- Member for
- 5 years 40 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 days 15 hours ago||I was a bit surprised the||
I was a bit surprised the post got upvotes. After all, I made a snarkily underhanded comment about the use of apostrophes just below...
Maybe he did run into a regent, or assistant AD. Maybe they did have that conversation. I don't know. But I know I have no way of verifying that, and even if I did, I wouldn't give it much weight.
A public face is not a private face. It is easy to say to random citizen "Les Miles is on the short list" because it is easily deniable (didn't say that or it was misintrepreted), and because all it is saying is he is on a list somewhere. It doesn't even mean you have to seriously consider him, or didn't already eliminate him in the first round off wants. He was on the short list. Great. In a casual conversation a representative of a corporation (and I'm including a University's atheltic department in this) handle things that way because its a public-friendly view that has little, if any, drawbacks. If we were NOT actually considering Les Miles what is gained from telling you that?
Also, all of that presumes that the regents have a strong feed of what is going on, which I doubt they are kept in the loop to that level of detail. They may want to know, or ask around and get some information, but it would surprise me that the regents would be hands on. Put another way (keeping my corporate analogy) the board of directors doesn't get daily updates on the candidate list for a company's office manager at a particular building.
I'll say it: I don't know. People who might know only know what they are told. People who claim to know only know what they are told. I'll take in all I can get, but I also read it in that context. One day, I'll find out who the next coach is.
|2 days 19 hours ago||I'm nervous about what huge||
I'm nervous about what huge part of the donors you spoke to...
|3 days 19 hours ago||The history major in me feels||
The history major in me feels the arm motion is less than ideal...
|3 days 20 hours ago||If you have DirecTV who is||
If you have DirecTV who is your internet provider? - because you might be able to get ESPN3 that way. I have DirecTV and AT&T and can get ESPN3 that way.
|1 week 2 days ago||Yeah, and I have an error in||
Yeah, and I have an error in my numbers above. Not sure how, but my 2011 number is wrong and one of the years are missing. Here's the better breakdown:
Just looking quickly, at my thoughts from last night, he does seem to pull in at least a high level JuCo kid every other year. Without closely following Miss. St. I don't know much about those kids, how important they are, etc.
It's clear he relies on JuCo at Miss St more than he could at UM, but I also don't think he's overly reliant on them - he's not getting a large number of starters here or heavily filling classes (at least based on the top 50/100). If there's a lot more in the lower rankings then I would be concerned. But I'd also assume some of those lower-ranked filler guys could be replaced by Midwest guys who can get in to UM. JuCos are also very common down south if you look at the top 50/100 lists, so it might be that it's just more accepted down there.
A bigger concern to me would be that his recuting is primarily focused in the Southern states. That's expected, but he'd have to make inroads up north or work nationally quickly. This was an issue for Rodriguez. The question is whether Mullen could adapt to taking less JuCos and recruiting in a different territory. I don't think that would be data-driven.
|1 week 3 days ago||Well, I took a look at the||
Well, I took a look at the Rivals top 50/100 JuCo for Rivals for Miss St since Mullen arrived in 2009:
More than he could take at UM. Only one was a starter that I saw (Autry) and most of those guys are 3*s, probably more filler types. It's a concern coming to UM, but Mullen doesn't appear to be overly reliant on JuCo.
2014 and 2015 are top 100. I'm sure there were others below top 50 in other years.
|1 week 3 days ago||Ah yes, the ole clutch||
Ah yes, the ole clutch coaching stigmatism you can see on tv. Wonder why he never had that corrected with contacts.
|1 week 3 days ago||I agree with your conclusion||
I agree with your conclusion (RR didn't work out because he lost too much), but there were issues before the losing, including a number of "culture" issues that were exacerbated by losing. But those issues were not caused by losing,
Then again, winning quiets a lot of critics.
|1 week 5 days ago||Best newborn ever.||
Best newborn ever.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||This exactly why I buy random||
This exactly why I buy random inside joke shirts. The ones who get it think that shirt is awesome, everyone else thinks they are missing out,.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||This is probably not the||
This is probably not the case. The 21 day consideration period is required for an employee over 40 under ADEA/OWBPA to waive those claims. It does not mean that the parties must wait that long. Employees routinely sign severance agreements before the consideration period ends.
The requirement is to be offered at least 21 days (single employee), not that 21 days must actually pass. Brandon could have signed within minutes if he wanted to.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Yes, very standard - in my||
Yes, very standard - in my previous post I mentioned that there are certain ADEA/OWBPA requirements for those over 40 when waiving rights to sue, A 7 day revocation period is one of them. It's basically a formality, and nothing to fret about.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Lots of people were pissed at||
Lots of people were pissed at Rosenberg for shoddy, deliberately deceptive journalism. I still don't recall a big outcry to pull his press pass, but maybe I'm aware but just not fully aware of the outrage.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||I actually applied to be an||
I actually applied to be an extra while they were filming in Royal Oak and got called, but couldn't go because I had a client meeting that day.
If only I had a time machine to try to get in the original...
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Gotcha. No worries - upvote||
Gotcha. No worries - upvote for honesty and admitting a mistake.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I am an employment lawyer. It||
I am an employment lawyer. It is what it is titled - a settlement agreement. it's framed publicly that Brandon "resigned" to save face, but also because UM wanted him to leave. When you're in that boat as an employer or an employee under contract and you have a possibility of a large amount of money you fight over you come to a settlement to save both parties time, money, attorneys fees, and grief. It is pretty standard practice.
It would be borderline malpractice to not include an agreement not to sue (section 11 you site) when your client (UM) is giving up consideration if it belives it could have terminated him. That is part of what you get back and is Severance Agreements 101 type stuff in employment law. Also, because he's over 40 there are specific requirements to how that waiver needs to be constructions under the ADEA/OWBPA.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but he was under contract and they negotiated a severenace agreement to avoid fighting over things. This is EXTREMELY common with executives and others in management, so this stuff is going to be in nearly all of those agreements. It's that simple.
(For the record you still can make claims if you resign voluntarily, people do it all the time... sigh).
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Why?||
|4 weeks 34 min ago||'70's. Droog. Sorry, I know||
Sorry, I know I made the same joke about 4 posts below. Just too good to pass up repeating it.
|4 weeks 10 hours ago||Condescending tone and all||
Condescending tone and all wins you very little points with me when you seem to understand the concept but lack the ability to apply that to your posts.
The argument centers around getting the money for the DC coordinator RichRod wanted, which was Casteel, not other coordinators. You've now morphed that into other coordinators made similar money to what was offered, so he had the money. So, again, straw man: you've taken a concept (not enough money for for Casteel) and morphed it into a similar sounding concept (not enough money for a competent DC) and then refuted the argument you morphed it into, rather than against the original argument.
Maybe there's a few posts out there about hiring any DC, but I'm not aware of those, and I certainly wouldn't call that "the myth." You can criticize RichRod for being so tied to Casteel and the 3-3-5 and unwilling to adapt and I'd have no issue, but the argument was that Michigan didn't commit the money to get Casteel, the DC RichRod wanted, not *any competent* DC.
|4 weeks 10 hours ago||Understood. I agree with||
Understood. I agree with criticizing RichRod for either not being able to give control of defense over to a DC and for bad DC hires.
I just don't think that any of that negates the ponying up for Casteel arguments. Some of that is on RichRod (probably could have worked to get funds shifted around), and some of that is on UM probably deciding what it was investing.
|4 weeks 10 hours ago||You quoted a myth, nobody is||
You quoted a myth, nobody is sure where from, then refuted it. When asked about it where the quoted myth was from you ignored it.
And then you asked for quotes from people you know don't exist or aren't able to be produced to disprove your concocted narrative, suggesting that without them The circumstantial evidence supports your refutation of some randomly quoted myth.
You say you are directly responding to the argument at hand, which is... The argument you wrote then refuted. That is THE definition of a straw man argument.
I think it might be you who needs to review the notes on logical fallacies. Or, you know, congrats, you've won the argument with yourself and proved it by somebody not producing quotes (but totally not anything wrong there. Wink wink)
|4 weeks 10 hours ago||You're completely missing the||
You're completely missing the point: this isn't about RR being a good coach or not, it's about the myth of hiring DC, Casteel, and the hiring process.
|4 weeks 11 hours ago||They look like they're about||
They look like they're about to head to the Korova Milk Bar.
|4 weeks 11 hours ago||What's fascinating about this||
What's fascinating about this is that it includes good data on salaries (although I would suggest a much larger sample), but ignores other big assumptions.
I realize the post is about money only, but hiring a coach is always about more than that. For example, a coach who doesn't want to disrupt his family for a similar salary may be more willing to do so for a bigger sum than his current salary.
So simply saying "Coach X oaches at [other big school] so therefore a coach on his level could be hired at UM for same money"
The realists here acknowledge that RR probably should have sought to divert some facility funds to coaches salaries if Martin would allow it. $800k weight room + Casteel is better than a $1m weight room and DC mayhem. They also acknowledge that RR didn't want to hire ANY DC, he wanted a specific DC, and the money offered him might not have been enough to sell him, even if it was on par with some coaches salaries. It wasn't about getting money for any DC, it was about getting the money for Casteel. You're trying to reshape that argument to fit your story. It's simply not the case.
|4 weeks 11 hours ago||Where the quote that says it||
Where the quote that says it didn't happen? Argument from ignorance plus straw man in one post. Well done.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||If we were fighting for a||
If we were fighting for a playoff spot like they are, I'd have zero issue with us scoring there.
|5 weeks 9 hours ago||I dunno, I *really* like the||
I dunno, I *really* like the idea of threatening a fake lawsuit over an alleged nastygram email to a posters' friends' aunt in an attempt to get a lit hold issued. Especially so when it includes multiple legal jargon bombs.
/ snarky sarcasm voice. And I wonder why people hate my profession sometimes...
|5 weeks 1 day ago||That's fair - I think they||
That's fair - I think they need to be more transparent about the amount donated from purchases. In general. I think that's something all these campaigns are really bad about.
I get that this could quickly be a slippery slope for every cause imaginable, I'm just having a tough time finding some "harm" here other than people not liking pink jerseys.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Right, but nobody is||
Right, but nobody is suggesting the players playing the game are actually thinking about it during the game...
I get it's played out, I get it isn't as good as donating money, but what's he harm? Our jerseys are pink for a bit? Is that seriously horrible? Again if it's 5 cents and pink jerseies for a month or zero cents I'll suck it up. Don't buy them if you don't like them.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||I personally don't like||
I personally don't like these, so I won't be buying it, but donating money to cancer research, education, etc., and buying a jersey are not mutually exclusive...