I love the idea, but we need to go further. After all, there are many SS and CF and catchers only in for their defense. We should be able to have DHs for them as well. I mean, I hate when the good hitters get pulled for defense late in the game. So lets not stop at pitchers not having to hit.
Also, no one pays to see power hitters run the bases. And who does not love the element added by the threat of a steal. So I think we should also have hitters allowed to have designated runners for them after they hit the ball.
Enough of the whole '5 tool player' I want my baseball players to excel at only 1 or 2 skills.
There is plenty to criticize the coaches for, but I do not know how Funchess gets a pass for his lack of effort.
I read quotes like the ones in the article and shake my head- bad coaching explains bad fundimentals, or bad technique, or lack of proper use of your talents, but when it comes to effort, that is not the coaches, that is solely from the inner desire of the player. Have enough pride to do your best.
Yes, very important to shine a light on how malnourished college athletes are. Every time I see one of these guys on TV, I marvel at the muscle atrophy caused by the lack of protein in their diet.
You are wasting your breath. You are totally right, but you are wasting your breath. When I see Brian talk about "irrelevant facts" I mentally translate that to "inconvenient facts".
The programs make money, so that is why other colleges want a football team. But as you say, the departments themselves are money losers, and will become moreso if they pay out money to players.
I think you may be misreading what Fitzgerald said.
He is telling them that they are fundimentally deciding between a known (him as well as the current administration) and an unknown. And I think it is not too unreasonable to think that not all members of unions are always thrilled with the decisions made by their unions.
That seems a pretty reasonable argument to me- at least, I can see rational people coming down on one side or another without being delusional.
The NCAA acts like a totalitarian state? Really? We are not a little over the top here?
Setting rules the players must agree to? Of course. You know, when I got my job, I had to sign a contract of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a credit card, I had to sign a list of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a loan from the bank, there were a list of rules I must agree to.
Not being able to negotiate with a large organization in order to be a part of it is both a) common, and b) not even remotely in the same area code as a totalitarian state.
And as for signing away your 'basic economic rights', they are doing no such thing. Again, join a company and make a discovery/invention and in almost all cases, that discovery/invention belongs to the company, not you. The idea that the people who are the 'talent' in the company do not retain all the proceeds of their talent is hardly a unique situation.
There are real issues with the NCAA, and with player compensation. But the argument is not helped by over the top hyperbole like your comments.
No. He did not have the specifics on immediate recall. That is what tape is for. He will look at the 2011 game this week, see what the issues were, and address them.
If he does not know what the problems are after reviewing the tape, then worry. Not sure why he needs to have eidetic memory.
I agree this logic is not unique to football. In fact, my argument is that many in favor of paying athletes specifically ignore this well established logic when arguing "Michigan football makes 100 million dollars-- that is generated on the backs of the student athletes".
It is true they are integral to this. It is also true (as we both agree) that the "Michigan Brand" is also integral. You say it is almost impossible to parcel that out correctly. I agree that we can not know this exactly, but if we look at the financial success (or lack thereof) of semi-pro football, there is a strong argument that the Brand is responsible for a large percentage of that value.
So lets say players add some moderate value (but certainly not 100 million dollars). Their compensation is about $50,000 per year (tuition, room, board), AND they are being trained in their future profession (whether that be the NFL, or something they use their degree for).
That is not a free market, but that is a scenario that is VERY common in society. Medical residents, legal associates, various paid and unpaid internships- all these exist and underpay people because in return they are getting training for their future. And none (with maybe the exception of legal associates) can be called a free market (having been a medical resident, I can assure you of that one).
So I do not see a great moral imperative to pay the players (although I am in favor of providing an increased stipend for living expenses). Especially when there are so many negative aspects to paying them. (which I will hold for another post if you want to discuss that)
There is an argument often ignored, although it was briefly mentioned above. The players provide some value, no doubt. But their value is absolutely tied to them being at Michigan.
Take the same group and make them the North Walla Walla Mudhens in some semi-pro league, and nobody (or virtually nobody) is going to show up. The Big House, Winged Victory, The Maize and Blue- all of these things add value.
The fact is, there ARE plenty of semi-pro football teams around, but nobody knows about them because nobody cares.
So, when the football program brings in X amount of dollars, it is overly simplistic (read: just flat out wrong) to say that that is due to the players alone.
Chocolate (frosted/ganache) cake should be room temp.
You want the chocolate to literally melt in your mouth. Too cold and it does not warm up fast enough before you swallow. Too warm, and it melts on the plate, requiring you to lick the plate clean (not a deal breaker, but consider what setting you are in- not always possible).
Glasses: open side down
Mid-west: it is all just the stuff we east-coasters fly over anyway...
Oreos: With milk. All else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
Stars? What are those? I can't see anything but reflected glow at night in NYC.
So in summary: Urban Meyer is a jerk/twit/loser (or whatever other clever name you choose) because of his facial expression as interpreted by some 17 year old kid?
Or am I missing something?
Wow. Hard to imagine this has not been picked up by the mainstream media...
I love me some SEC bashing as much as the next guy, but there is no evidence of this happening anywhere.
I am as loud as any (well, maybe not ANY) to criticize Saban's abuse of the medical rules to get players off the team. And I think that oversigning is pretty sleazy. But with folks like Brian and others watching (and I am not disparaging them, I want them to watch like hawks for abuses), we have never, to my knowledge, heard of any team abusing the 1 year scholarship by not renewing a player for performance related issues.
So, given all the attention paid to Division I schools, I believe that this is a rule that even the most slimy of coaches will not abuse. And NOT because they are such good people, or because they care about the athletes, but simply because if they took away a player's scholarship for poor play, there would be such a massive (justifiable) outcry that the coach/AD would lose their jobs, the 1 year scholarship would be banned, and the school would be at a huge disadvantage in further recruiting.
And I looked at the Atlantic article referenced by the poster above. It was all about schools giving poor (or no) medical care to players. Absolutely disgraceful, but of no relevance to the discussion we are having here.
As others have said above- how many instances of schools pulling scholarships after, say, 2 years are there?
There is that quote from the player saying he wants to "earn" each year, but no one is kicked off the team for poor performance.
Players lose scholarships for cause- arrests etc. If the argument is that these players should have 4 years guaranteed regardless of how they conduct themselves, then I fail to see the imperative here. (that being said, I am sure that even 4 year scholarships have clauses allowing them to be revoked in these cases)
Please, Brian or someone else who feels strongly about 4 year scholarships- can you explain the concern to me?
Even if you take his points at face value- that the NCAA penalty on the players was too much- how is it that the University owes the apology and not the NCAA?
Then again, I think he makes a fairly one sided argument anyway.
The press just found out about Toradol, so they have decieded to make this the issue of the month.
As a doctor who specializes in kidney disease, I can tell you that there is no doubt a risk from ketorlac (Toradol) to cause kidney failue. NSAIDs other than aspirin (Motrin/Ibuprofen, naproxen etc) have all been associated with both kidney disease and heart disease (aspirin has some protective effects against heart disease, but still can cause kidney failure). While ketorlac is considered stronger and more importantly, can be given intravenously to provide immediate relief from pain, there is no data that it has a higher risk of causing either kidney disease or heart disease than the other drugs in the class.
Now, the other thing to consider, is what is the alternative to their use? As was mentioned above, the use of NSAIDs in place of narcotics like morphine is generally considered a very good thing.
If, on the other hand, they are given these medications for no reason (i.e. the alternative is no medication at all) then they clearly are being mis-used.
Now again, I have patients that have put themselves into renal failure with the overuse of NSAIDs, but if you ban ketorlac, you should ban aspirin, motrin etc (basically everything but tylenol) because the data is the same.
...but my sister is expecting her first. (she is 4 days past her due date). She would not do that to me, would she? I was a good older brother to her....
Well, I may have underestimated you and I apologize for that. That is a real skill- you should take advantage of it. The good news is that there are likely to be 10-20 openings at the end of this year for Division I offensive coordinator positions. Generally, they pay very well.
Having the skill to be OC for a major program such as Michigan with a complex offense would put you in a good position for any of those openings. I think you should put together your tape from this game along with your play calls and send it off.
I have been surfing the web, and there are an awful lot of bad OCs out there who seem not to know how to call plays. I think that you could really help a lot of these programs. (not to mention making quite a bit of money for yourself)
The argument that any number of people on the internet know how to call an offense better than a professional with 25 years of experience?
The argument that watching a game on TV gives the proper complete perspective to decide what should or should not have been done, and what worked and what did not.
The argument that within 2 hours of the end of the game these internet experts have had time to thoroughly review the game to determine clearly that it was the playcalling rather than anything else (missed assignments, good defensive calls, luck etc) which was the main culprit)
The argument that an internet petition to fire a coach is a) needed or b) productive for the university because Mr. Turner clearly has his fingers on the pulse of the football program
I do not consider any of these to be arguments worthy of serious consideration.
I don't like losing. I really don't like losing to Ohio State. But more than anything else, I don't like people who don't know how to act (and not over-react) when they do lose.
Yes, the University of Michigan requires some anonymous idiot posting internet petitions to "save" itself because only some guy "MTurner" has the key to saving the 100+ year history of Michigan football.
This is why it is better to turn off your internet connection until you sober up.
Well, I don't think that Maryland and Rutgers are "exciting" additions, but I think that if you make business decisions based on what is exciting or sexy, that you are a pretty bad at your job.
The economics are highly questionable? Based on your made up numbers? Please, just stop. We do not know what the actual data is, so this is a silly argument to have. I am pretty sure that the folks in the B1G hired a whole truck load of accountants and business consultants to consider all the various economic impacts of this expansion far better than we can here on the board. There are all sorts of direct and indirect benefits, both near and long term which need to be considered. Now, you can assert that they are all a bunch of idiots when it comes to business, but I would argue that history tends to disprove that with the success that they have had with prior expansion and the BTN thus far. So I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this (at least as far as the economics go)
So the real debate is whether the potential economic benefit of expansion outweighs the dilution of tradition. I think that is the big issue that we are having. Teams all go through good and bad spells, but what is bothersome is bringing in schools without rich sports traditions.
For me, I am not thrilled with it, but I can see the need. I hope it does not become the start of a trend.
Excellent point that I have to second. I remember thinking the same thing during the game. I was very happy to see him recognize and take advantage of the free plays when they were given. That is definitely something that Denard was not doing.
Again, I think I have tended to downplay some of the credit given to Gardner, but this was definitely something he deserved a lot of credit for, especially as I think it is a particularly veteran move.
I think it was a really good performance by Devin. It was certainly better than I expected. I totally agree that it gives me more hope for next year.
But Brian (and others) have made points worth considering. The long TD to Dileo was a great play made by Gardner because he extended the play with his scramble, but the throw itself was made without setting his feet and made to a wide open receiver (i.e. a totally blown coverage) so you can't really say that he threw a dart to him. Give him points for keeping the play alive, and for having a strong arm, but is that the type of play that is really reproducible? I remember a similar wild scramble later in the game where Minnesota did not blow the coverage where Gardner wound up.. (er, actually I forgot if he took the loss or threw it away in the end).
I was actually more impressed with the strike he threw to Gallon in stride down the sideline- that one was in the face of a picked up blitz on a double move. Not a TD throw, but I thought a far better play- better pass- that I want to see out of our QB.
Again, it was without a doubt a quality performance. But it was one performance, and it was not the all star performance that some seem to be making it into. I hope it is the first of many quality games we see from Devin, and that he continues to improve. He certainly has the talent to do so.
I hope he gets his redshirt, but there has been some stuff posted lately that the staff is not optimistic about this.
On the veer, he is not a blocker- the nature of the option has him going in a different direction. But on designed QB runs (not read options), the RB is often a lead blocker for Denard.
Well, it depends on what you mean by pressure. I tend to think that people complaining about Borges on the internet is not pressure.
Michigan is coming off a remarkably successful season last year, is in line for its second successful recruiting class in a row, has a 5-star QB coming in next year, is still in consideration for the B1G championship, and the "pressure" is coming because when our star QB went down, the backup did not play well.
No, I do not think Al Borges is feeling the pressure.
Don't know about other schools being in or out, but the stuff about Michigan being out of the running was pure speculation. The argument was that Michigan was such a great fit and since he had already had a big visit this summer, that if he were going to commit, he would have already done so.
The comment was, I believe, made by Mike Farrell. To his credit, he never said that he had information to this effect. He always said this was his own speculation. But some have taken it to mean more than I think it really means.
The kid could simply be taking his time to make sure that he is making the right choice. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, productive was a poor word choice on my part. Interesting would have been a better one. There have been some genuinely interesting speculation and infomation thrown out here from time to time and some thoughtful debates. But not going all psychotic over the same limited info.
True, but on the other hand, against Nebraska the defense was repeatedly put in poor position by the offense both with turnovers and 3-and-outs. Also, I think that more than the spread style it was the high tempo that bothered us, and NW does not do that (at least not to the extreme that Nebraska does).
Your position is a completely reasonable one, but my issue with these discussions has always been that few people are willing to stop at "we just do not have enough information".
Rather, they insist on drawing conclusions based on whatever limited data exists. I suppose there is no real harm in that, but it is not all that productive either.
I hope that with the increase in numbers of offensive linemen on scholarship that the spring game is once again an actual game. I would really be interested in seeing Gardner and Bellomy play and see where they are after spring practice.
I think the line is about right. Nebraska is a similar spread style, but much more effective and we played them in Nebraska. We held them to 23. I think it is reasonable to think we would hold NW in the Big House to 14 points or sonething like that.
So the question is, do we think the offense can put up 26-30 points?
I have not reviewed NW defense this year, but I do not think that is unreasonable. Remember, for whatever reason, the offense does significantly better at home (more than the typical homefield advantage)
Apparently not all of us are quite so smart (response to inthebluelot).
IF Hoke is using an injury to take the heat off of someone, it is not Borges-- even if you think he deserves the heat (debatable), even if Hoke thinks he deserves the heat (doubtful), I am pretty sure Hoke feels Al is a grown man and can deal with the heat himself.
More likely, he would be protecting his player, who is, afterall, still a teenager. A move which makes me admire Hoke all the more.
I don't think there is any question- there is no way Bellomy could have made that play. But, I support the idea that we don't need to beat the kid up any more.
I think "disarray" is an overstatement. Drawing conclusions about what would have happened against Nebraska by extrapolating from a quarter and a half of Denard is fundimentally flawed thinking.
So the complaint is really over low scoring in the MSU game. One low scoring game does not equal disarray. Especially when it was by design a conservative plan. IU ran a wide open offense against MSU because they have no defense, so if they did not score 40, they had no chance to win- so a high risk, high reward style makes sense.
(by the way, Indiana lost despite all those points, we won with the offense in "disarray"- so I will take our strategy)
As for Borges not adapting, look at the offensive plans for Alabama, Notre Dame, Purdue, and MSU. There are 4 different offensive plans. You may not like them all, and certainly not all of them worked, but at the least it shows his adaptability in switching up the offense.
I am here in Manhattan and got the call- they warn that they MAY cut power if there is a danger of flooding at the sub-station. As far as I know, they have not (yet) deliberately cut power. However, there are power outages- I was on the phone with my cousin on Long Island when her power went out.
Was quiet here until about 4 PM, but things have picked up since then.
Do you really think it is fair to compare the back that is in for the majority of the competitive game with the one that plays mainly at the end in when the game is locked up?
I think that Toussaint has had issues, especially early on. But I think he has gotten better and has started running more North-South. I also like some of what Rawls has shown. But I do not think that you can directly compare the 2 based on their statistics.
Well, first, I agree that it is important to not overreact. Even in the case where a mistake may have been made, a mistake does not mean that we have bad coaches or that someone should be fired etc.
That being said, I think there is something else to be drawn from the history described above. Of the 10 QBs recruited since 2002 (Morris has not arrived yet), 5 of them transferred or left the program. Even if we exclude Mallett who clearly left because of the coaching change, the other 4 (Gutierrez, Richard, Forcier x2) left for reasons unrelated to coaching instability.
If 40-50% of the recruited QBs do not stay with the program, then it IS important to take one each year to allow for those that do not work out.
No doubt, a true Fr QB would not have helped us when Denard went down, but there is no guarantee that both Bellomy and Gardner work out next year, and it would be nice to allow Morris a chance to learn the offense and redshirt rather than being thrown in before he is really ready.
But again, recruiting is hardly a science, and you can't force these kids to pick Michigan. It is at best a source of regret, but should not be a cause of major recrimination.
As a physician (though not a physical therapist) I agree with most of what you said, but would add and amend a couple of things.
The swelling or inflammation in an injury like this is caused by blood flow increasing to the area. This increases delivery of white blood cells to fight infection and red blood cells to deliver more nutrition to the area. So the inflammation helps heal the area faster. This is the reason that an injection like cortisone to reduce inflammation is considered counter-productive. It does take away the pain (the pain is caused by the increased pressure caused by the inflammation) but reducing inflammation slows the healing of the area.
Cortisone is a steroid, but not an anabolic steroid, so it could never be used for "juicing". In fact, systemic use of cortisone and similar steroids actually promote muscle breakdown (although local injections have little such effect).
I have no idea if the NCAA allows the use of cortisone shots within games, but I am pretty sure that these injections are allowed (but regulated) between games.
Ice does reduce inflammation, and there are also non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. The most common are aspirin and ibuprofen, but there are also intravenous and intramuscular agents available which are much stronger and may also be used in place of cortisone.
As a physician (though not a physical therapist) I agree with most of what you said, but would add and amend a couple of things.
The swelling or inflammation in an injury like this is caused by blood flow increasing to the area. This increases delivery of white blood cells to fight infection and red blood cells to deliver more nutrition to the area. So the inflammation helps heal the area faster. This is the reason that an injection like cortisone to reduce inflammation is considered counter-productive. It does take away the pain (the pain is caused by the increased pressure caused by the inflammation) but reducing inflammation slows the healing of the area.
Cortisone is a steroid, but not an anabolic steroid, so it could never be used for "juicing". In fact, systemic use of cortisone and similar steroids actually promote muscle breakdown (although local injections have little such effect).
I have no idea if the NCAA allows the use of cortisone shots within games, but I am pretty sure that these injections are allowed (but regulated) between games.
There are also non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. The most common are aspirin and ibuprofen, but there are also intravenous and intramuscular agents available which are much stronger and may also be used in place of cortisone.
There are both oral and injectable anti-inflammatory treatments available. Presumably he got both at halftime. Then it is just a matter of waiting to see if/when they work.
I also thought about the idea of putting him in to just run (he holds the ball in his other hand) but what would you do on 3rd and 10? And if you did not pass on that down, I think Nebraska would figure out pretty quickly that he was absolutely zero passing threat and even Denard can not run against 11 defenders keyed to play the run. Plus you run the risk of further aggravating the injury. And hand-offs and snaps become problematic as well.
So I don't think there was any alternative to holding him out of the game until his grip came back.
Recent Comments
Was hoping someone would mention 12 O'Clock High. Excellent movie well worth seeing.
Band of Brothers is a classic.
Battle Of Britain is a flawed movie, but I think has the best ever aerial scenes.
John
Roy Willimas
John Calipari
Mike Krzyzewski
Rick Pitino
Jim Boeheim
Bob Huggins
These are the only active D-1 basketball coaches with a higher winning percentage than John Beilein.
So who were you going to hire in Beileins place?
Spouting a single statistic without any context is absurd. Please stop.
I love the idea, but we need to go further. After all, there are many SS and CF and catchers only in for their defense. We should be able to have DHs for them as well. I mean, I hate when the good hitters get pulled for defense late in the game. So lets not stop at pitchers not having to hit.
Also, no one pays to see power hitters run the bases. And who does not love the element added by the threat of a steal. So I think we should also have hitters allowed to have designated runners for them after they hit the ball.
Enough of the whole '5 tool player' I want my baseball players to excel at only 1 or 2 skills.
There is plenty to criticize the coaches for, but I do not know how Funchess gets a pass for his lack of effort.
I read quotes like the ones in the article and shake my head- bad coaching explains bad fundimentals, or bad technique, or lack of proper use of your talents, but when it comes to effort, that is not the coaches, that is solely from the inner desire of the player. Have enough pride to do your best.
Yes, very important to shine a light on how malnourished college athletes are. Every time I see one of these guys on TV, I marvel at the muscle atrophy caused by the lack of protein in their diet.
You are wasting your breath. You are totally right, but you are wasting your breath. When I see Brian talk about "irrelevant facts" I mentally translate that to "inconvenient facts".
The programs make money, so that is why other colleges want a football team. But as you say, the departments themselves are money losers, and will become moreso if they pay out money to players.
The majority of the blog? I doubt it.
My impression is 20% are upset, 10% are happy, and the other 70% of us are just waiting for football season to start.
I think you may be misreading what Fitzgerald said.
He is telling them that they are fundimentally deciding between a known (him as well as the current administration) and an unknown. And I think it is not too unreasonable to think that not all members of unions are always thrilled with the decisions made by their unions.
That seems a pretty reasonable argument to me- at least, I can see rational people coming down on one side or another without being delusional.
The NCAA acts like a totalitarian state? Really? We are not a little over the top here?
Setting rules the players must agree to? Of course. You know, when I got my job, I had to sign a contract of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a credit card, I had to sign a list of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a loan from the bank, there were a list of rules I must agree to.
Not being able to negotiate with a large organization in order to be a part of it is both a) common, and b) not even remotely in the same area code as a totalitarian state.
And as for signing away your 'basic economic rights', they are doing no such thing. Again, join a company and make a discovery/invention and in almost all cases, that discovery/invention belongs to the company, not you. The idea that the people who are the 'talent' in the company do not retain all the proceeds of their talent is hardly a unique situation.
There are real issues with the NCAA, and with player compensation. But the argument is not helped by over the top hyperbole like your comments.
No. He did not have the specifics on immediate recall. That is what tape is for. He will look at the 2011 game this week, see what the issues were, and address them.
If he does not know what the problems are after reviewing the tape, then worry. Not sure why he needs to have eidetic memory.
I agree this logic is
Colin-
I agree this logic is not unique to football. In fact, my argument is that many in favor of paying athletes specifically ignore this well established logic when arguing "Michigan football makes 100 million dollars-- that is generated on the backs of the student athletes".
It is true they are integral to this. It is also true (as we both agree) that the "Michigan Brand" is also integral. You say it is almost impossible to parcel that out correctly. I agree that we can not know this exactly, but if we look at the financial success (or lack thereof) of semi-pro football, there is a strong argument that the Brand is responsible for a large percentage of that value.
So lets say players add some moderate value (but certainly not 100 million dollars). Their compensation is about $50,000 per year (tuition, room, board), AND they are being trained in their future profession (whether that be the NFL, or something they use their degree for).
That is not a free market, but that is a scenario that is VERY common in society. Medical residents, legal associates, various paid and unpaid internships- all these exist and underpay people because in return they are getting training for their future. And none (with maybe the exception of legal associates) can be called a free market (having been a medical resident, I can assure you of that one).
So I do not see a great moral imperative to pay the players (although I am in favor of providing an increased stipend for living expenses). Especially when there are so many negative aspects to paying them. (which I will hold for another post if you want to discuss that)
There is an argument often ignored, although it was briefly mentioned above. The players provide some value, no doubt. But their value is absolutely tied to them being at Michigan.
Take the same group and make them the North Walla Walla Mudhens in some semi-pro league, and nobody (or virtually nobody) is going to show up. The Big House, Winged Victory, The Maize and Blue- all of these things add value.
The fact is, there ARE plenty of semi-pro football teams around, but nobody knows about them because nobody cares.
So, when the football program brings in X amount of dollars, it is overly simplistic (read: just flat out wrong) to say that that is due to the players alone.
oops. Replied in the wrong place.
Chocolate (frosted/ganache) cake should be room temp.
You want the chocolate to literally melt in your mouth. Too cold and it does not warm up fast enough before you swallow. Too warm, and it melts on the plate, requiring you to lick the plate clean (not a deal breaker, but consider what setting you are in- not always possible).
Glasses: open side down
Mid-west: it is all just the stuff we east-coasters fly over anyway...
Oreos: With milk. All else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
Stars? What are those? I can't see anything but reflected glow at night in NYC.
So in summary: Urban Meyer is a jerk/twit/loser (or whatever other clever name you choose) because of his facial expression as interpreted by some 17 year old kid?
Or am I missing something?
Wow. Hard to imagine this has not been picked up by the mainstream media...
I love me some SEC bashing as much as the next guy, but there is no evidence of this happening anywhere.
I am as loud as any (well, maybe not ANY) to criticize Saban's abuse of the medical rules to get players off the team. And I think that oversigning is pretty sleazy. But with folks like Brian and others watching (and I am not disparaging them, I want them to watch like hawks for abuses), we have never, to my knowledge, heard of any team abusing the 1 year scholarship by not renewing a player for performance related issues.
So, given all the attention paid to Division I schools, I believe that this is a rule that even the most slimy of coaches will not abuse. And NOT because they are such good people, or because they care about the athletes, but simply because if they took away a player's scholarship for poor play, there would be such a massive (justifiable) outcry that the coach/AD would lose their jobs, the 1 year scholarship would be banned, and the school would be at a huge disadvantage in further recruiting.
And I looked at the Atlantic article referenced by the poster above. It was all about schools giving poor (or no) medical care to players. Absolutely disgraceful, but of no relevance to the discussion we are having here.
As others have said above- how many instances of schools pulling scholarships after, say, 2 years are there?
There is that quote from the player saying he wants to "earn" each year, but no one is kicked off the team for poor performance.
Players lose scholarships for cause- arrests etc. If the argument is that these players should have 4 years guaranteed regardless of how they conduct themselves, then I fail to see the imperative here. (that being said, I am sure that even 4 year scholarships have clauses allowing them to be revoked in these cases)
Please, Brian or someone else who feels strongly about 4 year scholarships- can you explain the concern to me?
"Coming out of high school Michigan was obviously my first choice, but State was really the only college accepting applications from farm animals."
The whole piece was worth it just for that line!
"It's funny 'cause it's true" - H. Simpson
Even if you take his points at face value- that the NCAA penalty on the players was too much- how is it that the University owes the apology and not the NCAA?
Then again, I think he makes a fairly one sided argument anyway.
No. Louisville would be #1.
Maybe the joke is on me, but you linked to a twitter feed from "Eagle Damn War".
Seems to me that someone we know is just stirring the pot...
The press just found out about Toradol, so they have decieded to make this the issue of the month.
As a doctor who specializes in kidney disease, I can tell you that there is no doubt a risk from ketorlac (Toradol) to cause kidney failue. NSAIDs other than aspirin (Motrin/Ibuprofen, naproxen etc) have all been associated with both kidney disease and heart disease (aspirin has some protective effects against heart disease, but still can cause kidney failure). While ketorlac is considered stronger and more importantly, can be given intravenously to provide immediate relief from pain, there is no data that it has a higher risk of causing either kidney disease or heart disease than the other drugs in the class.
Now, the other thing to consider, is what is the alternative to their use? As was mentioned above, the use of NSAIDs in place of narcotics like morphine is generally considered a very good thing.
If, on the other hand, they are given these medications for no reason (i.e. the alternative is no medication at all) then they clearly are being mis-used.
Now again, I have patients that have put themselves into renal failure with the overuse of NSAIDs, but if you ban ketorlac, you should ban aspirin, motrin etc (basically everything but tylenol) because the data is the same.
Have the tickets and all set to go....
...but my sister is expecting her first. (she is 4 days past her due date). She would not do that to me, would she? I was a good older brother to her....
Well, I may have underestimated you and I apologize for that. That is a real skill- you should take advantage of it. The good news is that there are likely to be 10-20 openings at the end of this year for Division I offensive coordinator positions. Generally, they pay very well.
Having the skill to be OC for a major program such as Michigan with a complex offense would put you in a good position for any of those openings. I think you should put together your tape from this game along with your play calls and send it off.
I have been surfing the web, and there are an awful lot of bad OCs out there who seem not to know how to call plays. I think that you could really help a lot of these programs. (not to mention making quite a bit of money for yourself)
What argument was made to rebut?
The argument that any number of people on the internet know how to call an offense better than a professional with 25 years of experience?
The argument that watching a game on TV gives the proper complete perspective to decide what should or should not have been done, and what worked and what did not.
The argument that within 2 hours of the end of the game these internet experts have had time to thoroughly review the game to determine clearly that it was the playcalling rather than anything else (missed assignments, good defensive calls, luck etc) which was the main culprit)
The argument that an internet petition to fire a coach is a) needed or b) productive for the university because Mr. Turner clearly has his fingers on the pulse of the football program
I do not consider any of these to be arguments worthy of serious consideration.
I don't like losing. I really don't like losing to Ohio State. But more than anything else, I don't like people who don't know how to act (and not over-react) when they do lose.
Yes, the University of Michigan requires some anonymous idiot posting internet petitions to "save" itself because only some guy "MTurner" has the key to saving the 100+ year history of Michigan football.
This is why it is better to turn off your internet connection until you sober up.
Well, I don't think that Maryland and Rutgers are "exciting" additions, but I think that if you make business decisions based on what is exciting or sexy, that you are a pretty bad at your job.
The economics are highly questionable? Based on your made up numbers? Please, just stop. We do not know what the actual data is, so this is a silly argument to have. I am pretty sure that the folks in the B1G hired a whole truck load of accountants and business consultants to consider all the various economic impacts of this expansion far better than we can here on the board. There are all sorts of direct and indirect benefits, both near and long term which need to be considered. Now, you can assert that they are all a bunch of idiots when it comes to business, but I would argue that history tends to disprove that with the success that they have had with prior expansion and the BTN thus far. So I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this (at least as far as the economics go)
So the real debate is whether the potential economic benefit of expansion outweighs the dilution of tradition. I think that is the big issue that we are having. Teams all go through good and bad spells, but what is bothersome is bringing in schools without rich sports traditions.
For me, I am not thrilled with it, but I can see the need. I hope it does not become the start of a trend.
Excellent point that I have to second. I remember thinking the same thing during the game. I was very happy to see him recognize and take advantage of the free plays when they were given. That is definitely something that Denard was not doing.
Again, I think I have tended to downplay some of the credit given to Gardner, but this was definitely something he deserved a lot of credit for, especially as I think it is a particularly veteran move.
I think it was a really good performance by Devin. It was certainly better than I expected. I totally agree that it gives me more hope for next year.
But Brian (and others) have made points worth considering. The long TD to Dileo was a great play made by Gardner because he extended the play with his scramble, but the throw itself was made without setting his feet and made to a wide open receiver (i.e. a totally blown coverage) so you can't really say that he threw a dart to him. Give him points for keeping the play alive, and for having a strong arm, but is that the type of play that is really reproducible? I remember a similar wild scramble later in the game where Minnesota did not blow the coverage where Gardner wound up.. (er, actually I forgot if he took the loss or threw it away in the end).
I was actually more impressed with the strike he threw to Gallon in stride down the sideline- that one was in the face of a picked up blitz on a double move. Not a TD throw, but I thought a far better play- better pass- that I want to see out of our QB.
Again, it was without a doubt a quality performance. But it was one performance, and it was not the all star performance that some seem to be making it into. I hope it is the first of many quality games we see from Devin, and that he continues to improve. He certainly has the talent to do so.
I hope he gets his redshirt, but there has been some stuff posted lately that the staff is not optimistic about this.
On the veer, he is not a blocker- the nature of the option has him going in a different direction. But on designed QB runs (not read options), the RB is often a lead blocker for Denard.
Slow down. Gardner played one game. Against Minnesota. And you are ready to annoint him starting QB based on this alone?
.........
You're crazy.
(well, you did ask us to say it)
Well, it depends on what you mean by pressure. I tend to think that people complaining about Borges on the internet is not pressure.
Michigan is coming off a remarkably successful season last year, is in line for its second successful recruiting class in a row, has a 5-star QB coming in next year, is still in consideration for the B1G championship, and the "pressure" is coming because when our star QB went down, the backup did not play well.
No, I do not think Al Borges is feeling the pressure.
Don't know about other schools being in or out, but the stuff about Michigan being out of the running was pure speculation. The argument was that Michigan was such a great fit and since he had already had a big visit this summer, that if he were going to commit, he would have already done so.
The comment was, I believe, made by Mike Farrell. To his credit, he never said that he had information to this effect. He always said this was his own speculation. But some have taken it to mean more than I think it really means.
The kid could simply be taking his time to make sure that he is making the right choice. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, productive was a poor word choice on my part. Interesting would have been a better one. There have been some genuinely interesting speculation and infomation thrown out here from time to time and some thoughtful debates. But not going all psychotic over the same limited info.
But yes, that is the internets.
Thanks for clearing that up regarding the abbreviation for NW.
Still think it is unlikely that NW will win playing Michigan at home.
True, but on the other hand, against Nebraska the defense was repeatedly put in poor position by the offense both with turnovers and 3-and-outs. Also, I think that more than the spread style it was the high tempo that bothered us, and NW does not do that (at least not to the extreme that Nebraska does).
Your position is a completely reasonable one, but my issue with these discussions has always been that few people are willing to stop at "we just do not have enough information".
Rather, they insist on drawing conclusions based on whatever limited data exists. I suppose there is no real harm in that, but it is not all that productive either.
I hope that with the increase in numbers of offensive linemen on scholarship that the spring game is once again an actual game. I would really be interested in seeing Gardner and Bellomy play and see where they are after spring practice.
I think the line is about right. Nebraska is a similar spread style, but much more effective and we played them in Nebraska. We held them to 23. I think it is reasonable to think we would hold NW in the Big House to 14 points or sonething like that.
So the question is, do we think the offense can put up 26-30 points?
I have not reviewed NW defense this year, but I do not think that is unreasonable. Remember, for whatever reason, the offense does significantly better at home (more than the typical homefield advantage)
Apparently not all of us are quite so smart (response to inthebluelot).
IF Hoke is using an injury to take the heat off of someone, it is not Borges-- even if you think he deserves the heat (debatable), even if Hoke thinks he deserves the heat (doubtful), I am pretty sure Hoke feels Al is a grown man and can deal with the heat himself.
More likely, he would be protecting his player, who is, afterall, still a teenager. A move which makes me admire Hoke all the more.
I don't think there is any question- there is no way Bellomy could have made that play. But, I support the idea that we don't need to beat the kid up any more.
I think "disarray" is an overstatement. Drawing conclusions about what would have happened against Nebraska by extrapolating from a quarter and a half of Denard is fundimentally flawed thinking.
So the complaint is really over low scoring in the MSU game. One low scoring game does not equal disarray. Especially when it was by design a conservative plan. IU ran a wide open offense against MSU because they have no defense, so if they did not score 40, they had no chance to win- so a high risk, high reward style makes sense.
(by the way, Indiana lost despite all those points, we won with the offense in "disarray"- so I will take our strategy)
As for Borges not adapting, look at the offensive plans for Alabama, Notre Dame, Purdue, and MSU. There are 4 different offensive plans. You may not like them all, and certainly not all of them worked, but at the least it shows his adaptability in switching up the offense.
This is only the second game this happened. So it was not really "ongoing" until now. It happened against Illinois and was fine during the MSU game.
Not sure it could have been predicted, and we really did not need anything inhibiting his passing mechanics further.
Now that it has happened twice, they may look at a sleeve.
I am here in Manhattan and got the call- they warn that they MAY cut power if there is a danger of flooding at the sub-station. As far as I know, they have not (yet) deliberately cut power. However, there are power outages- I was on the phone with my cousin on Long Island when her power went out.
Was quiet here until about 4 PM, but things have picked up since then.
Do you really think it is fair to compare the back that is in for the majority of the competitive game with the one that plays mainly at the end in when the game is locked up?
I think that Toussaint has had issues, especially early on. But I think he has gotten better and has started running more North-South. I also like some of what Rawls has shown. But I do not think that you can directly compare the 2 based on their statistics.
Well, first, I agree that it is important to not overreact. Even in the case where a mistake may have been made, a mistake does not mean that we have bad coaches or that someone should be fired etc.
That being said, I think there is something else to be drawn from the history described above. Of the 10 QBs recruited since 2002 (Morris has not arrived yet), 5 of them transferred or left the program. Even if we exclude Mallett who clearly left because of the coaching change, the other 4 (Gutierrez, Richard, Forcier x2) left for reasons unrelated to coaching instability.
If 40-50% of the recruited QBs do not stay with the program, then it IS important to take one each year to allow for those that do not work out.
No doubt, a true Fr QB would not have helped us when Denard went down, but there is no guarantee that both Bellomy and Gardner work out next year, and it would be nice to allow Morris a chance to learn the offense and redshirt rather than being thrown in before he is really ready.
But again, recruiting is hardly a science, and you can't force these kids to pick Michigan. It is at best a source of regret, but should not be a cause of major recrimination.
As a physician (though not a physical therapist) I agree with most of what you said, but would add and amend a couple of things.
The swelling or inflammation in an injury like this is caused by blood flow increasing to the area. This increases delivery of white blood cells to fight infection and red blood cells to deliver more nutrition to the area. So the inflammation helps heal the area faster. This is the reason that an injection like cortisone to reduce inflammation is considered counter-productive. It does take away the pain (the pain is caused by the increased pressure caused by the inflammation) but reducing inflammation slows the healing of the area.
Cortisone is a steroid, but not an anabolic steroid, so it could never be used for "juicing". In fact, systemic use of cortisone and similar steroids actually promote muscle breakdown (although local injections have little such effect).
I have no idea if the NCAA allows the use of cortisone shots within games, but I am pretty sure that these injections are allowed (but regulated) between games.
Ice does reduce inflammation, and there are also non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. The most common are aspirin and ibuprofen, but there are also intravenous and intramuscular agents available which are much stronger and may also be used in place of cortisone.
As a physician (though not a physical therapist) I agree with most of what you said, but would add and amend a couple of things.
The swelling or inflammation in an injury like this is caused by blood flow increasing to the area. This increases delivery of white blood cells to fight infection and red blood cells to deliver more nutrition to the area. So the inflammation helps heal the area faster. This is the reason that an injection like cortisone to reduce inflammation is considered counter-productive. It does take away the pain (the pain is caused by the increased pressure caused by the inflammation) but reducing inflammation slows the healing of the area.
Cortisone is a steroid, but not an anabolic steroid, so it could never be used for "juicing". In fact, systemic use of cortisone and similar steroids actually promote muscle breakdown (although local injections have little such effect).
I have no idea if the NCAA allows the use of cortisone shots within games, but I am pretty sure that these injections are allowed (but regulated) between games.
There are also non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. The most common are aspirin and ibuprofen, but there are also intravenous and intramuscular agents available which are much stronger and may also be used in place of cortisone.
There are both oral and injectable anti-inflammatory treatments available. Presumably he got both at halftime. Then it is just a matter of waiting to see if/when they work.
I also thought about the idea of putting him in to just run (he holds the ball in his other hand) but what would you do on 3rd and 10? And if you did not pass on that down, I think Nebraska would figure out pretty quickly that he was absolutely zero passing threat and even Denard can not run against 11 defenders keyed to play the run. Plus you run the risk of further aggravating the injury. And hand-offs and snaps become problematic as well.
So I don't think there was any alternative to holding him out of the game until his grip came back.
How long is Stave going to be out? I did not see anything on what his injury was.