Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 3 years 28 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|22 hours 6 min ago||Bisb, that was hilarious.||
Bisb, that was hilarious. Lots of great references. You're posts always crack me up. Keep up the good work.
|1 week 1 day ago||Actually, I think the ideal||
Actually, I think the ideal LT is 6'6-6'8. I believe Brian linked an article a couple years back about how the average NFL LT is about 6'5. One issue was that most guys are measured taller than they are and I think the article was meant to shed light on height not being indicative of success and it noted that the focus around height revolved more around the longer arms that came with height, I believe.
|3 weeks 16 hours ago||And you're probably right||
And you're probably right that many if not most people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual rights aren't going to come to the light, so to speak, because someone on TV is talking about it. Nonetheless, the hope is that expanding the dialogue about the situation can often be helpful in getting people to think about things differently, especially about how the NFL, or more specifically NFL GMs and executives, handle the situation. I can't speak for how locker room a or nfl players will react to this situation and they might not be swayed by the media fixating on it, but you never know. And if we are already going to be bombarded by asinine sports journalists debating all manners of sports in massive generalities, in completely unsupported opinions, and passing off highlights and fluff pieces as actual journalism, I don't mind a few more talking heads focusing on it. When so many other parts of American culture seem either 100% okay with a homosexual lifestyle or at least indifferent to it, it raises the question as to why it's such a hot bed issue in the NFL.
|3 weeks 20 hours ago||Although you may be right||
Although you may be right about the spectacle of it all affecting his ability to find success in the NFL, I think you are underestimating the effects that taking a stance/pounding the desk in moral indignation might have on the anchor and overlooking the fact that he is also operating in a world where his ass is on the line. If he takes a stand in support of Sam and critical of the NFL, he might be alienating his viewers and if he alienates enough of them-or his superiors or whoever owns the station-then he will face real consequences. Additionally, he is going to have to answer to hundreds of people who he interacts with normally who might not appreciate his viewpoint. Obviously it's easier to preach from a soapbox, but his soapbox might not appreciate the consequences of his advocacy and he might suffer the consequences.
Also, I think you underestimate how his perspective might change how people think. One of his main points was criticism of the NFLs hypocrisy when it devalues responsibility or moral/human/family values for fiscal and team success. Instead of allowing people to focus the debate on whether this is right or wrong or whether he will negatively impact the locker room, he expands the conversation by analyzing how the NFL has reacted to scenarios that raise similar abstract moral or team concerns in the past. He seems to be trying to expand how people look at the situation.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Maybe the journalism market||
Maybe the journalism market on the West Coast provides more opportunities than the Midwest does. Probably wouldn't hurt to start networking and getting references in that neck of the woods in case one didn't want to stay with sports his or her entire life.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Intertube water polo. Duh.||
Intertube water polo. Duh.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Ya that game was bitter cold||
Ya that game was bitter cold with it being wet and then freezing. I remember getting back to my house and the half of my roommates that left early had used up all the hot water. Sucked. That was also the game I learned there was an M on the other side of the Big House because so many fans had left by half time that you could see the M under the remaning fans.
However, I attended the Iowa game this season which was supposed to have been the coldest game in Iowa's history at Kinnick Stadium. It was miserable. We were so layered up but we could still feel the bitter cold. I don't think I felt my toes all game long. We left our seats and went up to the vacated top row because we could stand and move around to stay warm. Probably a worse game since I didn't harbor any illusions about the 2008 NW game or season; however, I still hoped we could beat Iowa and end the season 8-4. After 1st quarter, it just felt like an inevitable progression towards a lose and was kind of a microcosm of our season. The only redeeming quality is the Iowa fans are really nice and hospitable and no one said anything to us after the game.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||Magnus, do you think part of||
Magnus, do you think part of the heavy rotation is the fact that we haven't really have a lot of established playmakers and had a lot of youth on the line, particularly last season? Would seem there would be less rotation once a few guys emerge to claim spots, which we kind of saw later in the season as Clark and Black were playing nearly all the time. It would seem with QWash's back injury that the coaches were plugging in a lot of guys to try to figure out the working recipe.
|11 weeks 4 days ago||I agree||
But to elaborate, why force Beyer to be something he isn't when we have even more depth at SDE next year. Heitzman, Wormley and Godin will have another year of development and weightlifting. Hopefully we can find some competent starters out of them. Plus, Strobel might be able to make an impact also. I'm sure Beyer will put his hand in the ground occasionally, but I would prefer it to be more of a situational/pass-rushing type situation, i.e. third downs and the like. Or maybe Ojemudia takes a step forward. Plus, outside of a RS FR McCray and a RS SO Gant, we will have no backups for JMFR who, although a champion, will need some rest occasionally. Would be great to plug Beyer in on those situations.
Edit: I was not implying Heitzman, Wormley, Godin, or anyone else wasn't competent. Also, this situation could be put in limbo if Henry has to start at NT cause Pipkins isn't ready. Hopefully he comes back from that knee injury ready to kick ass.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Fuck cancer indeed. Great||
Fuck cancer indeed. Great news my friend. Hopefully the holidays are great and there is more good news to come. I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers and Go Blue.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Although true, it is a bit of||
Although true, it is a bit of an arbitrary measurement. I'm sure one could change the measuring stick to improve ohios production just as easily.
|13 weeks 22 hours ago||+1||
|16 weeks 17 hours 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.
|16 weeks 21 hours 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.
|18 weeks 2 days 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.
|18 weeks 2 days 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.
|18 weeks 3 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.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||What would you list be||
What would you list be Brandon? I'm assuming Dillman would be on top?
|18 weeks 3 days ago||Do we think this is going to||
Do we think this is going to lead to further suspensions?
|18 weeks 3 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.
|18 weeks 3 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.
|19 weeks 4 days ago||Really?||
Could have sworn it was Sammie Wotkeens.
|20 weeks 1 day 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.
|20 weeks 1 day 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.
|20 weeks 1 day 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).
|20 weeks 6 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.
|22 weeks 3 days 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.
|23 weeks 31 min 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.
|23 weeks 38 min 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.
|23 weeks 11 hours 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.