- Member for
- 8 years 28 weeks
|6 years 5 days ago||The Utah AG is wasting||
The Utah AG is wasting taxpayer dollars for political gain here. Having talked to antitrust experts, the BCS does not violate antitrust laws. Not even close. If there is an antitrust case to be made against anyone, it is the NCAA, which is a blatant monopoly and whose rules, specifically regarding recruiting, limit the ways in which institutions can compete.
|6 years 4 weeks ago||God please be the case||
Maybe he's just going to be tweeting a lot about the Tourney games since this is the first day of games since we got knocked out? Hope so
|6 years 15 weeks ago||[triple post]||
|6 years 15 weeks ago||[double post]||
|6 years 15 weeks ago||And they continue to get||
And they continue to get bigger and stronger for the whole time they are in college ,because they have youth, genetics, and testosterone on their side, plus a Division 1 strength coach. Ergo, a freshman with one year in the program, who has, as you say, a reasonable base of strength, is still weaker relative to his competition, and will get pushed around.
|6 years 15 weeks ago||Love how you listed seven||
Love how you listed seven straight losses in RR's resume. Truth is, psychologically anyway, the streak and even The Horror blended in for a lot of people and they put all the blame on him. Maybe those events were just evidence that the ship was sinking long before he got here and the other items on your list really weren't on him.
|6 years 19 weeks ago||Saban did not fail in the||
Saban did not fail in the NFL. As a Pats fan, I can say we were seeing signs that we no longer had the only brilliant football mind in the division. Minor point, I know.
|6 years 21 weeks ago||incomparable*||
|6 years 21 weeks ago||Schedule Strength & Defense||
You seem to imply that by only looking at Big Ten games, opponent quality holds constant. Given the small sample size and close numbers, for these stats to mean anything, variables like opponent quality need to be constant. Except it isn't. State and Wisconsin certainly are at local peaks this year, Iowa is the same (Record notwithstanding, they were lucky last year, and probably unlucky this year), OSU is OSU, Illinois is better, Indiana is equal, Purdue is worse, but weather in that game was a major factor, and Penn State is worse. Our SOS according to Sagarin is 30th.
We also have a worse defense this year, and no kicking game (Hard to argue this is coaching, which both will lower point totals fairly significantly. Brian has explained numerous times that anyone trying to argue this offense isn't awesome is fishing.
Re: the turnover issue, turnovers were an issue, but we still had a first-year starter at QB and are very young. We also have many more plays this year since we actually moved the ball. Turnovers per play is the better statistic to look at, and that was clearly lower.
|6 years 22 weeks ago||You are right that anyone who||
You are right that anyone who has reached the level that RR has is incredibly internally motivated, and would be working tirelessly the next two weeks regardless. However, that doesn't mean external motivation has no effect. It is human nature for anyone to be motivated out of fear or for extra compensation or anything. It wouldn't be that as soon as DB gives him a vote of confidence he consciously says, "I'm safe, I think I'll go home early tonight," but that fear could just ensure that he stays that much sharper. A wolverine will rip your face off no matter what, but it is most dangerous when backed into a corner.
|6 years 22 weeks ago||Regardless of how much||
Regardless of how much motivation you think RR needs, it really comes down to DB's management style and how he thinks he gets the best out of people. Given that before this year, he publicly said, "This is a BIG year," regarding the coaching staff, I'm inclined to think that he isn't afraid to motivate people by making them think their jobs aren't secure.
As for the players, yes, they are absolutely motivated to play for their coach, not just for Michigan. In the Capital One Bowl, were those players simply trying their hardest for Michigan, or were they also playing for Lloyd? QED
|6 years 22 weeks ago||Motivation||
I understand the negative recruiting argument, but I think this is DB being a boss and motivating his employee. While it may mean recruiting takes a hit over the next two weeks, I'm guessing RichRod (And the players who apparently are pretty fond of him) is going to be working a hell of a lot harder if he thinks his job depends on it. Reassurance may bring in recruits, but it may also bring complacency.
|6 years 32 weeks ago||Hey, leave Vick alone!!!||
I mean, everybody kills, everybody murders, so don't pick on him.
|6 years 45 weeks ago||The Prodigal son returns?||
|6 years 46 weeks ago||A few things||
4.19 PROTESTING GAMES. Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire’s decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final.
Rule 4.19 Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or attempted play. A protest arising on a game-ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the league office.
The Brett example was a misapplication of a rule. The rulebook has accounted for this and is pretty clear cut about it. Also, unless Leyland filed the protest right after the call, it can't be protested.
Another thing with regards to the "last out" argument. Say The Indians had come back and won the game after the botched call. Then what? You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but this is a slippery slope and does set a precedent that can lead to major problems later. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last blown call that has major consequences. It's unfortunate, but it really can't be changed.
|7 years 1 week ago||Maybe RichRod has talked to||
Maybe RichRod has talked to the kid and has realized he has no chance. Now, I know, I know, Rich always gives up way too quickly on kids and never feels like he can pull an upset. That's why Michael Shaw and Roy Roundtree and Denard Robinson and Demar Dorsey didn't commit to Michigan.
If he can tell it's a lost cause, there's no point. He has a much closer view than we do, and that's my guess about what's going on.
|7 years 1 week ago||Don't make bets||
Very very few beat the market with any consistency. Build a market-diversified portfolio, along with bonds, foreign currencies, and commodities. Don't make the mistake of thinking you are smarter than the market.
|7 years 2 weeks ago||Where to start? Because||
Where to start? Because senators bring up college football doesn't make "college football" as a topic political. If someone were to start a thread, "Does Congress have a right to regulate how the NCAA determines its National Champion?" though, that would be political. That is a question of political ideology, as is this. Sorry.
|7 years 2 weeks ago||I'm not taking a side on this, but||
It isn't simply ensuring a level playing field. It is taking a decision about how a business can deliver its product, maximize return on its investment, and serve its shareholders out of the hands of that business. Econ 101 will teach you that in general such restrictions limit incentives and therefore hamper innovation/total surplus/overall quality, so you don't have to say specifically how this restriction will limit innovation in order to make that argument.
You say they don't have a right to charge you more for 100 GB of youtube content vs. Hulu content? Why is this so clear cut? Isn't it a sound argument that they have a right to deliver their service however they choose, and if you don't like it you don't have to buy it?
On the other side, internet delivery is a very concentrated industry, and therefore you can make a sound argument that without regulation the market will not produce the most efficient outcome. Many people don't have an option about what internet provider to use, so, yes, your argument has merit. I'm not denying that.
But this is political. Discussing the need for or need to limit government regulation is absolutely political.
|7 years 2 weeks ago||It's still politics, which is||
It's still politics, which is banned here and for good reason.
|7 years 2 weeks ago||What happened to the||
What happened to the anti-politics rule on this board?
|7 years 15 weeks ago||That quote is taken directly||
That quote is taken directly from a Rivals article (SI has essentially outsourced recruiting reporting to them). What it means is that Baxter did really like his visit, but took his USC visit the next week, and his interest was essentially a flash in the pan. It's great that we got him on campus for a game, but I don't think we have a huge leg up on any school who will come after him now.
|7 years 16 weeks ago||Recruiting tapes are also not||
Recruiting tapes are also not all that representative. Just because a kid can put together 5 minutes worth of great plays doesn't say much about his overall play.
|7 years 17 weeks ago||I think he accidentally mixed||
I think he accidentally mixed up Miami and Michigan?
|7 years 20 weeks ago||Florida beat Saban's||
Florida beat Saban's (literally) pro-style team last year. Nick Saban is also a genius. He was poised to be very successful in the NFL before he came back to 'Bama. This isn't to say Rich Rod will never be able to beat him, but to use Saban as a benchmark is a bit unfair.
|7 years 20 weeks ago||Because all of you were there||
Because all of you were there and saw the incident to know what he deserved? I wasn't either, so I'll withhold judgment, but I'll trust the jury, and if I recall correctly, the judge said he thought even the misdemeanor conviction wasn't merited based on the evidence presented in court. There's a reason for our standards of evidence for conviction.
|7 years 22 weeks ago||Ahh, yes, facts and logic||
Defense does take personnel, though. We are 15 scholarships below the limit, and have 25 upperclassmen on the team. We were going to be bad on defense for these past two years regardless thanks to Lloyd, add in attrition from a(ny) coaching change, and you see the results.
Look at the depth chart, and tell me what coach could make a good defense out of it. Then make your case.
The fact is most people who want Rich gone just don't like him, because he has an accent, he doesn't quote poetry, and he's not from here. So, you choose to look at "facts" and distort them to suit your thesis.
At the beginning of the year, consensus was the talent/experience level of this team should be around 6-6 or 7-5. If you expect this record, you can't be angry at 5-7; random things happen that determine one or two wins. Then, we lose our center (which amounts to losing two lineman because Moosman shifts over), Minor, who makes our offense go, and Cissoko (cannot blame RichRod).
We are 2-3 in close games, and laid one real egg. But even Pete Carroll teams lay eggs. This team has played to where it should, and came out a bit unlucky to go 5-7. It says very little about coaching other than it appears this offense is going to be very dynamic.
|7 years 22 weeks ago||That statement is true, and||
That statement is true, and shares no opinion on the matter. Is RichRod under a lot of pressure and scrutiny? Yes. Does the investigation add to that scrutiny? Yes. Does this new report raise eye brows at all? Yes. This board likes to jump on ESPN at every chance, because a lot of times they are fucking retarded rumor-mongerers. But every negative thing said about Michigan isn't evidence of it. Twice today now there have been posts about ESPN. One faulting them for publishing an AP article, and now this, about an article which doesn't say anything controversial.
|7 years 23 weeks ago||They asked him to postpone||
They asked him to postpone his decision, too. It sounds like they knew he wasn't going to come if he made his decision in a week, and they didn't want to waste their time. If he was willing to put off his decision, maybe they'd have a shot. But no go. Good news, regardless.
|7 years 25 weeks ago||One point on the Roundtree run||
I was screaming at the TV just like most of you, telling Roundtree to run faster. It was unbelievable how slow he was running. It's since occurred to me that Roundtree was running into a very strong headwind. And anyone who's run cross country or learned about how geese fly knows that when you run behind someone, you have an easier time because the guy in front is diminishing air resistance. It makes sense that he was running slow, and that the guy chasing him would catch him.