- Member for
- 8 years 1 week
- Restores the importance of classic bowl games with some of the pagentry and conference rivalries of old;
- Maintains intra-conference rivalries by ensuring that teams play everyone in their conference;
- Places emphasis on winning your conference;
- Gives O8 teams a shot, but makes them "prove" themselves.
- 3-4 extra games is significant, even if it only affects 10 teams.
- It is theorectically possible, but unlikely, for the #3 ranked team to get shut-out.
- While #3 getting shut out is unlikely, the chances of a team in the 5-10 range getting shut out is significant. Of course if you win your conference this is a non-issue.
|2 weeks 14 min ago||Semifinal||
I was at the semi-final game Saturday and the crowd seemed somewhat reasonably split and slightly subdued until Walton took over down the stretch. After Minnesota pulled close and Walton led the response, Michigan fans made some serious noise. Even from my club level (200) seats you could almost see the crowd energy flow into the players as they made the push to put the Gophers away.
|2 weeks 4 hours ago||I think Jim let the kids have||
I think Jim let the kids have fun for a while; that's how it got to be 5-1 before he took over. If he had been "too" serious, it would never have been 5-1.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||If you want to sit in the 400 sections...||
...then by all means, enjoy Ticketmaster.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||$||
There are plenty of tickets available, but prices jumped up quite a bit in the past ~36 hours. On stubhub, it's $150+ for the 100 sections and close to that for the 200s. Most of the 400 level is $100+.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Having fought several traffic tickets...||
...over the last 30 years, I also know that you are correct.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Hmmmm, I usually try to avoid||
Hmmmm, I usually try to avoid using the bathroom at Target, but maybe I am missing out?
|4 weeks 6 days ago||+1||
Honda has made some shitty V6 trannys
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I can't upvote, so just let||
I can't upvote, so just let me say: nicely done.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||maintenance level||
I'm not talking about the building but your daughter. Would you describe her as being slightly high maintenance and/or demanding or is she more carefree and independent? There's also the issue of perception of safety. I think the bottom line is that you get more building and amenity quality from a high rise and you get more "character" from a house or small apartment building. Some people think "quality" = boring/antiseptic and "character" = seedy.
In the high rises, everything is fairly new and it works. Common areas are more likely to be kept clean. If something breaks, you know who to call and it probably gets fixed quickly. The building is relatively secure and you don't have drunk guys creeping around in your bushes looking for a place to vomit on a Friday night. Parking (if a car is even in the equation) is more likely to be reserved, covered and secure. There are single family homes, SFH converted to apartments and small apartment buildings that are well maintained and managed and in very quiet neighborhoods, so it's not impossible to achieve a higher standard in a house or smaller apartment building, but you still will probably fall short of what you get in the high rise buildings.
Like many on here, I loved the houses/small apartment buldings that I lived in and wouldn't have traded that experience for a high rise. Then again I am the type of guy who once I moved away from home I never made my bed again and and I considered a couple of cases of empty beer bottles as a perfectly acceptable piece of furniture. I am not a post-millenial girl. Also, compared to other places I have lived, Ann Arbor is rather safe, but if I had a 19 year old daughter, I might not mind the idea of her being in a secure building.
I'll caveat all of the above with the fact that I graduated over 20 years ago and I haven't been to Ann Arbor in 10, but my guess is things are more or less the same.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||2005: Bass = devastating||
Bass = devastating injury before he had a chance to really contribute
Grady = Had a few moments, but mostly a bust with off the field issues
Slocum = Gone after 7 games with off the field issues
Manningham = great career
|8 weeks 3 days ago||Donald Young has not been in||
Donald Young has not been in the top 35 let alone top 5. Past that, the other three you mention all have had nice careers; hitting the top 5 (or at least close) is impressive. That being said, they have a combined zero grand slams. Actually, if memory serves none of them have made a grand slam semi. Again, I respect the pro grinders that work their way into the top ten, but if the next generation of American men's tennis players looks like the post Sampras-Agassi-Courier-Chang generation then I think most will view it as a failure.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||I'm a bit skeptical as well.||
I'm a bit skeptical as well. I have much more hope on the women's side, but I am extremely skeptical about US men's tennis. I think that the group of players you list is more likely to win zero grand slams combined than they are to win as many as just Venus (7). Granted, 7 is a high bar, but an over-under of combined slams set at 3 would make it pretty easy to take the under.
Then again, in one tournament Coco went from shotmaker/hitter to a bonafide "player". Hopefully this is not a flash in the pan. If the way she played in Australia becomes her new normal, she is definitely a slam contender.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||You are totally wrong about||
You are totally wrong about "juicing" not making a difference. They said the same thing about baseball pitchers for years. That was based on the misconception that juicing was all about building massive muscles for raw strength and power. That's how they were used in the 80s, but for at least 20 years, the use of steroids has been as much about enhancing recovery and enabling muscles to work at peak performance longer/more frequently. Roger Clemens had a blazing fastball before he started juicing. Steroids may not have made his fastball better, but they allowed him to throw more of those fastballs and to be able to throw them again on less days of rest, especially as he got older. The parallel to tennis should be obvious.
Also, "juicing" doesn't just mean steroids. A host of "supplements" are out there that allow you to play at peaks levels longer and to recover much more quickly so that you can maintain a high level over a two week tournament.
Why do you think Sharapova (not to mention scores of Russian athletes in many sports) use/d meldonium? Do you really think it was for an irregular heartbeat? Why did she keep taking it even after she was informed that it would be banned? Do you really think no one on her team saw the numerous emails and social media notifications that were given by WADA and the WTA? I think the reason she kept taking it is after using it for so many years, she believed it was the key to maintaining performance longer and shortening recovery times. She was willing to take the risk of getting caught because she felt she couldn't perform without it.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||I'm with you. I'm looking for||
I'm with you. I'm looking for one more grand slam for both Federer and Venus.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||My wife is a major Serena||
My wife is a major Serena fan. In addition to watching tennis, she spends a lot of time following the WTA and Serena on multiple social media outlets. Bullshit comments like this (and MUCH worse) are par for the course. Anytime I start to think that human decency is staging a comeback, my wife reads a few comments from Serena and the WTA's Facebook pages and I am reminded how nasty and ignorant so many people can be.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||RIP Tirrel Burton. I am now||
RIP Tirrel Burton.
I am now trying to wrap my head around the idea that someone was RB coach before Fred Jackson...
|10 weeks 1 day ago||Farewell||
As a former walk-on/scrub on the track team ~25 years & 40+ pounds ago, this is another piece of news that makes me feel old. Thanks.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||Old School Revival||
6 "power" conferences (P6) with ten teams each. That means 5 current P5 schools get the boot. The conferences would be Big Ten, SEC, PAC 10, ACC, Big East and Southwest. Each school plays every team in their conference plus 3 non-conference games.
There would also be 8 "other" conferences (O8) with 9 teams each. That's the current 60 G5 schools, plus the 5 that got the boot from the P5 plus the 4 independents plus 3 new to D-I/FBS teams. each school would play every team in their conference plus 4 non-conference games
Bowl games for P6 are set up that match conference champs against each other: Rose=Big vs. PAC, Orange=SEC vs. Big East and Sugar=ACC vs SW. The 3 winners of these bowl games would automatically qualify for the play-offs as the 1, 2 and 3 seeds and get one week off before they play again.
Meanwhile, the top 2 ranked O8 schools and the two higest ranked non-conference champion P6 schools would be seeded 1-4 (based upon ranking) in a 4 team play-off. The first round games would be home games for the higher ranked team. The Fiesta Bowl would host the winners of those two games. The winner of the Fiesta Bowl would then become the 4 seed in the overall play-off.
The resulting 4 team play-off would be pretty straight forward.
This is basically a 10 team play-off. To win the NC, a conference champion would have to win 3 games in 4 weeks. A P6 non-conference champion or O8 school would have to win 4 games in 4 weeks.
|25 weeks 3 days ago||I lost my father (1999) and||
I lost my father (1999) and my sister (January) to cancer. You have my prayers.
|28 weeks 23 hours ago||This is the first post that||
This is the first post that made me wish I had enough points to upvote.
|29 weeks 4 days ago||del||
|29 weeks 4 days ago||39-0||
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Play for free||
Has a player ever gotten the firm handshake & decided to return and play out their eligibility without a scholarship? Examples?
|2 years 8 weeks ago||It's the state||
|2 years 8 weeks 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".
|7 years 14 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....
|7 years 29 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.
|7 years 40 weeks ago||Tired cheapshot alert..||
Can I get a VA Tech Sweater for my dog with Vick's number on it?
|7 years 40 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.
|7 years 40 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.