coaches say you can't, so don't sign a loi
S FL Wolverine
- Member for
- 6 years 7 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Obama gets elected and Reps warn that Defense spending will be "gutted". Please check defense spending in the last six years. It has not gone down.
- Similarly, Bush gets elected and Dems warn that he will gut social spending programs and education. Again, check spending numbers during the Bush years. All of these things went upward.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||See||
See #BrianWilliamsMisremembers for a helluva good time.
|6 weeks 5 hours ago||Baxter, bark twice if you're||
Baxter, bark twice if you're in Milwaukee.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||I agree with everything you||
I agree with everything you said here except one thing:
"Regarding Harbaugh, things need to wait out until the regular season is over."
It occurred to me the other day, when the reports circulated that Hackett would be taking a shot at Harbaugh "through the 49ers", that this might mean trying to get a commitment and/or the services of Harbaugh before the season ends. From what I understand, Hackett *could* have just gone to Harbaugh without talking to the 49ers and he could have negotiated and signed him; Hackett is not part of the NFL and is not bound by their contracts. However, Harbaugh would probably have to wait until the end of the season to announce his departure in that scenario (Contract implications? Integrity issue?). However, if Hackett negotiates directly with SF and agrees to pay part or all of his buyout, SF might agree to either: an announcement that Harbaugh will be joining Michigan after the season, OR even an agreement to let him leave to coach Michigan before the season is over. SF is in a bind right now. They don't apparently want Harbaugh any longer, but the whole "Harbaugh to Michigan" thing has to make any potential trade of Harbaugh infeasible. Hackett could give SF something it badly wants while getting what Michigan wants. I can't see any other benefit in going "through" SF.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Q: Doug, what's it like to||
Q: Doug, what's it like to watch film without the AD in the room?
|19 weeks 57 min ago||This is hilarious on many||
This is hilarious on many levels. First of all, the fact that the Athletic Director's title was sold to the highest bidder is so sad / funny - the blah blah Shephard Director of Athletics? That that even appears in the press release - and probably HAS to contractually - says everything about the current commercialism of the Michigan AD.
|19 weeks 6 hours ago||Reading between the lines||
Reading between the lines Brandon is gone. Schlissel has gone out of his way to talk about needing integrity and "building a stronger connection to the univeristy community." It's obvious neither of those things happen with Brandon present. He's probably got things in motion (i.e. interviews) and won't tip his hand *directly* now, but it seems pretty obvious.
|20 weeks 1 day ago||I agree with the boycott.||
I agree with the boycott. It's similar to a situation where a totalitarian government needs to be encouraged to go so economic sanctions are put into effect. Are the sanctions perfect? No. Do the sanctions often hurt the people you are trying to help? Yes. But the only way to affect the long term change is to financially punish those in charge. Eventually they weaken some and sometimes it leads to regime change or at least a change in policy to get the sactions removed.
I agree that boycotting part of a game won't do much to hurt the AD financially. Sure there's some lost concessions revenue. But that's about it in terms of short term impact. What's more important here is the *message*. And the message is that if things don't change, *next* season you will see lots of empty seats when people don't renew season tickets. Is that enough to force out Brandon? Probably not. Because in the end, if he fires Hoke and hires a homerun coach, most people will forget their grievances. It's ironic that keeping Brandon *might* be more likely to lead to the hire that we all want. I have no doubt that it will be made clear to him if he's kept on that he needs to "make up" with the fans, which will require some policy changes, pricing changes, and an awesome head coach to rally the fans. But in the end, the boycott *could* still help. It puts the threat of empty seats next year on the table to force a better product on the field.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Schlissel will probably||
Schlissel will probably listen to the advice of others (regents?), and that advice will probably lead to candidates already discussed here like Manuel, Bates, etc. Choosing someone with Michigan ties would be a natural to avoid "being hasseled" and truly being able to delegate and walk away. I'm sure those names have been leaked for a reason and that involves at least someone on the inside who wants to see Manuel or Bates or someone similar. I think DB *is* done, the question is just when. Probably season end. Honestly, I don't think this team will win another game. Look at the schedule and tell me who you think they will beat? Football is above all is based on complex organizing skills and this staff has shown the inability to minimally organize anything. Lesser-talented teams will (and have) beat Michigan simply because they have a head coach with basic organization skills.
I was thinking the other day about the parellels between RichRod and Hoke. How both were done in on one side of the ball; how they replaced coordinators and made them scape goats; how the new coordinators had even *worse* results. Not sure what the lesson is there, but it's pretty striking.
Anyhow, from Beilein we know a good coach can come in and succeed here. The athletic department is not *that* poisoned. A new AD can clean out some of the marketer MBA types and bring back some of the "retired" administrators to bring back some traditional perspective.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Eh, I woudn't worry about||
Eh, I woudn't worry about that too much. Schlissel may not like how big college athletics have become, but he's unlikely to reverse the course of U-M sports revenue / fanbase growth. I know, "no politics" but think of this as an analogy:
So what do U-M athletics and the size of US government budgets have in common? They are both massive entities with momentum of their own. One person cannot come in and change those things, not without sabotaging anything else they would like to accomplish. What's more likely is that Shlissel will just choose an AD who he can delegate things to and not be involved at all. Which kinda bodes well for a polished, experienced type of AD IMO.
I don't think this really *is* a political post, but mods feel free to delete if you think it is.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Dunno||
So here are a couple of "resources":
I can't find anything that says what powers the Regents have, even in the bylaws. Shouldn't be this hard to find out what powers a public official has, should it?
|23 weeks 4 days ago||I personally care just a||
I personally care just a *little* about the Lions. I've gotten bit so many times that the investment is minimal. Back in the late 90s when the Lions hired Bobby Ross, I thought "wow, here's a guy who won a national championship in college...surely he can turn the Lions into a winner". They had Barry Sanders and went out and got Scott Mitchell who was a promising QB and pretty hot commodity that year. So my friends and I got season tickets. I tried to support them and then this happened in 1998:
Lions come back, get to OT, then Mitchell throws a terrible pick that's returned for a TD. That was it for me. I knew then they would always be losers, would always find a way to blow games. I finished out that year as a season ticket holder, but I wasn't into it. I honestly slept at times during games they were so dull. And that was it for me. I still care a little, but it's not a big disappointment when they suck. It just is what it is. The sky is blue, the Lions will always suck.
The Lions have pretty much always been built on offense in a league where defense wins titles. Can you remember the last time the Lions had a shutdown defense? Closest I can come up with was when they had Bubba Baker back in the 80s. Their defenses always let the team down at the end of games and the offense never manages to put enough points on the board to win. It's the same old story for every road game I remember. Home is sometimes a little better, but not enough to make a really good team.
So here we are in 2014, and the same old recipe. We have a good - not great - offense in a league where D wins championships. We have a medioce defense that will never win playoff games. We know they aren't going to contend for much of anything. The only real interest in watching is like gawking at an accident...how EXACTLY will the Lions manage to lose games? And whose careers will be ruined by being associated with this franchise?
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Yeah, I hear you. Every year||
Yeah, I hear you. Every year I get a little excited about the Lions. The hype train is almost believable every time, but in your heart you know better. This is hilarious:
This just tells you how little the so-called "experts" know. Have they been followig the Lions at all over the years? I could have guaranteed you they would not win this game. They rarely win on the road, especially when favored.
And to think I almost switched to DirecTV to get Lions games here in DC. Thank god I didn't spend the extra money.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||This is truly depressing. I||
This is truly depressing. I was content to wait until the Oline matured before getting rid of Hoke, but how can the *defensive* coaching be this poor? Mattision is an NFL coordinator. I know he's not a DB coach but can't he see poor technique and call out his assistants when it's happening? If this is all accurate then this staff is done. They'll be fired at the end of the season. You can't expect the D to improve if they are getting incorrect instruction in practice.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||I *wish* I were there. Most||
I *wish* I were there. Most of the summer, I didn't follow any football-related stuff, but then as the season approached I listened to the hype again. Brian's preview made me optimistic, especially on defense. But I think at the core the D still can't pressure the QB. And how can we expect them to really improve when the OLines they go against in practice are mediocre at best? This team won't get over the hump until the Oline is good again. And who knows when that will be.
Dierdorf is spot on. This team has so many flaws that were exposed on Saturday, and the same flaws as last year. The Oline is marginally improved but should improve during the year given scheme and the age of the players. And that's the key to me. But a *really* good line is probably at least two years away, two years of watching painful games.
I stepped away once before for a couple of years during the Moeller era when it became clear the team was completely disorganized and wasn't improving; it was degrading. My sanity returned when I stopped watching. I feel like we're in the same position again. I really don't think firing Hoke will accomplish anything at this stage. Let;s just let the OLine mature and see how that affects the team. Any new coach would have the same issues with the Oline. I don't think Brady is the right guy at all, but are we prepared for a new coach and new systems *again* that the players must learn? Will this really be progress? Man accepting mediocrity is hard.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||"Ties to Michigan" and the mysterious "Michigan Man"||
I really think we are screwed as fanbase for a while folks. I've been a Michigan fan since 1979, when my step-dad introduced me to Michigan football, and my passion for Michigan runs deep. But I'm reaching a breaking point, at least as far as football. Let's be honest here. Take off all rose-colored glasses and pretenses. Since Bo retired, Michigan has won exactly eight Big Ten titles, only 4 of which are outright. So in the last 25 years, that's one championship every three years or so. And none since 2004. Yes, we had that magical 1997 year, and I think for many that clouds our judgment and makes us think Michigan was more elite that it really was, even in 1990s. The 90s were filled with great OSU teams that we managed to often derail, but outside 1997 no real "great" Michigan teams.
So that's it. 25 years of mostly good to mediocre teams, with the last 8 now taking us from mediocrity to outright poor play. We are where we are. I for one have a tough choice to make. I love Michigan football like a child of mine, but it's terribly rough for me to watch them suck. I'm reaching the final grieving stage for the passing of the Michigan that once was - acceptance - but I'm not there yet. I watch these games and I'm filled with anger. All the talk, all the promises, and 2014 Michigan looks identical to 2013 Michigan. And the people in charge look clueless to fix it. And you have to wonder, is it really, solely coaching, or is there some type of cancer eating underneath all of this? Greg Mattison did not suddenly become a terrible DC, nor - if we are honest here - did Greg Robinson the moment he set foot on Michigan's campus. Yet watching Michigan's defense on Saturday was nearly identical to watching it in 2013. The problems that exist on both sides of the ball remain the same with only minimal improvement. I'm not sure what the causes are, but I suspect the infighting in the Michigan fanbase, the inability to decide what we want Michigan to be, is the root cause of the current malaise. And it's not going to get better soon I don't think. Granted we have (and will have) talent. But when there's some unwritten rule that Michigan is supposed to win a CERTAIN way and no one can even define for sure what that way is, we are in trouble. Is it the Lloyd Car way, the pro-style offense with the drop back passer and the balanced rushing attack? Is that what Michigan football is? Is it Bo's option attack, which to a certain degree RichRod brought back even though it was labeld contratry to what Michigan football really 'is all about'?
It's really discouraging to me how RichRod was treated from the moment he got to Michigan. Here he was an offensive football savant and from the moment he was hired we were always reminded he was not a "Michigan Man", which of course no one can define because it means something different to everyone who says it. He got little support and while he made his own mistakes for sure, I imagine things might have turned out differently if he had received full fan, alumni, and administration support up front (like maybe paying Casteel the less than $300k he wanted...which is peanuts compared to what we are paying Mattision). So then we turned to a backup Michigan man because we couldn't get the guy we really wanted (Harbaugh) and the other guy who maybe could have made it work (Les Miles) inspires a lot of hatred around here. So we got Brady Hoke, a .500 career coach, mainly because he's a good guy and coached here before. And shockingly, it isn't going to work out. To me this ND game was Hoke's Richrod PSU moment. The game when I and many others realized he just couldn't get it done. All optimism - at least for me - is gone. Maybe as Bronxblue says we should just let Brady get us back to mediorce+ (if he can do that) and THEN hire someone better. Who knows. I for one don't think I'll be watching this season. I can't take the pain anymore.
But *when* we go looking for a coach again, we must jettison this "Michigan Man" BS. John Beilein had no previous ties to Michigan but I think he's worked out splendidly. But based on the "ties to Michigan" criteria, he should never have been hired in the first place. Let's just all agree what we want someone of good character who is a good coach and get rid of this idea that the new coach has to somehow "get" Michigan and tell us how "great" we are, even when the evidence shows we are not anymore. We need someone to *make* us great, not sycophantically kiss our collective asses as Brady always does with his “this is Michigan” emptiness. Sadly, I think this is impossible for our current fractured fan base and the AD will have to find someone else with these mysterious "ties" to Michigan and we'll be screwed yet again. So we all must decide, can we take the pain?
|49 weeks 5 hours ago||Morrissey put it||
Morrissey put it best.
This goes out to CBS and all the other media for their awesome coverage of our man Aaron.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Sagarin||
FWIW, Sagarin ratings have us fifth, with THREE Big Ten teams in the top 5:
Not sure I understand how Iowa can be ranked ahead of us given an almost identical record, much stronger SOS, and the head-to-head win, but guess that's just a nit.
I expect maybe #10 in the human polls because the low information voters just can't accept the fact that we are honestly *good*. I think they still see this as an "overachieving" team minus arguably its best (and definitely its best known) player.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||The other thing I noticed is||
The other thing I noticed is that any event that is broadcast on one of the ESPN cable channels (or ABC) is blacked out via streaming. A couple of years ago, this was not the case. Now on football Saturdays, pretty much the only streaming content you can get is games that are exclusively on ESPN3. I'm sure this is because local advertisers were complaining that they were losing customers to streaming, and those streaming customers were not seeing their ads.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Quality of streaming video||
Not sure if this has been covered. There are too many posts to read through.
I have not cut the cord. I still have cable. However, I also have lots of experience with streaming. I have a PC hooked up to my TV. I also recently bought a Sony Blu-Ray player (which I absolutely love) that has streaming capabilities built in. The interface, FYI, is very similar to the PS3 interface.
Anyhow, what I figured out was the first time I hooked up my Blu-Ray player to my TV and watched Netflix the picture was MUCH clearer with the Blu-Ray player than on my PC. I researched the difference, and from what I found, web streaming of video content on Netflix is 720p. I think it's similar for Amazon prime and some other services out there. However, Netflix via the Sony Blu-Ray player streams at 1080p. Not sure why the difference, but I imagine the webstie streams over HTTP and the player streams over another procotol which can carry data more efficiently, thus more bandwidth. The Blu-Ray player has lots of cool streaming apps, probably 40 or so. Some of them are sports apps, but I don't think it has ESPN, ABC, or the major sports networks. However, for streaming movies and TV, you'll find the Blu-Ray player is far superior to a PC.
Now one other item. I've noticed that even streaming sources that claim 1080p are often not as good as the 720p I get when watching cable. This is because the number of "dots" (represented by "1080p" for example) is not the final arbitor of the quality of the image. The "bitrate" is what really matters, as this determines the amount of data in each "dot". Streaming video sources do lots of data compression and this degrades image quality. For example, you'll get maybe 1mb/sec bitrate out of Netflix over the web. This may increase slightly for some better quality HD sources. It must be that the Blu-Ray player exceeds this 1mb transfer rate, giving a better image. However, if you watch a Blu-Ray disc, you'll get like 40mbps+ bitrate. This is why sound and picture quality is so much better with Blu-Ray disc. I don't have the stats on the bitrates for cable, but I imagine they're relatively uncompressed on the major networks, given the quality of sound and picture. I can tell you the picture I get from watching ESPN over cable (720p) is much better than the picture I get watching ESPN3 streaming, even though the streaming has 720p resolution as well. I notice an audio quality difference as well. This is due to data compression. If image and audio quality are important to you, then this advice will help.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||This could be and time will||
This could be and time will tell, but I'm not aware of any crime spree (more so than Michigan) since Meyer took over at Ohio. And I really haven't seen any difference in discipline - responses to criminal activity - between Hoke and Meyer. I don't follow every bit of news, but I can't remember any really egregious actions by Meyer in this regard.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Removed.||
|1 year 35 weeks ago||"Types of kids that Meyer recruits" meme||
Meyer's past with Florida is troubling, but I'm not aware of any evidence that this is happening at Ohio. I hear this "types of kids that Meyer recruits" meme, and it occurs to me that Michigan recruits largely the same players as Ohio. There are very few guys who commit to Ohio that Michigan has not actively recruited. How is it that the kids that U-M gets are "great people" but the ones who choose Ohio (who we also recruited) are "questionable"? I realize no one has out-and-out said this, but it's implied by the Meyer-bashing and the facts of Michigan recruiting.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||I work in the defense||
I work in the defense industry and defense companies are always on the lookout for engineers who are: 1) U.S. citizens; 2) Able to get security clearances. This gives any potential candidate a leg up on the competition; in fact for many jobs these are employment requirements. It's no secret that science, math, and engineering college grads (US citizens) are on the decline here, with international students on the rise in those fields. The defense companies are swimming in jobs that they have difficulty filling due to those limitations. I see lots of defense jobs on Dice, but try going to the indivudual company job search websites like:
You will have to be open to relocation. Good luck!
|2 years 6 weeks ago||You made me think of this||
I'ts a trap! Your taste buds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!
|2 years 9 weeks ago||So I would love to quit||
So I would love to quit cable, but I'm locked into paying for it through my HOA dues. However, my cable company recently got sued and we *might* be able to opt out of the cable contract at some point. However, even if I *could* quit cable, my big conern is sports. It seems that the ESPN3 content now:
1. Is blacked out for any event televised on an cable ESPN network. (ESPN / ESPN2 / ESPNU).
2. Requires a logon (which I guess I could get from a family member).
Also, I don't think I've seen Internet-streaming live sports from ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. I know you can get sports from those "alternative" live-streaming sites, but it's not usually very good quality. Any suggestions?
|2 years 10 weeks ago||All of these things link||
All of these things link Terrance to the murder: hair fibers, blood samples, nail clippings, a piece of his shirt, a watch with his initials on it, a day planner with the murder scheduled, a haiku called, "Time to kill Dr. Jeffrey O'Dwyer"
|3 years 21 weeks ago||"Greg"||
Did anyone else read "Greg and the defensive staff" and have a bout of PTSD? Mattison is a totally different Greg, but the memory of GERG is too fresh in my mind to react rationally when I hear the words "Greg" and "defense" in the same sentence together.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Avery math||
Great UFR as usual, but unless I totally don't understand your methodology, it seems the math on Avery is off:
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Good comment||
I never worked in journalism, but I've always loved writing. Writing well is absolutely critical to success in many professions, inlcuding journalism. I'm currently an IT auditor, and it's the ability to write that sets people apart. There are plenty of people who understand technology who can't write a coherent report, and they'll never make good auditors because of this.
Writing is very important if you want to be in managment as well. I've seen plenty of people write crappy emails complaining about how they can't "get ahead", yet when you read the email, you see why. They don't take the time - or have the knowledge - to write intelligently. And as a manager, you'll write a lot, and be judged based on that writing.
Back to Woody. It's interesting that he does not care about sports because he is on shows like Around the Horn where he has such strong opinions on sports. Which demonstrates that most of it is an act. Drew Sharp is an act. I remember reading once that somone claimed to have met Michael Savage and he said that most of his show is an act. There is a market out there for opinions, so people give it to them. But many times it's really not even that person's opinion, it's just a show to attract attention. It's smart when you think about it. And it makes you wonder why we should listen, or get angry listening to commentators of all sorts.
Now that's totally different from objective journalism, and yes, journalists should try not to have strong opinions (like be a fan of a team) in the field they are covering. One of the criticisms of jounalists in general in the younger generation is they don't care about objectivity any more. But I'm more inclinded to go with what Brian says: bias is unimportant because everyone is biased; it's being accurate that matters.
End self-important pompus post.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||I think your wrong||