- Member for
- 6 years 13 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 16 hours ago||Wait--are you suggesting we||
Wait--are you suggesting we use the wolverine as a tight end in some kind of tackle-over formation? I figured we'd stop running those when we fired Borges, and besides a wolverine is a little low to the ground to be a very good receiving target.
|1 day 18 hours ago||It IS a squirrel: that's the||
It IS a squirrel: that's the only picture I could find on the Internet.
|2 days 12 hours ago||The problem with over-signing||
The problem with over-signing is that it creates a situation in which the program has to cut players regardless of whether they are, in fact, "hacking it." The analogy of players who fail to see significant playing time with academic scholarship recipients whose grades are slipping is pretty silly; there are plenty of requirements established for football players to maintain their scholarships, and players get cut for them often. The practice that is objectionable is cutting players merely because the coaches want to free up scholarship space for someone they think would be better. Not only does it leave players who were fulfilling the conditions of their scholarships out in the cold, but it undercuts the whole purpose of the scholarship cap by allowing teams to recruit above the caps and take only the best players after they've had time to assess their performance.
|1 week 1 day ago||If you read the details of||
If you read the details of the investigation, it's very difficult to come away with any impression but that Paterno knew exactly what was going on and actively participated in sweeping the matter under the rug, either out of loyalty to Sandusky or to protect his own reputation. Even if he had some reason to doubt the account of the player who gave him a firsthand report of Sandusky raping a kid in the shower, his reaction to the situation (to disassociate Sandusky from the football program) indicated that he knew something was up, and that his primary concern was for his and Penn State's reputation, not Sandusky's victims. The most charitable interpretation would be that Paterno was old and apathetic and wanted to avoid doing anything that would tarnish the program's reputation unless he was certain Sandusky was guilty. Given that there were apparently multiple incidents over the years, though, I've come to believe that Paterno knew of Sandusky's predelictions from at least the time of his retirement, and excused them for some reason.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I'm actually rather pleased||
I'm actually rather pleased to see that sort of thing, since it is evidence of the reason that Michigan can afford to pay NFL money to coaches without resorting to tacky corporate sponsorship deals that have a larger impact on fans' sensibilities:
Hackett: "Ira! We want to hire Jim Harbaugh, but we don't want to ask him to take a pay cut. Do you think you could spot us about ten million bucks?"
Ira: "Sure, Jim. Would you mind mentioning my family's name in connection with Harbaugh in a few official press releases?"
Hackett: "Ira, you drive a hard bargain, but I think we can swing that."
|2 weeks 5 days ago||This is thoroughgoing||
This is thoroughgoing nonsense based on a misconception of the nature of intellectual property. It is not possible to patent or copyright a color. It is possible to claim trademark rights (or, to use the more common term for this kind of thing, trade-dress rights) in a color, but as with any other trademark right it entails creating an association between that color and a product or service. For example, arbitrarily coloring fiberglass insulation pink or painting parcel delivery trucks brown could create a trade-dress right to the extent that those colors became associated with specific providers of insulation or parcel delivery. Those rights, however, would not apply to prevent anyone else from doing anything with those colors in themselves, only if the manner of use would create confusion as to whether the person using them was associated with DuPont or UPS.
In theory it might be possible for the University of Texas to claim some kind of trade-dress right in burnt orange (though trade-dress rights in a color usually revolve around the use of a color in a very specific context, and I'm not sure what that context would be with UT) but nobody associates burnt orange with Nike. The common misconception people have about trademarks is that they merely entail calling "dibs", when in fact that is neither necessary nor sufficient to obtain trademark rights.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||I should also point out that,||
I should also point out that, if one has trade-dress rights in a certain color, someone seeking to avoid an infringement claim would have to do more than change the Pantone shade a little bit. The relevant question in a claim would not be "is this exactly the same color as the one associated with the trademark owner?", but rather "is there a likelihood that consumers would be led to believe that the defendant's product or service is affiliated with the trademark owner?" If you wanted to manufacture pink fiberglass, it would do you no good to argue that yours is a slightly different shade from Dupont's.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||In order to trademark some||
In order to trademark some version of maize, Nike would need to create an association of the color with goods or services Nike provides, and even if they did it wouldn't prevent Michigan from using it on uniforms, because Michigan doesn't provide the same goods or services as Nike does.
|6 weeks 20 hours ago||I submit that "Urban is||
I submit that "Urban is coach" is a legit answer. Also the fact that he only schedules fifteen minutes of recruiting visits for "academic presentations", which is probably a euphemism for something involving nubile coeds anyhow.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Good Lord, these are some||
Good Lord, these are some insightful and unbiased observations. You should submit a dissertation proposal to Ohio State, although it might get rejected for being too similar to a dozen other current students' projects.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||In that context it is, since||
In that context it is, since it's intended to be the subject of the sentence. There isn't anything wrong with the phrase "us and Notre Dame" in itself; it would be entirely correct to say "all college football teams have advertising in their stadiums except us and Notre Dame."
|7 weeks 1 day ago||The last time Michigan hired||
The last time Michigan hired the lesser version of its rival's coach it turned out pretty well.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||So you're arguing that taking||
So you're arguing that taking a historically bad program and making it mediocre-to-good in five years is less impressive than taking a historically good program and making it mediocre in two? However short a timeline you use in assessing the state of a program, Arkansas was not a big reclamation project; they had one lousy season under John L. Smith and another under Bielma himself, before Bielma put up a season with two wins less than the season that got Nutt fired, presumably using players recruited around the time of Petrino's beating Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl. There may be reasons to dislike Mullen, but underachieving in comparison to Bret Bielma isn't one of them.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I'm not sure how the||
I'm not sure how the comparison to Bielma is relevant. Arkansas has been a pretty good team for decades; Nutt was fired because he failed to live up to the expectations he'd created, and Petrino had two ten-win seasons and would probably be there still if he weren't a philanderer. Bielma's second season mostly looks good in comparison to his terrible first season, not the recent history of Arkansas football.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||If our coach wants to leave||
If our coach wants to leave the stage at Michigan with deep and admiring recognition, he's pretty much S.O.L.; that ship sailed a long time ago.
Also, I suspect the players have at least a vague idea of what it takes to win in Columbus; it generally entails being a good football team, and there's the rub.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Isn't the record against both||
Isn't the record against both 1-6 since 2008? Maybe it's time to scale back our ambitions even further--Penn State or maybe Illinois could be our new rival. Northwestern's been a pretty even match.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, it seems that they're||
Yes, it seems that they're projecting Michigan to drop its last two, which actually makes a lot of sense.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Correcting my correction:||
Correcting my correction: it's Central in the Cactus Bowl.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Correction: They have||
Correction: They have Michigan in the Cactus bowl, and Western in the Armed Forces bowl. It's a sorry reflection on the season that that could even be a point of confusion.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||This is an example of one of||
This is an example of one of the strangest aspects of sports fandom: the notion that fans' "support", in the sense of having positive feelings or optimism about a player or a team, has any impact on that player or team. I suppose there are minor ways in which the behavior of fans is noticeable to players; attendance and crowd noise at games seem to matter somewhat. I suppose some players even make the mistake of reading commentary about themselves, although I'd hope that after five years of playing college ball Devin Gardner isn't crying in his cheerios every morning because yahoos are saying mean things about him on the Internet. But the underlying conceit of this post seems to be that, if enough Michigan fans believe hard enough, the team can beat Ohio and we'll all live happily ever after. I suspect this phaenomenon is similar to how people come to be so wrapped up in television shows that they lose the ability to distinguish between actors and the characters they play; the emotional connection is so strong that they lose sight of the fact that the relationship they have with the performance is strictly passive, and the world in which they're so invested is not one in which they can participate.
For my part, I haven't even bothered to turn on most Michigan games this year, since the prospect of watching three hours of lousy football isn't tantalizing enough to schedule my Saturday around it. I am rooting for Michigan to make the Heart of Dallas bowl this year, because the Cotton Bowl is only a few miles from my house, which may make it worth buying a ticket.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||I'm not a Harry Potter guy||
I'm not a Harry Potter guy either, but I'm pretty sure the Slitherin crew was only bad in the sense of being sinister and unscrupulous, not incompetent. The house that just sucked at everything was called Hufflepuff or Puffinstuff or something.
Harry Potter's so damn confusing.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Maybe he's not talking about||
Maybe he's not talking about non-athletes. Maybe he's really a wizard, which would explain the beard.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||It is hardly surprising that||
It is hardly surprising that Hoke would prove to be weak-willed, since it now seems he was hired primarily to play the lickspittle yes-man to an egomaniac.
After some reflection on the Rodriguez years, though, I wonder if even Hoke can be as bad as his record this year. When he was hired, his record was pretty mediocre compared to what most people thought Michigan could get, but he was generally regarded as a non-power-conference coach on the rise and his qualifications were at least plausible. More to the point, with the amount of talent he has and two coordinators with national championships, a tree stump should have a winning record in the Big Ten.
I'm convinced that somehow there is behind-the-scenes institutional malaise making Hoke even worse than he would otherwise be. I hope that it will be dispelled when they can the arrogant ass who thinks that a few years of polishing pine for Bo make him an expert on how to run a football program, but I worry that it might go deeper than that.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Maybe you're right that it||
Maybe you're right that it wasn't just the dollar amount as such that made Casteel's decision. Maybe he saw one of the wealthiest athletic departments pushing back over a few thousand dollars and some two-year contracts while negotiating to hire one of the hottest coaches in the country and realized that Rodriguez was facing a level of institutional dysfunction that Casteel wanted no part of.
That would have been awfully perceptive of him.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Also, if you're wondering why||
Also, if you're wondering why Carr would ever think he had the right to have a say in who his successor hired, or would get bent out of shape when he discovered he wouldn't, I have a theory about that as well: it's part of the Schembechler mythos. Bo made a big deal about how important it was to him that, when he retired, he made sure that the only one leaving would be him, and offered that story up as an example of loyalty. I could easily see Carr believing that, by preventing him from doing the same, Bill Martin and Rodriguez were essentially preventing him from upholding Bo's standards of loyalty.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||It wasn't that Carr wanted to||
It wasn't that Carr wanted to be a cheapskate, it was that Carr resented making any kind of effort to bring in Rodriguez's people because he thought Rodriguez wasn't giving his people a fair shot. If memory serves, the closest Bacon got to a theory about why Carr suddenly became hostile to Rodriguez, after having advocated for considering him initially, was that the shift occurred around the time that it was driven home to Carr that Rodriguez had no intention of hiring a significant number of Carr's assistants.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, I didn't really think||
Yeah, I didn't really think there was much dispute anymore about the fact that Casteel begged off (and some of the other assistants considered bailing) because of the somewhat insulting offers they were made, which entailed moving their families to make the same money with no job security. As to the irrationality of making those offers, the theory I gleaned from Bacon was that it may have had something to do with placating Carr, who was angry that Rodriguez wasn't going to give serious consideration to hiring Carr's assistants instead.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||There's maybe an argument to||
There's maybe an argument to be made that Rodriguez's recruiting style and schemes are better suited to playing the upstart and underdog than maximizing the institutional advantages of a traditional powerhouse program; I think there's a good chance he would never have succeeded at Michigan. But it's nonsense to say that Rodriguez's teams have never been good on a national scale. The team that suffered the "choke job" after Pat White was injured, and that would otherwise have played in the BCS championship game, made pretty short work in the Fiesta Bowl of an Oklahoma team that was supposed to have the best defense in the country. Arizona's big win this season was over an Oregon team currently ranked fifth in the country despite that loss, who easily handled State, who did things to Michigan last Saturday I don't care to recall. I haven't the slightest doubt Arizona (like any other good team) would hand Michigan its ass this year, using a much lower level of raw talent. I still think firing Rodriguez when Michigan did was probably best for all concerned, but the notion that "Rich Rod sucks" in any objective sense is belied by events.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||I agree with this idea, in||
I agree with this idea, in that Rodriguez clearly compounded his misfortunes in multiple ways. Arizona should be sending Michigan a big fruit basket, not only for applying the stink of failure to a coach they would have had no chance of getting otherwise but for giving him a baptism of fire in all the more unpleasant aspects of being a head coach.
But the fact remains that the roll Rodriguez is currently on makes it seem ever clearer that, for whatever reason, Michigan is the kind of place where a guy who's been successful everywhere else he's coached can have a losing record--and right now it sure as hell isn't because the Big Ten is a harder conference to play. I find that a sobering thought on the eve of another coaching search.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||I'm a little disappointed||
I'm a little disappointed that there doesn't seem to be much consideration given by Wikipedia latinists to translating the "web" component as "araneum" or a cognate. Since the English is a very intuitive abstraction of a very concrete word, I see no reason not to translate it literally, not to mention that it's much more poetic. I'd vote for "diurnum aranei" or something like that.