Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
- Member for
- 5 years 14 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 weeks 2 days ago||That's a hell of a lot of||
That's a hell of a lot of lamenting
|4 weeks 4 days ago||I can't speak to the lofts,||
I can't speak to the lofts, but the rest of those are 100% intended for undergrads with their parents' money to blow and are no place for normalcy or adult behavior.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Oh hey Coach Reilly.||
Oh hey Coach Reilly.
|5 weeks 10 hours ago||Conceited. And is there any||
And is there any indication that this is true? He took time off, came back out of shape, but by all accounts was more or less back to where he needed to be, save for in the somewhat vindictive eyes of Klinsmann. Out of shape and 75% he is still inarguably better than Brad fucking Davis.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||What about scoring on set||
What about scoring on set pieces is remotely odd for the USMNT? If we have a calling card it is the ability of our trees to score set piece headers.
|8 weeks 16 hours ago||The division title is||
The division title is necessary but not sufficient for the B1G title, so really both are true. Lose the division, lose the conference.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||I'll take the bait. We do not||
I'll take the bait. We do not suck at soccer. We made it to the World Cup quarterfinals in 2002 (undone only by the screwiest of refereeing), finished 12th last time around, and were one half of soccer away from beating Spain and Brazil back-to-back and winning the Confederations Cup.
We are a solid international side that will lose more often than not to top-10 teams, but will usually beat those that we are supposed to beat. We have utterly dethroned Mexico and everyone else locally and are generally competetive with everyone else. As posited ad nauseum on here and elsewhere, Julian Green is not the answer and the cabal of -ish 32 year old players is not better than Donovan.
On another note, I will enjoy a Giuseppe Rossi-less Italy, not for it's merits but because screw Giuseppe Rossi.
|18 weeks 12 hours ago||Have they lost the||
Have they lost the opportunity for an NC this year? I think they have not.
|21 weeks 3 days ago||It smacks of ego and||
It smacks of ego and arrogance when players rep themselves. Suh in particular is a very good football player who has a track record of being a hot head on the field. I cannot imagine when the talks start that he's going to be able to keep his cool long enough to "negotiate" in an orderly manner, to say nothing of the fact that he just isn't a lawyer/contract artist.
|23 weeks 3 days ago||The refs in football,||
The refs in football, baseball, soccer, and hockey do not determine the actual score as much as they enforce rules. A touchdown is worth 6 points, however it happens, a field goal is always 3 points, a run is always one point, and goals are always 1 point. You may debate what preceeded the scoring of those points, but if you say touchdown I say 6 points.
After a figure skating (or diving or moguls or ice dancing or gymnastics) routine, you do not know the score unless you are deciding what the score is. Football refs may huddle on a PI or other penalty, but they do not huddle on the value of a touchdown. As for bobsled, it's timed with no other scoring component, just like the alpine skiing disciplines.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Whodathunk that Costas was an||
Whodathunk that Costas was an MGoBlog kinda guy.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Pretty sure your picture just||
Pretty sure your picture just made an appearance on NBC.
|24 weeks 6 days ago||I can barely post as fast as||
I can barely post as fast as we're allowing goals.
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Holy hell and good night||
Holy hell and good night Nagelvoort
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Make that two softies to||
Make that two softies to start the game.
|24 weeks 6 days ago||The tailspin that ended in a||
The tailspin that ended in a National Champioship game loss? I accept your prediction.
|25 weeks 1 day ago||I basically agree with this,||
I basically agree with this, with the small caveat that for whatever reason, I associate Canada (even, and maybe especially, Vancouver because of its proximity to the largest ski area in the world at Whistler-Blackcomb) much more with winter sports than a sub-tropical resort city. Nobody has ever accused Vancouver of fitting that bill.
|25 weeks 2 days ago||But, to be fair, Vancouver||
But, to be fair, Vancouver has 7000' peaks 25 minutes away that are very covered snow at this time of year, every year.
|25 weeks 2 days ago||Good place to start would be||
Good place to start would be the new IOC head who has decided to take up the part time role of Putin hack and attacking Obama and other foreign heads of state for declining the invitation to attend.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I agree with most of this,||
I agree with most of this, but I would argue that he was "tried" by OSCR in the sense that they completed their entire process and determined that they couldn't "prove" anything. Sure you cannot actually be tried in court twice for the same thing and I accept that he wasn't ever tried in court, but I pretty firmly reject that a new interpretation/definition of administrative rules can apply retroactively to a previously closed case.
As for all of your rhetorical questions: It's hard to understand because we don't know everything and the rules of the game changed midway. I, at least, understand that the decision not to charge doesn't prohibit future charges pursuant to the statue of limitations and that you can file and win a civil suit against someone not criminally liable. I also understand that you can be expelled for a number of things short of a felony, gross sexual misconduct, for instance.
My compaint is not that he was expelled for whatever act he did or didn't commit, it's that the University, and apparently you, deem it fair to reinterpret the rules of what was apparently an already closed case. (I happen to think a 51% standard verges on destroying due process but that's for another time)
Frankly, until such time as we know exactly what happened, which we do not and may never know, this is an abstract procedural debate.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Given that OSCR originally||
Given that OSCR originally decided to drop it, after they were alerted to the incident and investigated, suggests that the DA didn't decline to pursue charges simply because the victim chose not to continue.
My contention isn't that it didn't happen, it's that this is a procedually idiotic situation and is essentially triple jeopardy. 1) OSCR follows existing procedures, investigates, does not pursue based on existing standard 2) DA declines to chare 3) OSCR standards change, case reopened, Gibbons expelled.
Perhaps he did it, perhaps he didn't, but I know of no other system where the rules are backdated in this fashion. In the legal system any more restrictive change to the law doesn't make liable those that committed the now banned act, and any loosening of laws doesn't automatically exonerate those who were dinged under the old laws. How many times can you try one person for one crime/incident/situation?
|26 weeks 2 days ago||The DA read the police report||
The DA read the police report and determined that for us by not pressing charges.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||They can certainly sue on the||
They can certainly sue on the basis of the standard being arbitrary (and given that it changed after Gibbons enrolled at Michigan that he should be subject to the standards he effectively agreed to when enrolling). He probably would not win a suit on the facts given the standard employed but the process itself is ripe.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||So where's the bump for||
So where's the bump for winning our national semi final game?
|26 weeks 6 days ago||What about his play over the||
What about his play over the last month suggests a Duke like purposelessness from him? I'd say his movements these days are spent performing some hellish magical feat of double crossover, step-back three SURPRISE gonna drive and leaving the defender somewhere near Kalamazoo.
Nik will be alright.
|28 weeks 1 day ago||Is beating a top 25 team part||
Is beating a top 25 team part of the selection criteria for being top 25 (it is not)? I can see the "beat good teams be treated like a good team" thing here, but for that to be a disqualifying factor, I don't buy it. Strictly speaking, if the rankings were perfect and randomness did not exist, the 25th ranked team would never beat a top 25 team.
|29 weeks 14 hours ago||Frankly it's less dangerous||
Frankly it's less dangerous than many cities in the US. General crime is a lot lower and you only get the dicey parts of life there from the news, which overplays it pretty significantly.
The real credit to them is they are living in the Israeli version of bumblefuck. Nice visual asthetic and some great little towns, but a fantastic pain in the ass to get to.
|29 weeks 4 days ago||And comparing all star team||
And comparing all star team results against actual teams is just silly. Have you seen Miracle? Herb Brooks' entire point was that the Olympic hockey team could not be a US allstar team and beat the USSR. They had to learn to play together, as a team. I'll let you figure out how that ended.
Every Prem reserve side plays together every single day as opposed to the MLS all stars who most certainly do not. MLS may not be the highest quality soccer around but the majority of MLS teams would destroy the 3rd/4th division teams in England and would generally do fine as middling Championship teams. Your soccer arrogance and elitism is one of the impediments to MLS continuing to grow.
|30 weeks 14 hours ago||Not to mention Ohio, PA, and||
Not to mention Ohio, PA, and Illinois are all top 10 in population.
This article is no better than anything you might read on Drudge; shameless click baiting.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||Recalling the previously||
Recalling the previously posted article by Burnside on espn.com, he was the last cut on the defensemen selections and while he may not be having a world beating year, he is still quite a good player.