Peppers at 10, which seems low.
- Member for
- 4 years 19 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 3 hours ago||I think we've got a shot at||
I think we've got a shot at the upset against Rutgers this year, even on the road. Rivalry game and all.
|1 day 7 hours ago||That's fine for the Eastern||
That's fine for the Eastern Michigans of the world (they don't belong in FBS/1-A anyway) but there are a lot of teams in the Houston-Cincinnatti-BYU-Boise realm that would love to move up and can't that would be jilted if that were to occur. They would make quite the stink if they were eliminated. They've already made quite the stink about a lot of the rules changes that have come across the pike. Anti-trust lawsuits are a legitimate threat if moves are made without their consent.
Granted, I think in principle your idea has a lot of merit, an acknowledgement of what is really going on anyway, but getting to that point is tricky.
|1 day 7 hours ago||Good analysis, though I||
Good analysis, though I disagree with some of your conclusions. The bulls number font uses serifs in similar ways, but it is not quite as slim and efficient as Michigan's in my opinion. And FWIW that fuzzy mannequin picture does not seem to have letters that are as slim as either Michigan's old font or the font you have in your post. Much wider, ungainly, ugly. It might not be a thing at all, of course.
Since the 2 is the number of one of our most iconic players and part of the number (21) in another one of our most iconic players, I consider it a pretty big deal.
Good write-up, though. We will have to see.
|1 day 8 hours ago||A straight top-6 playoff from||
A straight top-6 playoff from last year's rankings would have been:
1. Clemson - bye
2. Alabama - bye
A top-8 straight bracket would have added Ohio State and Notre Dame--three B1G teams in the tournament. Michigan finished ranked #14 in the playoff committee rankings FWIW. #9 and #10, the first two out, were FSU and North Carolina. Houston, the highest ranked mid-major, finished #18.
My 8-team playoff, with five major autobids, an autobid to the best mid-major, and 2 at-larges (relevant: I would not allow one conference to get both at-larges):
#8 Houston AT #1 Clemson
#7 Notre Dame AT #2 Alabama
#6 Stanford AT #3 Michigan State
#5 Iowa AT #4 Oklahoma
Left out: Ohio State as the second Big Ten team, Florida State as the next at large. Without Houston as an autobid, Florida State gets in, but I think both from fairness/entertainment and avoidance of antitrust suits Houston needs that bid. If one conference is permitted to occupy both at-large spots, Ohio State bumps Notre Dame, which would totally invalidate the B1G season but would be a much more exciting game.
As it is, the only game listed there that really moves the needle is Stanford at Michigan State, with maybe a slight chance of Houston showing well at Clemson. Notre Dame and Iowa would be demolished, though.
|1 day 8 hours ago||Every playoff and non-playoff||
Every playoff and non-playoff scenario has problems. What you've described is an imbalance, but not nearly as bad as what used to be the difference between #2 and #3, and in both cases those teams get home games in Brian's scenario.
I have elsewhere declared that if an 8-team playoff is a necessary evil, the best option is to strongly prioritize conference champions by making 6 of them automatic berths. However, I don't think that can totally cut it; there has to be an at-large or two for a situation where a really good team gets stuck with a road game in a division with another really good team. We could well find ourselves in that situation someday.
Of course, that makes games like LSU-Bama, Clemson-FSU, and Stanford-Oregon elimination games, which ups the ante. That's why I like smaller playoffs. But you have to have an at large here or there somewhere.
|1 day 8 hours ago||I've seen stuff about this,||
I've seen stuff about this, and I know Chip Kelly is big on it as well. I think the value to capturing data on football players (eventually, all of them) is almost limitless, particularly for injuries. One of the problems with making rules to address head injuries is that we don't really know what particular actions are the culprit beyond "playing football" and thus leadership cannot act properly. And when they do act it can be seen as petty or "wussification" because people don't see things the same way.
Better data equals better choices. And ultimately safer players.
|1 day 9 hours ago||First, Title IX is an issue||
First, Title IX is an issue here; second, it's bad for the sport and potentially bad for the players. It's bad for the sport because you have the big dogs taking even more of the best talent, since they don't have to focus on a few players but can basically just recruit everybody they like. So teams like Mississippi State and Texas Tech and Iowa get even more of a raw deal.
And it's bad for the players because more go to these schools thinking they have a chance to play, never see the school, and either transfer out or graduate. With unlimited scholarships a school has no incentive to worry about a guy panning out. They can work with them, coach them up, and if they don't show starting potential, forget about them and move on to the next guy. It's better for the players to go to a school that has an interest in them working out from the beginning.
|1 day 9 hours ago||Electronic tracking of players and footballs||
One thing that I think both levels of football should develop:
Put sensors on footballs and on players.
There are so many games that have crucial moments decided by a naked-eye spot by a referee that is himself moving at the time the ball is dead. An inch or two of human error here or there is the difference between a first down and a fourth, a touchdown and a turnover, and so on. And part of the problem is that replay reviews rarely ever conclusively change spots.
I heard that the NFL is experimenting with placing a microchip in a football for an exhibition game or something. This needs to move forward and fast. The technology either exists or nearly exists to place a simple sensor and transmitter inside a regulation football, and to at the same time plot out its location on a millimeter perfect plot of the football field. This would allow replay officials to identify the exact location of the ball at any point in time (for example, when a knee is visually judged to be down but the ball is not visible on goal-line plays). This can easily be coordinated with sensors on first-down markers and so on.
The ball needs to be wired and the information needs to be available to officials.
Regarding players, I think it would be wise to track their movements with at least an accelerometer to learn what G-forces are involved in their collisions. Drifting back to my discussion of head injuries, it's a serious consideration for the future of the sport.
Wire the players (maybe just their helmets?), gather data. Much of the conventional wisdom regarding injuries is hampered by the fact that there just isn't data. The move to reduce kickoff returns, for example--what are the stats regarding injuries on kickoff returns as opposed to other plays? I haven't seen any.
Gather the data. And, as trends become clear, find ways to address them. For example, if it becomes clear that players who endure, say, a 25-G collision (that number is absolute hogwash, a total guess) make up 60% of diagnosed concussion cases, real-time tracking of collisions can prompt a neutral medical official to page a sideline to pull a player who has just been involved in such a collision to check him for a concussion. In another example, if a certain type of play clearly produces more of these collisions (a crossing route into a zone defense, for example) rules can be tweaked to reduce that element of the play.
But you need data.
And if the technology doesn't yet exist, set aside some of these massive millions and offer them as a bounty or a commission to a University that develops it. This should be right up the Big Ten's alley, right?
|1 day 10 hours ago||Football is an||
Football is an extraordinarily popular sport whose major threat is not reduced popularity or competition in the market but a complete meltdown prompted by serious legal attack of either corruption, unfair labor practices, or unsafe conditions.
Because of this, football (college and pro) must pro-actively stay ahead of problems like paying players (note how quickly things began to change when Northwestern talked about unionizing) and serious head injuries. The widening knowledge of head injuries and its impact on the lives of players is a serious, serious issue, and a threat to the game.
So the sport must be proactive. And that means cutting down on violent collisions that have a propensity to cause head injuries, detected or otherwise. And lead-with-your-head tackles are a major source of those impacts.
Eliminating targeting is not an option. However, expanding the rule is, and that may be what is necessary.
I enjoy huge hits. I don't want guys to have to change the way they play, but they may have to. The worse collisions must be limited for their own safety. And if that means they change the way they tackle to avoid penalties, so be it. The penalties may need to be more common, more consistent, more likely, rather than less. That will change the way people play.
|1 day 10 hours ago||The changes here are mostly||
The changes here are mostly small, some of them relating only to statistics, which correlates well with my impression that college football in the stadium is a near-perfect sport. (The out-of-the-stadium stuff, well, we tolerate it because there are 12 fall Saturdays of perfection).
College football overtimes are weird in the way that they start at the 25, but I'm not sure that starting at the 35 exactly fixes anything. A 42-yard field goal is no sure thing, so a 52-yarder is just a more marginal version of the same. You will have a few more teams going for it on 4th-and-7 from the 32, I guess.
I'm all in favor of home games for the playoffs (am I ever) and the Rose Bowl as a permanent title game, but that scenario will never happen. First, because it is politically unfeasable. Second, because a play-in round is just too unbalanced. A winning team may advance having lost a QB to an ACL injury; alternatively, the host teams could be surprisingly rusty playing against a team that had just played the week before.
I am saddened that the sport's brilliant regular season will continue to be diminished by playoff expansion, but as long as there are 5 major conferences and 4 spots (plus all the underdog mid-major hopes) it is unsustainable. At this point, my main goal with an inevitable 8-team playoff is to mitigate the damage by guaranteeing 6 slots to the 5 major conference champions plus the highest-ranked mid-major champ, with only two at-larges for Notre Dame, LSU, and OSU to fight over after we win the B1G.
An FCS exhibition sound interesting but since it is an exhibition it will be, essentially, an NFL preseason game. And that would be pretty cheesy. The upside of playing redshirted players would be more than offset by the downside of opening the season with a meanginless, half-attended game.
|1 day 10 hours ago||I am going to be quite||
I am going to be quite unhappy if they change the (basically perfect) number font. I'm already not pleased with the B1G logo, though that's not that much of a bump from having a manufacturer logo on the jersey.
Basically the optimal uniform will have the same number font, a quality blue jersey, minimal extras, a small block M on the pant hip (that's my preference, anyway, though I understand not everybody agrees) and the maize we wore in the early 00s before things started to drift.
Anything else will be substandard. We have a perfect uniform.
That said, I am ok with some limited experimentation on the road jerseys. My preference is a jersey similar to what we got starting in 1997; the maize piping and maize dart jerseys from the late Nike and early-mid Adidas eras were substandard. I would also enjoy a continuation of the white pants, perhaps in rotation with the maize pants on the road.
|2 days 4 hours ago||Recruits aren't the only ones||
Recruits aren't the only ones that matter, but they matter a lot.
Why? Because recruits turn into players, and players win games. And no design, no logo, no color is going to do a better job of selling products than winning games will.
I don't live in the Twin Cities, but even when I visit I rarely see University of Minnesota gear. And I almost never see it up here in Duluth, 2 hours and change away. It's not the designs or the logos or the colors that are the problem; the problem is that people aren't excited about the Gophers because the Gophers don't win.
It is certainly arguable whether or not a particular logo will influence a recruit to go to a school. But if a school is the sort of place where the athlete's opinions are going to matter in that (relatively meaningless) way, it may seem like a more attractive, friendly place. And even if it's not the logo that does it, it is potentially part of a mentality that has the potential to draw more recruits.
And recruits make teams. And teams win games. And wins sell shirts.
|2 days 4 hours ago||Analyzing the "why" of things||
Analyzing the "why" of things like this is tricky. When you get into the realm of top-end athletic performance, little things, genetic gifts, training patterns from childhood, wind up making permanent differences. It could be that his ability to track and process visually is just not as sharp as other top-end OLs (issue for quarterbacks as well). Not that he's slow, because it's nothing one would ever notice in regular life tasks, but an issue there.
Or it could be that the messy coaching (and perhaps who knows what else in his own life and career) he has gotten has done a lot of damage, so that he's still spending time thinking out there about what needs to be done. Sure, you could say "but he's had four years," and you'd be right. But three of those years were under Brady Hoke and his cast of inadequates. And Kalis, while afforded lots of first-team practice reps, also had to play in games early enough that he had to learn to cope with game speed quickly.
I don't know. People grow at different speeds. Not everybody is cut out to be an NFL OL, and there are various reasons for that. Why do some QBs just never seem to pick up progression instincts despite working as hard as others? Why do some WRs and DBs just never seem to build that key agility and explosiveness despite working as hard as others?
It's the mystery of talent and work.
|2 days 4 hours ago||It's possible from a||
It's possible from a motivational standpoint, but I am less confident that it would ever happen. Combine some expected improvement with the experience they have and my guess is that they stand pat.
But I've been wrong before.
|2 days 5 hours ago||The profile view of the||
The profile view of the helmet stripes, you mean? In that sense similar, although the shirt you're thinking of had the helmet stripes printed maize-on-maize (there was enough contrast they were plenty visible) on the shirt. '03 sounds about right, but either way I think the design we're thinking of was the first annual student tshirt.
FWIW this design is terrific, and so good that I might overlook the fact that it is nearly orange and get one anyway.
|2 days 5 hours ago||So the kinks are not ironed||
So the kinks are not ironed out of the OL even on an otherwise great offensive day. Brian's instinct for sniffing trouble in the OL is pretty good, so I might be underrating how much of a questionmark the OL will be.
Still, Drevno and Harbaugh are about as good as you can get in ability to teach and coach. If Newsome can be ok and Kalis or Mags can make a Leap (not out of the question) we've got ourselves a solid line.
Mostly what I thought, reading this, though:
Is it September yet
|4 days 45 min ago||TW: Beating Dead Horse||
*pokes head up quietly*
Love the real color of maize there, wish we'd go back to it.
|4 days 9 hours ago||Florida UFR? I forgot||
Florida UFR? I forgot everything else I just read.
And apparently so did everybody else.
|5 days 7 hours ago||This is just all kinds of||
This is just all kinds of awful. I heard that a punter for LSU was in the crash, too. Cuts across many schools and many groups of people.
|6 days 12 hours ago||The best thing about this||
The best thing about this heat wave, the first one we've had this summer (except for a random 93 degree day in early May when we were the hottest place in the nation) is that the heat wave came on the heels of the worst windstorm in years, knocking power out for over half the city.
Oh, wait: that's the worst thing. This is our third day without electricity thanks to a tree fall on the powerline next door. It's been fun.
|6 days 12 hours ago||That was my commute for three||
That was my commute for three years, Lancaster to Tarzana. Stink. Have some friends in that area, too.
|6 days 12 hours ago||FWIW I am always one to||
FWIW I am always one to appreciate the high road. After all, I consider the command to "turn the other cheek" important.
Fun fact: "Turning the other cheek" is a response to an insult (it's the right cheek, and as written to a majority right-handed culture a right cheek could only be struck right-handed by the back of the hand, an insult) rather than an injury. If they are harming a legitimate business, that's not just an insult to your wife. It is injurious. And ethically you are not "lowering" yourself to pursue legal remedies.
Take the lead, make some effort at least with law enforcement. Spend the time on the phone yourself as much as possible. Your wife will probably appreciate it.
|1 week 11 hours ago||Everyone is remembering his||
Everyone is remembering his epic Bears rant, and that came to my mind too.
It's a bit of a shame, because Green was a long-tenured coach that produced teams like the magnificent 1998 Vikings. He was quite good.
But that rant is just sooooo quotable...
|1 week 11 hours ago||Weird double post||
|1 week 11 hours ago||Your snide joke about CC||
Your snide joke about CC aside, that IS an important question. If these are all friends of Elliott's, they may have a vested interest in him not getting kicked out of the League.
Right now there's no way to know. Too much of this is just rumor and speculation right now.
|1 week 11 hours ago||Meyer has a history of||
Meyer has a history of abusing his wife and/or encouraging his players to abuse their significant others? I wasn't aware of this.
|1 week 2 days ago||They didn't "struggle"||
They didn't "struggle" against App State and Oregon. They were embarrassed.
Purdue was never the same kind of offense. Other than the label "spread" it bore little resemblance to the zone read option packages Michigan never learned to defend.
Michigan had the talent to compete for national titles and didn't. Michigan had the talent to consistently post 1 or 2 loss seasons and did so only once. Michigan had the talent to win convincingly against teams like UCLA in 2000, Washington in 2001, Notre Dame in 2002, Oregon and Iowa in 2003, Notre Dame in 2004, everybody in 2005, and App State in 2007. But they lost. They always lost. At least one headscratcher every year, without fail.
The Cap One Bowl win against Florida was glorious; it was also a capstone of everything Carr should have done in the 2000s and didn't, a final statement of what he could have been capable of but never achieved. He was a B coach.
|1 week 2 days ago||Really? First of all, Henne||
First of all, Henne and Hart were both proven sophomores in 2005 who had produced well the previous season, so starting them wasn't a stretch at all.
Second, in that era we had:
Chad Henne, future NFL starter; Mike Hart, future multiple-record-holder for Michigan; Steve Breaston; Mario Manningham; Adrian Arrington; Lamar Woodley; Alan Branch; David Harris; Leon Hall; and Jake Long. That's a huge amount of talent. And Michigan's recruiting rankings from that era (pretty consistently top five and top ten) back this up.
The problem was coaching. Yes, there was a falloff in recruiting late, but the idea that a few key position holes would have fixed everything is simply implausible.
And the proof is in the pudding. From 2000-2007, Michigan could not get out of its own way. Except for 2006, they always lost at least one head-scratcher that they had no business losing. They got outcoached and outmaneuvered by Tressel. They squandered loaded rosters against teams with no more talent than they with consistently simplistic gameplans. They could not grow or develop new gameplans or adapt to new styles.
Even 2003 and 2006, the "good" years, were disappointments. Because they were outcoached.
|1 week 2 days ago||I think the point is that it||
I think the point is that it would be great to get all three. Could I handle that? Yes I could.
|1 week 2 days ago||Unconventional isn't the end||
Unconventional isn't the end of the world. Keep at it.
Talking can help a bit. There are people you know willing to listen, here or elsewhere.