there would have to be some to wash away
- Member for
- 5 years 24 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|13 weeks 4 days ago||Comparing our class against foes||
Ace, I haven't seen the comparisons of recruiting classes across the Big Ten hit the front page in a long time. I miss it. Is it gone for good? I'm hoping not.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Not so sure...||
Since he clearly has a prior relationship with the kid, I think he's pretty clear of violations, but it's still good to keep as much personal info on a kid private. Recruiting is creepy, and the more we can keep kids' information out of the public sphere, the better.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Nice timing||
Just after halftime of US-Nigeria. I couldn't have planned it better.
|18 weeks 3 hours ago||I wasn't one of them, but...||
We made a permanent deal (accepting Rutgers into the Big Ten), to temporarily boost profits of the Big Ten (assuming that cable is changing away from it's current model in the near future), while watering down the overall product.
|38 weeks 4 days ago||I 'm not in total disagreement but||
if the best athletes were allowed to go straight to the NFL and get paid instead of going to college, would it make you care any less about Michigan football? I just think the role of the individuals in creating the large revenue stream is typically way overstated.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||Yards per play?||
I think you really should normalize for pace. If you don't want to do yards per play, you can also factor total yards by the percentage of the plays run divided by plays run in an average game.
|45 weeks 5 days ago||Your screen name||
does not match the tone in your post!
|45 weeks 5 days ago||A reason for mediocrity...||
Like 6-2 mediocrity? Like a couple of missed game-winning field goals away from 7-1 mediocrity?
Yes, the offense is painful to watch. Yes, the MSU game was frustrating. However, what we're watching, as a whole, is a team that until this past week was still ranked in the top 25 in the nation. I'd say we've achieved somewhere in the realm of mediocrity.
|47 weeks 1 day ago||WRONG!||
The average would equal negative 13.5 yards per carry!
|47 weeks 4 days ago||I agree||
I think it was mentioned in yesterday's post that Indiana has a tendency to blitz the corner from the boundary, so it's likely that Devin was looking specifically for that, and with some subtle pre-snap tells, he only needs a glance post-snap to verify yes or no. The corner is either screaming at him, or he hands off.
|47 weeks 5 days ago||I disagree||
I find it dangerous to disagree with you, because you clearly know football better than me, but the following is my interpretation: On the play above, the pre-snap read shows corner blitz, so he was planning to pass unless the post-snap read was different. After the snap, the corner backs off, so he turns to hand off. On the first play, his pre-snap read was to hand off. After the snap, he glances at the CB to make sure his pre-snap read was correct before handing off. I think you can actually see him continue with his plan, turning to hand off, as his brain processes what he just saw in the brief glance: the corner is coming! He suddenly realizes the implications of the post-snap read, hence the awkward looking throw -- he has just realized that he is going to hand it off into a corner blitz, and suddenly turns to fire it to Gallon as quickly as possible. The throw was a play that I rewound several times prior to seeing Brian write it up. After seeing further evidence that it is a packaged play, I'm more confident that my take is the right one.
|50 weeks 1 hour ago||Nice job, Seth||
The YPP was lower against Minnesota than the overall season average, but drive success rate was rather good. This is due to a much smaller standard deviation in YPP (fewer negative plays) that offsets the lower average output. With a lower YPP, scoring drives have to go much longer in terms of plays, but the likelihood of success is increased due to better consistency. The real question is how much increase in variance does it take to offset one YPP.
|1 year 3 days ago||I wonder...||
if the show's producers weren't hoping for some drama when they started putting the idea together. I would tend to give credit for the cordial nature of the show to the contestants rather than the people putting the show together, but maybe it's just because I'm cynical and jaded...
|1 year 6 days ago||When can we get back to playing||
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Lloyd Brady!||
He's everywhere! Brilliant.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Crisp, cool Autumn air It's||
Crisp, cool Autumn air
It's starting to feel like Fall
But no football yet
|1 year 6 weeks ago||It was my freshman year...||
There was absolutely no critical thought in my mind when he fielded that punt. It was a magical year for him. I'd bet pretty much everyone there wanted to see him have as many opportunities with the ball in his hands as possible.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||It makes perfect sense...||
One prediction is made by someone with reason, the other prediction is made by an algorithm that has some (major) flaws.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||You have it backward||
A home team at -5 means that the home team is GIVING 5 points, meaning they are FAVORED by 5. If that were true in this case, the Akron and CMU games would be the ones in which we were the biggest underdgogs. It is not the correct interpretation of the +/-.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||I'm here...||
Of course, one of the first steps before improving the process is understanding value in the eyes of the customer. So, if speed is more valuable than comprehension, I fully support the use of "UM" for Urban Meyer.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||I think you missed one...||
unless it's in the final region, but I think it fits in the Dagger region:
1990 Michigan vs. Michigan State -- 2 point conversion for the win, defender grabbed Desmond Howard by the ankle, no call.
Edit: I see I'm slow and others mentioned this one above.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||I'm not being defensive, I'm just pointing out||
why I think you're wrong. You just said that their decision may have been a rational one, but in your original post you wrote: "If we stopped recruiting Burbridge because folks thought he wouldn't qualify, that would be a major screw-up." As you've replied to our messages, you've tempered your language from "major screw-up" to rational but a mistake. You are missing the point. An individual decision that is in line with an overall policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. The decision is not a screw-up. The results may not go in your favor, but that doesn't make the decision, or the policy, wrong. I'm not being defensive, I'm being quite offensive. I'm pointing out that you incorrectly labeled the coaches' decision a "major screw-up." I'm not blindly following the coaches, I'm saying that you can't use hindsight on a single occurrence to cast judgement on decisions and policies that are being followed with great intention and for good reason.
I was going to let this argument lie, but I felt it necessary to respond for one reason: You are doing more than arguing your point. Statements like "you are being defensive," and "you feel for some reason that you have to stick up for the coaching staff," are both wholly irrelevant and inaccurate statements related to my psychological being.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||No||
Can we say it was a negative outcome for Michigan? Yes, most likely, although a little early to call definitively. Was it a mistake? No. When you look at the facts and decide not to take a risk, it is not a mistake simply because you later find out the risk would have paid off. Nobody messed up. They made a choice to take the safer path. They've made that choice on a number of occasions. One negative outcome does not mean that the path is the wrong one in general. If they consistently stick to the safer path, and sometimes it works out for the better and sometimes for the worse, you can't point to the case when it went negative as a mistake. It is part of an overall strategy that this staff is clearly sticking to, and that I fully support.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Sorry, I'm confused||
Is that post arguing against what I said, or just adding to what I said? If arguing, let me point out: I essentially said that the above poster was only right if your definition of quarterback was "pro-style quarterback." By giving me the results of the pro-draft, it would tend to agree with each of us that he is not a pro-style quarterback. However, someone who played quarterback throughout college, and finished atop the all-time leading rushers for the position in Division 1 (and top 5 all-time passing yardage at Michigan) did a good job playing his position. To say you don't want him as a quarterback in your offense makes sense if your offense is pro-style. To say he wasn't a good quarterback requires a pretty narrow definition of the position, though.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||It doesn't have to be a screw up, or even the wrong move...||
As I understood it, Michigan cooled on him because they thought he MIGHT not qualify, and they didn't want to dedicate a spot to a guy who may not ever make it to campus. When you take a calculated risk (or choose not to take one), you can't later declare that it was a mistake simply based on the results. You make the best choice based on the current facts, and you move on. Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn't, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you did something wrong.
Edit: Man, was I slow in my response. In essence, "what WolvinLA said".
|1 year 10 weeks ago||You might need to revise your definition||
Denard finished number one all time in Division 1 for quarterback rushing yards. To say he was not a good quarterback is simply wrong. I'd assume it's because you are defining quarterback as pro-style quarterback only. He was a quarterback, and he was good.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Don't tell me||
what's in your cup, just pass it over and let me have a sip of it.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||No||
It doesn't depend on "why." A University makes a certain amount of revenue from athletics. Some of that revenue comes from royalties and video games. To use any portion of that money REQUIRES a University to spend less elsewhere. In general, Universities are not making profits from their athletic departments. In fact, most athletic departments are losing money. They cannot simply stop hoarding the cash. To give away money, most athletic departments will be losing MORE money. They have to make cuts. There is no emotion or reasoning that matters. It doesn't matter "why the players would be getting the money." It's just plain, simple math. If the athletic department loses money, they have to take the money from the budget of the rest of the University, or they have to take money from other areas of the athletic budget.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Nike||
While your critique of my post with regard to the specific example of Nike is fair and accurate, the basic problem is still there. Publicly traded companies are not likely to operate that way, but there are plenty of privately held companies owned by program boosters that would suddenly have 85 new endorsement deals as soon as they were allowed.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Endorsements||
Allowing football players to get paid for endorsements would certainly damage the system and the amateur model. I'm sure that as soon as they could be paid for endorsing products, most of the Oregon team would become paid spokesmen for Nike. It would be an end-around in which a university still could not pay the players, but major program boosters could. The universities with the richest boosters would have the ability to attract the most talented high school players because they would be paying out the highest "endorsement" deals. While it may not be the wrong thing for the players in the short term, it would ruin competitive college football in the long term, as the richest programs have an even easier, unregulated path. While the playing field is not currently level, allowing players to be paid for endorsements would flip it on edge.