Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
My name ... is Tim
History
- Member for
- 3 years 22 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 2
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 9 hours 23 min ago | Just for the record |
Michigan baseball was already in the midst of its renaissance when Putnam arrived. It peaked when he came in, but it was already there. I think Meram is more of an individual talent whose departure cratered the program, while Putnam was more of a symptom of the overall recruity goodness of Boss/Maloney in those days and his departure by itself didn't necessarily mean the cratering that Meram's did. It may sound minor, but I think it's important to note, there were a lot of solid baseball players at Michigan during that 2004-2008 era like Nate Recknagle, Jeff Kunkel, Derek VanBuskirk, etc. that had as much to do with Michigan's success as Putnam did. |
| 1 day 15 hours ago | Too simple |
What about transfers? Demar Dorsey, anyone? |
| 2 days 2 hours ago | It's baseball though |
Baseball managers only recruit and develop talent, and good assistants can be used to do the latter. I think college baseball is the perfect place to take a stab with a big name alum, I don't think I need to dissect to everyone the general lack of impact a manager has on a teams won-loss record. There are a few minor exceptions, yes, but it does not exactly take a rocket scientist to put a lineup together and make pitching changes, particularly when you have the added ability of seeing the players play everyday in practice and at every game. |
| 2 days 4 hours ago | Larkin? |
He would have to take a paycut from ESPN perhaps, but I can't see how hiring a Hall of Fame inductee who's relatively young could conceivably not improve this team. Doesn't his presence immediately help recruiting? |
| 1 week 1 day ago | Yes and No |
If you think a legal career was your ticket to print money, then yes, his take on the legal job market is accurate. However, from what I myself have experienced as well as seen from my fellow graduates (Top 50ish law school, graduated probably somewhere just above middle of my class), I think the opportunities just take a few years of toiling at less than ideal positions before you get the freedom to pursue something that you like and pays a decent buck. My first few jobs out of law school (graduated in 2009) either didn't pay well and were enjoyable (clerkship) or didn't pay well and were awful (working for egomaniacal solo). After that though, after working hard, making some connections, and keeping my eye out for positions I wanted, I was able to secure a place somewhere I enjoyed which didn't make me rich, but at least isn't making me worried I'll have to file for bankruptcy. Granted, there are certainly some I know who haven't had such luck even with perserverance, but I think it's more the exception than the norm. The job market has changed no doubt, but I don't think his take - which is basically, don't go unless you think you'll succeed at a Top 20 law school - is accurate. Unless, of course, your only idea of a successful legal career is making $150k straight out of school at a white shoe big city law firm. |
| 1 week 1 day ago | Saw this |
Thought Wetzel provided decent analysis of the topic and better sourcing for the article bringing in voices outside of Gene Smith and Mark Hollis. Maybe in September I would've just posted the article there. If Mods want to remove, feel free. |
| 1 week 1 day ago | Above the Law |
The guy who writes Above the Law is a jaded soul who believes career choices should be based upon purely economic motives. Unsurpisingly, this led him to becoming very disenchanted with his profession after law school. Andrew Sweat made the right choice if he wants to be a lawyer. He may not know that until he actually becomes one, but if he does, he made the right choice. If, like the author of Above the Law, "right career choice" can be reverted to a mathematical equation, then perhaps there is a strong argument that he should give the NFL a try before going forward with his legal career. |
| 1 week 3 days ago | What? |
How can you not include your personal favorite from the mid 2000s era, "X-Factor" Ronald Coleman? |
| 1 week 3 days ago | What? |
First, I'd just note that any list that does not include Amadou Ba as a choice - he led the B1G in congratulatory high fives all four years during a not very worthy of congratulations Amaker era and he also stiffed my buddy his half of the rent during his time in Ann Arbor - is invalid. However, with these options, I vote: 1. Novak - I think Novak is deserving but he's almost more of a symbol than an actual player deserving of the hall. There's no doubting his gritty grittyness, and his status as ultimate glue guy, but I feel like I'm just voting for him because he represents the resurrection of Michigan basketball. Whatever, he gets my vote. 2. DH - I'm biased because I went to UM during the DH era. I sadly sat through almost every single home game during my four years, all of which were spent during the Amaker era. I, and others like me, deserve a merit badge much more so than sitting through the 2008 Northwestern game. That said, Daniel Horton was the one beacon of light during that whole era. There were some down moments, yes, but he led us to that win against MSU that had everyone believing in Michigan again (only to have our soul sucked out later), and was the first borderline marquee basketball talent to put on the Maize and Blue for some time. He should also get bonus points for having been coached by Amaker, whose talent development skills surpass only those of perhaps Rich Kotite. |
| 2 weeks 6 hours ago | What? |
How dare you select songs that don't fit in precisely with my obviously subjective opinion! No D12?! YOUR OPINION IS INVALID!
|
