spoiler alert: i linked this
- Member for
- 7 years 4 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Wow||
That was a ridiculously terrible sequence
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Yes||
Miguel Cabrera plays on a team with multiple star players, while Johnson does not. If one were to poll Tigers fans on who their favorite player is, Cabrera would probably finish first, but there would be a lot of support for Verlander, and, to a lesser extent, Fielder, Scherzer, and others. Whereas if one were to poll Lions fans with regards to their favorite player, Johnson would win in a landslide.
It should also be noted that Johnson has spent his entire career in Detroit, unlike Cabrera. This is not intended as a knock against Cabrera, but at the same time when you look at Cabrera's legacy today, you note that he has one WS ring and he didn't earn it with the Tigers. Seeing as the question is who is the bigger local icon, this seems relevant.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||...||
Wisconsin and ND lost and were fairly knocked out of the poll. Maryland is undefeated and they destroyed the same WVU team that just beat Oklahoma State. They deserve to be ranked given the circumstances.
|2 years 34 weeks ago||My observations||
There are a number of caveats regarding the MSU performance. The weather was terrible, the WMU secondary is supposed to be halfway decent, MSU played very conservatively, and it was the first game of the year. That said, 12 points and 116 passing yards against a middle of the road MAC team is terrible.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Sample Size||
Hossa had a long track record of excellence matched up against a couple good playoffs from Franzen. Basing the decision on a such a small sample of games when it was clear from both regular season production and the naked eye that Hossa was the better player was dumb.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||Another reason to dislike him||
So we can blame him for not caring all that much about the welfare of student athletes and for Rutgers being in the Big Ten.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||I'd forgotten that||
Thanks for reminding me that Wisconsin ruins hockey too.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Why?||
It's not as if the CCHA could've done anything to prevent the end of the conference. It fell apart because PSU decided to go varsity and North Dakota decided that a WCHA without Minnesota and Wisconsin was not a worthwhile conference to be in.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||Ehh...||
On the one hand, whatever his feelings might be, anyone with half a brain knows that when you commit to a team, you don't start talking about your undying love their biggest rival. This is particularly true when talking to a reporter.
On the other hand, at least he doesn't have an OSU tattoo...
|3 years 12 weeks ago||Wow||
This actually might be more ridiculous than Pryor's statement.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||I don't see what's wrong with this||
I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||Well that was horrible||
Fortunately, last night happened, so I'm not that bummed out.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Clayton Richard||
When he committed, he was rated as the number 4 pro-style QB in the country and we hoped that he would be a strong replacement for Matt Gutierrez for at least his senior season. Instead, he dropped football after Henne passed him, played a year of baseball here, got drafted by the White Sox, and wound up going 1-0 with a 2.77 ERA against the Tigers while there.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Meh||
I won't pretend to know whether there was anything Red could do about getting Campbell or Gibson on campus. That said, I do know that before this year, at which point we were desperate, the last scholarship goalie that made it to campus was Bryan Hogan. We lucked out big time with Hunwick, but Hogan's injury three years ago could have just as easily been disastrous. Furthermore, I would argue that we should have taken another goalie when Gibson committed. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but we'd lost our only goalie recruit the year before and we knew we had no other scholarship guys starting this season, so we should have gotten insurance.
But this is all I'm going to say on the matter because firing Red is insane.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Please stop playing the victim||
First of all, your initial post was a short statement saying the Red should be fired and presented no supporting arguments. You knew that would be inflammatory and provoke a number of people to respond negatively. That is the definition of trolling.
Secondly, if you are going to roll around in the mud and issue personal attacks including unflattering comments about another's appearance, then you do not hold the moral high ground.
Finally, your argument that Red should be replaced with Don Lucia is ridiculous and further shows that you do not deserve to be taken seriously. For one thing, Don Lucia wouldn't come here. He's been at Minnesota for over a decade and has his roots in the state, having been born and raised there. For another, Minnesota will match whatever we give him because hockey is more important at Minnesota than here. At Michigan, we have an elite football program and our basketball program is, at the least, approaching its pre-Ellerbe status as a national player. Thus hockey is relegated to number 3 status on campus and it is inflexible. In contrast, Minnesota's football and basketball programs are mediocre to poor on the aggregate, whereas Minnesota hockey ranks among the nation's elite and thus commands more attention from their fanbase and athletic department. This is further augmented by Minnesota high school hockey being something that people actually care about. But most importantly, prior to last season, Lucia missed three NCAA tournaments in a row and barely made the tournament in 07-08. So it's not like his resume is perfect either.
There are valid, thoughtful critiques one can make about Red's recent performance as head coach. For example, there are valid complaints about the recent recruiting of goaltenders and, to a lesser extent, forwards. Another example concerns our middling power play in recent years, especially considering that used to be a strength year in and year out. But you did not make these points. Instead, you whined alot and put out vague platitudes as reasons Red should be fired..
|3 years 13 weeks ago||...||
I miss being able to neg people.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Well...||
|3 years 15 weeks ago||...||
I don't know who did that, but I voted this down for complaining about downvoting.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Could be worse||
I mean, it's not like they're celebrating someone who attacked a reporter or an opposing player. Because that really would be incredibly embarrassing.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||Ugh||
This is tear-inducing
|3 years 19 weeks ago||It means that they aren't sure||
Deferred means that the admissions committee is not prepared to grant early admission nor outright reject and application by the early action deadline. She'll either be accepted, rejected, or waitlisted during the normal decision period.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Being Objective...||
Being objective, it is not all that surprising that they would be close given the rating system. Scores of 0-5 are given in each of the following categories:
Food & Beverage
Yost maxed out the atmosphere, neighborhood, and fan ratings. Lawson did not. However, Yost had mediocre scores in the other categories, allowing Lawson to catch up and win with awarded discretionary points. Moreover, different authors rated each arena, which also likely had an effect.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||How to not objectively rank things||
Lawson beat Yost by a single point (which is ridiculous considering that Yost is far superior, but that's beside the point). From the detailed section on Lawson:
An extra point is awarded for the opportunity to catch a homecoming doubleheader, with the Broncos taking on Bowling Green in football earlier in the day.
So essentially, Lawson is rated above Yost because the author went to a football game between two crappy teams earlier in the day...
Also, Yost scored higher than Lawson in boh the fan category and the surrounding neighborhood. Lawson made up the difference by having free parking and cheaper tickets. So in terms of the actual experience, Yost ranked higher, as it should. Similarly, when combining the fans and atmosphere categories, Yost stands alone at number 1 in the state, with full ratings in each.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Rebuttal||
I have several issues with this statement. First of all, the Pac 12 commissioner, at the very least, wants a system of 16 team superconferences with Texas in the Pac 12 so that the Pac 12 Network is a fixture in Texas. As long as the LHN exists, that cannot happen. Similarly, the SEC will only expand if they can add teams that will improve the finances of all of their members without substantial opposition. At present, there are no teams that fit that bill outside of Oklahoma. And Oklahoma is tied to the hip with Oklahoma State. Finally, nobody making these decisions cares what Nick Saban or any other coach thinks. For example, Syracuse petitioned to join the ACC over the objections of Jim Boeheim both recently and in 2003. And there's no way that most of the Big Ten coaches were chomping at the bit to play Maryland and Rutgers in conference.
Furthermore, the Pac 12 & SEC commissioners do not run the show. There are, at present, 5 major conferences, a number of lessor conferences, and a number of major schools outside the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 that have a lot of leverage in the process. There is no strong central direction here. It's a bunch of individual entities clamoring for more money as media rights for sports skyrocket.
If Stanford, Cal, and co., some of the most liberal universities in the country, agree to invite BYU, one of the most conservative universities in the country, I'd be very surprised. Also, what exactly does UNLV and BYU get the Pac 12? They bring few new markets and middling national profiles. The Pac 12 schools will only add new schools that they believe will increase their own payouts. Only Texas and Oklahoma can do this. By and large, the same goes for the SEC at present.
All teams want most is to be financially secure for the long run. The Big Ten schools were making tons of money before the addition and will continue to maek tons of money afterward. That's because the Big Ten is not at risk of losing members and is thus stable.
Finally, The Big Ten Network is important, but it is not as important as first tier rights. I say this because despite having a heavily undervalued series of first tier rights contracts, we're still making somewhere around $11.4 million per school to my best approximation. In contrast, the per school payout from the BTN has yet to cross the $10 million mark and that is not dramatically undervalued. When 2017 rolls along, the Big Ten figures to make an absolutely ridiculous amount of money from ESPN or whoever.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Some flaws here||
OK, for one thing, the idea that 4 super conferences is inevitable is inherently flawed. For one thing, who is the Pac 12 going to add going forward? Unless the Big 12 falls apart, the answer is nobody, because the only sensible additions for the Pac 12 to make are Texas and Oklahoma. They'll take a couple other teams to make the move politically palatable for them (probably Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, although if Oklahoma went elsewhere, things might be different), but that's the only way they expand. What the Pac 12 will not do is take Texas as long as the LHN exists, because the Pac 12 uses the Pac 12 network to make a ton of money off second-tier rights.
Second, the SEC has little reason to expand further at present. They had a chance to get a foothold in Texas with Texas A&M and took it and added Missouri because they had to get to an even number. They'll need another highly attractive target before they expand further. And said target cannot be located in Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina because all three schools have stated that they are completely opposed to adding another team from their own state, undoubtedly because of the competitive advantage they have in said states at present.
Finally, it should be remembered that the conferences are not vying for power and money in a zero sum game against each other. Instead, ithe individual schools within each conference want to ensure that their conference is first and foremost, stable. Then, each individual school within the conferences want to increase their overall payout from the conference. The Big Ten is guessing that the additions of Rutgers and Maryland will increase the per school payout, meaning that the average amount of money a school brings into the conference with Rutgers and Maryland is greater than the average amount of money a school brings in without Rutgers and Maryland. This is questionable, as it relies on the Big Ten getting the BTN on basic cable in New York. There are a variety of reasons that this may or may not happen, but I will not go into them now. What I will say is that it is probable, but not certain.
Again, why does there have to be 4 super-conferences and why 16 teams in each. At present, the ACC's weaker TV deal and questions about its stability may give the Big 12 the ability to pick off certain schools like FSU and Clemson. However, this issue is largely contingent on how much of the buyout Maryland winds up paying. Maryland can afford to put a lot of money from a Big Ten TV deal to the buyout. This might not be true for teams going to the lesser payout of the Big 12. And then there's the question of whether there exists 6 willing schools that can put the current Big 12 schools in a better position than they are now. I would argue that there aren't. Certainly the addition of FSU would help, but that's really it because the Big 12 cannot make a strong TV network as long as the LHN exists.
Nope, actually we make much more money from our first tier rights deals with ESPN, Fox, and CBS than the BTN.
Now, you also go on about how we need to attack the ACC and how we would not add GT because we'd be playing second fiddle to the SEC in Georgia and a number of other similar ideas. This is the wrong way to look at it. The Big Ten does not care aobut being the number 1 game in town in every market we have a presence in. In DC, for instance, I would not at all be surprised if the ACC gets better ratings than the Big Ten due the number of ACC teams clustered around the area relative to Big Ten teams. It doesn't matter, however, because we'll still be making money from there. Similarly, when the SEC took Texas A&M, they didn't care at all that the Big 12 would still be the dominant draw in the state. They just wanted to increase their presence in a series of highly-populated football-crazy markets.
Likewise, the Big Ten does not particularly care whether or not the ACC or Big 12 falls apart. If the Big 12 for whatever reason decides to raid the ACC of 6 teams (assuming they go to 16, which I don't see happening but whatever), there will still be enough important unaffiliated teams on the east coast to form a decent enough conference. We wouldn't pick them up because none of them are really worth it for the current member institutions. And if the Big 12 fell apart, it wouldn't really affect the Big Ten either all that much either because its not as if we really covet Kansas or anything.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||I'd blame Brandon...||
I'd blame Brandon for not pushing for us to be in a division with OSU in the first place.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Yep||
Agreed, although I'm not exactly sure that Michigan, OSU, and PSU would be happy with that from a competitive balance standpoint. On the other hand, PSU may well be a smoking crater of a program once the scholarship reductions kick in, so that objection would go away.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Ways to realign the divisions||
In the event that this truly awful plan comes to fruition, I see two logical methods of dealing with the divisions. First, you could simply add Maryland to the horribly-named division with PSU (they have an old rivalry they could renew) and Rutgers to our horribly-named division. However, in light of PSU football being severely weakened and the (presumed) desire on the part of Michigan to be in a division with OSU and Wisconsin to be in a division with Nebraska and their historical rivals, you could reformat geographically (with designated cross-divisional rivals):
*These cross-divisional games are interchangeable.
This decision has a geographical justification, but would irritate a number of teams. MSU, would lose Michigan from the division and a sweetheart deal where they play an easier schedule than most of their current opponents on the aggregate with a guaranteed game against Indiana. Illinois would not be happy about not having either Ohio State or Michigan as a yearly game, seeing as they consider both schools to be significant rivals (hahahahaha). The same is true of Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Northwestern, although getting Wisconsin every year lessens that issue. Ultimately, however, this is an alignment that all schools can live with.
Now, having discussed all of this, I will say that I cannot for the life of me see how the list of teams I'm looking at makes for a stronger league (competitively or economically) than that list of teams without Maryland and Rutgers. Both schools would be perrenial bottom-feeders of their division no matter what their alignment and neither of their football programs command any sort of significant loyalty in their respective markets. It's a mind-bogglingly awful idea.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Hmm...||
You sound like a USC fan
|3 years 24 weeks ago||It's not really worse now than earlier in the decade||
I have never seen the student section full at game time for a noon game against mediocre-to-bad opponent. It has been somewhat better during stretches when the team was better, but that's to be expected.
That said, turning the section into GA (or largely GA if you want to keep the first something rows as reserved seating to reward people for earning priority points for previous attendence, which would encourage attendence at other events) would get people in earlier. Yes, the section is something of a free-for-all, but people who do show up ridiculously late can and do kick people out of their reserved seats.