I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 3 years 16 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 days 5 hours ago||+1||
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Ya Hyuge was in the Naval||
Ya Hyuge was in the Naval Engineering Program. As for Morgan, good for him. Morgan went to my high school and has always been a pretty intelligent and focused guy considering his athletic potential. Many of our other athletes would leave because they couldn't or didn't want to stay academically eligible. However, Morgan is just one example in comparison to the hundreds of other main sport athletes that don't do it. From what has been reported, it seemed Michigan was trying to sell him on financial management instead of engineering. Edit: Got lazy and just posted both responses in this comment. Sorry.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Probably both||
It seems the coaches pushed Sports Management because it's easier to manage playing football than engineering. Anyone who did the engineering program at Michigan can tell you how difficult it is to do without trying to be an All-American DE. Hoke tends to be honest and up-front with recruits and probably told him that they didn't think he could do it so pushed the sports management front. Alabama probably had no such qualms and maybe honestly believe they can have him do both programs, although, knowing Nick Saban, I really, really doubt it.
|6 weeks 22 hours ago||This^||
It should also be noted/emphacized that a loss on Saturday would pretty much take us out of the Big Ten title picture. Big game + bye week = more focus and scrutiny on MSU.
|6 weeks 22 hours ago||I disagree that it would not||
I disagree that it would not be a "make" type pick-up. As you said, our recruiting class is solid so missing out on both would not "break" the class. However, it would leave us with a solid or top 30/25 class and without a pure SG (although Hatch probably could play SG/SF role if he is healthy enough to play). With him it gives us a top 15 class, maybe top 10 class, and a recruit for every position we need. Plus, some scouts say he is one of the best shooters out there so definitely would an enormous pickup.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Sorry Ill-advised question||
Didn't mean to put you on the spot. Good call on the impartiality. I'll just have to do independent research, instead of lazily asking you, utilizing this newfangled tool called the "Internet" and all these informative updates you/Ace/et al of the numerous other Michigan recuiting followers are posting.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||What would you list be||
What would you list be Brandon? I'm assuming Dillman would be on top?
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Do we think this is going to||
Do we think this is going to lead to further suspensions?
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Offering statements made by||
Offering statements made by former players alluding to possbile benefits to being a football player is some form of proof. Obviously the poster cannot produce the players to testify to it. I think you are criticizing it more for the statement's reliability, i.e. it is an internet poster on a forum saying that someone told him this was happening. And to a certain extent you should be dubious of claims. However, you shouldn't be blind to the potential problem or too naieve to think Michigan doesn't find benefits for its players, whether that be at a car dealership, with alums, or in the classroom. Although I hold Michigan to higher standards to most University's in this approach, I think the evidence points to Michigan also engaging in shady/questionable behavior on numerous occasions. Also, didn't Woodson admit during a civil trial that he had taken a few minor benefits from an agent before finishing his career up at Michigan (like a suit for the Heisman ceremony and a flight to a party or something)? I remember reading online about it somewhere.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Probably see more Henry||
It wouldn't surprise me to see more Henry at the 3-Tech instead of Black, although that means less rest for Washington at Nose unless they want to give Ash a few reps. This will be a less pass-focused offense than many of the other offenses we have seen this year, so I would guess we throw out some stouter fronts. Or maybe more of Heitzman at SDE and Godin/Wormley next to Washington. Regardless, Washington is going to get plenty of play and the Dline will probably show a little bigger than it has in the past few weeks.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Really?||
Could have sworn it was Sammie Wotkeens.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||The same was said about UMass||
The same was said about UMass and Indiana in 2010. The issue isn't so much a win or a lose; obviously people are frustrating and voicing their concerns over a loss (but it goes to the point made in this week's obsession about the criticism feeling more justified since we lost rather than if we won). The concern is how our team matches up against seemingly inferior opponents (their cumulative ranking is 12-19) compared to the more talented teams awaiting us down the road. Road games at Michigan State and Iowa aren't going to be easier than Penn State. Ohio, NW, and Nebraska all have offenses that have exploited our defense in the past. The point is a we might have been able to squeak out wins against Akron and UConn but the quality of product, much like 2010, at 5-1 appears better than it is because of the weaker level of competition. You can fall back on your old adage of a win is a win, but everyone knows that isn't true when analyzed across the length of a season.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||You seem to be implying that||
You seem to be implying that others criticizing his argument are not. However, the people disagreeing with him are making just as rational arguments and citing facts. Additionally, he is criticizing the Borges v. Gerg comparison but then makes a faulty comparison himself by comparing Michigan's offensive ranking after playing a cupcake schedule versus Gerg's defensive rankings after playing the full season. Although I do agree his level-headness is good, his argument and reasoning isn't more impressive than those disagreeing with him.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||We are also one field goal||
We are also one field goal and about one to two yards away from being 3-3. With UConn and Akron being two of the losses. Additionally, you are complaining about the Gerg comparison but you are equally wrong about equating our current offensive ranking to Gerg's end season ranking. Gerg's defensive rankings were based on playing the tougher parts of the schedule. We have yet to see the tougher parts of our schedule. Our offensive rank could resemble that after playing MSU, Ohio, NW, or Iowa. I think people are justified in being concerned (ignoring the fact that we are concerned about kids playing a college sport).
|8 weeks 5 days ago||The 3-4 OL can fluctuate||
The 3-4 OL can fluctuate based on needs and circumstances. See this and next recruiting class where we are only taking 2 OL for both classes, which I am not thrilled about. Would like 3 OL in the next class but is going to be supersmall and coaches know a lot more than me so they can do what they think is best. We took 4 and then 6 in back to back classes so that gives Hoke and Co a little more leeway. In relation to RR, his critical mistake was the 1 OL class in 2010 when he took 27 players overall. There needed to be 4 OL recruits and he only took 1. That was a huge mistake. In RR's defense, that mistake gets magnified by his 2011 recruiting class falling apart due to coaching change (see Fisher-starting at Oregon I believe-and possible 5 OL go elsewhere). As to your other points, you're right. RR had some successes and might have had more if his situation was more stable here but overall he had a lot of misses and too many misses based on guys not being eligible or being head-cases and leaving early. Maybe he could have built better and more consistent classes given better circumstances, but I would rather focus on the classes Hoke is building.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||Also, you possibly/probably||
Also, you possibly/probably overestimating the lack of dissenters or people that unanimously agree with Brian or the other blog leadership. Although generally I either agree with Brian or understand Brian's points, there are plenty of times I disagree with him (or others) but I don't bother to comment or criticize it. Not necessarily because I realize voicing an opinion on the internet can be quite frivolous or fruitless, but because I am lazy. Additionally, I'm always fine with people criticizing him or his ideas; however, that doesn't stop me critiquing the criticisms for being meritless, hypocritical, etc.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||You are most certainly||
You are most certainly correct about the attorneys loving these lawsuits. Will make a nice chunk of change on payment of attorneys' fees. Someone in an earlier post linked an SI article in which the lead attorney mentioned how they were going to try and ensure payment is dispersed to all eligible parties. I do hope that will happen.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||As some of the above posters||
As some of the above posters mentioned, there are plenty of schools that do fine without large athletic programs. However, you are right that having a successful football or basketball program (other athletic programs can qualify depending on area; see Hockey at North Dakota or BC or baseball in some southern programs etc.) does significantly boost camraderie and school spirit along with providing an identity which is something alums and prospective students love. I remember when I did a program in DC and we had a bunch of UC students (from Berkeley, Santa Cruz, etc.) students with us; I remember several of their students being incredibly envious of the Michigan having a football program and wishing they had chosen a school with a football program or a more successful one (Berkeley students because apparently its students and alums aren't into the program like Michigan students and alums are). This identity/camraderie does provide a unique interest that cannot be denied. I wasn't trying to argue the athletes shouldn't receive increased compensation for their services. As I noted, their input into the University brings more immediate returns than a general population student and the athletes' return on investment comes with significantly more risk or less stability. I just wanted to depict the complexity of this picture. For example, Michigan football players are worth on average $470,000, but is Joey Kerridge or a random walk-on worth the same as Devin Gardner or Taylor Lewan? We need some intelligent people to sit down and figure out, hopefully, the best system to compensate players. Sorry for length.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Yes, because Stephen Ross did||
Yes, because Stephen Ross did not donate millions upon millions of dollars to the University recenty. Plenty of "normal" grads bring a lot of return for the university. However, yes, we don't bring in Engineering, Business, LSA, Pre-Medical degress, etc. for the same reason we hand out scholarships to football or basketball players. The skills and experience they bring to the University is quite different. As you say, there definitely deserves to be a more equitable distribution of the money their play brings in. However, as to the previous poster's point, football players at Holfstra, Montana, and Delaware, etc. bring in significantly less money into their universities. Plenty of schools or their independent athletic programs do not rake in nearly as much money as Michigan and the programs are still handing out significant scholarships. Although I generally agree with your overall point, I think a bigger focus of the criticism should be on how these academic institutions and fan-bases treat the players. If the idea is going to be a free education, the focus should be placed on this being an academic experience and not as an athletic experience. Often, this is where the process fails as players are steered into remedial courses or professors craft special class requirements around the athletes schedules. And to be fair, many athletes don't really look upon their time at the school as an academic experience but rather an extension of their previous success. Nonetheless, if the point is the compensation comes through academics, the NCAA and universities should put their money where their mouths are (obviously not going to happen). Clearly there is a difference between an engineering student on scholarship versus a football player on scholarship; he/she is encouraged to excel academically in order to bring greater returns for the unversity, whether scholarly or through tangible reinvestments (of returns in the professional field: financially or prestige-wise), whereas the foobtall player/athlete is encouraged to succeed earlier to bring more immediate returns to the University. The criticism should be the University (and all others) are acting in its own interest at the cost to athletes: an engineering degree is more stable long-term than an athlete's general interest degree without any focus on a career path. However, similar things could be said about the general LSA student population. In sum, you're both correct, but far more complex picture.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||We definitely need to know||
We definitely need to know more facts before anyone can say it's prostitution. Mainly, what are Oklahoma statutes on prostitution and what, if any, were the tangible benefits, probably need cash or something of financial value, the girls accrued through the program. Until more emerges, anything is just speculation. I agree that the hostess programs are generally wrong. However, I disagree that there isn't any female exploitation going on. Mainly cause, once again, we need more facts; the hostess program obviously is a basic level of exploitation and there could be far more going on. Obviously there are female college students who want to sleep with athletes and will do this on their own without the platform of the hostess program. However, by overlapping the official hostess program with sexual encounters with recruits, this opens the door for significant abuse and harm for the females. One, if any issues whatsoever arise, the program gets put in a tough spot of either defending an employee/volunteer or a recruit who is potentially. The program is probably going to choose the recruit as their are far more significant tangible gains to be made from winning football games. Two, I'm sure there was some type of implicit, if not explicit, pressure going on to sleep with players. Not all female students that sign up to tour potential students, even football players, necessarily want to sleep with them. It is equally plausible that some are huge OSU football aficionados/fans and love the university so maybe they want to be involved in the program to ensure its success. They probably recognize the allure that a female has versus a male tour guide, but that doesn't mean they want to sleep with the recruits. Especially if there were hostesses in the program prior to its revamp that allegedly seemed to encourage sleeping with the recuits that stayed in the program, there is significant space for abuse. Third, and related to the above two, we have young impressionable female students who are not fully developed interacting with football professionals who are often driven only by success. This just screams potential for abuse. Even if these girls are signing up to meet the players so they can pursue them later, this doesn't mean that OSU couldn't be exploiting them. Exploitation is the manipulation of another's weaknesses or desires in order to extract a material benefit for oneself. OSU sells recruits on sex while the girls get to meet players; the female students become an object in OSU's equation. In conclusion, I agree with your prudence, and we cannot rush to judgement saying this is prostitution until we know more; however, regardless of prostitution, exploitation is definitely at play in all of these situations. Also, sorry for no paragraphs; for some reason the editor wouldn't let me skip down.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||FERGODSAKES!||
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Fitz. And to a lessor extent||
Fitz. And to a lessor extent cause he couldn't stay healthy, Travis minor. He never really got a full healthy season his last two years but he kept showing us potential and ability to get the job done. Still, more of an asterisk type "solid Michigan RB."
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Although you are absolutely||
Although you are absolutely right about Bosch being a G and Mags being a T, couldn't one make the argument that if Bosch is ready to play next year (presumably as a RS F) and Mags isn't ready, then they could bumo Kalis out to RT, insert Bosch as the RG, and move Braden over to LT. The coaches do seem to enjoy having OLine members that are interchangeable in order to play the best 5. Granted I also agree with you that Mags status next season will probably not at all be affected by Bosch and more about Mags' progression which I am optimistic about.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||That is patently false good||
That is patently false good sir.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||He is not saying compete;||
He is not saying compete; he's saying fit, geographically. Detroit is quite large but the downtown is small comparatively.
|21 weeks 4 days ago||Perfectly stated sir. Tip of||
Perfectly stated sir. Tip of the cap.
|22 weeks 5 days ago||Plus one for the use of||
Plus one for the use of "gotsta" sir. Well done.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Cool story Hansel.||
Cool story Hansel.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Ha. That's what I thought you||
Ha. That's what I thought you were trying to say. Believe me, I don't really care and I doubt the OP or most people on the blog really do. It sucks we didn't land a top recruit but I don't think most people have bothered to think twice about it.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Although I approve the beer||
Although I approve the beer while reading MGoBlog, I don't think you're points are as strong as they appear. A) As a general matter the failure of one recruit has little if any bearing on the success of another recruit. The only evidence we could take from any other CT corner's failure to extrapolate to another corner would be that they lacked the necessary coaching coming out of school. Also, Webb is the most highly rated of the corners coming out of CT. Additionally, this came up on Magnus's blog the other day, I think people overemphasize the lack of production from CT corner's. It's tough to make a rulingon Cissoko because he clearly had off the field issues that preventing him from being able to reach his potential. Hollowell was a much lower rated recruit out of CT and was very small. Additionally, he may be reaching his potential this year. Richardson was a tiny freshman last season that should have RSed. It is still too early to say that he has failed. I haven't paid attention to Mathis' career so no info there. Thus, we have one failed CT corner based on off field issues, Hollowell potentially making a significant impact this year if the spring hype bears fruit, and too soon to tell on Richardson. B) Peppers is probably the closest thing to a sure thing; however, he will play boundary corner (and possibly play safety). Webb would/could play field corner. That would be an impressive combo. C) True, however, Westphal's recruit seems a little odd and he still hasn't committed despite loving us for a while. Adore Jackson wants an elite track program which we lack compared to all his other suitors so unless we can WOW him, it will be tough to land him. Besides those two, what other elite corners are we in on. I know we just offered a guy at camp who looked really good so maybe him. But even if we didn't land him, he wouldn't be playing at Ohio. Webb will be.