no, YOU'RE off topic
- Member for
- 5 years 45 weeks
|4 days 8 hours ago||It's the state||
|4 days 8 hours ago||It's the state||
Moving on past the GP haters versus apologists sideshow....
I think looking at state-wide economic dynamics is useful. Here's a simple indicator:
In 1960, Michigan was #1 in per capita income among US states.
By 1980 its ranking had dropped into the mid-teens.
In recent years it has been ranked in the mid-to-high 30s.
While we can parse the relative merits of one Michigan community versus another, I think the larger historical trend afflicting the state speaks loudly. True, past performance is not a guarantee of future outcomes and there are reasons to believe (hope?) Michigan has turned a corner. Nonetheless, I regrettingly find it hard to call anywhere in Michigan "stable".
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Scholarships should be longer||
I've been advocating* longer scholarships for athletes for years. With a 6 year scholarship, athletes could spread their studies across a longer period and - yes - have more time for their sport. I see no good reason why athletes should be required to take more than 2-3 classes in-season. Those who claim to be purists about "student-athletes" will get their shorts in a know over this one, which to me is ridiculous. If a low income, non-athlete student works at McDonald's 20-30 hours per week to pay the bills, takes 2-3 classes per semester and graduates in 6 years, we applaud his or her effort. We should. If a student-athlete does the same, why do we have a problem with that?
The only objection I give any time to is that of cost. We are after all talking about increasing room and board expenses by 50%. Tuition costs are theoretically the same because the number of credits is the same, but spreading them out over a longer period of time will lead if nothing else to a bit more inflation on a per credit basis. At any rate, we are looking at increasing athletic scholarships to somewhere between 125% and 150% of current levels. Spread out over all of the sports, men's and women's, this is a lot of money. Now, I know MI would likely be able to absorb this over the long run, but most schools have troubled athletic department bottom lines as-is. Those schools would complain and allege the creation of a have and have-not system. While I do not necessarily have a problem with that -to hell with parity :)- enough people would. Now, it would get easier if we could restrict this to just football, but politically I just don't see that happening.
In the end, if we can get past people's holier-than-thou attitudes about what it means to be a "student-athlete" the only problem left is money.....
*By "advocating" I mean babbling about it with a friend over beers at a sports bar and/or posting a semi-coherent blog post a couple of times per year....
|5 years 21 weeks ago||Chait||
Jonathan Chait, a UM grad and senior editor at The New Republic rips Rosenberg pretty well here:
The article was published on a UM site and Chait is an alumn. However, he certainly qualifies as a high profile journalist.
He and Rosenberg were both at UM around the same time (as was I) and IIRC they both wrote for the Daily, so there is the possibility that a personal element lies under this. Nonetheless, he takes Rosenberg to task effectively.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||Tired cheapshot alert..||
Can I get a VA Tech Sweater for my dog with Vick's number on it?
|5 years 32 weeks ago||I still find your definition||
I still find your definition of impact player too narrow. Using that quote from Slater is cheesy. That's a piece of emotional fluff that was spoken/written to remember someone who had died. I generally don't look to eulogies for objective quotes. If you want, I can give you a quote from a coach who is talking about how his player will be "an impact player at the next level". By that definition, every kid who is recruited in HS is "an impact player". Someone said it, so it must be ture.
We're never going to agree here, but somewhere between "any player who makes any impact good or bad" at the one extreme and your "potential hofer only" on the other lies my reality and I will stick with it.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||I'm not sure Ben Gordon is an||
I'm not sure Ben Gordon is an upgrade over Rip. Sure, he's younger and a bit more talented as a pure scorer, but he is a step back on defense and needs the ball a little too much.
On the other hand, maybe his and Rip's attitude will improve with a change of scenery and BG + a frontcourt player is better than Rip + no one.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||Ah I see. Yes, there are||
Ah I see. Yes, there are some. For more perspective, of the last 10 second round picks made by the Pistons, 5 have played a game in the NBA. The only one who panned out (Okur) panned out for another team. Basically, the Pistons have gone 1-for-10 in getting a quality player in the second round and that's probably above the league average.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||By your definition there have||
By your definition there have only been about 5 "impact" players in the last 10 years. That's ridiculous. Impact player does not mean "MVP candidate".
Impact player means a quality starter. In his second year, Stuckey is that and he is likely to improve.
As for the statement that no one will come to Detroit, while you raise some real barriers, you underestimate the appeal of $$ and overestimate the number of teams really willing or able to part with it. At least half of the league's teams have salary cap issues and/or are looking to tighten their belts. The situation will likely not be much different in 2010. I really have no insight on Mrs. Davidson or whoever is running the team now, but if they are willing to give out a bloated contract, someone worth signing will be interested. It may mean they need to take a risk on someone like Boozer and/or giving a longer deal than they would like, but they would have a shot.
I won't be surprised if they do strike out, but for most anyone they go after, they will only be competing with 2-3 other teams and they will have a realistic shot.
If they do strikeout, then you are right, it's tank city time and pray your ball gets picked and that you guess right in the draft. We all know how it worked out the last two times the Pistons had top 10 picks (Darko and Rodney White). Early draft picks are FAR from a sure thing.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||I'd consider making a run for||
I'd consider making a run for any of Utah's PFs (Okur, Boozer, Millsap). The question with Okur is will Dumars be man enough to admit that letting Okur go and putting all of his eggs in the Darko basket was a huge mistake?
Why anyone would want Arenas on their team is beyond me. Agent Zero can stay in Washington.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||There are only two rounds in||
There are only two rounds in the NBA draft and the second round is a total crap shoot at best and a waste of time at worst. The Pistons are picking at 15 in the first round. Two years ago they got Stuckey at 15 and he appears to be an impact player, but the norm for mid-first round players is a role player with some "upside". This is a long-winded way of saying the Pistons aren't likely to improve much next year through the draft.
That doesn't answer your question but this might. This is the best compilation of Pistons draft pick projections I have seen:
As for who I want them to draft, that depends on what they do in the FA market. The "good news" is that the Pistons need so many pieces, especially in the frontcourt, to get back into contention that they are not forced to focus on one position and can probably "take the best player available". Whatever they do, I hope they don't take Mullens.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||Tecmo Bowl and/or Tecmo Super||
Tecmo Bowl and/or Tecmo Super Bowl are oftent cited, but I loved Walsh '93.
It's good to hear that they are still making PS2 games for us late adopters.
Between NCAA 08 and 09, which is better? How do they compare with Madden 08 or 09?
|5 years 45 weeks ago||Mitch?||
Since when did Mitch Albom become a contributor to this site and why is he being allowed to post articles signed "Brian"? :)
|5 years 45 weeks ago||So let's see, you're willing||
So let's see, you're willing to denigrate the '89 National Champions based on flimsy connections to a few shady characters, but you have no problem getting past the fact that Scott Skiles was a drunk and coke-head? Players like Rumeal Robinson, Glen Rice, Loy Vaught, Mark Hughes and all of the players on that team combined have not broken 10% of the laws that Skiles did in his "career". I know of nothing attributed to those players before, during or after their time at Michigan that impugns their names. Simply because they played for a couple of loose coaches and because they played after a coke-head (Tarpley) and before the Fab Five (I'm sure you just hated those cocky kids and their baggy shorts) you have no problem degrading their accomplishments.
Somehow Scott Skiles, who endangered countless lives while racking up records for drunk-driving arrests is your hero. I have no huge beef with Skiles. He was a kid when he did most if not all of that stuff and he seemed to eventually pull it together. Yet the fact remains, the members of the '89 National Championship team kept their noses clean and won a title while Skiles arrogantly and habitually disregarded serious laws and won nothing and you're tipping your hat to him. Right.