I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 5 years 15 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 days 30 min ago||Agreed||
I live in the Phoenix area and haven't been able to travel a reasonable distance to a Michigan game in I don't even know how long. Really looking forward to this, assuming it's accurate.
|3 days 1 hour ago||Copper Bowl||
Wow, haven't heard it called the Copper Bowl in a long time. Didn't even recognize which game you were referring to for a second ... but I assume you have an (understandable) standing policy against Generic Corporate Sponsor Bowl nonsense?
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Well ...||
"Disaster" might be a little strong, but after the last three weeks, it might not be. I don't really care to rehash the stats to determine exactly what level of blah the Michigan offense has achieved.
But both Desmond and Wojo have called out Borges pretty transparently -- Desmond saying "he needs to start figuring it out, start outscheming his opponent to justify his check" comes across as saying that he isn't currently justifying his check, which is kind of a "you're on notice." And I've heard several national guys and even the game commentators (see Glen Mason) directly criticize Michigan's offense in a way that seems to point the blame at Borges. So I don't think it's JUST an echo-chamber thing, although I'm not local so don't listen to WTKA and don't read the Detroit papers (probably wouldn't anyway).
Really, your last point is the one I've been getting at: With a lot of observable evidence that Borges isn't doing a good job (at the very least) and a lot of public criticism of the offense (which might not have any effect but might have a little, especially if Brandon hears the grumbling), what is it that makes Brian THINK Borges is very likely to be retained?
To be clear, I'm not criticizing his 95% remark, just wondering what leads him to that sort of certainty.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||True||
You're right about the fan/media perception probably meaning little to nothing around Schembechler Hall. That probably wasn't the best argument.
I guess what I meant is that when everyone who writes/talks about/analyzes Michigan football (even the coaching-type posters) echoes the glaringly obvious conclusion that the offense is a disaster, the guy who's running that offense would seem to be in a precarious spot, but 95% seems pretty damn safe.
By observation, I'd think Borges is likely gone (less than 50% chance of returning), because (a) another season like this one would be bad in a lot of ways and (b) the offense has not only had some real stinkers all three years under Borges but definitely seems to be regressing.
So even if Brian thinks the sub-50% number is exaggerated, claiming a 95% level of security leads me to think he has some information that most of us don't.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Borges 95%?||
I can't be the only one wondering (unless this has been addressed before and I've missed it): Brian, why are you so confident Borges will be back next year?
With the way the offense has played for most of the year, I'm having a really hard time believing there won't be changes on the offensive side of the ball. And based on the general sentiment from the fan base and even the Hoke-loving media (specifically guys like Desmond and Wojo), the overall opinion seems to be that Borges needs to go ... so perhaps you can elaborate on why you seem to think it's so incredibly unlikely that this actually happens.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Again, development||
I replied to a similar post above, and I think it bears repeating here: Unless we are just the unluckiest recruiters and getting ALL OF THE BUSTS, I think the possibility has to be considered that we are getting that level of talent and just not developing it, especially on offense (although I still think it's too early to write off Green since we have no interior blocking and have had to resort to a pass-happy offense that obviously fits Toussaint better).
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Development||
You're right about the concern over the senior class leaving and not being replaced by quality young players, but I don't think the issue is talent; there are plenty of young guys on this team who were highly sought after and seem to have the physical capabilities to be good players.
To me, it's all about development, or a lack thereof, primarily on the offensive side of the ball (and especially on the O-line, obviously). I don't think it's fair to lump Green into that category yet, and while I agree with your point about Pipkins being not as dominant as hoped for, he seemed to be pretty raw when he played last year, so the jury's still out on exactly what he can be. But on the offensive line and at tight end (to a slightly lesser extent) -- basically any position where guys are expected to execute a blocking scheme -- I don't feel like we've seen any tangible improvement from even the guys who do have the talent to be special, and that's the most concerning part.
Again, redshirt freshmen/sophomores etcetera etcetera, and I know it's too soon to expect them to be really good players, but in almost two full years in the program and with some of these guys now having most of a season of playing time, I'd expect a baseline level of competence, and we're certainly not seeing it.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Yep||
This pretty well sums it up for me. There is a systemic problem on the offensive side of the ball, mostly in terms of player development on the O-line but also in terms of exactly what we are trying to be offensively. Even Hoke couldn't answer that question last week in his presser.
The gameplan itself was fine Saturday; going deep was the only way we were gonna produce points against that defense. But the fact that, coming off a bye, our best option in the game that was going to decide our season was completely obliterated/eviscerated/(choose your own painful term here) by a team with comparable or lesser talent across the ball should be a flashing red light that this offense is a mess, one that isn't going to improve with another nine months of experience from an O-line that has gotten no better (and arguably worse) over the course of this season.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Thanks||
I will give that a try. Appreciate the response.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||WHERE'S THE SECOND HALF AHHHH||
Hoping somebody can help me out here with my podcast-related ignorance: I downloaded it from the link at the bottom of the post ("direct download link"), but it cuts off after about 53 minutes, so I'm assuming there's another half of the podcast that I'm not getting.
What am I doing wrong?
|19 weeks 4 days ago||Campbell||
You guys beat me to the punch. George Campbell. Wow.
|20 weeks 3 hours ago||^^^||
The FOX Sports app (I believe it's being called FOX Sports 2GO) won't be standalone, just like ESPN and BTN never will be because they'd be killing their cash cow (subscriber fees from cable).
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Phoenix market||
You're probably correct about the market -- I just remember seeing something recently that said Phoenix was the sixth-largest in the U.S., and I was thinking it was metro market but it must have been Phoenix proper. Either way, it's plenty large enough in terms of population and available money to support all four pro sports teams.
Regarding the arena, that's a good question. Unfortunately, the answer is Glendale or bust -- the NHL briefly looked around at moving the Coyotes somewhere else in the Phoenix metro area, but given the situation Glendale is in, none of the other cities was too excited about ponying up a bunch of money for a new arena (understandably so).
That said, Jobing.com Arena is pretty poorly managed right now, and it's believed that by scheduling a few more events (they have THREE non-Coyotes events this year, which is crazy), doing a better job of organzing paid parking, getting a new naming-rights deal, etc., there's a lot more money to be had for an ownership group, and with the NHL's new revenue-sharing agreement, it's likely that the owners can at least break even and hopefully even make enough to pay for some talent upgrades.
Once all that happens, the team itself will be stable even if the ticket sales don't increase much ... and stability will almost certainly help in and of itself in that regard, as I know several people who have neglected to renew their season tickets the last year or two because they weren't sure the team would still be around.
BTW, it's believed that the new deal has an out clause after five years -- specifics aren't known, but basically, if the owners are still losing X amount of money after five years, they're free to relocate. All the deals the NHL has worked with to sell the Coyotes have included something similar with an approximate five-year commitment to Glendale.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Mostly correct||
There won't be one more "lame duck" season in Phoenix -- the NHL has already said as much both publicly and privately. It''s either a done deal in the next few days or relocation, although a done deal isn't as far off as SI has made it seem.
I'm adding much more info in a separate comment at the bottom of this thread, if you're interested.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||A few things||
I live in Phoenix/East Valley and know a couple of the people who are deeply involved in this Coyotes situation, which also means I know far more than I ever cared to know about the inner workings of a sports-versus-politics situation.
But for those who care, here are a few things:
1. The Coyotes will either have a deal with Glendale within the next 10 days or will move, almost certainly to Seattle to play in Key Arena until a new stadium is built. The NHL has specifically said that the league won't pay to run the Coyotes for another year, so it's either finalize this deal with RSE (the prospective ownership group) to stay in Glendale or GTFO immediately.
2. Quebec is considered a more attractive option for a team than Seattle is, but the NHL wants to make Quebec an expansion team because an expansion fee (some absurd amount like $300M or $400M) will net the league a lot more money, and there are plenty of Canadians who will pay to start up a team in QC. Also, Bettman has made it clear that he is "intrigued" by the Seattle market, so it's likely that a team will end up there eventually one way or another. That said, according to the various projections that have gone back and forth between the league and ownership groups (which one of my colleagues was made privy to), Phoenix is still considered the best market of any -- it's the sixth-largest market by population in the U.S., I believe -- hence the NHL's desire to keep the team here through four years of aggravation.
3. There will most likely be a finalized proposal for an arena lease on Tuesday, which will then be voted on by the City Council the following Tuesday, July 2. People who cover the council say it'll be a close vote -- there are a couple councilmembers who have supported keeping the team (mostly because paying for an empty arena and an abandoned development around it would be even worse than losing a little money on the team) and a couple councilmembers who have made it clear that they don't, mostly because they don't agree with subsidizing pro sports under any circumstances. It's a best-of-seven vote. From the sounds of things, they're close enough on a couple small revenue-stream issues that a few more days of negotiations will probably yield something that will pass, but I'm not super confident. And if it doesn't pass, the NHL already has a fallback deal with an investment group to move the team to Seattle. I wouldn't be surprised if a sale was announced with 48 hours of the Glendale vote failing (if that were to happen).
4. The comments above about the move to Glendale are, IMO, correct. Phoenix is a great hockey market in terms of the number of fans -- it's just that most of them are transplanted fans of the Wings, Blackhawks, Leafs, etc., and a lot of them never really get converted to Coyotes fans (unlike the situation with so many transplanted spring training/baseball fans out here turning into Diamondbacks fans) because it's just not worth it for casual fans to go to games. It also hasn't helped that under NHL ownership, the team has never been able to pay for any big-time players worth paying to watch (BTW, I go to about 10 games a year, so I still watch, but I'm again talking about the more casual fans here who could become diehard fans). The hockey market has never become a Coyotes market, and that's unfortunate. If the team leaves, it will be easy to write the book on why.
5. Regarding the comment above about a 15-minute drive from downtown to Glendale, HAHAHAHA. I work smack dab in the middle of downtown Phoenix in the Arizona Center area, and when I get off at 6 and go to Coyotes games, I typically get there right at or just after puck drop at 7. To get there from the East Valley (Gilbert) and be in my seat by puck drop, I have to leave around 5:15. That's an hour and 45 minutes to get there without getting dinner or anything beforehand. It's hard to make that commitment, and there is no doubt in my mind that this substantially limits the season-ticket base considering that a large majority of the metro population (especially the population with a lot of expendable money) resides in the East Valley.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||... my point is if you're||
This is so, so right. Well said.
The market of hockey fans exists here, but it's never been converted to Coyotes fans, and the location of the arena has a lot to do with that (as does the lack of ownership, which has led to low payrolls, a lack of elite talent and a lack of success). Put a decently run organization in a major sport in a major city and you'd see some success. Unfortunately, the Coyotes haven't been decently run for most of their history and aren't really in a major city, hence many of their issues.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Yes||
I go to Coyotes games regularly, and they are my son's favorite team. I also have friends/colleagues who work for the Coyotes.
So ... yes. Granted, it might not be a LOT of people relative to, say, if the Wings were to leave Detroit (I'm still a Wings fan at heart, BTW), but there are plenty of Coyotes fans out here.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Burning a redshirt||
Keep in mind that the decision to burn a redshirt isn't just freshman season vs. fifth year. By getting a guy substantial playing time as a freshman, you've also accelerated the learning curve so as to make him a more experienced, effective player over the course of his sophomore, junior and senior seasons.
I think it's obvious that coaches would prefer to always have the option of a fifth year, but there are certain circumstances in which getting a young player meaningful experience will have more value over the ensuing three years than a hypothetical fifth year would.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Interesting||
But if the court rules that the athletes have the rights to their likenesses, even if they're not allowed to "sell" them while in school, wouldn't they then be considered to be due some of the revenue from broadcast rights, video games, merchandise, etc. (maybe just after they graduate and can start capitalizing on said likeness)?
I guess what I'm saying is that if student-athletes are still owed that money after they graduate rather than during their career, it wouldn't seem to change the equation much (if at all).
|33 weeks 4 days ago||No worries||
No worries. I know "One Shining Moment" is kind of a love-it-or-hate-it song; I just happen to love it, so I figured there'd be some people on here who would appreciate it too.
|33 weeks 5 days ago||Nope||
You're welcome! Never thought that video would be so popular ...
|33 weeks 5 days ago||My mistake||
I C&P'd the wrong link when I first posted but fixed it right away (I was hoping before anyone caught it, haha). Should be good now.
|33 weeks 5 days ago||Got it||
Man, you guys are quick (TWSS?). Should be fixed now.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||Hmm ...||
What browser are you using? I've watched on Firefox on my home PC and Chrome on my Android.
|51 weeks 1 day ago||Wow||
I'm truly sorry.
|51 weeks 1 day ago||Here too||
I've also been getting that periodically today (probably about five times total), and only at MGoBlog. I'm on Firefox, if that matters.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Not for long||
The Chick-fil-A bowl is part of the major six-bowl rotation now. It will be on that top tier. It obviously doesn't have the same tradition/cachet as the other major bowls at this point (and will never match the Rose Bowl), but the Fiesta Bowl was a nothing game 30 years ago -- after a few years of the playoffs, nobody will really remember or care that it didn't used to be a significant game.
And outside of general entertainment quality of the city, if the Big Ten champ isn't going to Pasadena, I don't see much difference between going to Miami or Arlington or Atlanta or wherever.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Solid first post||
Solid first post. And welcome to the board!
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Man ...||
If the Michigan State game was the last glimpse we'll ever get of Denard at Michigan Stadium, at least he'll have gone out on a high note.
He'll go down as all-time great who earned everything. I hope, if nothing else, Denard gets a token QB iso or something against Iowa just to hear the ovation from 111,000. Gonna be a little dusty ...
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Paging?||
I'm skeptical that Section 1 has a pager.