like rushing, passing, total yards, individual rushing/receiving leaders, QB stats, etc.
|4 days 3 hours ago||Congrats!||
Thanks for sharing and congratulations on your success so far. You have accomplished something special and should be very proud.
|1 week 1 day ago||December!||
Today's my son's birthday, yesterday my oldest daughter, and the 26th my middle daughter. Posbang the Ides of March...
|1 week 1 day ago||Technically...||
...orbiting the sun. But we knew what you meant.
|1 week 2 days ago||Liability||
Don't forget, though, that even though there is D&O insurance, you still, as a board member, are a fiduciary and therefore have personal iability. And with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley you also have potential criminal liability.
There *is* responsibility and risk that goes along with the job.
|1 week 5 days ago||How Many Bowl Games Did You Play In?||
While I understand your comment and agree that earning a more prestigious bid would have been better, this is likely what we have. Some people will choose to celebrate the event and/or the kids that are playing in it. More power to them.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Then...management||
And that's when the big bucks start to roll in.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Great Thread and Good Comments||
I really enjoyed reading many of the comments in this thread. Very interesting. My youngest is 8 and has been hyper-competetive since birth. After witnessing Nebraska and watching Iowa, he had kind of checked out of the season.
We had an opportunity to watch pregame from the field this week and then watch the heart and soul the team put into this game. By the end of warmups, my son was totally engaged again and then rode the roller-coaster with the team.
Our family has now had two exceptional personal experiences despite losing efforts. Watching this team perform this way (as major underdogs) is a lesson I don't think my children will ever forget. All 3 are students first but also very athletic. The sophomore is a swimmer, the 7th grader a figure skater, and my son is a soccer player. They took something from that game I could have never explained to them.
We also were able to go to the Outback Bowl last year and were exiting near the spot where the players walked from the locker room to the busses after the loss. The way they carried themselves with grace and dignity despite a tough loss was truly impressive to me. I really believe there's a lot to learn from losing.
I'm not saying that a win wouldn't have been better. But this was the least bad loss of any I can remember. And I think the way the players are handling themselves in victory AND defeat is a testament to the very positive things about Brady Hoke.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Different Forms of Mediocrity||
For most of Carr's tenure, I spent time trying to tell people why they were wrong on the internet. It is one of the reasons I'm now a relatively infrequent poster. I used to be one of the top (well at least most frequent) posters on another blog prior to MGoBlog rising to prominence.
I thought Carr was a really good coach doing really good things. We didn't win a lot of national championships, but we contended twice in his 12 years and really had the goods in '97.
What I said then, and have said many times since is that Michigan was "more not bad" than any other team in the history of football. We weren't ever a "dynasty" kind of team, but as has been shown in the charts above, we were right there all the time. Prior to RichRod, the one thing we had that nobody else did, was our consistency of being really pretty good.
This drove many people bats#!^ crazy. LOTS of people HATED Carr, whoever the starting QB was, and whichever corner had given up the most recent "unexcusable" touchdown.
Why weren't we winning more national championships? Why weren't we #1 more often? Why did we lose to team X in bowlgame Y? For these fans, it was sort of like being a high-functioning alcoholic. We were capable of *lots* of stuff, but at the end of the day, we were still diseased (in the minds of these people).
I was pretty happy for most of that time (with 2007 being an obvious low). While being critical of a lot of individual choices Carr made, I was a huge supporter of the program and the tone that was set. I spent a lot of emotion and energy trying to defend what I thought was precious.
The RichRod era killed all that. It can be discussed and debated more than it already has, but whatever we had then died. In an attempt to become the next HUGE thing, we became more like everyone else. And we haven't picked ourselves up yet. For what it's worth, I thought RR never had a fair chance but also managed to shoot himself in the foot. I would have loved for his offense to take root here. But while that never got a chance to really happen, we also sucked at defense. This drove other people bats#!^ crazy and we fired RR and hired Hoke.
In 2011 we overachieved (anybody remember Brian and the days of Hoke uber alles?). 2012 was about right. In 2013 we've underachieved and, either as a symptom or because of it, regressed substantially as this year progressed.
Don't forget that Carr's first two years were no panacaea and that there were lots of comments from visiting teams that Michigan Stadium was not really that difficult a place to play. Despite the last vestiges of Bo, the exciting offenses of Mo, and everything else the program had going for it, we still managed to lose games the fans felt we shouldn't have.
Right now the mediocrity we are exhibiting is the same mediocrity many teams have faced. The open questions are whether Hoke is the guy to lead us out of this and whether the current staff is the right group to help him. I guess time will tell.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Great Idea||
Let's race to be the first one to be critical of a thread. That will *totally* help.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Press Conferences||
I think maybe they'll get Alex Lifeson for the press conferences. For those of you not familiar with some of his most recent work, you should click this link and skip forward to the 4:50 mark.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Confidence||
I think it is easier to maintain your confidence/cockiness when you have a positive feeback loop.
Even after the ND game that was in question. The end-zone pick-six was a poor decision with an even poorer result. A game in which we should have cruised to victory was then in doubt. That was followed by a pick-six the following week against...AKRON. After a bunch of turnovers in the first four games, the jokes online the first bye weekend were along the lines of, "At least we know Michigan won't be minus in the TO column this week! Ha Ha!"
I think all of that has collectively weighed heavily on Gardner. After the Nebraska game, my comment was that he was playing scared. Scared to take a hit; scared to throw an INT. After MSU/NEB my wife's comment was that he needed to get his Mojo back.
If nothing else the lack of negative feedback loops (the INTs against NW that *could* have happened but didn't) coupled with the two successful scrambles on 4th down on the last regulation drive, the OT success, and the win are hopefully the things he needs to get right in his head.
In the last few games of 2012, it was clear to me that compared to Denard, Gardner was more decisive about when to run and when to throw. That seemed to carry through into the first part of this year. In Michigan's struggles this year, I think all of that has him thinking too much right now. He doesn't have the confidence that whateevr he chooses will just, somehow, work. If he can get that back, he'll be the QB we all hoped he was.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Single Coverage/Deep Routes Question||
We sat in the Michigan section in the NE corner. For most of the game, we had a great perspective on not only how frequently our wideouts were in single coverage but also the depth and spacing of the safties.
As has been brought up many, many times, how do you not keep throwing high sideline passes to a single-covered Devin Funchess? Shouldn't that be an audible just about every time?
I understand the comment about deep routes needing time to develop and that time being precious especially considering the OL woes. What I don't understand is why you need the time... Isn't it just as effective to take a 3 step drop and throw in rhythm to a wideout on a fly pattern for 15 yards as it is to take a 7 step drop, wait, survey the coverage, wait some more, and throw a 35 yard pass? Actually, isn't it easier?
The argument against these passes, I think, is when your recievers are getting jammed on the line and the timing is hard for the quick pass. That hasn't seemed to happen since the MSU game.
My 8 year old son wants Devin to throw the ball on *every* play. (To be fair in his football viewing years, he's never seen a dominant Michgian tailback...) I'm not quite in that camp yet, but single coverage on Gallon, Funchess, or even Chesson should at least be an audibled deep ball at least 25% of the time. Right? or am I crazy?
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Not Convincing||
Well, it would be one thing if there were a tweak or a change for the entire season or "from this point forward" but that's explicitly NOT what they're doing if they go with an alternate. It is a one time attention/money grab.
I'm pretty sure the wings weren't added to the helmet for either one-time sales or to grab the recruits attention. To me the thing that's most frustrating is that they're using one of the iconic symbols of the program for a quick fix.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Fair Points||
Those are fair points. And thanks for taking the time (that I didn't) to look up Michigan's season stats for 3rd/4th and short for this season. Frankly, I'm surprised.
The thing is, though, I left the Nebraska game (thoroughly depressed and) thinking: "This might be the worst Michigan offensive line of all time." That's probably not at all fair, nor is it supported by any research. But, my GOD, has it been rough! And I guess that's why it felt so bad at the time. Also (as you haven't shied away from): Good HEAVENS the PLAYCALL!!!
After a day of futility, it just felt awful.
In the end it comes down to two binary outcomes:
1) We didn't get the first down. So that makes it feel worse. BUT: It wasn't surprising. Would I have taken the odds just before the play was run? Nope. But then again, they don't pay me to be head coach.
2) In the end, it didn't matter. We won. The ten of us that were at the game together were a lot happier about the outcome than we were unhappy with the go/no-go decision.
Thanks again for doing all the leg work.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Thanks for the Analysis||
Thanks for the great analysis as always. Some comments and questions:
1) Caveat about NW playing with a lead vs. playing from a tie aside, in the situation M was in, they could have kicked the FG and (with the wind) almost certainly gotten a touchback. Stopping NW 1st and 10 from deep is a *little* easier than stopping them 1st and 10 at the 25, but not much. I'd rather have the tie and a subsequent chance to play for the win if you got the ball back.
2) As others have noted, your analysis is spot-on. I can't disagree with any of the setup. The only question due consideration is the likelihood of getting the 4th down play. I think 30% is WAAAAY too generous. Remember, we were 0 for 13 on 3rd down conversions at that point in the game.
3) To me the question is the benefit of large numbers vs. binary outcomes. The percentages go away and you either have points or you don't; you have a tie or you don't; you have a lead or you don't. When do you consider the 57% historically for "teams" vs. A) Michigan, B) Michigan this season, C) Michigan this season, this day, vs. this team? Again, when you're evaluating the likelihood of making the first down vs. (C) it is different than vs. 57% success.
4) Also, consider this (again in the context of the game): Michigan had a sudden change in the form of the shanked punt which gave them 1st and goal at the 10 (just slightly worse than the outcome they were hoping for of 1st and 10 at the 4). What did they do with that gift? 4 plays, -2 yards, FG. sigh
I was at the game and it was wonderful to get the win and I'm very excited for the outcome. But I still think it was absolutely the wrong call. Your math confirms it for me. Thanks again!
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Hilarious||
The funniest thing for me about this is I'm thinking about the early '90s when people said we were stuck in the '70s...
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Late to the thread||
I'm late to the thread, but thoughts and prayers from here as well. Glad to hear the recovery started off well and best wishes for the future.
As others have said, this sure helps with perspective. Thanks for sharing with us.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Technically...||
"Forget it. He's rolling."
But, good point, nonetheless.
|7 weeks 18 hours ago||Hmmm. Opposite for me||
I've had pretty decent experiences in EL. I'll never go back to Columbus again. Fingers crossed that the trend continues.
|7 weeks 18 hours ago||I'll be there||
Section 120, row 24; I'll have on a 15 away jersey. About two-thirds of the way up in the upper deck. Should be a good perspective on the field ;)
I'll be there with two of my three children and my brother-in-law. Hopefully my son's energy doesn't get us in trouble...
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Our Difference||
The one thing we did differently was never having them go to a game until they wanted to.
When my kids were younger, sometimes my wife would stay to manage the younger ones or some kid activity. My oldest knew that if she asked to come, the reason for going was to watch the game. We got to our seats before pregame and didn't leave until 0:00.
We now have 5 football tickets and when one of the kids can't make a game due to other activities they are very disappointed. They are now 15, 12, and 8. All three are huge fans and love being at any M game. My birthday present this coming February will be my wife and kids coming with me to hockey and basketball games on consecutive days in February. ALL five of us consider it a prize!
One thing I have to echo: trips to the M-Den are now dangerous. Hard to say, "No," to someone that looks that cute in the sweatshirt/t-shirt/hat/socks/etc./etc. My one daughter won't let anyone near her (now unavailable) MGoBlog Shoelace shirt.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Correction?||
I'm 95% sure that the tackle came on a fake punt by Denver. Denard was lined up in a safety like position (behind everyone else, but not back as the return man). The fake punt was a direct snap to an up man who immediately ran to his left. They got the first down, but Denard was there FAST with a solid, solid tackle.
I remember it because I was watching RedZone channel and watched the play a couple of times. The reason I'm not 100% sure is that there were a couple of guys in there and it is possible they didn't credit Denard in the stats.
|10 weeks 2 days ago||My Son||
My son is now 8 years old... 4+ years into being unable to say "Nick Saban" without putting "The Eeeeeevil" in front of it.
He also has a pavlovian response that makes him boo or at least scowl at anything Sparty or Ohio related.
All I need to know I learned from Homer.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Agreed||
Matt was in the MMB when I was and always was a high energy guy.
For years, he has brought his A-game and gotten wide applause for his routines with the alumni band. I too hope he gets well quickly.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||M - Minn||
I thought in our game yesterday, it was particularly bad. Not necessarily favorable or unfavorable for one team or the other, but it seemed like there were a half-dozen times where the two line judges were more than 1 yard apart.
Usually the line judges are pretty good about "signaling" to one another about who has more confidence by the guy who's less confident adjusting to where the other is.
Regarding the comments about the hilarious nature of measuring to a chain-link after an arbitrary spot: what's your alternative? There has to be a system. If the judges are unbiased, the spot should be favorable for the offense just as often as it is unfavorable. If the spot is therefore unbiased, then measuring is the best result you have.
One alternative I can think of is going to a system where it isn't first and 10, but first and "the next line" a-la 7-on-7 rules. This would fundamentally alter the nature of the game, though and, IMHO, be a bad idea.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Two Things||
One: I'm not worried about Ohio yet.
Two: Jake Ryan will hopefully be back which gives the defense a lot more options.
Not sure why, other than Kelly arrogance, that they didn't run it more, but they seemed determined not to. We'll see how it goes with other teams.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Very Nice||
Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time and sharing.
FYI, second passing chart should read "Avg. Passing Yards - Defense - Week 2." Right now both the Offense and Defense charts are labeled "Offense."
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Should be the Opposite -- MORE available||
Less a function of "because we paid so much for tickets" and moreso because we should be an example of the very best possible, I agree that this needs to get fixed.
I also agree that the reason they went full-screen was to hide the fact that there was no reliable information on the board. 2Blue4You has a great point that small boards with score, time, down, and distance should be in a few locations and *always* visible.
I would like to see the *opposite* of what we have today. Instead of the very basics, which are frequently unreliable:
Again, this should not be expensive to implement, it just needs to be done by experienced people who understand the intricacies of pulling and displaying information from the database (after all, all the numbers are recorded in real-time as the plays happen).
I know the FanVision devices weren't very popular, but they had all of this, and more (including as many replays as you wanted) available in real time. The technology exists...
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Outback Bowl||
At the Outback Bowl, there was an idiot trying to get the wave going, again (and again and AGAIN) despite us being down in the game. At one point, Lewan was hurt on the field and this joker was trying another round of the wave.
Even my 8 year old son yelled, "Don't you know you don't do the wave when we're losing?"
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Wave on Defense||
Should be on defense; but that's less important if the lead is huge.
I don't think of the wave in the same category as an "overrated" or "warm up the bus" chants. Those are last five-minute-with-insurmountable-lead kind of cheers. (Anyone who remembers '88 Miami knows what I mean.) I think of the wave as a frivolous distraction when things are going very well. The problem with starting it on offense is that it is *really* hard to keep going when there's a big play.