I did my undergrad at U of M and I also worked in student retention at U of M for students pursuing a STEM field. It is a focus at the U nowadays because that first semester can be a real kick in the teeth. And as a kid coming from limited means, there can be tremendous pressure to get done "on time", and so students stack on orgo, calc, physics, etc. I could talk forever about this, but most important things I think are:
Having a bad semester will not break you. Learn from it. Anyone who cruised is either in the top echelon of students, or is lying.
Find what you're interested in. When you find it, see if you can't get into a lab, internship, undergrad research position, etc. within it. It is one of the highest correlations to good academic performance, and feeds into both the passion, and networking meaningfully.
Get on a schedule and take it as serious as you would making it to a doctor's appointment or job interview. It sounds corny, but the disciplined end up doing way better than the most talented, more often that not.
Talk to your advisor. No one is coming to save you, but the resources are actually pretty dang good. Science Learning Center, Math Learning Center, etc. Advisor mileage can vary, but they can tell you class combos to avoid so you don't set yourself back and think of your schedule tactically.
Be social, party, join clubs, all that stuff. Moderation of course, but you're going to learn as much there as anywhere. At no other time are you going to be in a place with so many folks your age who at once speak your lingo, and also can open you up to things you never even thought about.
Go to career fair. Nothing might be interesting to you there, but you get to practice those convos where you have to "tell your story". Sounds silly, but it helps. U of M is full of plenty of bright folks but lack some social soft skills. You'll develop those some here. You'll also probably learn about careers that you didn't even know were a thing.
Business school can be a good place to land. Someone else said School of Information and I agree with that too. Business school definitely has a culture to it. That can either be one's cup of tea or totally off-putting. School of Info can land you in some tech-y money making spaces without totally inundating you with Calc 3 or algorithms classes, if difficult classes are a concern.
I got to see a lot of amazing games as an undergrad. Braylon-fest. Manningham TD to beat Penn State. The Tate Forcier comeback game against Notre Dame. But I think my best memory, was 2003 UM vs ND.
I'm just a freshman. Still excited about college, still feeling crazy lucky to attend these games. The weather was perfect. And the streets were WILD. As an 18 year old kid, I'm shuffling down the street in my UM gear, just in buzzing, elated, awe. There are moonbounce machines overflowing with soap bubbles and people. Music is blasting out of the front of all the houses, games going on in all the yards. I see a grandma (or grandma-aged woman) at the Packard-State intersection taking part in a three-story beer bong at those apartments there, people all over cheering her on. It was carnival.
I'm already on cloud nine, and then we get to the stadium and absolutely trounce Notre Dame. 38 nothing. Ty Willingham's team gets smoked. I don't even remember the plays all that well, except Perry had a good game. I screamed and yelled and did every cheer, every sing through of The Victors. I hate Notre Dame, and it was glorious. Utter satisfaction. Every hope for that game was matched, and then exceeded. Then I got go back to my wonderfully cozy Markley dorm room and read on ESPN, "Notre Dame made the 255 mile trip to Ann Arbor today, but traveled no further than the 35 yard line." I smile every time I think about it.
This game could have easily been 23-7 if it weren't for a field goal headscrew. We had over 300 yards of total offense against a top 10 defense and we held them to only EIGHT FIRST DOWNS the entire game while we had 21. It wasn't perfect but damn guys, have any of you watched football before? Stupid crap happens.
I'm actually more excited about doing away with the legends jerseys. It is absolutely a nice idea, and I like honoring past players. But half the fun as a fan is having new players and new numbers take on a new significance. That's lost when all your iconic players are all wearing the same numbers. The #1 jersey I think should be the only exception to that rule.
But to your point. I would argue that the AD serach is on the backburner because the head coach search is happening in earnest. The notion that an AD must be found first is not a requisite of finding a coach in any practical sense. It is ideal to be sure, but then we aren't exactly in the ideal place right now either.
These ticket prices will work simply because the home schedule is SO much better, coupled with the fact that Hoke is gone. As long as we don't hire an outright villain most Michigan fans will be--if not hopeful--at least intrigued by just what the team will look like with a new coach/system in place.
I don't think it's hard to relate to the pang of disappointment a player would feel coming out of the tunnel to an empty stadium. I mean, the players KNOW it isn't directed at them, but it would certainly be a gut punch to their enthusiasm. Putting myself in their shoes, I know it would sort of kill the excitement for me going into a game. That part at least seems obvious to me. To add that to the pile of an already disappointing season in some respects seems mean.
However, it is equally obvious to me that boycotting is probably the most effective means of getting the attention needed to set the wheels of change in motion. TV coverage talks.
We got from there to here because Hoke's biggest problem wasn't going to be revealed until right about now. And that's player development, and you actually touched on it somewhat. In 2011, he didn't have time to "develop" players. They were who they were and now he just had to smooth the offensive transition for RichRod's players. Yay for an amazing (and amazingly lucky) season.
Now, they are mostly Hoke's players from top to bottom and lo and behold they can't get it done. The thing I most worry about with another coaching change is our new coach will have a bunch of players who aren't quite ready. Hoke has struggled strategically for sure, but "not executing" isn't total nonsense. We mess up basic techniques ALL THE TIME.
There's also the chance that more students and people that actually make noise at our games would go. I also know that many people go overboard at the tailgate specifically because they cannot get alcohol in the stadium.
Yeah, because everyone attending the games now is stone sober...
There is already 115,000 drunk people being managed every gameday. Banning alcohol in the stadium is purely for apperance and patting ourselves on the back. Drunken assholery is not a legit concern. If it was, you'd have a better policy than this.
Throwing this idea out there as something different compared to what's been stated (or so I think).
1. Get rid of kicking the extra point.
2. Get rid of the two point conversion and instead...
3. You have to line up in goaline on the 2 as is currently done. If you get it in the endzone you get that 1 extra point to get to the traditional 7.
Now we see more actual football, extra points now achieve that 50/50 area that is exciting, and they also become much more critical to the outcome of the game. It's like after the third overtime of college games all the time.
I think that would be fun to watch. Getting one point, especially to tie or win would become dramatic as hell.
If you are going that route, take a look at lsa.umich.edu/biology/. On the site they'll have details about CMB:BME. They have a five year masters type program called Cellular Molecular Biology: Biomedical Engineering (CMB:BME). First four years are liberal arts styled coursework (with lots of math, physics, and chem of course) with the fifth year being a master's year. An interesting blend that might interest you looking at the fields you're considering.
I can actually give you a good bit of information about this though most of it has sort of been covered.
The biggest question I have for you is what college are you aiming to get into? Your marks and extracurriculars give a great shot at getting into LSA (liberal arts) though being out of state always throws a little uncertainty in there. I can tell you that right now the latest pool of admit data has the average ACT score of an engineering student at 31 with average Math ACT scores as high as 33. Engineering admittance is extremely competitive.
I was admitted to the University ten years ago with essentially the exact same test scores and GPA as you and I know people that have gotten in with lower marks. Again, this was ten years ago, but the freshman classes have also been growing in total admits year over year. Two years ago was the biggest class ever I believe.
Financial aid is just a crapshoot. The University does a decent job with need-based aid and if you have a work study award finding a job is usually pretty easy with decent pay for not difficult work. Your family's financial situation and FAFSA info will be the real determining fact. I will say that despite the high cost, U of M was pretty good about figuring out a package for my financial need to the point of not needing private loans.
Bottom line, I'd say you have all the marks you need in general. If aiming for Engineering then upping that ACT score could help. All you can do is apply and find out.
The issue is so big and complex. Following Brian's example--trying to stick to the tactic and not the implicit politics--I do not see how this is going to work for the Northwestern student-employee-athletes. I may be sitting up in the cheap seats but it seems to me that there is not another interest in this be it the NCAA, colleges, atheltics departments, etc. that would have anything to gain by this. Or more to the point, everyone everyone else but the students "loses" should this work.
I find the whole thing interesting as hell though.
Speaking of nob-hopping, I painted the end of mine with the winged design. Not only does it look quite tasteful, it's always fun to announce occasionally that, "the Michigan D is getting GREAT penetration."
Honestly, I'd be more crushed to lose Harris than Campbell. They both seem fantastic. But if we're really going the manball route I feel the need for a quality RB really makes more of a difference.
I think we need to just calm down and see if we get any development out of Hoke recruits. Those recruits are still young, and we do seem to be improving in a number of spots while the offense was very Jekyll and Hyde.
I mean you look at Dantonio over at MSU. He's been there seven years, and not every season was sparkling awesome. He got a Big Ten championship in his fourth season, and then 2011 was another solid year followed by 7-6, and then this most recent championship. This stuff takes time and they aren't always going to be winners. The RRod recuiting years were not kind to us at all and were built for a different system.
Florida State we've been told has been on the brink of awesome with great recruiting for YEARS and they've just finally broken through.
All that first part is totally true. As well as the second part, but injuries happen out there as well, even if they are smaller defenders. We lost Denard for the rest of the year as a QB from a rather benign looking hit against Nebraska.
Their season was absolutely good. But I don't think they'll get all the breaks next year like they did this year.
While I would love to run as well as Auburn, the reasons why we aren't there yet both schematically and experience wise has already been touched upon. A few other things jump out at me though.
1. Auburn's QB stayed healthy it seems and played well. He ran just a few touches less than Gardner did this year. And Gardner was anything but healthy for half the year. That is our OLine's fault to a large degree. But if Marshall takes just one bad hit Auburn's run game could have been derailed in a big way. They luckily avoided such catastrophe.
2. While they ran a FBS leading 335 yards per game, they were ranked 107th in passing. For our own team I would hope for more balance, but whether balance is even all that important could be debated as well.
3. Auburn was very much 2011 Michigan. Scraped by a number of teams for a record no one expected. They could have lost to TA&M, and got insanely lucky against Georgia and Alabama. They also didn't exactly handle Washington State or Miss. St., who they only got 120 yards rushing against.
None of this really disputes the final rushing outcome for them this year. But I believe it was a perfect storm of a new system, new coach, and a fresh scheme that needed to be scouted. And of course they... executed. Hah. I exepct next year they come back down to earth both in wins and rush yardage, because football is evil and makes no sense that way.
Hah I remember rolling so hard after seing that live. Everyone I watched the game with said I was making it up. I love the slight nod Mattison gives--I can just see the guy he's motioning to doing the samething back in a "are you sure?" manner.
3DS all day folks. The number of good games it has now is pretty ridiculous, and they aren't all shooters which seems to dominate the home consoles these days. Portable online Mario Kart FTW.
Because U of M is a far superior University but OSU is all they have so they ride that shit hard. Even our more mellow fandom pisses them off, which they accurately recognize as the attitude of someone who actually has more important shit to do.
It has two major cities and both of them are lame.
OSU is the one thing Ohio folks can hang their hat on, but they don't know it. Everyone else knows it. In typical bizzaro world fashion they call this, "jealousy."
Their fans are rabid and dumb in most cases, which the entire Big Ten is in agreement about according to all the opposing fans I've hosted at tailgates.
Their heroic coaches are:
1. A guy who punched a kid in the face.
2. Another guy who cheated and then also covered it up.
3. A guy who had "health issues," which in reality meant a disinterest in enduring any hardship.
But hey, "everybody steals, everybody murders." Ohio should plaster that quote up on the toilet bowl. Could be their Tebow speech.
Perhaps this isn't all THAT useful, but I was wondering if perhaps it'd be helpful to have yards to go in parantheses next to the G when we have goal to go? Unless it actually is listed somewhere and I'm being dumb, the difference between goal to go on the 9 (or the 20 as we are capable of doing) and the 2 is pretty huge in the context of play calling.
What? Toussaint can't catch out of the backfield. That would require reacting to something coming at him even FASTER than a rusher. I want to say I'm sarcastic, but Fitz's blitz pickups aren't him getting run over, they are just flat out fly bys.
I know this is not part of the picture pages, but based on Brian's post, Space Coyote's contributions in this post (great stuff by the way. If nothing else I learn lot from yourself, Brian, and others on this board), what is the alternative?
I mean, the play has been nicely diagramed, the concept of the play has been thoroughly explained, I understand it, and they can't do it. If they can't do this, what is this other thing they actually CAN do? I hear all about scheme or how our players can't execute this or its coaching. But is there something both enormously easier for us while not being enormously easy to defend? Space Coyote or Brian could better answer this but from random guy looking at the play I say no. This should be executed. The "not executing" phrase is wearing thin but every picture pages it's precisely what we see. And if the scheme prohibits execution then I would like to know the one that is both easier, more effective, and one that our young guys can actually make happen.
Just watching the play it seems like Kerridge screws this up and that's that. I mean, even watching full speed, there is no confusion about who he is going to block. That's his man, he's running toward him, takes a horrible angle, and then reacts slowly to it. All he had to do was get in the way and he didn't even manage that. He had one job, one guy, and completely missed him. Coaching? Reps? I don't know, but the play call gets some frickin yardage if Kerridge gets there.
I don't want to rag on a kid, but I just don't even know what he's doing. There is plenty of space out there for Fitz if he just nudges this guy.
Two things have sort of dawned on me from this whole debacle.
1. This was the kind of thing I was worried about when hiring Hoke/Borges before that first season mirage blinded me.
2. That really, ultimately, this coaching philosophy is Lloyd Carr 2.0 minus the necessary talent everywhere. Which consists of awesome teams losing 3 games every year that they really probably shouldn't because we are daring you to stop us.
Also, myself and a buddy of mine were just making jokes watching the game in order to ease the suffering. We also spent much of the game predicting plays. There are two that we run:
IRP (ineffectual run play)
and Derp. Derp is everythying that isn't IRP. We're making IRP and DERP t-shirts if anyone is interested.
I'd say right now people love the Tigers more. But if the Lions ever won a Super Bowl, the bedlam in Detroit I believe would dwarf any Tiger World Series championship.
I'm also going with Calvin over MIggy. Calvin is of that Barry/Yzerman mold that people in Detroit love. It's also a shame that Datsyuk doesn't get more love due to the lower popularity of hockey. He's seriously our Barry Sanders on ice.
Mmmm.... oh... wait, what? This is about basketball? Sorry, I was busy having a wetdream over the idea of Barry Sanders and Megatron being on the same team at the same time...
Didn't have any sort of opinion on the sign outside the stadium, I pass it a couple times a week. I guess now I do. Never found it distracting or an eyesore. I don't understand people. You're driving, don't look at it. Are we seriously so helpless against its mysterious power that we MUST look at it while driving?
If there's something to complain about, how about starting construction over by Packard/Stone School right at the end of August when you had the entire summer to do this?
Couldn't agree more. Said something to this effect after Penn State and was told I was an idiot. All three terrible games were three turnover games for Gardner, all of which resulted in some points, 14 in this Penn State game. Short fields, momentum killers, and free points turned this game into a four overtime game when really it could've been a game won comfortably by two or three scores.
Gardner helps us survive his own mistakes. He's responsible for 14 of Penn State's points. Clearly that ten point lead in the second wasn't so commanding.
Last week we are super vanilla. Gardner throws zero picks, and we cruise. We could have done the exact same thing this game provided he's doesn't throw balls directly to defenders.
Devin Gardner has 13 turnovers this year. Two of them on Saturday were directly to defenders. We have a less mistake prone QB and not only do we win all of our games up to this point, we win them in a more convincing fashion. Cut those turnovers in half, and everything is fine.
The games that everyone uses to point to coaching ineptitude are Akron, UConn, and this Penn State debacle. And what do you know? All of them are three turnover days for Gardner. Our OLine is what it is, and Fitz will never create anything for himself. But Gardner is the one that's killing us, plain and simple.
Gardner had three turnovers. Again. That's the game. Toussaint being run into the pile over and over is annoying no doubt. But Brian summed it up on the front page: Penn State had three drives start around the Michigan 25. That isn't scheme. That isn't poor play calling. Gardner had one unavoidable fumble, and then two picks. Those weren't unfortunate. Those were thrown directly to defenders.
Once again, we have a quarterback who cannot reliably do half the job of his position. Make it easier for Gardner? These turnovers were not on super difficult throws. This was pretty vanilla stuff. How is an OC supposed to pull out anything exotic when teams prepare for any kind of run and any kind of pass on our part has my chest full of fear?
Don't know if he's Woodson, don't know what he is, have barely seen him on the college field yet. And since when is what other teams are doing the dicate of what WE are doing?
As for whether or not he can do it better than Chesson or Norfleet, again, who can say? Dymonte's recruiting page on this very site contains mostly offensive highlights, coaches gushing about his explosiveness, and him being an electrifying player. He may eventually do punt/kick returns in Brian's eyes.
Hah clearly I won't convince you. I think its worth trying. If he fails and doesn't do anything on offense fine, he'll have exactly one less touchdown than Norfleet and Chesson combined at this point this year.
What's this all or nothing stuff? I want Dymonte Thomas to practice like two plays. He doesn't even need to line up as a RB, you could put him in the slot, break him out, whatever. I don't want him back there for every damn snap, just a Woodson type thing. A change of pace. The sort of thing I'm suggesting is way less of a change than DG. I hesitate to even call it a "change." Hell, maybe Thomas should quit practicing with special teams too, since he really needs those reps at safety. If we need Thomas, the reps will absolutely be important, you're right. But I'm not advocating a total quit on defensive reps at all.
DG already knew the offense, that's true. But if you're concerned about reps, and looking at the season thus far, maybe DG could have used more?
Again, I'm saying a few plays out there. Just to see if he can turn a simple slant into a long TD. NOT a position switch.
Frankly, I think this question by the OP is a good one, and I also think it is a great idea. I am actually kind of surprised by how many people are against this. Obviously he needs to learn his future position. Is he going to not have a firm grasp of it if he plays a few offensive snaps? Probably not.
Are we counting on him to play it this year? No. Worst case scenario he's forced to, and no amount of hand holding is going to make him anything other than a freshman playing at S.
Our offense lost Darboh, the O line is a reshuffled work in progress, Funchess all of a sudden is a WR; frankly, our offense could use a spark, a playmaker.
Is everyone who is crapping on this idea also one of those against Gardner playing receiver last year? Since when did getting your best athlete on the field go from conventional wisdom to a bad idea? And how is from WR to QB a less difficult transition than S to taking just a few offensive snaps a game?
Wisconsin is the first one that came to my mind as well as far as where we want to be. Really though I want to compare us to someone who wouldn't think would be so dominant at it.
What about someone like Minnesota? They are generally a baby seal yet they are considerably ahead of Michigan in rushing statistics. I believe they only have one senior on their offensive line and they are killing it rushing the football. Weak opponents disclaimer, but then, we should have same said disclaimer. We're seventh in the B1G in rushing which makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'd be curious to see analysis of another Big Ten team running the ball well and see if they are executing their blocks perfectly, or just what IS going on with their success that currently eludes our team. (Hah, maybe Brian can just add that to the already huge heap of content we're getting. Or anyone. I'd do it, but my football knowledge is still incredibly lacking.)
These picture pages have been fantastic and illuminating. The UFR will give us the skinny on how often such mishaps occur. My intuition though tells me that other teams are just as spotty without as many negative plays. Maybe that's what my heart just wants to believe with this team.
Also, I feel like some misdirection would be wonderful. I'd also be curious to see two HBs in the backfield. Norfleet + Toussaint would at least be a change from the predictable stuff we usually run with Norfleet.
I would agree with that assessment. Some people have asked more pointed questions before, regarding players, scheme, etc. Generally a response given is: "Absolutely we are looking at [insert guy]. Every week though we look at everyone across [position group], not just this one spot. There is great competition there. We assess week in, week out, and the player that gives us the best chance to win is going to play. No different than any other time of year."
Yeah, I'd say it cuts both ways. Hah, maybe Hoke just needs to shake up the non-responses, as I swear the above gets broken out at least once a presser.
These sorts of things are always laden with coachspeak so my complaints are trivial. I do get sick of hearing though about people playing well and hard and people getting more reps. I assumed all of this already, and if people aren't playing hard we have big problems. Again, these pressers are generally fluff. Better than they used to be, but I don't really learn anything other than Jake Ryan timelines.
Recent Comments
I did my undergrad at U of M and I also worked in student retention at U of M for students pursuing a STEM field. It is a focus at the U nowadays because that first semester can be a real kick in the teeth. And as a kid coming from limited means, there can be tremendous pressure to get done "on time", and so students stack on orgo, calc, physics, etc. I could talk forever about this, but most important things I think are:
Business school can be a good place to land. Someone else said School of Information and I agree with that too. Business school definitely has a culture to it. That can either be one's cup of tea or totally off-putting. School of Info can land you in some tech-y money making spaces without totally inundating you with Calc 3 or algorithms classes, if difficult classes are a concern.
Hope this helps, and Go Blue!
I got to see a lot of amazing games as an undergrad. Braylon-fest. Manningham TD to beat Penn State. The Tate Forcier comeback game against Notre Dame. But I think my best memory, was 2003 UM vs ND.
I'm just a freshman. Still excited about college, still feeling crazy lucky to attend these games. The weather was perfect. And the streets were WILD. As an 18 year old kid, I'm shuffling down the street in my UM gear, just in buzzing, elated, awe. There are moonbounce machines overflowing with soap bubbles and people. Music is blasting out of the front of all the houses, games going on in all the yards. I see a grandma (or grandma-aged woman) at the Packard-State intersection taking part in a three-story beer bong at those apartments there, people all over cheering her on. It was carnival.
I'm already on cloud nine, and then we get to the stadium and absolutely trounce Notre Dame. 38 nothing. Ty Willingham's team gets smoked. I don't even remember the plays all that well, except Perry had a good game. I screamed and yelled and did every cheer, every sing through of The Victors. I hate Notre Dame, and it was glorious. Utter satisfaction. Every hope for that game was matched, and then exceeded. Then I got go back to my wonderfully cozy Markley dorm room and read on ESPN, "Notre Dame made the 255 mile trip to Ann Arbor today, but traveled no further than the 35 yard line." I smile every time I think about it.
Despite the abysmal time period, I feel like the Michigan Daily already won this category in 2008. I humbly present:
https://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-10-23/youre-little-brother-b…
My favorite: You're little brother because you can't be a great party school and charge five dollars for a cup.
This game could have easily been 23-7 if it weren't for a field goal headscrew. We had over 300 yards of total offense against a top 10 defense and we held them to only EIGHT FIRST DOWNS the entire game while we had 21. It wasn't perfect but damn guys, have any of you watched football before? Stupid crap happens.
I'm actually more excited about doing away with the legends jerseys. It is absolutely a nice idea, and I like honoring past players. But half the fun as a fan is having new players and new numbers take on a new significance. That's lost when all your iconic players are all wearing the same numbers. The #1 jersey I think should be the only exception to that rule.
Stickers I can take or leave.
No Jimmy, taking the easy way out would be to quit and become an analyst/sportscaster. No wonder you get along so well with Urban Meyer.
"Coaching" is used VERY loosely here. :)
But to your point. I would argue that the AD serach is on the backburner because the head coach search is happening in earnest. The notion that an AD must be found first is not a requisite of finding a coach in any practical sense. It is ideal to be sure, but then we aren't exactly in the ideal place right now either.
These ticket prices will work simply because the home schedule is SO much better, coupled with the fact that Hoke is gone. As long as we don't hire an outright villain most Michigan fans will be--if not hopeful--at least intrigued by just what the team will look like with a new coach/system in place.
*Thumbs up*
Was half of his face sunburnt?
I don't think it's hard to relate to the pang of disappointment a player would feel coming out of the tunnel to an empty stadium. I mean, the players KNOW it isn't directed at them, but it would certainly be a gut punch to their enthusiasm. Putting myself in their shoes, I know it would sort of kill the excitement for me going into a game. That part at least seems obvious to me. To add that to the pile of an already disappointing season in some respects seems mean.
However, it is equally obvious to me that boycotting is probably the most effective means of getting the attention needed to set the wheels of change in motion. TV coverage talks.
I'm ambivalent.
We got from there to here because Hoke's biggest problem wasn't going to be revealed until right about now. And that's player development, and you actually touched on it somewhat. In 2011, he didn't have time to "develop" players. They were who they were and now he just had to smooth the offensive transition for RichRod's players. Yay for an amazing (and amazingly lucky) season.
Now, they are mostly Hoke's players from top to bottom and lo and behold they can't get it done. The thing I most worry about with another coaching change is our new coach will have a bunch of players who aren't quite ready. Hoke has struggled strategically for sure, but "not executing" isn't total nonsense. We mess up basic techniques ALL THE TIME.
Everything Brian said is spot on.
In case anyone did want to see the results of someone casually combing through this mess of a release:
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2014/9/30/6871193/dave-brandon-shane-morris-b…
I apologize in advance if this has already been up elsewhere. Just thought some might be interested in the autopsy of this pile of crap.
And yet it was still louder than the entire alumni section.
There's also the chance that more students and people that actually make noise at our games would go. I also know that many people go overboard at the tailgate specifically because they cannot get alcohol in the stadium.
Yeah, because everyone attending the games now is stone sober...
There is already 115,000 drunk people being managed every gameday. Banning alcohol in the stadium is purely for apperance and patting ourselves on the back. Drunken assholery is not a legit concern. If it was, you'd have a better policy than this.
Throwing this idea out there as something different compared to what's been stated (or so I think).
1. Get rid of kicking the extra point.
2. Get rid of the two point conversion and instead...
3. You have to line up in goaline on the 2 as is currently done. If you get it in the endzone you get that 1 extra point to get to the traditional 7.
Now we see more actual football, extra points now achieve that 50/50 area that is exciting, and they also become much more critical to the outcome of the game. It's like after the third overtime of college games all the time.
I think that would be fun to watch. Getting one point, especially to tie or win would become dramatic as hell.
If you are going that route, take a look at lsa.umich.edu/biology/. On the site they'll have details about CMB:BME. They have a five year masters type program called Cellular Molecular Biology: Biomedical Engineering (CMB:BME). First four years are liberal arts styled coursework (with lots of math, physics, and chem of course) with the fifth year being a master's year. An interesting blend that might interest you looking at the fields you're considering.
I can actually give you a good bit of information about this though most of it has sort of been covered.
The biggest question I have for you is what college are you aiming to get into? Your marks and extracurriculars give a great shot at getting into LSA (liberal arts) though being out of state always throws a little uncertainty in there. I can tell you that right now the latest pool of admit data has the average ACT score of an engineering student at 31 with average Math ACT scores as high as 33. Engineering admittance is extremely competitive.
I was admitted to the University ten years ago with essentially the exact same test scores and GPA as you and I know people that have gotten in with lower marks. Again, this was ten years ago, but the freshman classes have also been growing in total admits year over year. Two years ago was the biggest class ever I believe.
Financial aid is just a crapshoot. The University does a decent job with need-based aid and if you have a work study award finding a job is usually pretty easy with decent pay for not difficult work. Your family's financial situation and FAFSA info will be the real determining fact. I will say that despite the high cost, U of M was pretty good about figuring out a package for my financial need to the point of not needing private loans.
Bottom line, I'd say you have all the marks you need in general. If aiming for Engineering then upping that ACT score could help. All you can do is apply and find out.
The issue is so big and complex. Following Brian's example--trying to stick to the tactic and not the implicit politics--I do not see how this is going to work for the Northwestern student-employee-athletes. I may be sitting up in the cheap seats but it seems to me that there is not another interest in this be it the NCAA, colleges, atheltics departments, etc. that would have anything to gain by this. Or more to the point, everyone everyone else but the students "loses" should this work.
I find the whole thing interesting as hell though.
Ya know, for all your chastising of Brian for not highlighting the social issue here, you're doing a glaring lack of it yourself.
Speaking of nob-hopping, I painted the end of mine with the winged design. Not only does it look quite tasteful, it's always fun to announce occasionally that, "the Michigan D is getting GREAT penetration."
Honestly, I'd be more crushed to lose Harris than Campbell. They both seem fantastic. But if we're really going the manball route I feel the need for a quality RB really makes more of a difference.
I think we need to just calm down and see if we get any development out of Hoke recruits. Those recruits are still young, and we do seem to be improving in a number of spots while the offense was very Jekyll and Hyde.
I mean you look at Dantonio over at MSU. He's been there seven years, and not every season was sparkling awesome. He got a Big Ten championship in his fourth season, and then 2011 was another solid year followed by 7-6, and then this most recent championship. This stuff takes time and they aren't always going to be winners. The RRod recuiting years were not kind to us at all and were built for a different system.
Florida State we've been told has been on the brink of awesome with great recruiting for YEARS and they've just finally broken through.
All that first part is totally true. As well as the second part, but injuries happen out there as well, even if they are smaller defenders. We lost Denard for the rest of the year as a QB from a rather benign looking hit against Nebraska.
Their season was absolutely good. But I don't think they'll get all the breaks next year like they did this year.
While I would love to run as well as Auburn, the reasons why we aren't there yet both schematically and experience wise has already been touched upon. A few other things jump out at me though.
1. Auburn's QB stayed healthy it seems and played well. He ran just a few touches less than Gardner did this year. And Gardner was anything but healthy for half the year. That is our OLine's fault to a large degree. But if Marshall takes just one bad hit Auburn's run game could have been derailed in a big way. They luckily avoided such catastrophe.
2. While they ran a FBS leading 335 yards per game, they were ranked 107th in passing. For our own team I would hope for more balance, but whether balance is even all that important could be debated as well.
3. Auburn was very much 2011 Michigan. Scraped by a number of teams for a record no one expected. They could have lost to TA&M, and got insanely lucky against Georgia and Alabama. They also didn't exactly handle Washington State or Miss. St., who they only got 120 yards rushing against.
None of this really disputes the final rushing outcome for them this year. But I believe it was a perfect storm of a new system, new coach, and a fresh scheme that needed to be scouted. And of course they... executed. Hah. I exepct next year they come back down to earth both in wins and rush yardage, because football is evil and makes no sense that way.
Hah I remember rolling so hard after seing that live. Everyone I watched the game with said I was making it up. I love the slight nod Mattison gives--I can just see the guy he's motioning to doing the samething back in a "are you sure?" manner.
3DS all day folks. The number of good games it has now is pretty ridiculous, and they aren't all shooters which seems to dominate the home consoles these days. Portable online Mario Kart FTW.
Because U of M is a far superior University but OSU is all they have so they ride that shit hard. Even our more mellow fandom pisses them off, which they accurately recognize as the attitude of someone who actually has more important shit to do.
It has
Their state smells.
It has two major cities and both of them are lame.
OSU is the one thing Ohio folks can hang their hat on, but they don't know it. Everyone else knows it. In typical bizzaro world fashion they call this, "jealousy."
Their fans are rabid and dumb in most cases, which the entire Big Ten is in agreement about according to all the opposing fans I've hosted at tailgates.
Their heroic coaches are:
1. A guy who punched a kid in the face.
2. Another guy who cheated and then also covered it up.
3. A guy who had "health issues," which in reality meant a disinterest in enduring any hardship.
But hey, "everybody steals, everybody murders." Ohio should plaster that quote up on the toilet bowl. Could be their Tebow speech.
Random thought for Brian on the UFRs.
Perhaps this isn't all THAT useful, but I was wondering if perhaps it'd be helpful to have yards to go in parantheses next to the G when we have goal to go? Unless it actually is listed somewhere and I'm being dumb, the difference between goal to go on the 9 (or the 20 as we are capable of doing) and the 2 is pretty huge in the context of play calling.
What? Toussaint can't catch out of the backfield. That would require reacting to something coming at him even FASTER than a rusher. I want to say I'm sarcastic, but Fitz's blitz pickups aren't him getting run over, they are just flat out fly bys.
Here's what I learned Michigan must do offensively to be succesful:
1. They must run plays that are easier to execute
2. They also must be plays that defenses cannot make adjustments for, or complicate by trying to confuse us.
3. They must never allow the other team to blitz.
4. If the other team might blitz, Toussaint cannot be out there.
5. If the other team might blitz, Green cannot be out there.
6 . If Green/Toussaint are not out there, it must not be a tipped pass play.
7. All throws must come around 3 seconds after snap, to mitigate blitzes or just poor pass protection.
8 Our pass plays must not be predictable.
Okay... BREAK.!
I know this is not part of the picture pages, but based on Brian's post, Space Coyote's contributions in this post (great stuff by the way. If nothing else I learn lot from yourself, Brian, and others on this board), what is the alternative?
I mean, the play has been nicely diagramed, the concept of the play has been thoroughly explained, I understand it, and they can't do it. If they can't do this, what is this other thing they actually CAN do? I hear all about scheme or how our players can't execute this or its coaching. But is there something both enormously easier for us while not being enormously easy to defend? Space Coyote or Brian could better answer this but from random guy looking at the play I say no. This should be executed. The "not executing" phrase is wearing thin but every picture pages it's precisely what we see. And if the scheme prohibits execution then I would like to know the one that is both easier, more effective, and one that our young guys can actually make happen.
Just watching the play it seems like Kerridge screws this up and that's that. I mean, even watching full speed, there is no confusion about who he is going to block. That's his man, he's running toward him, takes a horrible angle, and then reacts slowly to it. All he had to do was get in the way and he didn't even manage that. He had one job, one guy, and completely missed him. Coaching? Reps? I don't know, but the play call gets some frickin yardage if Kerridge gets there.
I don't want to rag on a kid, but I just don't even know what he's doing. There is plenty of space out there for Fitz if he just nudges this guy.
Two things have sort of dawned on me from this whole debacle.
1. This was the kind of thing I was worried about when hiring Hoke/Borges before that first season mirage blinded me.
2. That really, ultimately, this coaching philosophy is Lloyd Carr 2.0 minus the necessary talent everywhere. Which consists of awesome teams losing 3 games every year that they really probably shouldn't because we are daring you to stop us.
Also, myself and a buddy of mine were just making jokes watching the game in order to ease the suffering. We also spent much of the game predicting plays. There are two that we run:
IRP (ineffectual run play)
and Derp. Derp is everythying that isn't IRP. We're making IRP and DERP t-shirts if anyone is interested.
I'd say right now people love the Tigers more. But if the Lions ever won a Super Bowl, the bedlam in Detroit I believe would dwarf any Tiger World Series championship.
I'm also going with Calvin over MIggy. Calvin is of that Barry/Yzerman mold that people in Detroit love. It's also a shame that Datsyuk doesn't get more love due to the lower popularity of hockey. He's seriously our Barry Sanders on ice.
Mmmm.... oh... wait, what? This is about basketball? Sorry, I was busy having a wetdream over the idea of Barry Sanders and Megatron being on the same team at the same time...
Didn't have any sort of opinion on the sign outside the stadium, I pass it a couple times a week. I guess now I do. Never found it distracting or an eyesore. I don't understand people. You're driving, don't look at it. Are we seriously so helpless against its mysterious power that we MUST look at it while driving?
If there's something to complain about, how about starting construction over by Packard/Stone School right at the end of August when you had the entire summer to do this?
Couldn't agree more. Said something to this effect after Penn State and was told I was an idiot. All three terrible games were three turnover games for Gardner, all of which resulted in some points, 14 in this Penn State game. Short fields, momentum killers, and free points turned this game into a four overtime game when really it could've been a game won comfortably by two or three scores.
Gardner helps us survive his own mistakes. He's responsible for 14 of Penn State's points. Clearly that ten point lead in the second wasn't so commanding.
Last week we are super vanilla. Gardner throws zero picks, and we cruise. We could have done the exact same thing this game provided he's doesn't throw balls directly to defenders.
Devin Gardner has 13 turnovers this year. Two of them on Saturday were directly to defenders. We have a less mistake prone QB and not only do we win all of our games up to this point, we win them in a more convincing fashion. Cut those turnovers in half, and everything is fine.
The games that everyone uses to point to coaching ineptitude are Akron, UConn, and this Penn State debacle. And what do you know? All of them are three turnover days for Gardner. Our OLine is what it is, and Fitz will never create anything for himself. But Gardner is the one that's killing us, plain and simple.
Gardner had three turnovers. Again. That's the game. Toussaint being run into the pile over and over is annoying no doubt. But Brian summed it up on the front page: Penn State had three drives start around the Michigan 25. That isn't scheme. That isn't poor play calling. Gardner had one unavoidable fumble, and then two picks. Those weren't unfortunate. Those were thrown directly to defenders.
Once again, we have a quarterback who cannot reliably do half the job of his position. Make it easier for Gardner? These turnovers were not on super difficult throws. This was pretty vanilla stuff. How is an OC supposed to pull out anything exotic when teams prepare for any kind of run and any kind of pass on our part has my chest full of fear?
Don't know if he's Woodson, don't know what he is, have barely seen him on the college field yet. And since when is what other teams are doing the dicate of what WE are doing?
As for whether or not he can do it better than Chesson or Norfleet, again, who can say? Dymonte's recruiting page on this very site contains mostly offensive highlights, coaches gushing about his explosiveness, and him being an electrifying player. He may eventually do punt/kick returns in Brian's eyes.
Hah clearly I won't convince you. I think its worth trying. If he fails and doesn't do anything on offense fine, he'll have exactly one less touchdown than Norfleet and Chesson combined at this point this year.
What's this all or nothing stuff? I want Dymonte Thomas to practice like two plays. He doesn't even need to line up as a RB, you could put him in the slot, break him out, whatever. I don't want him back there for every damn snap, just a Woodson type thing. A change of pace. The sort of thing I'm suggesting is way less of a change than DG. I hesitate to even call it a "change." Hell, maybe Thomas should quit practicing with special teams too, since he really needs those reps at safety. If we need Thomas, the reps will absolutely be important, you're right. But I'm not advocating a total quit on defensive reps at all.
DG already knew the offense, that's true. But if you're concerned about reps, and looking at the season thus far, maybe DG could have used more?
Again, I'm saying a few plays out there. Just to see if he can turn a simple slant into a long TD. NOT a position switch.
Frankly, I think this question by the OP is a good one, and I also think it is a great idea. I am actually kind of surprised by how many people are against this. Obviously he needs to learn his future position. Is he going to not have a firm grasp of it if he plays a few offensive snaps? Probably not.
Are we counting on him to play it this year? No. Worst case scenario he's forced to, and no amount of hand holding is going to make him anything other than a freshman playing at S.
Our offense lost Darboh, the O line is a reshuffled work in progress, Funchess all of a sudden is a WR; frankly, our offense could use a spark, a playmaker.
Is everyone who is crapping on this idea also one of those against Gardner playing receiver last year? Since when did getting your best athlete on the field go from conventional wisdom to a bad idea? And how is from WR to QB a less difficult transition than S to taking just a few offensive snaps a game?
Ahh... Maureen ponderosa... I wonder if he has a deadtooth?
Wisconsin is the first one that came to my mind as well as far as where we want to be. Really though I want to compare us to someone who wouldn't think would be so dominant at it.
What about someone like Minnesota? They are generally a baby seal yet they are considerably ahead of Michigan in rushing statistics. I believe they only have one senior on their offensive line and they are killing it rushing the football. Weak opponents disclaimer, but then, we should have same said disclaimer. We're seventh in the B1G in rushing which makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'd be curious to see analysis of another Big Ten team running the ball well and see if they are executing their blocks perfectly, or just what IS going on with their success that currently eludes our team. (Hah, maybe Brian can just add that to the already huge heap of content we're getting. Or anyone. I'd do it, but my football knowledge is still incredibly lacking.)
These picture pages have been fantastic and illuminating. The UFR will give us the skinny on how often such mishaps occur. My intuition though tells me that other teams are just as spotty without as many negative plays. Maybe that's what my heart just wants to believe with this team.
Also, I feel like some misdirection would be wonderful. I'd also be curious to see two HBs in the backfield. Norfleet + Toussaint would at least be a change from the predictable stuff we usually run with Norfleet.
I would agree with that assessment. Some people have asked more pointed questions before, regarding players, scheme, etc. Generally a response given is: "Absolutely we are looking at [insert guy]. Every week though we look at everyone across [position group], not just this one spot. There is great competition there. We assess week in, week out, and the player that gives us the best chance to win is going to play. No different than any other time of year."
Yeah, I'd say it cuts both ways. Hah, maybe Hoke just needs to shake up the non-responses, as I swear the above gets broken out at least once a presser.
These sorts of things are always laden with coachspeak so my complaints are trivial. I do get sick of hearing though about people playing well and hard and people getting more reps. I assumed all of this already, and if people aren't playing hard we have big problems. Again, these pressers are generally fluff. Better than they used to be, but I don't really learn anything other than Jake Ryan timelines.