...was that?

How have I missed this Keanu super clip all my life?

Based on these comments, some people are going to need the pharmacy keys from the 'Nurse Who Loved Me' to calm down.

FWIW, one of my favorite albums of all time as well. Terrible name for a band though. But that's another thread, another blog.

Because they are a pox on college basketball. 

I root for the B1G, generally speaking, to do well in post-season tourneys. But I never root for Wisky b-ball. Their style of play is completely unappealing to watch and one reason it isn't emulated more is their lack of NCAA tourney success. Thus, them losing in the 1st round is a good thing - more proof that their clutch & grab, bleed the clock style of play may work to get you top 5 finishes in league play (which is a credit to Bo Ryan's coaching skill), but it's too falliable in one & done scenarios. There is too little margin for error.

When you wear these to your gym to go workout, will you be listening to Technotronic, Young MC or C&C Music Factory on your Sony Walkman?

"Cincinnati players give former Roy Manning standing ovation after introduction."

Is Roy Manning an alias? Is he an imposter?

Perhaps the headline writers don't have an edit button.

If MSU and WVU got together for some massive blaze off to see, once and for all, which school is the best at couch burning, I think you would be able to see the amount of smoke from space.

Vince McMahon, Donald Trump or someone needs to make this happen.

Updated OP to note that.

Also I'll say, with the Cap One bowl switching from ESPN to ABC this year, its jump up in ratings was not just b/c of the networks, but b/c it had two national opponents (UGA/Neb) in a competitive, high-scoring game.

So in short, both teams and network matters. It's good to know we can draw as well, if not better, than Georgia, which is what I would suspect.

I think it will be close, as Alabama's strength on offense (running) plays into ND's strength on D, but I definitely will not be rooting for ND, even though I also dislike Saban.

To help solve this, I likely won't even watch the game except perhaps the end if it is close. I object to the BCS anyway (I'm an 8-team playoff guy), and don't think it will be a particularly exciting game, so why torture myself with two teams I dislike to boot? Life is too short.

Beyond loving the show, I'm keeping this avatar with Bearded Jack until we win a Big 10 title. Hopefully, I can change it to Happy Jack sometime in the next season or two.

I'm sorry your already tired of it, but it's going to be a topic of conversation until it happens and we see the effects. Your logic is "Hey, we'll get more money" so B1G programs can compete in terms of salaries, but why is that a slam dunk, medium/long term, with this reckless expansion?

It's all based on TV, right? Well, look at the ratings of the most recent championship games outside of the SEC. They were bad to terrible (e.g., B1G down 42%).

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/ncaa-week-14-record-low-again-fo...

These championships games are the result of expansion. Why, in the future, will sports networks pay big money for games that draw 3.3's and 1.4's ratings? Why will cable customers pay for channels for games they don't care about?

You seem to think every conference will expand to 14 or 16 and that will be the end of it. I forsee there being a collapse, as these unwieldy conglomerations of institutions that have nothing to do with each other realize that not many more people attend or watch a Maryland-Purdue football game than they do a Maryland-MEAC basketball game. College football is not the NFL - people won't watch just any old teams play each other. People care about rivals and nurse grudges from decades ago (heck see Bielema complaining about a long-ago Michigan loss this week. He still hasn't gotten over it!)

Winter is coming for the sports media landscape. It's like the housing market in 2003 right now, but you can see a bubble forming that will pop. And in the meantime, Michigan fans will end up with more games against teams we don't care about (or at least I don't care about; I'd much rather play Wisconsin, Minnesota or Purdue than Rutgers or Maryland). And for what? More money for Brett Bielema, that Wisconsin could have afforded anyway, pre-expansion?

I generally agree with your points, but I think you are being too flip about 2013. If it's easy to find someone to organize and put this race on, than why didn't Brandon already make the announcement that U of M (or some other organization that are apparently easy to find that runs these kinds of things) will be running the event for April 2013? That way, the 100+ charities, who have probably already put in the budgets for 2013 the $1.5 million+ they were planning to raise, could know what the situation was? Why make their lives more difficult?

Again, if Brandon & co had a problem with CFC and were sure Uof M could do a better job, fine - just say so, and more importantly, than do it and set up the alternate event. Stop having your assistant prattle on about the fact U of M now has "private events" (i.e., weddings) and that it was so difficult hosting the Big House run. 

I hope sometime in December there will be an announcement of a U of M-sponsored replacement event for spring/summer 2013.

CFC had about $500k in entry fees last year (15000 runners times $33), so if they gave 25% to charity, that's $125k.

However, 10 times that amount, $1.5 million, went to 175 charities because of the race, in addition to that $125k.

http://annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-says-annual-big-house-bi...

Thus, I'm not sure the ~25% is a fair figure (honestly, I don't know - I can't tell how other charitable fund-raising organizations/evaluators handle this accounting).  If CFC takes $375k out of the $2 million generated for the race, that means 82% of the funds raised for the race went to charities; the other 18% went to CHC for T-shirts, water, permits, rental fees, salaries, etc.

If Brandon really can run a more efficient race, that's great. But since he has not formally proposed one with a specific date (he's just talked about it generally), I can't evaluate whether U of M can do a better job or not.

One thing is for sure: those 175 charities counting on the $1 million plus for this year are scrambling because this wasn't communicated earlier by U of M.

Are they interested in becoming a member of the Big Ten?

I'm sure the BTN is not on Comcast Hattiesberg's basic package, so it's a win-win.

As far as I can tell, AAU membership is REALLY important to the B1G.  Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Florida State and soon-to-be member Syracuse might be fine universities (certainly better than Louisville), but they are not AAU members.   I think the only one of the B1G 14 not in there is Nebraska, which was a recent removal.

I do agree $ > than academics, but the $ portion for Louisville would not be that great. It doesn't add a big TV market for the all-important BTN.  It DOES add an excellent b-ball program and a good football team (certainly both better than UMD and Rutgers), but the B1G has shown they really don't care about that, no matter what they say, with their recent expansion. Which is why the B1G expansion is stupid to me, but they don't care about what their fans/alums want, so it doesn't matter.

...of music more like Yakety Sax, but either one works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ

I agree that if, somehow, UVA got an offer from the B1G and at essentially the same time VA Tech got an offer from the SEC, that would be fine with the VA legislature. I mean, the SEC is the most powerful football conference (and thus the most powerful conference, period).  But the SEC is already at 14 and has bigger fish to fry, such as trying to get FSU, so the timing of that UVA/VA Tech dispersal would be really tough.

More to the point, though, is that now that B1G has the Terps, the B1G doesn't need either of the Virginia schools as much - the DC market is now claimed.  Since this expansion was just about money, as opposed to academics or sports-skills, that means future expansions would also be about money & claiming new markets, such as Atlanta or Miami.

In short, I would be shocked if we added UVA.. Then again, I was shocked we added Rutgers, so what do I know.

I think 9-3 was a very reasonable expectation. I agree we lost significant players from 2011, but we also gained quite a bit (Jake Ryan, Frank Clark et al with more experience; a large % of the offense, including the QB, coming back in their 2nd year in the same system).

We literally beat everyone who we were "supposed" to beat, lost to who we were "supposed" to lose to, and then lost the "toss-up" game to Nebraska. If we had won any one of the 4 games we lost, it would have been a good season (and all except Alabama were definitely in the realm of possibility with better plays/playcalling). But I watched Nebraska against OSU, MSU and Iowa - they are a good team, but nothing remotely special. Whether Nebraska or Wisconsin wins, it will be the worst Big 10 champion in our lifetime.

Ultimately, blowing that game, and our coaches being caught with their pants down, was what made it an underachieving season for me.

I can control me. There is no law I have to watch, or care about, college football as much as I currently do.  I happen to enjoy doing so, but it's a big world out there, and I can spend my time on other things. This expansion will create less games that I care about, so it is thus disappointing. 

My life will go on.  But "the game I love" is not "Rutgers vs Indiana" or "Maryland vs Ohio State"; the teams matter. Even the negative impact to Michigan's schedule aside, I liked "MSU vs Wisconsin" and "Iowa vs Ohio State" much better (all the type of games we'll be seeing less of).

...and isn't (or shouldn't) be enough. Ohio State's team, overall, last year was thoroughly mediocre, but not their defense. It was at Top 20/25 defense; it was their offense which was terrible (except, unfortunately, until they played us). Plus, playing great against OSU, with a BCS game on the line and UM trying to snap a 7-game streak is a lot more pressure than playing against either Northwestern or Air Force (or anybody, really). The performance was unbelieveably huge.

And Denard didn't just play "very well" against OSU -- he was lights out awesome. Again, find me a better performance by Henne, Brady, Henson, Navarre, Leach, Smith, Franklin, etc against OSU. It doesn't exist.

Finally, the difference against Air Force was without Denard, we literally had less than zero offense. And, unlike Iowa, Air Force gave our D fits and it was a close game, so we needed every one of those yards.  Against Iowa, Devin was fantastic and it was exciting to see, but he at least had some help.

For the record, I think Devin should start against OSU. I'm no doctor, but I've seen nothing that indicates Denard is healthy enough to realistically be in top form, which is what is needed against OSU.  I'm just tired of this idea (like I heard on WDET yesterday by one of their host) that "Man, Michigan should have went to Devin as QB last year and Denard as RB." I think that is just foolish and overlooks some awesome QB performances (e.g., ND, Neb, OSU, Air Force).

...if it's not a cable TV play? I'm serious. I've seen all these posts about "$100 million" and "YES Network" and "Delany knows how to get cable companies on board" and NOW he freakin' "emphasizes how difficult it will be" to get BTN added, i.e., he has no guarantee, not even a good likelihood, that these copious fees will happen?

Why are we bailing out Rutgers? Why do I care if Maryland now has a "local" rival to play in the new B1G that "enhances" them? 

I assume you are reffering to this article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/18/big-ten-...

I agree it's possible that since Fox now owns most of YES (which is very valuable in NYC) they will have leverage to get their other channels e.g., BTN, carried. However, it's a HUGE leap to think they're going to be able to force Time Warner and Cablevision to pay $1.25 per subscriber for BTN, in order for those cable companies to have YES. It will be ugly if they try that - politicians will get involved and everything.

Cable companies can't just keep allowing their prices to skyrocket.  Their growth has maxed out and people will just (continue to) leave if you force them to pay more for stuff they don't want. They'll just cut the cord. BTN, a network I would guess literally 99% of NYC residents could do without, is not going to get added to basic cable w/o a fight. Look at how hard they battled over the NFL Network, which is product NYC residents actually care about.

If revenues don't grow by the figure you listed BECAUSE of this addition (not an increase that would have happened anyway), Michigan (and the other 11) gave up money.

Based on recent sports TV/media deals, it seems like an easy target. However, it would be interesting to see how much BTN would have gotten with the current 12 vs. the new setup. The incremental amount is what matters - otherwise this addition causes a dilution in earnings. You'd need Delany break out how much they got from DC, Baltmore, North NJ, NYC, etc cable systems to start to figure that out, but my guess is that won't happen. BTN will just announce a deal in a few years that is 50% larger than the previous one and credit Delany's genius of those two additions as being a big part of the reason, with little evidence to back it up.

In short, I can see it being accretive for UMD (I don't think this is the slam dunk others do, but it certainly is possible, perhaps even likely they will be "worth it" financially); for Rutgers, I think Delany looks like a rube starstruck by the lights of the big city of NYC, of which Rutgers has hardly any claim (certainly not enough for the dilution in earnings that adding them will cause).

You, and the OP, seem to think NYC is "locked up" now that B1G has Rutgers? Can someone show any evidence of this?

Why would a huge NYC cable system require ALL of its millions of subscribers -- the vast majority of which could not care less about college football -- to pay each & every month for the BTN? I can't see it. Rutgers is not to NY as Nebraska is to Omaha.

Michigan and MSU (to pick an example) are big enough draws that BTN is Channel 65 on Comcast, which means EVERY Comcast subscriber in Metro Detroit, whether they watch BTN or not (and most don't), pay for the channel as part of their basic package. That's where the real money is; not in separate tiers.

In NYC, Cablevision and Time Warner (the two biggest cable systems in NY) will keep things as-is -- you have to pay $6.95/month (Cablevision's Optimum Sports Pak) or $8.99/month (TW's Sports Pass) in order to get the "tier" of extra sports channels that includes BTN. That's why BTN is channel 413 (Cablevision) and channel 472 (TW). 

So far, no one has shown me evidence that getting the chance to watch Rutgers-Maryland, Rutgers-Indiana, or even Rutgers-PSU will force these big systems to add the channel to its basic lineup (which again, is where the money is; not in sports tier, where the BTN is already at - Delany wants 5 million people to pay BTN 60 cents a month, not 20,000 people (or however many passionate Rutgers fans there are in NYC) to pay BTN $6.95 a month).

Yet another reason to hate this expansion move. It's great we'll get to go to Camp Randall and Happy Valley once a decade or so.

If it wasn't a panic move, why wouldn't we be hearing about it until the last minute (at least in UMD's case)?

Read this article where Tom McMillen (former UMD bball player and now a regent) notes he voted against it b/c it was a rushed process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-joins-big-ten-lea...

Loh (UMD president) says that with a new generation not wanting to attend games (student sections around the world, unite!) it's about getting "eyeyballs." Well, how many "eyeballs" are they going to get for the bevy of crappy matchups that UMD and Rutgers will bring in football (and it's basically all about football - the BTN adds subscribers based on that primarily)?

More importantly, who says those "eyeballs" will pay, in sufficient amounts or at all? "The future" include a cord-cutting generation that increasingly says "Well, I've got my iPhone and Hulu Plus - I'm good."  They are not going to pay extra for UMD-Purdue, Rutgers-Indiana or UNC-Minnesota. 

You're going to see in media what you are now seeing in tickets (e.g., less season tix, more StubHub) - pay as you go (i.e., instead of paying $100 for cable each month, I'll pay $5 or $10 a game to watch OSU-Nebraska or Michigan-MSU). For that you need quality, not quantity. They are going the wrong way.

One of the big selling points college sports has is tradition - for Delaney, Brandon & co sakes, I hope they are right that throwing a big part of that away makes sense.

...wait until they have to get up for a noon game against Rutgers or Maryland.

And if Maryland is having a hard time coming close to filling their stadium now, wait till everyone gets jacked up for Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern and Illinois coming town.

While I don't see it, I'm sure Delany & co have worked their abacuses and done the number sand somehow, due to cable TV revenue, there are few extra bucks for everyone involved.

But from a sports standpoint, it gives me one more reason I'm glad I gave up my season tickets. I'll just scalp a few games I year that I care about and pocket the rest.

What a joke - UMD fans hate the move and B1G hate the move. Result: Do it anyway.

As noted in the article, it is happening all over the country, not just places that didn't have success in 2008. I mean, at MSU, their group of freshman has seen their best run of success in almost 40 years at that school in football.  Yet, they have even worse problems than UM does in terms of students showing up.

Like others, it is more of a generational/technology thing - you now can watch the game on 60" flat screen (or your phone, or your computer - whatever) and not have to go through the "difficulty" of actually getting off your butt, shaking off your sleepiness/hangover, getting dressed, watiing in line, etc.  Combine that with Michigan's student section being huge, so that pretty much any student who (at least in theory) that is somewhat interested can get a ticket, along with no real penalty/benefit at UM if you show up on time (if at all) -- you're going to have a lot no-shows.

I left the Colorado game with about 5 minutes left in 1994 b/c I had to go to work.  I thought the game was in hand and, more importantly, my boss was a stickler for not being late (and it was an internship I really need on my resume), so I thought I was safe.  Ooops.

Since this was  before cell phones, I walked in the door to see people huddling around a TV and I just saw the very end of the Hail Mary to Westbrook.  I haven't decided if it was better for me not to be there in person and be scarred for life or if it was worse to miss one of the most (in)famous plays in the history of Michigan Stadium. In the end, I just pretend it didn't happen.

The top 3 games for that year are:

1) MSU

2) Iowa?

3) Northwestern or maybe Colorado? (if the Buffs somehow get back to respectability, instead of their current run of epic terribleness).

The leftovers are Hawaii, Miami (OH), Ball State and Illinois. Oof.

Regardless of ranking, that will definitely be another StubHub/scalping year.

"Yet someone we like does something very similar, maybe worse, and most here are defending him."

- The discussion about Gholston was because he was clearly knocked out. His actions on the field (laying on top of Miller for half a minute; not moving) were given no other plausible explanation beyond he was knocked out. You don't lay on top of the opposing team's QB for that long, with your hand on his belly, if you are "winded."

- Thus if Gholston was knocked out, he had a concussion. Knocked out = concussion. End of story. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000799.htm

- Scott was not knocked out in the Arizona game. He still could have had a concussion. He vomited once and then a timeout was called before any more plays occurred. At that time, he was evaluated by Arizona's medical staff. Based on that, RR put him back in the game.

- After a three more plays, the drive ended and apparently something changed where they decided to keep him on the bench the rest of the game.  Scott (according to himself and RR) was "naseuous" all day b/c he was running the ball more than normal and it was hot (his words); they kept him out at the end because they were being "cautious."

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wildcatreport/2012/10/29/arizonas-matt-scott-expects-to-play-saturday-after-concussion-controversy/#more-4417

If someone has evidence that a) Scott wasn't evaluated for a consussion or b) he had one and RR still put him in, RR is in the wrong and worse than Dantonio. Since I have seen exactly zero of that, your statement off-base.

I always considered Beano Cook one of the odd birds of CFB, which is fine - CFB should have plenty of wacky guys who are prone to overstatement, as CFB is defined by passion. As long as he didn't get TOO much exposure, I was fine with him and his predicting Ron Powlus would win multiple Heisman's and the like.

Also - I did not see the ending coming. A real surprise.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought the BTN could choose certain games throughout the year, so they made sure each team was on its network a certain number of times.

If you look at the slate this week, it's not a very appealing week, even for the weak Big 10. Ohio State, the top ranked team, is playing Purdue (who has gotten crushed its last two games) and other contenders (e.g, Nebraska and Wisconsin) play Northwestern and Minnesota, two low profile teams.

So UM-MSU is the "big" game, and  maybe BTN picked it and the networks were like, "Eh, neither team is in the Top 20 -- you can have them."

It is 100% reasonable that someone watching that video would think Gholston was knocked out. In fact, it is by far the most likely interpretation.

But maybe we're are all wrong. Fine. Let's have the MSU coaches and doctors explain, exactly, how they determined Gholston only "had the wind knocked out" and didn't also have a concussion.

- Why did Gholston not move when the ref tapped him on the back?

- Why did Bullough (I think that was the MSU player) have to climb his way out, instead of Gholston (who after all, was conscious according to MSU) rolling off him?

- Why did Gholston force Miller to lie there with his Gholston's hand on Miller's belly for close to a minute if all he needed was to literally catch his breath?

- Did the doctors observe a video of the play clearly showing a helmet-to-helmet hit, resulting in Gholston going limp, before they put him back in?

- What tests, exactly, did they perform to determine he was not concussed?

- What are their qualifications for doing neurological testing?

Etc

Head injuries are THE story of football in this decade. Nothing has changed how the game is played more than this and we are well beyond "Trust me, he was fine." Players are suffering long-term injuries and early death because football still hasn't gotten a handle on this. MSU should provide reasonable answers to reasonable questions (i.e, no "Next Question!")

The reason I think the game (if at all possible) will be in CA, NYC, the DC area, etc is those are areas where Michigan has a) many alums and b) many high-rolling alums ("Ah, Stephen Ross! I didn't realize you lived on Manhattan. Would you like to join us in our suite?").

That's much more important for Brandon (or pretty much any big-time AD) - the only reason he'd go somewhere not alum-friendly is if he can get an "event" (see the Thursday night opening game vs Utah).

Bad grammar on my part. I was speaking about GA Tech not being a big name (in football outside their region), and thus Georgia might be willing to schedule a big national name, such as Michigan.

Georgia, while not in the tippy-top echelon (e.g. Alabama, USC, Florida), they are right below that. Georgia is certainly a big name program.

...you wathced other B1G games earlier in the day. I mean, MSU could not have looked much worse , OSU wasn't much better, and Iowa is in a downward spiral. I didn't see the Illinois game, but that had to be ugly, losing to LA Tech by 4 TDs.

Michigan needs to be able to go at least 6-2 against this motley collection, whatever the problems the team currently has. It's as low as I've seen the Big 10 in decades.

Throwing 24 passes (not incl sacks), when that passer seems to be having a bad day throwing, is not the right mix.  Denard dropped box to throw about 15 times (counting the sacks) in the first half of a close game. That is crazy. 

Denard should run & throw the ball about 15 times a game TOTAl, +/-5, with changes depending upon how things are going (both how he's playing and what the defense is giving).  MSU could not pass against ND, but they certainly ran decently. Why did we think we should throw the ball about 30 times (which was the pace we were on) in a game against a team that we knew could bring a lot of pressure, esp. against our underperforming OL, which Denard has trouble handling?  And why have many of those passes be 10+ yards down the field?

Also, that interception on the Gardner slant was definitely not an "Oh Noes" play. Not a single person thought Denard was running, as he doesn't take a single step (nor even a fake one) toward the line of scrimmage, which is how I understand it being defined. A faked handoff isn't the same thing.

All that said, Denard did not execute on certain plays, particularly the first two INTs and the fumble. Whatever game plan he is given, he needs to do better within its confines.

Re the Smith part of your post, four things:

1) Minnesota does not have ND's defense. While I don't think ND's defense is great, one thing it does have is a good front 7 that bring pressure (as shown in their last two games). Vincent Smith is also short. So you are asking a RB, who very rarely throws, to throw the ball in the face of likely pressure. Not a recipe for good decision or execution.

2) It is always harder to complete a pass in the red zone, and in particular, within the last 10 yards as there is less space for the defense to cover.  Smith's pass last year was actually thrown last year from about the 23 yard line, about 10 yards further out than the pass against ND.

3) Last year, Dileo was completely wide open. If you look at Smith's pass, http://youtu.be/Q_1249Nr75I?t=8s, he just nicely lolli-popped it to him, which was doable b/c there was no one within 10 yards of Dileo (or within 5 yards of Smith). Against ND, while the WR was open, it would have taken a nice throw that actually led the player and had the proper amount of arc over a defender - not too much, not too little. Again, a tough throw for an RB.

4) Minnesota was Smith's first ever pass. Doubtful Minnesota would have been looking for it. However, he also threw a pass against Purdue later. So ND, if they did some scouting, would likely not have been as fooled by a Smith pass.

In short, it was very dumb playcall. All trick plays are risks, but that had too many factors working against it.

One of the most uncomfortable and disappointing experiences in my long history of MIchigan fandom was watching the ND-UM game in 2010 at a house party in the Ann Arbor Twp/Saline area. A friend had invited me over, as he had recently moved into the neighrborhood and he was having a TV watching/house warming party, so there were ~100 people there in this huge house, mostly on the middle-aged side (30-50 years old). I didn't know the vast majority of these folks, but judging by the apparel, almost all were UM fans. 

This was before Denard was "DENARD" and, of course, his performance in that game was unbelievably awesome. But instead of people being happy we have this guy as our QB for the next 3 years, the amount of complaining & racial code words being tossed around about him was infuriating. It really turned me off of a portion of the Michigan fan base, as I've occasionally heard similar talk from a similar "class" of people in tailgating situations over the past few years.

As stated in the title, I have no idea the % of people who harbor these racist feelings (it is assuredly a minority), and it can be easy to conflate Michigan's unholy love of "traditional" football with many fans problem with a QB who wears long braided hair and runs for almost as many yards as he passes.

Complaining about Denard is, as pointed out, completely understandable. He's far from perfect (e.g., way too many INTs) and other QBs (esp. Navarre) were complained about just as much. But the WAY some people (particularly, in my experience, the older, high-roller crowd) complain about Denard does not make me feel happy thoughts about society.

Jigga what?

Ferry Field is where Jesse Owes had the greatest hour in sports history.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/more/05/24/owens.record.day/index.html

Boy, I'm sure all these new places (and there are a LOT) will be nice and I know the athletic department is self-funded, but man, that's quite an empire at a public university. Again, I know they'll get donors and season ticket holders to pony up, but it's quite stunning. I have no idea how other Div 1A schools, outside a group of 20 or so (Texas, OSU, Stanford, etc) will ever remotely keep up. Which is the idea, I suppose.

While I have only been to a few road games (and they were fun), I have seen every team in the Big 10 play Michigan, multiple times, in person. Why? Because they came to Ann Arbor.  That's the point. For most Michgian fans, getting tix to home games is the easiest way for us to see our team and their oppenents. Playing one-offs in remote, NFL locations doesn't give us that opportunity.

Also, on the secondary point, it's true I very likely wouldn't have gone to Tuscaloosa, but I have to imagine for those who could, it would be a better college atmosphere than Jerry world.

Seriously, I had.

Thank you for reminding me.  Now I will go somewhere to drink a few to forget again.

Also while tailgating, I bemoaned the fact we wouldn't get a chance to see a big time non-conf program in the foreseeable future like Alabama in the Big House (or go to Bryant-Denny stadium for those who live in the region or travel). My only thought is Brandon things those type of "regular" games are too pedestrian.

I mean, I hate MSU, but I am envious they get to play Oregon, Alabama and Miami (YTM) over the next 8 years in home & homes. We, on the other hand, get Utah. Yipee.

As someone who attended the FSU game and only watched the Washington game on TV, it's not exactly comparable, but I thought Washington was definitely the superior team (thought both were obviously excellent teams).

At least again FSU, Michigan could score. It was 25-23 at one point and it was a crazy game with scores happenening all sorts of ways. Against Washington, it seemed like our offense (which was/is the best UM offense in the last 40 years) could not do ANYTHING. Desmond Howard, who had been awesome all year, even against FSU, looked like he didn't deserve to be starting WR, let alone the Heisman winner.

It's one thing to lose, decisevely in the end, a shootout to FSU -- at least you can foolishly dream that if you didn't do a couple stupid things (e.g., 2 pick sixes) things might have gone your way. Against Washington, I had no illusions - they were just better. A lot better.

...so shouldn't Borges have adjusted? Don't we have more than that "exact play"? Vincent Smith is not remotely as good as Fitz as a runner, so feeding Smith the ball doesn't seem like a great plan.

And as far as what Borges "knows", he may "know" in general, but I would like to be very good now, with our senior QB and our 1st Rd pick LT. In our biggest games last year/this year, the offense was poor for ND (Denard pulled that game out of his a**), MSU, Iowa, Va Tech and Alabama. Against Nebraska and OSU, it was v good/great.

That's not a great ratio.  I thought after the improvement UM showed toward the end of 2011, we could count on Borges realizing he needed to work with what he had and maximize our current team's talents, but the regression against Va Tech and now Alabama may indicate Neb and OSU were the exception, not the rule, against good to great teams.

I understand Alabama's D is awesome, so I was not expecting 500 yards and 30+ points, and we may just have to accept the mismatch between coordinator and the talent he has, but I think we can be frustrated (or at least concerned) that our offense may not be quite as good as we hoped this year, in large part due to the deficiencies our OC.

they are both W's?  

These are two different types of fonts. The uniform is a sans-serif font; the University font you showed above is a serif font (i.e., it has those little decorative lines, in this case at the top of the letter).

An example for those MS Word users out there is Arial (sans serif) vs Times New Roman (serif).  

I'm guessing the uniform designers went with the sans-serif b/c it was "cleaner" but man, do they manage to look basic, yet ridiculous.

These uniforms (and the Nebraska ones) are ugly. Not sure if they're worse than the bumble-bee's, but they are bad.

I haven't broken down Utah's roster and how it will play out in 2014, but based on the past decade, it seems likely they'll be a 7 to 8 win team, i.e., a team Michigan could easily lose to if we don't have play a good game.

It's just too bad we couldn't play someone with more history - that's one of the reasons I love Michigan, and really like about college football in general.  Even Boise State, because they have been consistently excellent for about a decade now would have been "sexier" (I'm not saying they were necc. an option, just pointing out we don't have to restrict ourselves to teams that we awesome in the 1960s.)

He loves the state of Michigan and always talks about it when he gets the opportunity.

For example, Here's a video interview where he talks about learning the drums, growing up in Detroit, etc. It's conducted at Hunter House (great burger place in Birmingham).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imoXiCf5CmU&feature=relmfu

I've had it three times, b/c each time I thought, 'Man, this will be awesome' based on all the hype. It was not awesome. Better than McDonald's or Burger King, sure, but nothing special.

Is a promsing head coach for the 1st-place Cardinals?

What are you saying - he'll leave a job literally at the top of his profession (defending World Series champs) that he just got, for a school that's part of league that can't even decide how to compete with the southern schools with better weather?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2851235

Pre-Sandusky, this was a low point in the Paterno era: "Six Penn State football players, including stars Anthony Scirrotto and Justin King, turned themselves in Friday to face charges that they barged into a party and started a violent fight at an off-campus apartment earlier this month."

That one involved less women punching, but did include a PSU's players girlfriend and also bring your "boys" to back you up.

As I recall, most of those charges were dismissed or reduced.  Have no idea what will happen in the Arizona case,.

THJ has one of the prettiest 12-18 foot jump shots around and I have no idea why he is so enamored with the three.  Well, actually I do have an idea, in that Michigan's offense is in large part built around 3's, but I've always thought he shot too many.

Consider: last year in games against ranked opponents and MSU (i.e., big games), here are his #s:
- Syracuse, 1-8
- Purdue, 1-2
- Wisconsin, 0-3
- Kansas, 2-10
- OSU, 3-7
- Minn, 4-10
- MSU, 1-4
- OSU, 3-7
- Wisconsin, 4-7
- MSU, 2-6
- OSU, 2-9
- Duke, 1-6

While there are certainly some decent performances in there, he tended to save his few "lights out performances (e.g., 4-6 and 5-7's) for last year's dregs of the B1G (e.g., Iowa, IU).  When we were matched against top opponents (who presumbably can play more defense and there was more pressure for the shots to go down), he did pretty well occasionally, but usually was pretty bad.

My hunch is now that he's "the man" he's feeling more pressure that he's got to score in bunches (which certainly makes some sense; UM does not have a great deal of offensive firepower) and that's causing at least some of this consistently bad, while still voluminous, 3 point shooting.  I wish he would focus on driving to the hoop and pull up 12-18 foot J's (if those are in the offense), and leave most of the three pointers to the other guards and Smotz.

I have no idea what he does (or doesn't do) on his radio show in Indy, so I can't comment on that.

I will say I agree with Brian on him as a color commentator.  He didn't get EVERYTHING (none do), but he knows his stuff.  For example, his breakdown of how Michigan was using the High Pick & Roll and how Purdue should (and wasn't) defending it was pretty spot on.  I mean, during one sequence he pointed out that for Purdue to stop the layups they were going to have to live with leaving Stu open for corner 3's and boom, next possession Purdue stopped the rolling big man to the basket, leaving Stu open for a three.

As far as critcizing the refs, it is very rare for a color commentator (unless they're a long-time network star, like Bilas) to make comments about refereeing unless it is multiple and egregious.  Remember, ESPN and the B1G are "partners" and if you criticize the refs heavily, you're de facto criticizing your corporate partner.  It stinks, b/c that means commentators are less than forthcoming, but it's a fact of life in college sports.

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/more-trouble-stonum

A good portion of the comments are "No big deal" (e.g., Mr. Rager, amongst many others).  Certainly not all, but quite a bit.

I think now that's he going to jail for ten days, people have finally opened their eyes ("oh no, we can't have a jail bird on the team!"), but that shouldn't matter - whether they would have decided to send him to jail or not, he should have been on the zero tolerance plan*.  Blatantly violating your probation and then lying about it at this point should result in gonzo.

*He may have been, for all I know, but it doesn't seem likely..  Hoke may have been waiting for confirmation of the charges, but I would have liked him to say yesterday "If these allegations are true, there will be a change in Stonum's status."  Instead he punted with the "no change in status" statement.

Richt completely screwed this game late in the 4th quarter and in OT.

Beyond what you mentioned, I can't believe the playcalling on the last series where one more first down would have sealed the deal.  MSU had been dominating (to say the least) the line of scrimmage with something like 17 TFLs, and yet GA called three straight running plays (which of course, resulted in 4 total yards).  While this got the clock down to about 2 minutes with no TOs, that's plenty of time for any offense, particularly MSU that has some playmakers, to throw the ball down the field.

I don't understand coaches who turtle up when the game is on the line.  If Georgia's QB throws an incomplete on 2nd and/or 3rd down, MSU gets to keep a TO - so what?  It's rare that with 2 minutes left a team is going to run out of time - either they will score (which MSU did w/ easily enough time left) or they will get stopped on downs, which makes whether they had 1 or 0 timeouts meaningless when you kneel on it 2 or 3 times.  At least by throwing it, GA would have given themselves another chance or two to win the game, instead of completely relying on your D.

It's good the Big 10 won one game, but man, what an ugly slate of games this afternoon. As a football fan, I don't know why anyone would watch the Big 10 unless your from that set of schools.

I would understand if Brandon & co decided to update the away uniform every ~two years if it was found necessary, for whatever reason, b/c it is not as established.  But to have a different uniform basically every other game (remember, we have a grand total of 5 away games this year, counting the Sugar Bowl) is ridiculous. 

It doesn't make it a uniform; it makes it a kid's playtime costume -- "today I'm a bumblebee!", "look, now I'm an airline pilot!"

I agree with #1 - that's a very valid assessment and quite possible.

But if you seriously think, with #2, that RR, who worked himself up from a student assistant job 30 years ago and has been in football ever since, got a multimillion dollar job, puts his reputation (which was seriously damaged at Michigan) on the line and moves his family across the country just so he can "hang out with his buddies" and not really "do the work" that's just weird.

All evidence from stories that have been written (see that one in SI this week for just one example) say that he wants to win badly at AZ.  You can certainly criticize his coaching choices, offensive philosophy, etc, but I would need hard evidence to say he doesn't really care and he's just "milking it."  You don't have any shred of that.

- I just looked up that Garman kid.  He was declared ineligible twice in HS, once in OK and once in TX b/c his family moved him 4 times in 4 years.  This now makes it 5 schools in 5 years.

- Savage said he transferred for his family.  I have no idea if that's true, but he was already a transfer from Rutgers, so he seems to be on the move a lot as well.

When new coaches get hired, people transfer.  Happens everywhere, including to Hoke this year (we lost something like 8 players?).  The imporant thing for Rich Rod is unlike 2008, he already has a QB with experience who fits his offense in place, Matt Scott.  RR will have to get freshman QBs for depth, but that's fine - he can point to Denard/Forcier in 2009 and get himself some talented newbie.

I only watched the 4th quarter, but what a debacle.  A fumble on first down by BJ Daniels when USF was in position to run out the clock for a winning field goal.  Then, on the ensuing WVU last drive, a personal foul (basically after the play) on what would have been a 4th down for WVU, an offsides, and two(!) illegal substitution penalties.

WVU didn't so much march down the field as the ambled down it as a confused USF looked on.  I will give WVU credit for that last play before the FG (a really nice catch), but that was it.

I'm glad I don't have to watch USF football on a regular basis.

...an actual source for this "quote" beyond an edited WIkipedia page or a team message board like tigerdroppings.com.  Until that proven source exists, anything that "could've happened" doesn't matter - there is zero proof it did, and this quote remains extremely suspect.

Beyond it being pointed out no one could source it, why would he have said it?  On Dec 7, 2003 (i.e., the day before this supposed quote), Saban's team (LSU) moved up to #2 in the BCS rankings - the final rankings before the bowl games.  His team was already in the championship!  He didn't need to lobby in the press, a la Urban Meyer in 2006.

Knowing how much Saban hates talking to the media, why would he provide HUGE locker room material for his opponent in the upcoming BCS game, Oklahoma (who was #1 even though it lost the BIg 12 title game the week prior), by badmouthing them?

I really don't like Saban, but that's a complete BS quote.

Link for BCS rankings in 2003 (go to page 8, to see the last rankings, on Dec 7, 2003):
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2003.pdf

His hire has not even had its official press conference yet.  People like discussing things when it is new - this is new, so it is natural that there will be a few board posts on it.  Plus, it's completely appropriate that people want to discuss a huge event (finding a BCS HC job) for the most recent ex-coach at Michigan.  If we get deep into the 2012 season and there are daily posts about the WR depth chart at Arizona or where to go out to eat after a game in Tucscon (i.e., not huge events) on mgoblog, I'll be very surprised. 

So in short, don't worry about it.

Shenanigans.  That explains it.

This article gives a good overview of why McQueary (or anyone else who sees a mentor/authority figure performing a crime) doesn't automatically immediately become a "hero" and put a quick end to any (real or perceived) criminal act, even heinous ones.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/why-joe-paterno-didnt-call-police

Some key quotes:

"“The human mind has the capacity to spin anything to suit what we want to believe,” Dr. Lubit goes on. “So you make excuses to yourself. ‘There must be some other explanation.’

 

"Humans are programmed to not question authority, Dr. Lubit says. Men are especially hierarchical, particularly when they work in organizations made up largely of other men."

In short, as you noted, it takes real active effort to shake yourself out your pre-conceived notions/natural caution and DO something, especially immediately.  That's why you always hear cops/soliders/first responders say "The training kicked in" when the respond have some disaster/crime - without that training building up their mind, they would likely not have any idea what to do, so would most likely do nothing.

This isn't important, but the mention in the press conference reminded me: the 1986 Bears (258.1 Yards/Game, 11.7 PTS/Game) actually had a slightly better defense statistically than the 1985 Bears (258.4 Yards/Game, 12.4 PTS/Game) during the regular season.

Of course, everyone remembers the 1985 Bears becuase a) they won the Super Bowl and b) did the Super Bowl shuffle.  The 1986 Bears lost in the first round of the playoffs.

...not the fumbles themselves.  This link describes it well (and agrees with what your football players said, w/o the 'nerd-hurt' sentiment): http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

"Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year."

In other words, being a ball hawk like C Woodson or L Taylor is a skill; recovering the fumbles they cause is luck.  Same goes on the offensive side (e.g., Mike Hart rarely fumbling as a great skill).

Now, let's look at our offense's stats (all from http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/fumbles-per-game):

2010: Michigan average 2.0 fumbles a game and lost 1.3 of them (i.e., lost 65% of fumbles)
2011: Michigan average 1.3 fumbles a game and lost 0.3 of them (i.e., lost 23% of fumbles)

If Michigan had as bad of luck, like last year, we would have already lost 5 or so more fumbles this season.  Think of the Denrad scoop and score against ND as your touchstone for the good fortune we've (thankfully) had this year in this regard.

I would guess a big reason Michigan is averaging lower fumbles this year in the first place is Denard is going out of bounds much more easily, but perhaps there are other reasons (e.g., Fitz is getting more carries, and he has a better handle than Smith or Hopkins).

Hopefully our luck will continue this season.  Or perhaps better yet, let's hope we don't even need it.

Year:  YdPG, PtsPG

2010: 488.7, 32.8
2009: 384.5, 29.5
2008: 290.8, 20.2
2007: 385.1, 27.2
2006: 370.8, 29.2
2005: 384.2, 28.8
2004: 386.5, 30.8
2003: 446.7, 35.4
2002: 381.2,  27.8
2001: 359.2, 26.7
2000: 446.1, 33.7
1999: 386.6, 30.1
1998: 380.8, 27.6
1997: 387.7, 26.8
1996: 381.9, 23.1
1995: 395.4, 26.0
1994: 415.7, 27.5
1993: 404.7, 28.5
1992: 466.9, 35.9
1991: 419.7, 35.0

So, if last year's offense wasn't that good, Michigan has had maybe only 2 or 3 good offenses in the past twenty years (2003, 2001 and 1992).

...and if your response is "that was all against UMass!" - the reason we lost to Iowa (31 pts), PSU (31 pts), Wisconsin (28 pts) and barely beat Illinois (67 pts) wasn't b/c of the offense -- it was b/c the defense was absolutely terrible.

BTW - we fell behind by multiple scores against ND this year.  I will now remove that from the win column, as coming from down 2 or 3 scores when you are losing is not allowed.

Why would he want to go play Alabama and LSU every year in the SEC West?  I know every program has their up's & down's, but it seems real likely that those 2 teams will be elite for at least the next five years, barring a Tressel-like scandal.  Those would v likely be two automatic losses every year.

Beyond them, Arkansas (a team that does well in the SEC sans-defense) is probably the third best team in the whole conference.  Oh, and the defending National champion, Auburn, also is in that division.

I think RR would be better for Arizona (out of the likely BCS jobs opening up if he HAD to take a job and he was offered all of them, hypothetically).  He got Lewan and Roh from there, and the competition, while tough, wouldn't be literally the toughest in college football.

"Renovated stadium, the envy of the conference, check."  The stadium renovation was approved by the regents in June 2007; DB started in January 2010.  He had nothing to do with it.

"Good coaching hire who made good coaching hires, check."  Wow - I didn't realize seven games in it's been confirmed Brady Hoke was a good hire.  I certainly hope he is a good hire, but we won't know that for at least 3 years, probably longer.

Also, are you giving DB credit for our 2012 recruiting class?  The vast majority of those players committed before the night game and last Saturday's white-out bumble bee explosion, so my guess is they are committing b/c they think Michigan, and themselves personally, will be successful under Mattison and Hoke as football players.  The rest of the stuff is small potatoes. 

The venom against Brandon is it seems like he would stamp "CURLY FRIES - 2 for $1" on the back of a jersey if he thought he could get away with it.  He has some good ideas (Big Chill, UTL), but he's far too slick and dollar-dollar-bill for my liking.

I wonder if it was only in the last 2-3 years (when concussions have become a huge issues) that NFL teams did head scans as part of a physical.  My guess is they didn't - they probably just made sure your legs, arms, neck and conditioning were all in good working order and if so, you were good to go.

So, not only is he lucky he was traded, but traded during this new era of "brain health" in sports.

Best wishes to Jerome.

I see Hoke has double-down on the "it was a good call, we (i.e., Brandon Moore) just screwed up."  Fine.  Let's say Moore blocked the blitzer.  Was anyone coming open?  I honestly don't know, but perhaps there was someone at the game who saw a WR or someone who was just breaking into the clear and if there were 2 more seconds, he would have been easily open, but I couldn't tell.

I'll still think it's a bad call b/c you're making things more complicated when all you need is 6 inches, but I will understand it more.

If you watch the replay, you see that a) Dileo had the ball close to his head (not where you usually would expect it) and b) his legs/lower half were on an MSU defender, meaning he wasn't down quite as early as you might have thought.

When I saw it live, I was less than sure we got it, but surprisingly (to me), the replay showed the spot was accurate (which, to give both sets of refs credit, is what they called).

"Any team in college football"?  I definitely think we should be currently ranked Top 12 b/c, as has been pointed out, we deserve it based on resume, but have you seen Alabama/Stanford/Oklahoma/LSU?  I think Alabama would literally beat Northwestern 50-7, if not by more.  They have seven players on their D (all experienced) who are currently projected to be first or second round NFL picks.  They have signed 73 players in the last four years who are 4 or 5 stars.  I think Saban is a low-life, but the guy can recruit and coach.

You can find the other frightening stats here (e.g., one coach compared them to an NFC South team). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191036/1/ind...

Let's enjoy our (hopeful? likely?) march to 10 wins this season, but not get carried away - while Michigan definitely should be ranked #10 right now, there's a much larger gap btw the #1-5 teams and us, than there is btw us and the #25 team.

Michigan football tickets are now so expenisve, it's unbelievable.  I mean that literally - I can't believe it.  I know we have a large and passionate fan-base, but the amount of people who have this kind of coin seems like it would be limited compared to our huge capacity, but I assume they've done the analysis that there is a market there for the 30-40% of our seats that require this fee.

The wonderful thing is these donations are 80% tax-exempt.  In these trying budgetary times, I can't believe some budget hawk politician hasn't brought up this fact that hundreds of universities are doing this.  Probably b/c their well-off/rich constituents (who are the ones buying these tickets) come from both the left & right and would scream bloody murder.  A true bi-partisan cause.

It probably should be bigger than me to think this way about a college athlete, but it makes me feel good he's now a receiver with only 11 catches on a 1-4 Colorado team that is currently 29 point underdogs to their next opponent, Stanford.  Too bad for you, Toney.

... the immediate reaction would have been like the one in the stadium - stunned silence.  I know I couldn't have approached a keyboard for at least a couple days after a loss like that.

...we'll score the winning touchdown on them with only one second left on the clock, instead of two?

...or it didn't happen.

1) I completely agree on the visuals.  There was a shot ESPN kept using that looked up (I assume into the student section) at the vast sea of maize which had the pom poms moving back & forth that looked incredible.  I literally think more than 1 recruit will see that and say, "I want to be go there and be part of events like that."

2) Regarding loudness, the stadium has clearly gotten louder since the renovation, so it's hard to compare it to MSU 2004 (for instance).  ND-Michigan in 2009 was deafening at many points.  I would say it seemed ND in 2009 had to burn more timeouts b/c of the crowd noise than in 2011 (I think there was only 1 this year and perhaps 3 in 2009), but that could just be maybe they were better prepared this year.

Also, Seven Nation Army (which is one of my favorite songs of all-time) while loud, is not as loud as people screaming "Ahhhhhhh!", in my opinion.  Perhaps this is b/c it has a natural lower voice register part (the end "Oh oh oh ohhhhhhh oh" part). The beginning of each stanza(?) is loud, but the end not as much b/c of that. I noticed it while watching that it could have been a bit louder at the critical point where the QB approaches the line and makes his checks if people were just yelling.

That's a small thing, really.  If since Seven Nation gets people into the game, that's the key thing (i.e., no key jangling).

I was at that game and I'd forgotten that - he had a monster game.  38 carries, 164 yards and a TD.

That's a hell of performance that I bet 1% of Michigan fans remember (and it sounds like Lou doesn't remember it either).  Desmond deserves the Heisman and all the accolades but its too bad Ricky doesn't get his props.

You make good points - people conflate "athleticism" with "talent" all the time, when athleticism is just a subset of overall talent.  As you pointed out, Kovacs is good at football, which is more than running a 4.3 40 yard dash or benching 225 lbs 30 times (though those things can help).

Kovacs isn't particularly fast or strong, so he can get outrun by RBs (e.g., Indiana) or plowed over by TEs.  That prevents him from being great (or even very good).  However, he is a GREAT form tackler, seems to know the play book, and is increasingly getting better at timing/angles.  Those are all talents that are hugely important and make him a quality player in the Big 10, a great result for player who walked-on.  We're lucky to have him on the defense.

I'm glad a number of folks have decided to worry about Brink, but it's unequivocally a bad sign that our highest rated recruit (a legit 5 star) from three years ago can't crack the starting lineup now that he's an upper classman.  I know "Mike Hart was 3 star, so was David Harris, etc" but to get Michigan back into the top tier of the Big 10 (let alone all of college football) you need to a) recruit your share of studs and b) have them perform like said studs, a la Woodley and Graham.  It's pretty depressing the BWC doesn't look like he's really going make much of an impact at U of M unless things dramatically, and unexpectedly, change.

Campbell is only one player and I'm hopeful that pleasant surprises elsewhere (such as the DBs) can make up for the lack of depth/raw talent in other areas, but I'll believe Brink isn't the best of some poor/mediocre options when I see it.  I will be rooting for him and hope he impresses us all - at a minimum, it's a great that his hard work seems to be paying off in getting some PT at Michigan.

Denard, a person who I worried if he would ever remotely be an accurate passer during his freshman year, somehow by just doing a "QB lead draw or QB sweep relying on his speed" threw for 2570 yards last year. That's b/c the RR spread got people wide-freaking open more times than I can ever recall, including teams that had superstar talent at receiver (e.g., Howard, Alexander, Toomer, Edwards).  By comparison, Chad Henne threw for 2526 yards his sophomore year.

Even in games where Michigan underperformed (e.g., the 1st half of Wisconsin) the plays were there.  For example, I think we all remember on the first play of one the early drives, Stonum breaking wide-open (b/c the D bit on the play-action) for a likely touchdown and Denard airmailing it about 5 yards over his head.

Denard was a 1st-year starter who was still improving his decision making and accuracy.  It's extremely likely he would have been more efficient this year in an RR offense precisely b/c his skills fit it so well - that's why U of M got him instead of, say, Florida (to Urban Meyer's chagrin).  Hopefully, we'll somehow get lucky and Denard will continue to throw for 2000+ yards, with less INTs and only have to run for about 750 yards b/c Stephen Hopkins (or Fitz or Cox or whomever) turns into Ty Wheatley Jr - but that's not likely, just b/c a new offense takes time.

$70 for EMU and WMU individual tickets (and for not great seats) is just ridiculous.  Honestly - how pumped up would a casual fan be for those games where the only outcome that would make a UM fan happy (a blowout) is also one that would make it hard to justify spending $$$ from a, "Boy, am I glad I'm here" standpoint?  I mean, paying $140 for tickets (assuming you are going with someone), additional fees, parking, food - it's easily $200 total for what will likely be a bad game.

When you have a 110,000 seat stadium, if you want to fill it up, you have to rely a lot, esp for non-Big 10 games, on casual fans who want to go as much for the experience and atmosphere, as much for the football.  They are being priced out.

I really hope Hoke & co do well this year, b/c otherwise, at these pumped up prices, we're going to see some legitimate non-sellouts in the near future.

Why do we have some people doing their variation of Terrelle Pryor - "Everybody drinks & drives, texts & drives" - going on?

Who cares what "everybody" does (which I don't agree is remotely the case, but let's go with it)? Drunk driving is against the law. It's against the law because literally ten thousand people die every year in drunk driving accidents, not to mention the tens of thousands more injured.

Avoiding getting pulled over for drunk driving is incredibly easy to do.  It should be even more easy once you've got a DUI on your record - a person with a good head on his shoulders would avoid even the slightest chance of it happening by NEVER driving after drinking, knowing that a second conviction likely would result in some jail time.

Like I assume all of you, I don't know Stonum personally.  In interviews, he seems like an engaging, bright person.  He's also probably our #1 receiver (if not, he's close). But for some reason, he has continually gotten in trouble witht the law, and not for minor offenses.  He's lucky he hasn't killed or hurt himself or someone else.

I don't know why he deserves a fourth chance. If Hoke wants to re-consider him in a year, I can slightly see that, but he's going to look Dantonio-esque if Stonum gets arrested yet again while driving impaired/intoxicated and unfortunately, based on Stonum's past, as a coach I would be pretty nervous about putting myself in that position.

I agree with this.  As you note, he got a DUI, then went to freakin' jail for three days for violating his probation, and all of that apparently affected him so much, he's now got a second DUI.

Three strikes, he is out.  I could have a small (very small) bit of understanding if he doesn't play in 2011 and then has a chance for re-instatement for 2012, but let's (hypothetically, but a real possibility based on past performance) say he gets another DUI in 2012.  What then? Hoke would like Dantonio-level foolish.

Stonum has used up his chances for football.  He has had multiple ones.  I hope he gets his life together and can do something else productive.

Rosenberg was an opinion columnist who had previously staked out an anti-RR stance, and then dabbled in investigative reporting to which - shocker - uncovered a "scandal" that backed his opinion.

Dohrmann is an investigative reporter.  That is what he does.  He won a Pulitzer (really hard to do coming from the sports world) busting Clem Haskins and Minny basketball and his primary role at SI is investigative reporting.

http://www.georgedohrmann.com/about-george

Investigative reporting is not pretty.  You better have your sh*t and sources together to back it up.  But anyone who spends time doing it, they are going to be passionate about it, as they typically have to spend months, if not years, doing the work.  Just because he has a torch doesn't, simply b/c of that, mean what he is doing "is not right."

I agree that it is completely logical for someone who was "impacted in a positive way" by Tressel to have positive feelings about him.  That's human nature.

But he takes that natural inclination and turns it into, "...your basketball bench riding career is over and you have to talk about this stuff to keep to veiwers. I totally understand that keeping the drama alive..." and uses the word "persecution", i.e., haters gonna hate.  Nothing to see here.

As noted by you and others, Jim Tressel can easily be a) a coach who's helped hundreds of young men have successful careers in & out of football and b) a huge cheater.  Moeller completely discounts "b" and that why I think it's incorrect to state, "I don't think there's anything wrong with Moeller's defense."

Is there some law has that been passed that our former stars have to run their mouth and (intentionally or not) denigrate either current or former coaches or players at U of M in the media and speeches? 

Desmond couldn't have made his larger point and used Cam Newton or the Tat 5 ("me" players clearly involved in shady stuff) instead of Denard Robinson (who has handled stardom far better and more humbly than most 19 year olds)?

I don't know how you can't see it. In 2004-2007:
- We finished the regular season unranked twice
- We went 0-4 against OSU
- We went 2-2 against ND
- We went 4-0 against MSU (thank god) but had to pull out some of those victories against mediocre teams in the most unbelieveable fashion possible
- We suffered the "biggest upset" in D1-A history (Horror)
- We were utterly crushed at home by Oregon
-  You mentioned the USC team and their NFL talent.  They certainly had a lot, but they were led by one John David Booty.  The 2006 Michigan team had so much talent (credit to Carr) that it makes my eyes water - Woodley, Harris, Hall, Branch, Henne, Hart, Manningham, etc - all playing, and some starring in the NFL.  Yet in their two biggest games, we were clearly outclassed (OSU was ahead virtually the entire game ; USC blew us out through smart coaching & good playing in the 2nd half).

There were certainly some highlights (2005 PSU, 2008 Cap One Bowl vs Florida, to name a few), but we were, unfortunately, below the top tier and sometimes (2005 & 2007) well below it.  In 2008, if Carr had stayed, what would we have gone - 6-6? 5-7? 7-5?  Do you really think we would have competed for a Big Ten title? It's hard to argue much different than that.  He gets a lot of "credit" for that year.

We weren't atop the Big 10 in Carr's later years - we had, unfortunately, been clearly passed by OSU.  That wasn't the case in Carr's first few years, 1996-2003 (or the Mo years, or the Bo years).  That's a decline.

Were you excited when Cullen Christian committed?  How about when we got Ricardo Miller*? What did you think of Patrick Omameh? And so on.

I'm happy recruiting has been good so far, and that we've gotten a bunch of three to four stars, many of whom also seem to be solid citizens, with no likely clunkers in the bunch.   It seems like it should be a lower-reaches of the Top 10 class. But it's WAY early to even say "the precincts have reported in and it's a landslide" about recruiting before they have even played a down.

I will not know if Hoke is a good hire until at least three years from now, if not more, unless he does incredibly well (e.g., wins a Rose Bowl this year or next) or incredibly bad (e.g., Denard regresses markedly and D is not much improved).  There was a funny post on EDSBS the other day about "Your coach makes a terrible book cover" which had an image of Ty Willingham for the book "Return to Glory."  Willingham was a man of integrity who had some initial success, but ultimately was not a success.  It's good to be excited, but let's play some football before we decide someone is or isn't good at being the HC of Michigan.

*(BTW: I'm not writing off R Miller; I just remember how excited we were when we initially got him ("one of the best in Florida!"), and he hasn't had an impact yet and looks not to be the world-beater we'd hoped).

I'm an alum of U of M, and I can unfortunately count on one hand the amount of times current students have contacted me even though I'm part of the Alumni Association and more importantly, put myself in an alumni database at the schools I graduated from as person to contact if they're looking for some career advice.  Trust me, there are more people like me who are willing to help, if it all possible. I'm sure UW-M is the same way; contact your career services.

I think students feel embarrased or like they are bothering alums, but if someone specifically put themselves in a career services database to be contacted, that's why they're in there: to be contacted.  If they are too busy or can't help, they'll let you know, but that small, small "rejection" is worth the minimal effort it takes to thoughtfully contact them with your situation.

I'm not in accounting (I took ACC 312 and decided figuring out how to properly amortize a lease was not my cup of tea), so can't help you there - good luck with your search.

Let me try and answer your question: both Braylon and Harbaugh did things such as drunk driving, punching other people in the face, and speaking poorly about your alma mater to undercut the people currently there which makes me "down" on them.  Braylon has put the cherry on top by acting like an entitled diva, on and off the field. I completely respect what they did at the school as players (both All-Americans), both have had success in their professional lives, and both have done great amounts of charity work - that still doesn't excuse their behavior and makes me 1) have Brandon return BE's money and say, "Thanks, we'll make the decisions on who gets the #1 jersey and what we think of the coaching staff" and 2) not thrilled at the prospect of Harbaugh as the UM head coach, even though he's obviously a good coach.

Miles is a different category: as far as I know, he's never done the DUI/punching/bad-mouthing the other guys did.  His faults (as I understand them) are his general craziness as a HC (weird clock management; eating grass) and his shabby treatment of a few players through grey shirting. I don't care if he did or did not sleep with some other coach's wife 20+ years ago.

In short, if forced to make a choice, I would have taken Miles over Harbaugh, as I don't consider his faults (while crappy, and I would never want a UM coach to do that) as bad as Harbaugh (who I thought, even if took the UM job, would go to the NFL soon anyway).  That said, it doesn't matter.  We'll never have either of them as a coach. As for Braylon, I'd be fine not hearing from him for a year or two - go concentrate on the Jets.

"To prepare for his first open-to-the-public spring game, Rodriguez has worked with the Athletic Department to make the festivities more fan friendly. Part of that is the first annual alumni flag football game, slated to take place before the 100-play intrasquad scrimmage."

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-04-10/alumni-excited-come-back-football-teams-annual-spring-game

Hoke at April 13 presser: Mike Cox hasn't practiced as much because he has a class during Tuesday practice time "so that doesn't help him."

After acting like an a** on Twitter (or maybe it was Facebook) after RR left, repeated reports from practice he doesn't know the plays, and now not being smart enoug to schedule his classes at a time other than practice time, I don't have much faith in Mike Cox's maturity and judgment.

It's disappointing, b/c he seems to have some real physical skills and we really need a stud RB, but he looks destined to be a non-contributor.

I clicked on your link, which led to another link, which stated, "Steve Nash Black Baby Revealed: It’s White all Right" with a picture of a white baby.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nba/article_external/nashs_black_baby_dadd...

This contains rumors it was Nash cheating on his wife, not the other way around.  I'm sure it will turn out to be Grant Hill's baby, and Jalen Rose will then somehow be involved.

I have no idea what is true, but I do know I am now sorry I spent 5 minutes on this.

Sometime between the late '90s and early '00s, the description changed.  Historically, it was TAs (and that seems to be what most other universities use).

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/gsi-sa/contract.html

My guess it was changed because teaching "assistants" sounds too much like someone helping someone else who is teaching, as opposed to what GSIs really are - the ones who teach a huge chunk of the 100 and 200 level classes for undergrads.

(Yes, I'm still bitter about Millen taking Stanton in the 2nd round of the 2007 draft instead of Woodley or Harris, who went three and four picks later, respectively)