- Member for
- 4 years 6 days
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|1 day 8 hours ago||It may have...||
changed the outcome of the game by itself by keeping Louisville up an extra bucket AND shifting momentum. It's hard to maintain intensity when the best defensive play of the tournament is called a foul.
Unfortunately, it was symbolic of officiating for the whole game. Add up all the totally egregious errors in Louisville's favor and Michigan does win this game by points alone. On top of that, Michigan would have had Burke and McGary in the game for many more minutes. That equals even many more points. As a cherry on top, basketball experts have stated that Louisville got away with fouling on EVERY play.
So it's clear that Michigan was the better team and played better basketball that day but the refs gave the game to Louisville.
|3 days 4 hours ago||Yes...||
It's a bit crazy to suggest he will be a "dominant" or great player at this point. But even crazier to presume that he will be a bench player or 6th man "at best."
It seems like Timmy will just have to keep proving the doubters wrong.
|3 days 4 hours ago||No surprise...||
to me. I've been saying it all along. Timmy has all the tools to be a good to great NBA player. He still has some work to do to reach that potential but the potential is there.
He's an underrated ballhandler who's been inconsistent at times but has usually shown an ability to get to the hoop against anybody and beat the best presses. He's also an underrated shooter who had to create his own shot much of the time or make something happen at the end of the shot clock.
So to all the naysayers who didn't believe me here - I told you so!!!
|2 weeks 6 days ago||A great historical moment||
Apparently, he's the first active male athlete in the four major sports to come out as gay. So he's broken down a significant barrier.
I don't see why this should be viewed as a political issue. Unfortunately, greater society has immorally made sexuality a political matter. I don't think I'll ever understand why some people feel they have a right to discriminate against others and even control others in such matters.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||If there is a rule..||
against politics then this entire thread should be censored. There is absolutely no reasonable way to discuss the search for a new University President without a discussion of the extremely serious issues I raised. This shows the absurdity of such censorship.
As for courtesy, this seems to be rare or virtually extinct on this board. Labeling somebody "flamebait" for being pro freedom or pro individual rights is the height of discourtesy. The practice of censoring any opinion that is relevant but might possibly be considered controversial or offensive to somebody is discorteous itself and defeats the purpose of a discussion board. What is the purpose of a board if any intelligent and insightful discussion is banned?
That is why I rarely post and why I rarely read the censored discussions. It's usually pointless since all intelligent thought is subject to censorship or insults.
Thanks for your courtesy. It is a great blog but it would be better with greater freedom of discussion.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||It looks like...||
individual rights lose out to sexism, racism, censorship and "guilty until proven innocent" here.
Just wonderful. I'm not surprised and I don't really have any hope that the next President will pursue any reform on these issues.
All that matters is fund raising, of course. Show me the money!
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I would hope..||
that the next University President pursues reform of University policies regarding invidividual rights. That would include the end of racist and sexist admission and hiring policies (preferably purely merit based), the end of "speech codes" which violate the First Amendment and the return to presumption of innocence in alleged crimes, most notably alleged sex crimes.
That would probably rule out any currently serving University President since I'm not aware of any Unversity currently attempting such reforms.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I agree entirely..||
but this veers into taboo territory here, politics. It is hard to avoid politics when discussing somebody who supported such controversial and politically extreme positions.
|5 weeks 2 hours ago||Burke did everything...||
he could do in college. As for "winning a national title," that's out of his control. He and his teammates made the plays to win the national title game but egregiously poor officiating changed the outcome of the game. Unfortunately, refs and sometimes luck often determine the official outcome of a game.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Exactly...||
Michigan DID make the plays. After the Burke block atrocity, I concluded Michigan had no chance to officially win the game. The fix was in. I was right.
How do you win when the refs reward the other team after you make great play after great play?
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Great commentary||
Thanks for the links.
Gottlieb and LaBatard agree that Michigan got jobbed by the refs. Gottlieb's comments are interesting since he points out that Louisville essentially fouls on every possession but the refs let them get away with it. So there were the obvious blown calls which changed a Michigan win into a loss but also other less obvious routinely missed calls which allowed Louisville to stay in the game with a much better Michigan team.
I'm still a big college basketball fan but this game destroyed my faith in the legitimacy of the final scores. I used to think lucky play (hot shooting, etc,) allowed lesser talented teams to win in the single elimination tournament but now I realize that luck (or corruption?) in the officiating often plays an even bigger role.
The last time I felt this bad about simply awful or corrupt officiating determining the outcome of games was the 2002 Lakers-Kings playoff series.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Michgan did beat Louisville||
but they couldn't beat the refs.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Bizarre||
Looking over their top 25, I can see 15 or 16 teams that shouldn't be projected ahead of Michigan even if we lose several players to the pros. It's idiotic.
Michigan will have a returning PG who had a stellar tourney and has an incoming PG who's rated in the top 50. We have a returning SG who is one of the top 5 or so shooters in the country - and he's not just a shooter. We'll have at least three of our bigs coming back and have another top 100 big coming in. We also will have another guard (Levert) who's shown flashes of great potential as a freshman. We also have another wing player coming in who's Indiana's Mr. Basketball and rated in the top 20-25. That's a stellar 9-deep rotation. And that's assuming everybody (Burke, McGary, GR III and THJ) who can go pro actually leaves.
Of course, the media's recap of the championship game is equally idiotic. There's no mention of the Burke block or other major refs screw ups which were the difference in the game. Instead, the storyline is Louisville "outshot and outfought" Michigan. Of course, it didn't. The refs were the difference. But that doesn't make a nice storyline, does it?
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Wrong..||
Michigan made 18-25 FT's (72%), the same number as Louisville with only 2 more attempts. Michigan also made a number of defensive stops (including the totally clean great Burke block) in the last few minutes but were screwed by the refs. The refs let Louisville mug Michigan repeatedly inside in order to come away with several offensive rebounds. They even missed the blatant foul which caused Levert to go out of bounds after grabbing a defensive board. This last bad call essentially sealed the game.
I can understand some close judgement calls but there were numerous blatant screwups that all went against Michigan.
It's not sour grapes but unfortunate reality. Michigan was the better team but couldn't beat both Louisville and the refs. That's the way it goes sometimes. Michigan should feel proud that they made it to the championship game and won on the court although not on the scoreboard.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Happy that Michigan was the better team today||
but sad that shoddy officiating made the difference on the scoreboard. As the Burke block shows, it doesn't matter how great you play if the refs don't call the game fairly.
I'm also sad that I won't get to watch this great team play together again.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Louisville upped..||
their intensity and the refs let them get away with murder inside.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Correction...||
6-13. One of his shots was goaltended off the backboard. There may have been some shooting fouls on him that weren't called as well.
He played a good game.
Michigan played a good game, well enough to win.
Michigan was the better team today and they should feel proud of their effort.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Great block||
That was the best defensive play of the game. And they called it a foul.... after not calling a hundred other real fouls. Just ridiculous.
Add that to the other horrible calls.
Yes, the refs were the difference. It's too bad.
Michigan was the better team today no matter what the scoreboard says.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||The refs were the difference||
Michigan outplayed Louisville by a slight margin today but the refs gave Louisville an edge. You take out the egregious bad calls and non calls (by the way, was Louisville playing football inside at the end?) and Michigan wins.
But that's college basketball for you. Sometimes it's just luck that makes the difference - assuming the difference in calls was just luck. Michigan was lucky to make it past Kansas and today luck turned against them.
It was a great year and the team should have nothing but pride in their play this year.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||You're spot on...||
except that it was months rather than years. But you should save your breath. There seem to be quite a few hardheaded and/or uninformed individuals here who are immune to logic. This hardheadedness is the reason people like Rice get hired and then tolerated despite criminal misconduct. It's the reason incompetent and/or unethical AD's and University Presidents keep their jobs and get paid the big bucks despite massive incompetence.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Wow, just wow...||
So the AD has no responsibility for what goes on in his athletic department? The AD has no responsiblity for the firing of a whistleblower by a coach who (according to video shown to the AD) physically and verbally abused student-athletes?
How about this conversation:
Rice: I'm gonna can that $%#$%&^* who ratted on me for knocking some of my players around.
AD: Good idea. We don't need rats like that around. Just make sure that video doesn't get out. And make sure nobody else is taping when you decide to kick some kid's a$$.
Rice: Cool beans. (High fives the AD)
Yeah, that's the kind of AD we need in college athletics.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Agreed..||
It's good to see another sane viewpoint here.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||See..||
my post just above. The AD SHOULD have been involved. And ultimately the AD IS in charge of all hiring and firing, especially if they have reason to believe it is being done improperly.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Well,||
First of all, don't athletes have to sit out a year if they transfer? That's not exactly freedom to transfer. In case you didn't know....
Second of all, according to reports I've looked at, the assistant (Eric Murdock) brought the issues with Rice to the AD's attention in July 2012 and was later let go for "insubordination." If that's true, it's clear the AD was directly involved or negligently uninvolved in Murdock's firing.
Finally, you sound seriously uninformed.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||The AD should be fired immediately||
If I or anybody else I know behaved as he did, physically and verbally abusing others at a job, they would be fired. Since he was their superior, it is worse since they were unable to file a complaint without fear of retribution. On top of that, this unethical tool apparently fired an assistant coach (who compiled the video) for blowing the whistle.
Why did the AD keep this abuse a secret? Why didn't he give the abused athletes the freedom to leave the program?
If Rutgers fails to fire the AD, it's a travesty. If the President of the University also had knowledge of the video, he should be fired as well.
All of these people are unsuitable for any position of authority in the future.
The student athletes and the fired assistant should sue and are likely entitled to major damages.
This whole fiasco should inspire a movement to give student-athletes greater freedom and rights. I would even suggest breaking up the NCAA monopoly which uses its power to exploit and abuse student-athletes.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||The AD should be fired||
I agree with others here who believe the AD should be fired. It's not a close call and I usually believe in giving people second and third chances. In this case, the coach's behavior was so egregiously and routinely over the line that he should have been immediately fired. For an AD to issue such a light punishment for this physically and verbally abusive behavior is proof of massive incompetence and/or a massive ethical flaw.
This case is also even more proof that the current system's balance of power unfairly deprives student-athletes of basic rights and exploits them. It's another example of the NCAA's fundamental corruption. Rice's actions are inherently immoral and even criminal and yet the NCAA has no policy preventing him from coaching again and will probably level no sanctions against the Rutgers program. On the other hand, when a player (Webber for instance) takes a gift legally from a friend, the NCAA comes down harshly against the player and program. On a moral scale, Webber's actions are nowhere nearly as unethical or serious as Rice's yet are treated far more severely.
In the Rice case, the fired whistle blower/former assistant should sue and the abused players should sue. Again, I'm usually not in favor of litigation but the coach's actions were malicious and the AD's inaction was grossly unethical.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||Totally rigged....||
I remember watching this series and seeing the Kings completely outplay the Lakers but get totally jobbed by the refs. It was ridiculous. One phantom foul after another went against the Kings on the offensive and defensive end. Shaq would just bull over a defender and they'd call a defensive foul - then as you see in the video, a Laker would flop when Webber got the ball and they'd call a foul on Webber. Clearly, the fix was in. The NBA must have wanted the big market Lakers to prevail over the smaller market Kings. The Kings were far better, the class of the league that year and one of the best teams ever, and played far better than the Lakers. It was sad to see them go out that way, not losing but being robbed. It was also sad for CWebb who deserved a championship that year. IMO, the Kings were the true champions that year even though the Lakers were "officially" literally given the championship.
There's a great article on "roundballdaily.com" on this travesty called "The Lost Champions." There's also reference to the fixed officiating in the wikipedia entry for 2002 NBA playoffs. A referee even testified under oath to the feds about the fixed officiating.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Interesting observations...||
It will be interesting to see how Michigan does against Syracuse's D. So far, Michigan has demolished several vaunted D's. If it's a shootout, Michigan is more likely to win. If Michigan can get out in transition and push the ball like it did against Florida, Michigan is more likely to win. Transition offense can neutralize any advantage Syracuse has from height and shot blockers. Both teams are talented, well coached and playing well so either team has a good chance of winning if it's a little sharper that day. I do think Michigan's the better team and would probably win a best of 7 but it's one and done so chance/luck plays a huge role.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Sorry Seth...||
for mixing you up with Brian. The economics of coaching pay is an interesting and complex topic. I appreciate your ideas on the subject. It would be fascinating to see a rigorous study on whether certain or all coaches are worth their pay in a purely economic sense. As for the logic of stratrospheric coaching pay at academic institutions, that's even more complicated and quite subject to one's perspective on the appropriate role of athletics at academic institutions. I would generally favor a free market determining appropriate pay but college athletics is not a fully free market. Coaches function on a much freer level than the athletes they coach. And their stratospheric pay appears unseemly when compared to the compensation provided to these athletes.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||You're spot on...||
regarding the records, Brian. Striking records or stats is fundamentally dishonest Soviet Union style. At least they haven't tried removing people from pictures or videos. Imagine trying to look at old games with CWebb or the entire Fab Five invisible.
Your idea regarding capping coaches' salaries seems to make sense, a lot more sense than punishing players and others that had nothing to do with infractions. Then a coach could decide whether the salary is worth it to him or her. I do think that the entire matter of coaches trying to police legal (or even illegal) off court behavior seems more than a little unrealistic, insane, unfair or all of the above.