I'm using an iPhone 14 with the most recent OS. My browser cache is cleared. There are no cookies set. I'm explicitly typing http://mgoblue.com into the Safari nav bar. I can see it begin to load the site correctly and then it redirects to http://mgoblue.com/watch, from which there is no escape. Once I'm in /watch, anything I try to do to get to the homepage boomerangs me right back to /watch.
I looked at FSU's site, and it's the same company that's doing Michigan's. It sucks, but at least you can navigate to the individual sports from the homepage, which gives me hope that Michigan's site is temporarily screwed up.
10 minutes in I was already laughing at the absurdity of this game. “Watch this”, I’d say to my wife as an ASU guy took another crazy shot, “this is going in”. “No way,” she’d say and then the thing would arc perfectly into the net. At the other end: brick brick brick.
It’s not unusual to see one team have a wildly divergent game, but it’s pretty rare to see both teams have one but in opposite directions. Oh well.
Definitely one of the more mysterious college football careers. I was sure he was going to be an impact player. His high school film looked like video of a bear attack. Football is hard.
If Peters had thrown it from inside the tackle box, the refs could have called it grounding because the grounding rule says that if you throw it anywhere besides an eligible receiver to avoid loss of time or yardage, then it’s grounding. So a completed pass to a lineman to avoid a sack could be grounding if the QB throws from inside the tackle box. But the grounding rule is specific that anything that happens outside the tackle box cannot be grounding.
Incredible BIG TEN!!! refereeing at the end of this game. Brandon Peters threw a pass to his center *from the numbers on the field* and the refs called it intentional grounding. Peters was so far outside the tackle box that he was standing on the literal 10 on the field. It should have been illegal touching. Maryland would’ve declined and Illinois would’ve punted from their 18. Instead it was loss of down and half the distance, so Illinois punted from the 9. Maryland probably still would’ve won, but c’mon man. BIG TEN!!!
One of the older versions of the targeting talked about "initiating" contact to the head of a defenseless player. That language was in turn inserted into an even older version of the rule that didn't take into account the possibility of accidental contact (e.g., Joe Bolden getting shoved into Connor Cook). Since "initiated" leads to a lot parsing of intent, the NCAA replaced it with "makes forcible contact", which changes the intentionality from "was trying to hit the defenseless opponent in the head/was trying to hit with the crown of the helmet" to "was trying to hit the defenseless opponent and ended up hitting him in the head/was trying to hit and ended up using the crown of the helmet".
I really beg everyone who's interested in this topic to please read the actual rules. Do not listen to the yutzes on TV because they have not read the rules, or at least haven't understood them, because they are almost always wrong. Even the Rules Guys who parachute in from the studio in LA or wherever get it wrong all the time.
A couple of things:
Forcible, targeted contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless opponent with any part of the player's hand, arm, shoulder or helmet is not permitted. There's nothing in the rules about hitting some other part of a player first. If you hit a defenseless opponent in the head, you hit him in the head.
Regardless of whether an opponent is defenseless or not, a player cannot strike with the crown of his helmet (which is defined as the part of the helmet above the facemask). Even if the OSU safety only hit the Minnesota receiver in the shoulder, it was still targeting because he led with the crown of the helmet. This part of the rule is to protect the player doing the hitting as much as it is to protect the player being hit. The TV guys never seem to understand that the rule isn't just about the head of the guy being hit.
Complaining to the Big Ten does bupkis, at least that's publicly visible. It feels like ancient history now but after the Shane Morris incident Michigan filed a complaint with the Big Ten asking them to review the play and possibly suspend Minnesota's Theiren Cockran, but the league refused to review the play because it had been called roughing the passer on the field. Pause to consider the monumental stupidity and chickenshittedness of a policy designed specifically tonotinvestigate situations where a player's health and even life may have been in danger.
The one that really got me was the Nick Eubanks concussion against Purdue in 2017. Eubanks was literally lying unmoving on the turf and Brady Quinn was going on about how targeting was tough for defenders because it puts them in a bad spot. I could only think that the guy in the real bad spot was down on the ground with the TRAUMA TO HIS BRAIN. I wanted to climb through my TV and smack the sonofabitch. I can't remember for sure, but I believe that was the end of Eubanks season.
Spot on. It needs to be called more often because it's clearly not having its intended effect. I don't know how the NCAA and the conferences go about doing that, though. The refs are refusing to make the call because doing so has such a significant impact on the game. This has been the case for years, and the NCAA has its head so far up its own ass that they can't see—or are at least pretending not to see—the problem. They get to hold up their rule and proclaim that they're Very Serious about player safety, but meanwhile kids are getting knocked unconscious and the refs don't even bat an eyelash. It's ridiculous.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Minny kid was clearly earholed and rendered unconscious. Even if the primary contact was to the receiver's shoulder, a defender still cannot strike with the crown of the helmet. Absolutely everyone who does TV constantly misunderstands this part of the targeting rule. The point of the crown of the helmet part of rule isn't just to protect the opponent it's to protect the defender from injuring himself. If the defender launches himself headfirst into a lineman's ass, that's targeting. Also, the rule specifically defines "crown" as any part of the helmet above the level of the facemask, so you can basically imagine a fairly large bowl upside down on the helmet. That entire area is the "crown", which includes the forehead part of the helmet.
If I ever get hold of a time machine, one of the many things I will tell my young dumb self is that I should pay more attention to what I put on my feet.
I have a pair of Skechers trail running/hiking shoes that I love. I've beat on them for years, and they're still holding up pretty well. OTOH I've also had some of their running shoes that were complete garbage that disintegrated after a few months of walking the dog around the neighborhood.
Yeah, the ouch-my-brane Deadspin article mentions that he's starting a company, which makes it sound like he's out looking for office space and someone to make sure the coffee pot is full, but really it's just an LLC that'll only exist on paper in his lawyer's office. As you point out the key part is in the source phrase of LLC: limited liability company. Spencer Dinwiddie the person is going to have a contract with Spencer Dinwiddie LLC that will specify that Spencer Dinwiddie the person will turn over the money he gets from the Nets to the LLC. The investors will buy their tokens from the LLC and never, ever have any sort of relationship with Dinwiddie the person.
NBA contracts are generally guaranteed in the event of on-court injury, so if he's unable to play because he turns a leg into a pretzel against the Knicks, he'll still get the money from the Nets. But there are plenty of clauses that will void the deal. For example, if he rides a motorcycle into a retaining wall at 100mph, he's not getting his money. There are certainly various other clauses concerning being found guilty of a felony, etc... But as long as he doesn't do anything stupid, the Nets have to pay out. That said, buying Dinwiddie bonds is still going to be quite risky compared to doing other things with your money for similar returns. (I'm guessing wildly at what his bonds will earn, of course.)
I think he could issue it as a traditional bond with a CUSIP and all that and find a broker willing to do all the leg work. Treasuries and some corp bonds are exchange traded because there's a market for that, but many (most?) corp bonds are just OTC.
Regardless, Dinwiddie's deep interest in crypto is probably the answer to my question. He's issuing his bond as a token because he's super into that.
Right, the Arian Foster bond was an investment in the Arian Foster "brand". The investor would get a slice of his contract income, endorsement deals, etc... Risk-wise Dinwiddie's guaranteed contract-backed bond seems like a Treasury note compared to betting on how much money a football player would make on commercials n years from now.
Also, the bond part of this is mildly interesting because of its relative novelty, but I'm much more interested in the crypto part of the story. Why not just issue a traditional bond? Is there a significant cost saving to Dinwiddie to create the bond as a cryptographic instrument? Or perhaps he's doubling up on the novelty to generate more free publicity like the ouch-my-brane Deadspin article? Whose platform is he going to use (surely he's not reinventing Ethereum, etc...)? Is this all just a bunch of bullshit?
Yep, hell of a good deal for him. Not only does he get all his money now and have the opportunity to come out ahead by investing at a higher rate of return than whatever his bond is paying out, he's also presumably shifting all or most of the contract risk to the investors. If the Nets go bankrupt or his contract is voided or the Barclays Center is blown up or whatever, he'll still have his money. (I say "presumably" because the available reporting is light on details, but that's certainly what I'd try to do if I were him.)
Zero impact on the salary cap. The Nets are paying him just the same as they would any other player. The tokenized bond business is all on Dinwiddie's end. In other words, the Nets are going to give him $x at whatever interval they've agreed to. Dinwiddie could put that money in the bank or open a restaurant or go to Vegas and put it all on red, but he's chosen to use it to pay back his investors.
The entire point of the Directors Cup is that women's rowing, etc., counts as much as football or men's basketball, so I'm not sure what the grousing about Stanford's non-revenue sports programs is about. Also, while Michigan does have fewer varsity sports than Stanford, Ohio State and a handful of other Div I schools, it still has quite a few relative to many other schools and benefits in the Cup competition by fielding teams in sparsely populated sports, e.g., men's gymnastics, which has only 21 Div I programs.
Just to be clear, my question (the 2nd from the top) was meant to be much more Irvin-positive than it ended up seeming (because I phrased it poorly). What I was trying to get at is: would Irvin as the 6th man give him the opportunity to get his game going against weaker defenders in a situation where he also doesn't have to carry the psychological burden of a starter. Would that potential benefit be a reasonable trade-off for the downgrade of having Robinson play defense against starters? Like I said, that's not going to happen so it's only a thought-experiment, although I sure wish that Beilein had tried it somewhere in the last 6 weeks, just to see if it could jumpstart Irvin's game.
That's a ridiculous argument at this point of the season. Because of the number of games and the importance of post-season tournaments, basketball's seaonsal arc is completely different than football. Particularly when you schedule the way MSU basketball does.
I wouldn't read much into the order in which things happen. Recruits are busy. Coaches are busy. As long as everyone is communicating well about plans and expectations, there's no problem.
I got married in the old Chelsea train station. It's only "in Ann Arbor" in the sense of "in the Ann Arbor area", but it was incredibly cheap to rent the place (we paid like $325 a couple of years ago).
I imagine that's because there are a metric shit ton of Californians, so it's highly likely that they comprise one of the highest state-of-origin cohorts at any large school, particularly one west of the Mississippi. I also wonder if there are still ties to Oklahoma via Dust Bowl-era immigration, similar to the way that SE Michigan has populations with strong ties to the South due to WWII-era immigration.
"Partner companies issue press release claiming that within 12 months they will have a public test program for taxis that can be autonomous in an extremely limited set of controlled circumstances."
NorCal is completely hilarious: Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oklahoma State(!), whatever that horsehead thing is. My favorite, though, is Sacramento County, population 1.5 million people, who are sufficiently disinterested in Reddit and college sports that Kansas is the winner.
He's from Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the big Congo), which helps explain his apparent lack of experience. I'm pretty sure that the 2 years is only 2 years in the USA, but that he played back home, too. Not exactly sure what basketball in Lubumbashi is like, of course.
And the Kings reportedly want to hire Calipari to be their coach AND general manager, which is pretty strong evidence that they know less than nothing about basketball.
Seriously? You think that he's not a nice guy because he's in jail for armed robbery? Not because he probably MURDERED two people even though he was found not guilty? Hoooo-key-doke.
And I'm not comparing Frank Clark to OJ Simpson. I'm presenting OJ as example of where public opinion diverges from the results of the criminal justice system.
First, Clark was found guilty because he pled to a reduced charge.
Secondly, criminal justice is something that informs public opinion but public opinion can and does diverge from trial results. I mean, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman. Ergo, he didn't do, right? And he must be an okay guy, right?
Yeah, but so what? The NFL is not a court of criminal justice. They get to decide who does and does not play in their league. Being found guilty of a crime is a simple yardstick for evaluating whether they don't want someone in their league, but it certainly doesn't have to be the only yardstick.
Recent Comments
I'm using an iPhone 14 with the most recent OS. My browser cache is cleared. There are no cookies set. I'm explicitly typing http://mgoblue.com into the Safari nav bar. I can see it begin to load the site correctly and then it redirects to http://mgoblue.com/watch, from which there is no escape. Once I'm in /watch, anything I try to do to get to the homepage boomerangs me right back to /watch.
Yes, I do.
I looked at FSU's site, and it's the same company that's doing Michigan's. It sucks, but at least you can navigate to the individual sports from the homepage, which gives me hope that Michigan's site is temporarily screwed up.
There is no M in the upper left corner.
Not present on mgoblue.com/watch, which is where the site sends me everytime I go to mgoblue.com.
Outtake from that Hudl video
10 minutes in I was already laughing at the absurdity of this game. “Watch this”, I’d say to my wife as an ASU guy took another crazy shot, “this is going in”. “No way,” she’d say and then the thing would arc perfectly into the net. At the other end: brick brick brick.
It’s not unusual to see one team have a wildly divergent game, but it’s pretty rare to see both teams have one but in opposite directions. Oh well.
Definitely one of the more mysterious college football careers. I was sure he was going to be an impact player. His high school film looked like video of a bear attack. Football is hard.
If Peters had thrown it from inside the tackle box, the refs could have called it grounding because the grounding rule says that if you throw it anywhere besides an eligible receiver to avoid loss of time or yardage, then it’s grounding. So a completed pass to a lineman to avoid a sack could be grounding if the QB throws from inside the tackle box. But the grounding rule is specific that anything that happens outside the tackle box cannot be grounding.
Incredible BIG TEN!!! refereeing at the end of this game. Brandon Peters threw a pass to his center *from the numbers on the field* and the refs called it intentional grounding. Peters was so far outside the tackle box that he was standing on the literal 10 on the field. It should have been illegal touching. Maryland would’ve declined and Illinois would’ve punted from their 18. Instead it was loss of down and half the distance, so Illinois punted from the 9. Maryland probably still would’ve won, but c’mon man. BIG TEN!!!
One of the older versions of the targeting talked about "initiating" contact to the head of a defenseless player. That language was in turn inserted into an even older version of the rule that didn't take into account the possibility of accidental contact (e.g., Joe Bolden getting shoved into Connor Cook). Since "initiated" leads to a lot parsing of intent, the NCAA replaced it with "makes forcible contact", which changes the intentionality from "was trying to hit the defenseless opponent in the head/was trying to hit with the crown of the helmet" to "was trying to hit the defenseless opponent and ended up hitting him in the head/was trying to hit and ended up using the crown of the helmet".
I really beg everyone who's interested in this topic to please read the actual rules. Do not listen to the yutzes on TV because they have not read the rules, or at least haven't understood them, because they are almost always wrong. Even the Rules Guys who parachute in from the studio in LA or wherever get it wrong all the time.
A couple of things:
Complaining to the Big Ten does bupkis, at least that's publicly visible. It feels like ancient history now but after the Shane Morris incident Michigan filed a complaint with the Big Ten asking them to review the play and possibly suspend Minnesota's Theiren Cockran, but the league refused to review the play because it had been called roughing the passer on the field. Pause to consider the monumental stupidity and chickenshittedness of a policy designed specifically to not investigate situations where a player's health and even life may have been in danger.
The one that really got me was the Nick Eubanks concussion against Purdue in 2017. Eubanks was literally lying unmoving on the turf and Brady Quinn was going on about how targeting was tough for defenders because it puts them in a bad spot. I could only think that the guy in the real bad spot was down on the ground with the TRAUMA TO HIS BRAIN. I wanted to climb through my TV and smack the sonofabitch. I can't remember for sure, but I believe that was the end of Eubanks season.
Spot on. It needs to be called more often because it's clearly not having its intended effect. I don't know how the NCAA and the conferences go about doing that, though. The refs are refusing to make the call because doing so has such a significant impact on the game. This has been the case for years, and the NCAA has its head so far up its own ass that they can't see—or are at least pretending not to see—the problem. They get to hold up their rule and proclaim that they're Very Serious about player safety, but meanwhile kids are getting knocked unconscious and the refs don't even bat an eyelash. It's ridiculous.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Minny kid was clearly earholed and rendered unconscious. Even if the primary contact was to the receiver's shoulder, a defender still cannot strike with the crown of the helmet. Absolutely everyone who does TV constantly misunderstands this part of the targeting rule. The point of the crown of the helmet part of rule isn't just to protect the opponent it's to protect the defender from injuring himself. If the defender launches himself headfirst into a lineman's ass, that's targeting. Also, the rule specifically defines "crown" as any part of the helmet above the level of the facemask, so you can basically imagine a fairly large bowl upside down on the helmet. That entire area is the "crown", which includes the forehead part of the helmet.
If I ever get hold of a time machine, one of the many things I will tell my young dumb self is that I should pay more attention to what I put on my feet.
I have a pair of Skechers trail running/hiking shoes that I love. I've beat on them for years, and they're still holding up pretty well. OTOH I've also had some of their running shoes that were complete garbage that disintegrated after a few months of walking the dog around the neighborhood.
Yeah, the ouch-my-brane Deadspin article mentions that he's starting a company, which makes it sound like he's out looking for office space and someone to make sure the coffee pot is full, but really it's just an LLC that'll only exist on paper in his lawyer's office. As you point out the key part is in the source phrase of LLC: limited liability company. Spencer Dinwiddie the person is going to have a contract with Spencer Dinwiddie LLC that will specify that Spencer Dinwiddie the person will turn over the money he gets from the Nets to the LLC. The investors will buy their tokens from the LLC and never, ever have any sort of relationship with Dinwiddie the person.
NBA contracts are generally guaranteed in the event of on-court injury, so if he's unable to play because he turns a leg into a pretzel against the Knicks, he'll still get the money from the Nets. But there are plenty of clauses that will void the deal. For example, if he rides a motorcycle into a retaining wall at 100mph, he's not getting his money. There are certainly various other clauses concerning being found guilty of a felony, etc... But as long as he doesn't do anything stupid, the Nets have to pay out. That said, buying Dinwiddie bonds is still going to be quite risky compared to doing other things with your money for similar returns. (I'm guessing wildly at what his bonds will earn, of course.)
I think he could issue it as a traditional bond with a CUSIP and all that and find a broker willing to do all the leg work. Treasuries and some corp bonds are exchange traded because there's a market for that, but many (most?) corp bonds are just OTC.
Regardless, Dinwiddie's deep interest in crypto is probably the answer to my question. He's issuing his bond as a token because he's super into that.
Right, the Arian Foster bond was an investment in the Arian Foster "brand". The investor would get a slice of his contract income, endorsement deals, etc... Risk-wise Dinwiddie's guaranteed contract-backed bond seems like a Treasury note compared to betting on how much money a football player would make on commercials n years from now.
Bitcoin?! That seems like a colossally bad idea.
Also, the bond part of this is mildly interesting because of its relative novelty, but I'm much more interested in the crypto part of the story. Why not just issue a traditional bond? Is there a significant cost saving to Dinwiddie to create the bond as a cryptographic instrument? Or perhaps he's doubling up on the novelty to generate more free publicity like the ouch-my-brane Deadspin article? Whose platform is he going to use (surely he's not reinventing Ethereum, etc...)? Is this all just a bunch of bullshit?
Yep, hell of a good deal for him. Not only does he get all his money now and have the opportunity to come out ahead by investing at a higher rate of return than whatever his bond is paying out, he's also presumably shifting all or most of the contract risk to the investors. If the Nets go bankrupt or his contract is voided or the Barclays Center is blown up or whatever, he'll still have his money. (I say "presumably" because the available reporting is light on details, but that's certainly what I'd try to do if I were him.)
Zero impact on the salary cap. The Nets are paying him just the same as they would any other player. The tokenized bond business is all on Dinwiddie's end. In other words, the Nets are going to give him $x at whatever interval they've agreed to. Dinwiddie could put that money in the bank or open a restaurant or go to Vegas and put it all on red, but he's chosen to use it to pay back his investors.
The entire point of the Directors Cup is that women's rowing, etc., counts as much as football or men's basketball, so I'm not sure what the grousing about Stanford's non-revenue sports programs is about. Also, while Michigan does have fewer varsity sports than Stanford, Ohio State and a handful of other Div I schools, it still has quite a few relative to many other schools and benefits in the Cup competition by fielding teams in sparsely populated sports, e.g., men's gymnastics, which has only 21 Div I programs.
A lawyer definitely wrote that. Mmm-hmm.
Still here, although I don't bother posting anymore.
Just to be clear, my question (the 2nd from the top) was meant to be much more Irvin-positive than it ended up seeming (because I phrased it poorly). What I was trying to get at is: would Irvin as the 6th man give him the opportunity to get his game going against weaker defenders in a situation where he also doesn't have to carry the psychological burden of a starter. Would that potential benefit be a reasonable trade-off for the downgrade of having Robinson play defense against starters? Like I said, that's not going to happen so it's only a thought-experiment, although I sure wish that Beilein had tried it somewhere in the last 6 weeks, just to see if it could jumpstart Irvin's game.
Money cannon activated in honor of our own refugees.
That's a ridiculous argument at this point of the season. Because of the number of games and the importance of post-season tournaments, basketball's seaonsal arc is completely different than football. Particularly when you schedule the way MSU basketball does.
Two consecutive all-nighters to write papers at the end of a semester. I was an idiot for procrastinating, but I got As on both.
That is just wildly untrue. Recruits visit all the time with no offer.
I wouldn't read much into the order in which things happen. Recruits are busy. Coaches are busy. As long as everyone is communicating well about plans and expectations, there's no problem.
Co-signed. Long is absolutely brutal.
I got married in the old Chelsea train station. It's only "in Ann Arbor" in the sense of "in the Ann Arbor area", but it was incredibly cheap to rent the place (we paid like $325 a couple of years ago).
I imagine that's because there are a metric shit ton of Californians, so it's highly likely that they comprise one of the highest state-of-origin cohorts at any large school, particularly one west of the Mississippi. I also wonder if there are still ties to Oklahoma via Dust Bowl-era immigration, similar to the way that SE Michigan has populations with strong ties to the South due to WWII-era immigration.
"Partner companies issue press release claiming that within 12 months they will have a public test program for taxis that can be autonomous in an extremely limited set of controlled circumstances."
NorCal is completely hilarious: Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oklahoma State(!), whatever that horsehead thing is. My favorite, though, is Sacramento County, population 1.5 million people, who are sufficiently disinterested in Reddit and college sports that Kansas is the winner.
You might be thinking of Donnal because Doyle was variously a 3-star or unrated.
He's from Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the big Congo), which helps explain his apparent lack of experience. I'm pretty sure that the 2 years is only 2 years in the USA, but that he played back home, too. Not exactly sure what basketball in Lubumbashi is like, of course.
I loves me some MGoRadio, but, man, that was agonizing. Kudos to Brian for trying multiple times to steer the discussion somewhere more interesting.
FWIW UNLV's website has Dominic Baldwin listed at a more believable 265 instead of 230.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html
Will play almost anything you hand it.
And the Kings reportedly want to hire Calipari to be their coach AND general manager, which is pretty strong evidence that they know less than nothing about basketball.
Seriously? You think that he's not a nice guy because he's in jail for armed robbery? Not because he probably MURDERED two people even though he was found not guilty? Hoooo-key-doke.
And I'm not comparing Frank Clark to OJ Simpson. I'm presenting OJ as example of where public opinion diverges from the results of the criminal justice system.
First, Clark was found guilty because he pled to a reduced charge.
Secondly, criminal justice is something that informs public opinion but public opinion can and does diverge from trial results. I mean, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman. Ergo, he didn't do, right? And he must be an okay guy, right?
Yeah, but so what? The NFL is not a court of criminal justice. They get to decide who does and does not play in their league. Being found guilty of a crime is a simple yardstick for evaluating whether they don't want someone in their league, but it certainly doesn't have to be the only yardstick.