Coaches' timeouts are worse. Basketball teams should get one, full stop.
- Member for
- 3 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 days 1 hour ago||This is bad for schools in||
This is bad for schools in southeast and cali assuming that official visits would also be allowed earlier. This allows schools like UM, OSU, ND, etc. to get kids from CA and the Southeast on campus much earlier. Currently, you are forcing a kid from CA to pay his own way for an unofficial visit to Michigan...so what happens is those kids have to wait until their senior year for official visits and by then many people have alrady committed and Michigan doesnt have a chance to show off their campus. Assuming official visit timelines also shifts, you can get these CA kids to visit in spring of junior year.
|5 days 19 hours ago||The judge||
|1 week 3 days ago||I highly doubt he will be||
I highly doubt he will be able to get a medical redshirt. The NCAA just denied Christian Bryant of OSU of a redshirt under same circumstances after the season including denying his appeal.
|2 weeks 4 hours ago||Yes - anyone know what the||
Yes - anyone know what the logic is behind having break in the middle? Where are the players during that break? If they are on their own somewhere "fun" for break, isnt it safe to say they will come back in worse shape which will make the first few days back not as useful and the remaining days so few because two were spent before the break.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I think there are a few||
I think there are a few issues with what you have:
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Bball Antoine "the judge"||
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Go easy on this guy.||
Go easy on this guy.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||If he does that, that would||
If he does that, that would have been the most famous play in Michigan history.
|5 weeks 22 hours ago||I dont see your point as Dave||
I dont see your point as Dave Brandon's most significant accomplishments as AD here are in the big picture long term planning of facilities and the long term health of the department. Yes - he is involved with everything and alot of his decisions annoy people but he has done more for the long term future of the non-revenue sports than any prior AD has. If your point was Michigan went from an AD who treats it as a leisurely symbolic role to one that treats it as a 24 hr/day crucial role, then I would agree with you.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||If this is the issue, it||
If this is the issue, it seems like the university could address it by just laying out their general procedures for cases involving athletes without referencing anything with respect to the Gibbons case. I agree that this seems to be more and more likely but the only thing that makes me question it is the inability for the university to address it laying out these general procedural details.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Regarding 2||
You mention the letter to Gibbons announcing their prelim finding. How do we know that document was for Gibbons and sent to him. The daily article states it as an OSCR document but makes no mention of it being addressed to Gibbons. This is despite them being very explicit about the Dec 19th letter being addressed to Gibbons at his Florida address. Is it possible that this Nov 20th document was just an internal document addressed to a supervisor detailing their preliminary findings and that it was never meant or sent to Gibbons. Nothing in the daily articles refute this possibility. This was just an assumption people here made.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Personally i found his||
Personally i found his racquetball incident when he tried to hire Pitino to be more disturbing than the boat incident...at least it was more humorous in retrospect.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||It seems that the AD did not||
It seems that the AD did not invite The Daily today to the q&a with Hoke today. on Twitter, the Daily reporters seem angry (check Matt slovin who wrote gibbons article) and have been attacking hoke as a result. Stupid PR move to make the Daily angry here as they have attacked the athletic department more. From twitter reports, it seems that the Freep, News, MLive, Sam Webb, and Steve Lorenz (247 sports) were all there.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Seth - important timeline issue question??||
I raised this point earlier...where is it documented that GIBBONS was INFORMED of the Nov 20th letter/conclusion? I think we all made that assumption but there is no source that says Gibbons was notified of the finding of the document on that date or that any letter was sent on Nov 20th.
The initial daily article talks about a OSCR document with the conclusion. However, it never says it was addressed to Gibbons despite the article being very clear that the other Dec 19th letter was addressed to his home.
Additionally, in the friday daily editorial there is another passage that questions this assumption we made. It notes that the university determined there was a preponderance of evidence, that he played 3 days later, and goes on to criticize the internal communication between OSCr and the athletic department to allow this to happen. The focus seems to be on the OSCR not informing the athletic deparment to it conclusion at that point and doesnt mention a letter being sent.
Summary: In none of the articles, does it refer to the Nov 20th thing as a letter...rather it refers to it as an OSCR document. If you read it closely, it is logical to assume this is an internal document summarizing its finding only. I think myself and everyone somehow moved to concluding that Gibbons was notified of the findings at this time but nothing supports that assumption.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Really looking forward to||
Really looking forward to seeing how thepitching rotation works out. It seems like they may struggle to keep eah pitcher satisfied with enough innings during B1G play if Betsa is as good as advertised. This problem may be even worse next year as they have a top pitcher from Orange County coming in despite losing none of these 3 to graduation.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Daily just revised article about fax||
In the last 5 minutes, the daily has revised the article about the fax. They added a section where Ablauf has emailed them today saying his earlier comments were inaccurate about a discussion between Gibbons and athletic dept officials on the 19th.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Nov 20th letter?||
I went back and reread the initial Daily story. Are we certain that the Nov 20th letter was sent to Gibbons? The article refers to a document but in no place does it say that Gibbons was informed or sent the document. From the article, it almost reads as it could have been an internal document informing about the findings.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||EDIT: Delete I misread your||
I misread your comment initially so my post didnt apply here.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Exact quote from Meyer I see||
Exact quote from Meyer I see to be "he is working on some personal issues at home"
I know we on this board have in this case argued over the precision of terms like "personal issue", "family issue", "family matter" so I just wanted to clarify the quote from Meyer.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I guess it's pretty clear||
I guess it's pretty clear that we dont know...as one of you (Yeoman) thought we could be pretty sure it was sent to Gibbons only while the other (Section 1) said they would be surprised if it wasnt CC's to several UM admins. Others (not the two I mentioned) just make an assumption one way or the other to support their criticism or support of Hoke. We dont know.
Even outside of privacy laws, there is also a VERY GOOD case for NOT including the coaches on any information of the progress of the case...in order to avoid any appearance of the athletic department being able to influence the decision.
We dont know yet.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Yes - the Iowa issue is||
Yes - the Iowa issue is important. But I think its clear that no one knows yet if Hoke/Brandon had knowledge of that finding prior to the game. All we know is that the letter was dated nov 20th but not sure who if it was only sent to Gibbons and when it was received given that gibbons would have been out of town from 22nd on. Still alot of details needed to comment on the Iowa game.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Yes - the cases and many of||
Yes - the cases and many of the issues are very different as you point out. The Gibbons arrest points out the seriousness of the case relative to winston...but it also removes any talk of a cover-up as some suggested in the Winston case. Since Gibbons was arrested and investigated, it wasnt a case of something being covered up as some have used that incorrect term. Also, the Winston case is one where the accuser pursued the case while the Gibbons case was not pursued by the accuser after a few weeks.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I think you overstate||
I think you overstate this..The Daily's edge over the Freep, News, MLive is that whoever internally at UM that is leaking these documents illegally went to the Daily and not the other news media. Someone giving you a non-public fax with a signature on it makes it alot easier to write this story.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I think the Daily means it||
I think the Daily means it didnt get them "officially" from the university.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||are you saying ablauf||
are you saying ablauf provided the daily with the fax with the signature on it? i think not...
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Is it safe to say that there||
Is it safe to say that there is someone on the inside of UM that is unauthorized to do so but is feeding the Daily these docs? The first article expressly said that the expulsion letter was not provided to them by the university. Im pretty confident in saying it wasnt Gibbons that provided it to the Daily. Now they have the fax with his signature on it. Hmmm..the ironic thing is that I assume providing these items to the Daily is in violation of the FERPA rules itself.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I havent seen this written||
I havent seen this written anywhere...does anyone know how the Daily got the letter addressed to Gibbons regarding the expulsion? The main article specifically states that the document was not ontained from the university. Clearly this has held back some of the reporting from other media sources because no one else has this document. This isnt really relevant to any of the discussions in the thread but was just curious if this was determined.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Sorry about that..i wanted to||
Sorry about that..i wanted to add something to my post but was using the mobile app (which doesnt allow editing of previous posts) so i just added a new post and replied to myself so that they would be seen next to each other.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Your points are fair and I||
Your points are fair and I respect your viewpoint.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||I think it would matter to||
I think it would matter to both of us as to whether the coaches knew about it before the Iowa game. Again, as you state the timeline is ambiguous and we do not know if coaches (or even the player) knew about it before the Iowa game. After that, he never played again. He met with the committee on Dec 4th to discuss the findings so there was still another round of discussions before the punishment was handed out. Again, I dont disagree with most of your logic, I just think there is some key info missing (Iowa) that really could change one's opinion on the coaches overall behavior.