Last fall I went to McFadden's several times, which is a sports bar downtown, on Smith St. There were always several other college football fans there (which was a bit surprising, because college football is not big in RI), including Big Ten fans and, on occasion, other Michigan fans. Spat's, which is just off Thayer and near the Brown campus, would be another option. If you post an e-mail at which I could contact you I'll be in touch; would be nice to watch the games this fall with another M fan.
How would this not apply to, say, a middle class white guy from Southfield, too? Would his parents be able to travel to, say, LSU seven times per year to watch him play? I think it's highly likely that the vast majority of D-1 football players (just like the vast majority of regular students) attend a school within 200 miles of where they grew up. I fail to see why it is so surprising that guys from the South are reluctant to go too far away for college, therefore. What would be surprising is if there *were* a lot of movement cross-regionally.
Are you serious? Are you that dumb? How many guys from Pahokee have decommited? Zero. Contrast this with Bryce McNeal, who goes to the Breck School, a posh prep school in Minneapolis. Your theory is obviously wrong.
Chitown, you're probably my favorite poster on here, because your posts are generally lucid, well-reasoned, and supported by evidence. However, it also seems at times that you're contrarian just to be contrarian. A perfect example of this is your feigned moral outrage to that post.
Why all the bitterness and sour grapes? Also, making fun of OSU's academics, while fashionable, betrays a certain insecurity. Who says the degree doesn't matter much? I'm doing a PhD at a reasonably reputable Ivy League school, and I can claim quite honestly that OSU's department (in terms of faculty renown) is superior to the one I'm in.
Also, I didn't see anything that Tressel or Pryor did that Rodriguez or, say, Taylor would be doing if the roles were reversed.
While today was obviously unpleasant, why not give credit where credit is due?
Nick Sheridan, a former walkon, was thrust into this role by pure circumstance. I am willing to bet that not even in his wildest imagination did he ever think that he would possibly be the starting quarterback in the Ohio State-Michigan game.
This was, in all likelihood, the last action he will see in a game. What I'll remember about him, however, is getting back up and running and playing as hard as he could despite getting destroyed again and again by Laurinaitis et al. That's courage, plain and simple.
He was the starting quarterback for Michigan at the 'Shoe. Not only that but there was even a moment early in the third quarter, despite all the improbability, when it seemed that Michigan could tie the game at 14-14. By virtue of those two facts he has accomplished more than virtually any of us could claim when we were his age.
Is there a more reasonable explanation, particularly for Babb and Chambers?
The broader point was, however, that certain reasons for ending your participation in some group enterprise (in this case transferring from a football team) entails real costs on the other members of the group. The duties and responsibilities for team and player seem to be reciprocal. Barring particularly unbecoming or unfair behavior on the part of the coaches or severe mitigating circumstances (as discussed re: McGuffie above), I think it's legitimate to express one's displeasure at the decision to dissolve one's responsibilities to the group, which the first poster did albeit in an inelegant fashion.
Or do you think a transfer is legitimate under any circumstances?
Granted he expressed his point a bit inelegantly (and the bizarre capitalization didn't help), but unless you believe that being involved with some group enterprise (in this case a football team) entails no collective responsibilities or duties to other members of the group, I think it is legitimate to make value judgments on *certain* reasons for transferring (ambiguous though these sometimes are to outside observers).
Granted, neither Artis Chambers nor Zion Babb were ever going to be showcase players on this team. They provided a role, however, and their attrition diminishes the team's depth and the value of their sporadic contributions. It also diminishes the collective game experience this team has, which seems especially crucial in a transition such as this.
Is it therefore so illegitimate to be unmoved when players decide to leave the program because, in their estimation, their role on Saturdays is not substantial enough?
I spent the first 22 years of my life in Michigan, am a life-long Michigan fan, graduated from the university, and I barely know the history of the Little Brown Jug or anything about Fielding H. Yost.
The fact that you quite prominently point to the fact that you do not "hate" Terrell Pryor simply for choosing to go to Ohio State as an example of your reasonableness and moral seriousness is hilarious. At least to me.
I only started paying attention to recruiting a couple years ago, but it seems that decommitments have become a much more significant issue each passing year. Not just for Michigan, but in general (though it has seemed to affect Michigan particularly hard this year). What explains this? Are coaches putting more pressure on students to commit much earlier in the recruiting process, before they have had a chance to take visits to multiple campuses? Are recruits just more schizophrenic and more apt to decommit (for whatever reason) today compared to the past? Will this make it more likely that we will see an early signing period in football in the near future, as in basketball?
First, you professed a theory (as underwhelming as it was) not a prediction. Second, the problem with your claim-other than it being plain stupid, obviously-is that stadium renovations are an exceedingly rare occurrence. So even if you compiled all the data on years in which stadium renovations took place and the team's won-loss record for those years and then ran the regressions, the results almost certainly would not be statistically significant. Third, if it would not be such a waste of time I'm sure I could find many cases that directly refute your hypothesis relatively easily.
From the "Stadium History" page on umich.edu (after like 10 seconds of research):
"During the 1997 season the University of Michigan Board of Regents approved the expansion of Michigan Stadium that added seats around the stadium and video scoreboards in each end zone."
Well, your powers of foresight are no doubt impressive, but his verbal was hardly "obvious." Indeed, there were compelling reasons for him to go elsewhere:
1. Desire to live in a different part of the country.
2. Uneasiness with having one's father as a coach.
3. Feelings that a different program would be a better "fit," in terms of style of play, etc.
4. Other personal reasons such as rapport with the coaches or players of another program, etc.
Same reason that, say, many children of U-M professors decide to leave Ann Arbor for college/university. And to call anyone out for not thinking he was a 100% "lock" to U-M is a bit... lame.
"My point, however, is that this was NOT an easy call. This was NOT a 'no-brainer.' And in hindsight, it was the wrong call."
You're right, of course, but who's arguing otherwise? I would find it very hard to believe that coaches did not take (2), (3), and (4) into consideration when deciding whether or not to go for two.
Get in touch with the alumni chapter there. When I lived there I
watched a couple games (MSU and Ohio State, which were the only two that were televised) at The Sports Cafe on the
Haymarket. There will be a strong contingent of U-M folk I'm sure.
Recent Comments
I live in Providence and I usually watch the games at McFaddens. Will be there for the games this season.
Also, I didn't see anything that Tressel or Pryor did that Rodriguez or, say, Taylor would be doing if the roles were reversed.
While today was obviously unpleasant, why not give credit where credit is due?
This was, in all likelihood, the last action he will see in a game. What I'll remember about him, however, is getting back up and running and playing as hard as he could despite getting destroyed again and again by Laurinaitis et al. That's courage, plain and simple.
He was the starting quarterback for Michigan at the 'Shoe. Not only that but there was even a moment early in the third quarter, despite all the improbability, when it seemed that Michigan could tie the game at 14-14. By virtue of those two facts he has accomplished more than virtually any of us could claim when we were his age.
The broader point was, however, that certain reasons for ending your participation in some group enterprise (in this case transferring from a football team) entails real costs on the other members of the group. The duties and responsibilities for team and player seem to be reciprocal. Barring particularly unbecoming or unfair behavior on the part of the coaches or severe mitigating circumstances (as discussed re: McGuffie above), I think it's legitimate to express one's displeasure at the decision to dissolve one's responsibilities to the group, which the first poster did albeit in an inelegant fashion.
Or do you think a transfer is legitimate under any circumstances?
Granted, neither Artis Chambers nor Zion Babb were ever going to be showcase players on this team. They provided a role, however, and their attrition diminishes the team's depth and the value of their sporadic contributions. It also diminishes the collective game experience this team has, which seems especially crucial in a transition such as this.
Is it therefore so illegitimate to be unmoved when players decide to leave the program because, in their estimation, their role on Saturdays is not substantial enough?
I only started paying attention to recruiting a couple years ago, but it seems that decommitments have become a much more significant issue each passing year. Not just for Michigan, but in general (though it has seemed to affect Michigan particularly hard this year). What explains this? Are coaches putting more pressure on students to commit much earlier in the recruiting process, before they have had a chance to take visits to multiple campuses? Are recruits just more schizophrenic and more apt to decommit (for whatever reason) today compared to the past? Will this make it more likely that we will see an early signing period in football in the near future, as in basketball?
From the "Stadium History" page on umich.edu (after like 10 seconds of research):
"During the 1997 season the University of Michigan Board of Regents approved the expansion of Michigan Stadium that added seats around the stadium and video scoreboards in each end zone."
That year turned out OK.
- Supported outlawing any water-going vessels after the Titanic.
- Never goes on vacation because there's a possibility it could rain.
- Advocated the cancellation of the space program and admitted defeat in the Cold War after Sputnik.
- Demands refund at zoo because the monkeys were either (a) sleeping or (b) refused to come out of the cave.
"My point, however, is that this was NOT an easy call. This was NOT a 'no-brainer.' And in hindsight, it was the wrong call."
You're right, of course, but who's arguing otherwise? I would find it very hard to believe that coaches did not take (2), (3), and (4) into consideration when deciding whether or not to go for two.