Member for

15 years 8 months
Points
418.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
Nope, pretty sure it's the…

Nope, pretty sure it's the hockey tournament. You may want to warp it into something else, but I'm not taking that journey with you. Nor am I patting myself on the back; we've all lost the chance to support the team today.

Must be missing where I…

Must be missing where I called any of those groups out in my post or how they're impacted by the NCAA men's hockey tournament. That is the topic of this thread, if I'm not mistaken.

I want to say wtf, but some…

I want to say wtf, but some part of me is just not surprised about something like this happening to the hockey program. So disappointed for the team.

1) CFR among those college…

1) CFR among those college aged is more like 0.1%-0.2%, not 0.01%.

2) Not everyone involved is in that age range. You're failing to account for coaches, trainers, officials, support staff, and probably others I'm not thinking of.

3) Death isn't the only "dangerous" outcome.

4) What do you have against sheep, snowflakes, and keeping people safe?

Serious questions, I'm…

Serious questions, I'm curious about others' viewpoint. How many excess COVID-19 infections among athletes do you expect if they play? How many do you deem an acceptable number? What about deaths?

Expressing that opinion by…

Expressing that opinion by calling people cunts is the problem. It's not worthy of a ban, but its not exactly measured, reasonable conversation.

Dude, try to be better than…

Dude, try to be better than those you're chastising. Slurs are uncalled for.

I think you've made your…

I think you've made your point, it's unnecessary to keep updating the death total. I have no idea if Tylerduke1963's thinking has come around on this issue. I certainly hope so, but if not, continuing in this way is unlikely to make a difference. He's probably not even reading this thread anymore.

I know you're not taking any pleasure in the climbing toll, but let's not forget that those who died in this pandemic deserve better than being being used to score internet points.

Time will tell on the…

Time will tell on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. Already there's at least one study, albeit small, casting doubt on the treatment regimen. Even taking your claim at face value, it's not all that unlikely that 100 patients would survive a disease with a mortality rate that has varied in the range of 0.5%-3%. That's leaving aside the question of how many of those cases are closed or required the ICU or ventilation. I'd love some good news on this front. Until then, it's premature to allow the possibility to have any effect on policy.

As for comparing this to the flu: no one will be able to definitively say what would have happened had we not taken these drastic steps, but early estimates put it in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. While the truth is that no one knows, it's not unreasonable to listen to epidemiologists in the face of uncertainty over a new disease. They, of course, could be wrong, but you haven't offered any evidence or reason to trust your gut feel over their warnings.

It's hard to take you…

It's hard to take you seriously, but I will say one thing: no one will be able to say what the death toll would have been without these unprecedented measures. You may still (sadly) be proven wrong. If you are, I hope you learn to trust public health experts over wherever it is that you're getting your information now.

Glad that whatever you had…

Glad that whatever you had wasn't bad, but note that it could still be the flu since the yearly vaccine is never close to 100% effective. Early estimates for this year's batch are that it reduces your risk by about 50%.

They are estimating 12 to 18…

They are estimating 12 to 18 months for testing, approval, manufacturing ramp up, and distribution if we find a vaccine that actually works. We have some candidates for which we are hopeful, but it's unclear how long it it would take to find another candidate if those fail. And when the virus mutates, there's no guarantee that some of these types of vaccines will remain effective.

You're right, which is why…

You're right, which is why people who know what they're talking about haven't claimed we're trying to contain it for a while now. It's all about mitigating the impact and buying time. I'm trying to stay civil, but the fact that you continue to claim otherwise means you're either disingenuous or not paying attention.

I can respect this; at least…

I can respect this; at least you give a rationale for your stance. However, you're missing many fundamental points. Please listen to the public health experts who know what they're talking about (of which I am not one) and consider the following:

1. There is ample evidence that there are (and were early on) infectious asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2. The current infectiousness estimates (R0) peg it as worse than 2009 H1N1 ("swine flu") and on par with 1918 H1N1 ("spanish flu"). It's been a while since this pandemic could be contained by what you're calling reasonable precautions.

2. "Pre-loading" isn't really a thing. Once you lose contain, it's likely to start exponential growth if you don't take drastic measures (and might still do so even if you do). Maybe lot of early contact with China moves you along the beginning part of the curve more quickly, but that's about it. We're now at the point of trying to stretch it out and buy time, not stop it.

3. Yes, Italians are, on average, older than Americans. They also smoke more. On the other hand, they have a longer life expectancy and lower rates of obesity, asthma, diabetes, and COPD. So it's not at all as clear cut as you think.

4. This strain is not going away, China will undoubtedly have more coronavirus deaths. They are where they are today, though, *because* they shut down schools and businesses in the affected area.

5. We are always more prepared for the yearly seasonal flu and we were more prepared for 2009 H1N1 than we are for SARS-CoV-2, even now. This is also a more impactful disease, so don't use those as comparison points.

6. We don't yet know whether recovered people gain long term immunity. 

7. Like influenza, this is an RNA virus and is therefore expected to have a relatively high rate of mutation. This can be problematic for drug and vaccine development and could result in a worse strain appearing. 

8. If we don't act, the economic impact of a repeat of 1918 would be much worse and take much longer to pull out of. Not to mention, you know, millions dead.

It's true that most people who get COVID-19 will survive and not require hospitalization. That doesn't mean it's not a public health emergency. I take no glee in this; I'd love to be proven wrong and have the death toll be 4K without taking any drastic measures. Nothing points in that direction. Please take it seriously, don't yawn.

If we can keep it to 16.5k,…

If we can keep COVID-19 related deaths to 16.5k (over the next, say, year), it will be a massive win and we'll need to seriously thank our public health officials. The more likely scenario is that we see a significantly higher death toll than that.

Constructive. If you don't…

Constructive. If you don't agree that this is something to take seriously, at least do us the courtesy of explaining why. Also, stay away from me and my family.

BTW, didn't neg so as not to pile on, but you deserve it.

I see, I was not aware of…

I see, I was not aware of that. Apologies for my presumptuousness.

The reason it would have mattered if you weren't the author is that copying articles potentially deprives the author on several fronts - the choice of how and where to post their content, site visitation, and ad revenue to name a few. It also may be copyright infringement.

Please don't copy the whole…

Please don't copy the whole article. At least you linked the original.

It's not just you. There has…

It's not just you. There has been a increase in number of redirect ads on the site recently. These are dangerous and Brian needs to be more careful about the types of ads he accepts or ad networks he works with. It's gotten to the point that I'm starting to not feel comfortable visiting MGoBlog.

This. A P5 team that wins…

This. A P5 team that wins out will almost certainly make the playoffs regardless of OOC schedule. Playing a real game or two outside of your conference might give you a small margin if you slip up.

I am one of the people that…

I am one of the people that don't like the status quo, but I am certainly not cheering this on. Whether or not I think it's a big deal depends on specific details I don't yet have.

The rules should be changed for everyone. Until then, no one should be accepting or turning a blind eye to impermissible benefits (or accept the punishment when they do).

1. Do you have a source for…

1. Do you have a source for your $250K and $60M figures or are you making up numbers? Also, are you talking profit or revenue (the more commonly used metric)? Careful if you're trying to use profit, because that would invite a discussion on what the expenses are.

2. Michigan is only allowed to give out 85 scholarships a year, so clearly whatever number you pick can't apply equally to all players on the roster (or even who actually play). This is a reflection of the fact that players' values to the team vary significantly.

3. Aside from a perfunctory sentence in your last paragraph, you're treating non-monetary compensation as if it were monetary without highlighting the limitations. I can do whatever I want with my salary, but players can't. There are doubtlessly some players who would rather not take part in the activities to which you're assigning value. They likely do so because they feel they must so that they give themselves a vague chance of making it to the NFL.

4. Other than ijohnb speculating on other people's opinions, the only people using the word "exploited" in this thread are those defending the status quo.

5. Screw Ohio State.

If only there were some way…

If only there were some way we could figure out the value of their services. Someone should invent something like that, I bet it would be a big hit. A capital idea, one might say.

I'm not arguing against NIL…

I'm not arguing against NIL payments, I'm only pointing out that the current legislation will have negative consequences.  Again, i'm not saying those consequences outweigh the gain, i'm just saying some thoughtful and organized oversight will be needed.

I agree with this. The law represents a significant departure from the status quo and will likely take some fine tuning. The biggest problem, of course, is that it only applies to schools in California and disadvantages schools in other states. Luckily, there are several years left before the law enters takes effect. Assuming the law survives the likely court challenges, I have no doubt we'll to see a national framework before that time.

I also have some concerns with ambiguities and holes in the law but see it as a significant positive step.

3. The bill states that the school cannot restrict the endorsement in anyway unless it conflicts with a university agreement with the same business.  It's unclear what happens if it's with a different business but still conflicts, for example someone signs a deal with Reebok while the school provides Nike gear by contract.

The law prohibits athlete contracts that are "in conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract" (see §67456(e) that it adds to the Education Code). That applies whether or not it's with the "same business," a phrase that does not appear in the legislation. However, it's not completely one-sided as the law also adds restrictions on what schools can put in their contracts.

4. The bill is only applicable while a student is enrolled.  It's unclear how to regulate the time between commitment and enrollment.

Currently, the NCAA has no authority over athletes before they join a member school. All the hoops those athletes have to jump through are caused by restrictions that will apply once they enroll (really, try to compete and/or practice with the team) as well as restrictions on the schools themselves. Additionally, nothing that I can see restricts the law's protections to only enrolled students. The only reference to enrollment in the legislation is a passage stating that scholarships are not considered NIL compensation. Athletes will be able to sign deals before enrolling and never face penalty from the NCAA.

1. I believe a player can put logos on their jerseys/helmets.  The school can bench the player but cannot touch the scholarship. They could literally look like NASCAR out there.

Uniforms are property of the school, the law does not create a new right for athletes to make unauthorized modifications. Furthermore, it only prevents schools from limiting the use of NIL "when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities." Games and practice unambiguously fall under this exception.

2. I do believe Nike/Reebok will stop paying schools to use their gear and instead go straight to the players.  It would be cheaper and more effective.  That's $10-$15 million per year that Michigan might lose. Nike will still probably sign a deal with Michigan to gain access to the players and block competition but it would be for less.

Broadly, I think this won't come to pass for the reasons laid out above. However, there may be some impact and I wouldn't be surprised if some schools were against the legislation due to concerns about reduced revenue. That, to me, is more of an indictment of those schools than the law. The hypocrisy of signing gigantic sponsorship deals and paying exorbitant salaries to the adults (who aren't putting their bodies on the line) while clutching their pearls over the erosion of the purity of college athletics boggles my mind.

3. There are incentives in the NFL to deter a holdout but it still happens.

I've never heard of an NFL player sitting out because a third party advertiser wasn't paying them enough. Meanwhile, we already have players sitting out in college. The developing situation at Rutgers and increasing number of football players skipping bowl games are examples that immediately come to mind.

I think you'll see players hold out in college for a better deal if they've become a star since there is very little reason not to hold out.

I can't tell if you are implying that the school could not revoke a player's scholarship and cut them in such a scenario due to this law. That's not the case, and those would be strong reasons not to hold out. Additionally, as with professional athletes, there's the damage it would do to their reputation (with fans, other schools, sponsors, and professional teams). I don't see players receiving NIL compensation having much of an impact.

4. I think you'll see some schools sell any tradition to try to get an advantage.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

For example, UM might actually bench a kid for wearing an Arby's logo on his helmet but Rutger might tell recruits they can do what ever they want with the jersey or uniform to make money.

Do you see much difference in terms of harm to tradition between Rutgers allowing players slap an Arby's logo on their uniforms (not that they could, more on that below) and Rutgers slapping the Arby's logo on their playing surfaces and scoreboards (which they can do, and someone probably does, now)? What about selling stadium naming rights?

NCAA cannot rule them ineligible if they are just exercising their NIL rights.  There are no comments in the bill about conforming to NCAA standards/bylaws.

The law does not need to specify that athletes must abide by NCAA rules. The NCAA can still enforce any rule that is not prohibited by the law. This includes the existing uniform standards, which I'm almost certain prohibit the kind of advertising you're contemplating.

5. Transfers will become more common since schools with a lot of boosters/sponsors start offering big money for a kid to transfer. [...] Small schools will never develop the affinity for the star players because they'll just lose them to bigger programs.  CMU/WMU/EMU etc will never keep a star player.  UM/MSU will have a booster step up and pay them more.

While this happens today, I can see the law encouraging some athletes who wouldn't have otherwise transferred to do so. On the other hand, I can also see it allowing some stars or recruits who blow up to stick with the smaller schools by bringing payments out from the shadows. Corporations have incentive to sponsor good players independent of school affiliations, whereas some of the boosters you invoke are operating today for the benefit of a single school.

6. A lot of people here say they hate the NFL because it's just a commercialized, money grab, full of divas, etc...

It's already overly-commercialized, and not because of the athletes. The schools, conferences and NCAA are gorging while the athletes are being fed scraps under the table.

isn't that what we just created in college but without a singular source of money (owners), cap limits or CBA/NFLPA? 

No, there are many differences, but I'll address your specific points. NFL players get sponsorship deals as well, so there's no "singular source of money" (which isn't really relevant anyway). The NCAA certainly caps how much a team can compensate players and it's much stricter than the NFL. Recruiting, eligibility, and transfer restrictions function similarly to parts of CBAs, just not the part that allows the employees to negotiate for their own benefit (which lawsuits and legislation like this seem to be taking the place of). Counter question: are all these unarguably good things?

Phil Knight offers him $1 million dollars not to play in the game and instead make a Nike commercial and oh by the way, we're playing Oregon. There could easily be a market to pay players not to play.   

This is possible under today's rules, but seems exceedingly improbably and regardless of the law. If a player is willing to completely cut ties, there's really nothing the team can do to stop them.
 

That was difficult to read.

That was difficult to read.

I'm going to respond to several points specifically, but at a high level most of the concerns you expressed aren't about what restoring NIL rights to college athletes will do to the game. They are about protecting young people from (probably overblown) hypothetical financially predatory contracts.

I would not be against well reasoned legislation expanding protections, but why single out sports in its absence? Would you be okay with other industries artificially limiting the compensation of all (except the very top, in some cases) young actors, musicians, or entrepreneurs who want to pursue the careers for which their skills make them uniquely suited? All while making billions of dollars for others off of their labor at cartel fixed pricing?

That is both mostly…

That is both mostly inaccurate and misleading where it is accurate. Quite an impressive feat.

There are many things at which computers are better than humans that few people would consider math done very quickly. Humans, on the other hand, are still the only intelligence of which we're aware that can do what could reasonably be considered novel math.

Why not just watch the NFL…

Why not just watch the NFL at that point?

Nope, lemon-shaped dick…

Nope, lemon-shaped dick flavored candies or GTFO.

I kid. Donating to a worthy charity is great, but do it only if you believe in the cause and organization. Don't do it because you feel pressured about a wild claim you made on a college sports message board.

No, you're reading this…

No, you're reading this wrong: we just want to know what you ate to get him back in the class. For future recruiting purposes. Also, does it work on players contemplating transferring?

You should have lied.

You should have lied.

That doesn't mean much, I…

That doesn't mean much, I bet you could find many pressers from recent years where it's not called "The Game". Maybe it's become more prevalent over time, but take heed of the old adage that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bet you a dollar you're…

Bet you a dollar you're wrong :)

 No need to be weirded out,…

 No need to be weirded out, your memory's not failing you quite yet. See my post below, the nickname's been around since at least 1971.

The earliest attestation I…

The earliest attestation I found that is unambiguous is from 1971:

"It was a tremendous feeling. This was my senior year, and I knew we had won the game."
Make that THE GAME.
It was almost THE LOSS.

https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754407/659

The Game reference 1971-11-21.jpg

I also found one from 1968, which would mean it predates Bo Schembechler, but it's not quite definitive. It could be argued that the capitalization is because it's a headline (though I do note that 'circuit' is not in title case):

Closed circuit!
The Game for $3

(https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754043/751).

I stopped looking because at some point my eyes glazed over.

1971 is the earliest…

1971 is the earliest definite attestation I've been able to dig up.

Here's one from 1986, the…

Here's one from 1986, the year of Harbaugh's guarantee:

The Michigan-Ohio State classic has always been known as "the game," but this year, for the first time since 1980, it is truly "the game."

https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754787/782

The Game reference 1986-11-86.png

2006? I'm shocked that…

2006? I'm shocked that people think it's that recent. No way.

A quick search shows it back to 1997 at the latest, and I bet older references will pop up:

So here we come, ready for battle - We look to The Game to provide the lore.

https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754985/1017

The Game reference 1997-11-22.png

I don't know that "renewal"…

I don't know that "renewal" is the theme we want to be promoting :) 

The obvious replacement is decay - it's appropriate on multiple fronts. It's pretty low-hanging fruit, but something simple like "Urban Decay" over a picture of a crumbling building or run down neighborhood could work pretty well.

I'm sure someone ambitious could work his moral turpitude into that somehow, but I'm too lazy to take in any further.

 Thanks for the great write…

 Thanks for the great write-up. I noticed a small mistake, near the end you said the following:

Michigan lost their national title bid with six seconds remaining in the championship game

Michigan lost to Notre dame in a semifinal, not the championship, game.

I'll just leave these here:

I'll just leave these here:

Seriously? We've "swallowed"…

Seriously? We've "swallowed" the narrative that's supported by all the evidence?

Take off the blinders. The best look for the school is a fan base that doesn't acquiesce to bullshit that endangers the welfare of student athletes in the interest of wins.

I've never seen an ankle injury cause anyone to stumble around like they're drunk. Limp, hop, fall down - sure. But I can't fathom how anyone who actually watched those plays could buy that it was probably just his ankle. Furthermore, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that he did have a probable concussion - the AD came out and said it (along with an ankle sprain).

I am not a doctor and I did not evaluate Morris, I can't say with certainty that he was concussed. The point, however, is that there were absolutely warning signs of a concussion. He should have been pulled *immediately* and had his helmet taken away. He needed to be held out for the rest of the game, no questions asked.

I don't know if the failing was with the medical staff, the coaching staff, or Michigan's procedures, but in the end it doesn't really matter. If that had been my child, I would have thought long and hard about pulling them out of the program and using legal action to force (transparent) change.

from each school

a male and female (since 1982) athlete from each B1G school

Disagree

There were two views that both showed the puck in the net; one was the from the camera on the opposite side, the other was from the camera directly above the goal. Even if only the former existed, why shouldn't that be used to make the correct call?

That's quite interesting,

That's quite interesting, Bluebells and maize (appropriate username for this topic). I wonder if there's a common genesis that both of these were copied from or if it's completely coincidental. The fact that you've also seen it other places would seem to point to the latter.

I forget to mention that the typo's in the lyrics to the Yellow and Blue, not the Victors. They're listed on facing pages in that book.

 

Minor quibble

Minor quibble (and maybe this has been discussed before), but he might be able to practice with the team (but not play in a game) without counting as a footbal scholarship. The NCAA rule book distinguishes between players who were "recruited...and/or offered financial aid to participate in football" and those who weren't. I don't know if that means recruited by any NCAA school or by the school he ends up attending.

Assuming it's the latter, he could redshirt with the football team before he and the coaches decide if he's going to continue. If he's going to redshirt for wrestling anyway and he's not sure about his choice, that's an option.  It would also depend on if he'd consider participating in both sports at the same time. That would be difficult since the two seasons overlap by at least a month, but it's been done before.

Beilein discussing a high

Beilein discussing a high school athlete with the media before he's signed his LOI would be an NCAA violation (with very few exceptions). I'm not saying Farmer didn't have an offer, but you're probably misremembering the article.

Sorry Six Zero, but those

Sorry Six Zero, but those Upton shirts should never have seen the light of day.

They may haved fixed it

They may haved fixed it, but there's a typo in the lyrics. It's "gleams like a tear", not "gleams lie a tear"

Bryant Scholarship

Bryant Scholarship

Yes, 1 in 6

 

1 in 6?   Both bits of good news are not for the same team.  Therefore, 2 teams of the 12 will get good news.  We are 1 of the 12, therefiore we have a 1 in 12 chance.

 

Using this logic, if 12 teams were going to get good news, Michigan's shot is still 1 in 12? 1 in 6 is the correct number.

 

/nerd