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
- 2 years 19 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 hour 25 min ago||Obviously. Thus the need to||
Obviously. Thus the need to upgrade the rotation
|2 hours 14 min ago||Yes, he has looked good. But||
Yes, he has looked good. But he has been an "eh" hitter for a while now, I think he is what he is at this point.
No idea who is going to field now. In fairness, I think Jackson was a year or two from a corner OF spot anyway.
|2 hours 16 min ago||I like these guys, so it's||
I like these guys, so it's tough to see them moved. Of course, Ajax has a long history here, too.
But the major issues are now a gaping hole in centerfield and, still, the bullpen. I'm not hugely confident that the Tigers can win like that.
The unspoken subtext here is that Verlander is just not a reliable front-line starter this year. If he were, the Tigers would not need another lock-down starter and could trade pieces for relievers or a bat instead. But every JV start is a questionmark this year--you can't start a questionmark in a game seven.
|5 hours 12 min ago||I don't know much about Kelly||
I don't know much about Kelly or Craig, but a quick scan of their stats didn't blow me away (Craig in particular). Are they guys with upside?
|5 hours 14 min ago||And now Lackey is going to||
And now Lackey is going to the Cards. Red Sox in fire sale mode.
|5 hours 37 min ago||Didn't see the header, I see||
Didn't see the header, I see what you mean there. But I disagree that people are laying last year on chemistry; if there is one scapegoat, it is widely held to be Al Borges.
|5 hours 44 min ago||Chemistry's effect on team||
Chemistry's effect on team performance is variable across sports and across the spectrum of individuals. It manifestly unnecessary for everybody to think a team leader is a great guy, because people like Michael Jordan were complete jerks to teammates and still won multiple titles. C'mon, the Jeff Kent/Barry Bonds Giants nearly won a World Series.
Where it may have an effect is in a situation where the team's morale is shaky and a good leader can help pick people up and get them back on track. It is possible that if things had been smoother that the team could have done a smoother job of adapting to on-field issues and perhaps thugs aren't so ugly against, say, Nebraska.
It's also possible that it made no difference. We'll see.
|5 hours 50 min ago||That's not what people are||
That's not what people are saying at all, and in fact the OP says exactly the opposite.
|7 hours 39 min ago||The A's already had good||
The A's already had good pitching before they started dealing, and now they've added two more top line starters.
Objectively I would have to commend Billy Beane for identifying this as a year to really go for it; subjectively I hate it, because I worry that the Tigers' window may be closing. And our rotation is sliding more toward good than great, still with bullpen problems.
|7 hours 43 min ago||Referencing non-classic||
Referencing non-classic Michigan victories, I relish memories of 1999 Purdue. Purdue was a substantial team, well-ranked and loaded. Michigan was terrific that year, and when Purdue came to town there was a real buzz about it.
Turns out the Big Ten used to have some good players, because this was a matchup between Drew Brees and Tom Brady.
Michigan's defense stole the show, though; they pounded Purdue's receivers so severely that by the second quarter they were flinching and dropping passes before the defenders even got there. The weather was cool with some rain; not cold enough to be miserable, but perfect football weather. It was a great time at the Stadium.
There are too many fun non-M games to mention, so I'll just throw a few out: the LSU-Iowa Cap One bowl that preceded our Rose Bowl against Texas, won on a freak bomb that bailed out Kirk Ferentz's horrible clock management; the 99 (I think) independence Bowl between Mississippi State and Texas A&M that was a shoutout in a driving snowstorm; the 2005 USC-Fresno State game I attended where Fresno nearly beat USC and Reggie Bush gained over 500 all-purpose yards; Michael Crabtree stunning Texas to beat them at Lubbock; etc etc college football is awesome.
|8 hours 1 min ago||I remember cheerleaders||
I remember cheerleaders running and sliding 15 yards on the field. It was pretty nuts. Also, it was a 3:30 ABC game with one portable light unit set up for tv contrast (they didn't need four because it was early in the year) but when the rain really poured it became so dark that you could see the light reflecting off of the helmets.
The major problem I had at that game was that I wore glasss and didn't have a hat, and the constant rain on my glasses made it hard to see the game. Particularly the far side of the field, as I sat in the south end zone that day. I have consequently made a habit of wearing a hat to almost all sporting events I attend in the subsequent 20 years.
Also, I've gone swimming and not been as wet as I was at that game.
|20 hours 34 min ago||It's too late for Saturday,||
It's too late for Saturday, but if you're interested in a soccer jersey (and they are fantastic for warm outdoor activities, both sharp-looking and moisture-wicking) the go-to site for the last 15 years has been www.soccerplus.net and it's not even close. I haven't been a serious jersey collector for 10 years, but when I was I bought dozens of soccer jerseys from there, no exaggeration.
A quick check of their site suggests that they still have the best jersey selection by miles (including clubs from countries I barely knew existed) and now even have jerseys dating back years. Really cool.
I'm getting a bug for a discount XXL jersey from 2002 that I had my eye on 12 years ago. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea.
|20 hours 43 min ago||It just never worked out. In||
It just never worked out.
In fairness, I'm not sure it would've worked out here, either. At Bama it's a footnote, but here we could easily regard it as a massive tragedy.
|2 days 4 hours ago||Frankly, we didn't get to see||
Frankly, we didn't get to see much out of either of them last season, and a large reason for that was the OL. I don't think it's safe to draw many conclusions at all from the small glimpses we got.
|2 days 5 hours ago||Yes, hopefully. Nuss is||
Yes, hopefully. Nuss is certainly no stranger to rotating backs even when he has really good ones starting.
If they're close in running ability, though, I would expect to see Smith get a bump in snaps if he really blocks better. The coaches don't want to tip run or pass just by whether or not Smith is back there. We've seen this before.
|2 days 5 hours ago||It's not, not even remotely.||
It's not, not even remotely. And that means that as shifty as he is, a lot of the holes close off before he gets to them.
His top end isn't unlike Mike Hart's, but Hart's genius was making positive yards in unlikely spots. We could live with him getting chased down after 20 or 30 yards.
|2 days 5 hours ago||Depends. If your center is||
Depends. If your center is significantly better than your backup guard, and there is less of a drop off to the backup center, you may make the switch. A lot of it has to do with what units work best together (or, last year, none of the units working well together). I don't know this but I believe it may actually be possible for Glasgow to make line calls from guard if necessary.
Still, it sounds like they want to get away from this.
|2 days 5 hours ago||Like last year, a lot of this||
Like last year, a lot of this revolves around finding the right "mix" of players in the interior. It appears that the best mix involves Glasgow at center. This either means that the guard position looks solid enough that they don't need Graham there (he performed best there last year, which is why they went into the season trying to make Miller work at center), or that center is really desperate.
I'm not too worried about what this means for Kugler just yet; center requires a lot of experience and he's young. It more likely means that Miller will never be a first-choice center here.
But let's see who starts against App State. Glasgow won't play every game, remember.
|3 days 3 hours ago||How can the fanbase possibly||
How can the fanbase possibly accept two non-rivalry losses? What are they? Do they drop games at Northwestern and Maryland, continuing a trend of horrible play on the road? Do they loss the marquee home game do the year, at night to ascendant Penn State? A fluke non-conference loss to Utah? A dud against Minnesota that ends with the team booed off of their own field?
Do you know how much the fanbase will melt down after any of these losses? A lot. A home loss of any kind completely cancels out any good feelings from the Notre Dame game. So, really, do non-rivalry road losses. 9-3 is the pivot point because Michigan fans believe Michigan OUGHT to win all the games except those road rivalry games which are very losable. So any loss that isn't in South Bend, East Lansing, or Columbus is unacceptable because it would be in a game fans believe Michigan should win if it is developing as it should.
I would hate 9-3, but at the very least I know that beating MSU or OSU would be tough for anyone; losing to a lesser team will result in madness.
|3 days 3 hours ago||It is valid to suggest that||
It is valid to suggest that RR and Hoke were not treated equally by people in the program. But if you think Hoke hasn't been ripped to shreds on these boards you haven't been watching closely.
|3 days 4 hours ago||I pretty much agree here. I||
I pretty much agree here. I should note that the coaches knew the OL was a problem last year, too, though.
I will not be happy with rivalry losses, but I think the ND game is pretty much equal with others: if Michigan beats them but loses to, say Northwestern, it will be just as bad and just as frustrating. The key is that the third loss will magnify the pain of the two big losses in this hypothetical scenario. Win ten games and lose only those two (to probably top ten teams) and I think most fans will be frustrated but generally pleased with the progress. More losses would suggest insufficient growth.
|3 days 4 hours ago||1. Originally the proposition||
1. Originally the proposition was 8-4, losing to all three teams, job still safe. I don't agree with that.
2. The Notre Dame game actually not that important this year, because it will either be a negative blip on a decent B1G record that would save his job anyway, or a meaningless plus on a lousy B1G season (like last year) that will still have the wolves howling for his dismissal.
3. If he loses four games but wins at MSU or OSU he probably keeps his job, but remember that by that point he will have a lot of losses and fans will be upset and he may be coaching for his job, not a great situation. But if he beats one do them he ought to have at most three other losses; more than that would worry me. These are regular season records, as I think he should not have his job at stake in a bowl game; we've been there before.
|3 days 4 hours ago||Garbage. The B1G has been as||
Garbage. The B1G has been as weak as it has ever been in history in the last three years, and Michigan hasn't even made a championship game. That is Michigan failing, not the conference excelling.
Michigan and OSU traditionally have always been the conference powers. Sure, a Wisconsin or an Iowa or PSU or a State will develop good teams that compete at the top too, but not every year. Michigan is supposed to be there every year.
A major reason (perhaps the biggest one) that the Big Ten has had such a bad run is that Michigan has not held up our end of the deal.
8-4 with losses to ND, MSU, and OSU is unacceptable. I don't care whether they're on the road or not; Michigan needs to win. Beating OSU once in 11 years is not enough. Beating MSU once in 7 years is not enough. And if the season goes like you say, you won't think so either after Michigan loses to a team it should beat and after it is embarrassed by MSU again or OSU again.
|6 days 1 hour ago||This is not the argument I||
This is not the argument I read Shaw to be making. The players are not working a side job to put themselves through college; in fact, a major argument for paying players is that football is the primary reason they are there in the first place.
So you don't have a situation where someone wants an education, applies to a school, gets accepted, attends, and then looks for a side job. What you have is a person skilled in a trade, recruited in large part for that skill, applying for and accepting admission on the basis do playing that trade.
Where it gets sticky, and where Shaw's argument comes in, is that in a new employer/employee relationship, football players are in fact applying for a paid job. They are compensated for it. But then they are also required to take classes and achieve certain levels of success (much more challenging in the case of Stanford), presumably without compensation.
This is the equivalent to a person applying to a university for an admissions job off of the street, being hired, and then being told they have to take 12 credit hours of classes and maintain a qualifying GPA in subjects that have no relationship to the job they've applied to in order to be eligible to make that money. Now, some people may not be thrilled by that. I wouldn't be. And if some of these arguments about players being deprived of their right to earn income might extend neatly to situations where players lost their jobs not due to the athletic performance they were paid for but for academic performance that has no bearing on the field.
What Shaw is saying is that the fundamental basis of the relationship changes. I know Ace has this qualifier, but it ought not be understated that Shaw is at Stanford, where they actually take academics seriously. This is not an SEC school churning out kinesiology majors to coach football at local feeder high schools.
Now, one may disagree with his arguments. One may think he's wrong. But I find the arrogance and contempt displayed toward Shaw in this debate disappointing. Particularly since people are ridiculing the idea that some players may find their desire for school reduced, when there are in fact known instances of players at other schools (OSU for example) that have publicly expressed exactly such a sentiment already! One may argue that he's wrong, but to say that it is absurd for him to even make such an argument is intellectually dishonest.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with him; I might disagree myself. But I am losing patience for discussions that dismiss the motives and even validity of people, even thoughtful ones like Shaw, that disagree with the popular opinion.
I expect better from educated people.
|6 days 5 hours ago||For Tech? I think it's pretty||
For Tech? I think it's pretty good. Keeps them engaged with bigger teams on the schedule.
|6 days 5 hours ago||When the B1G hockey||
When the B1G hockey conference was announced, there was hope that the reduced size would allow teams like Michigan to improve the non-conference schedule, and boy did that ever come through. Two years in a row now. Also, note the road trip to Houghton. Influenced by the relationship with Mel Pearson, sure, but also a very nice gesture for one of the teams that got the shorter end of the realignment stick.
I'm feverishly trying to figure out if I can go to one of those, but it doesn't look promising. The Minnesota series falls on kind of a bad weekend, too.
|6 days 18 hours ago||By the way, your||
By the way, your parenthetical caveat was well-placed and an excellent demonstration of politeness. I appreciate it.
|6 days 18 hours ago||I was a bit concerned about||
I was a bit concerned about it, but I think a lot of people were in "wait-and-see" mode more than "he's sure to be great" mode.
In fairness, he didn't have a great breakout year, but he also had absolutely nowhere to run. For all we know he would have looked like Jerome Bettis against a good OL; he also might have hit the holes late and fallen over easily. We'll see if the line can open holes for him this year.
|1 week 4 hours ago||1. Some of us don't know what||
1. Some of us don't know what HHH is, other than a Minnesota politician and a juiced-up wrestling heel. A google search suggests an activity related to "hashing," but I can't tell if that is what you're talking about.
2. If HHH events really are notorious for that kind of activity, it's a good bet that people who dislike such activities would give it a wide berth. However, it is not widely thought that marching bands are a place where that should be expected; indeed, a lot of people from different ethnic, moral, religious, and political backgrounds may in fact grow up thinking that being in the Michigan or OSU band would be a dream come true, without considering that they may be asked to simulate sex acts on family members.
And they shouldn't be forced to deal with that kind of thing just to march on a field and play a fight song.
|1 week 4 hours ago||Hard to read much into||
Hard to read much into weights... But I'm excited about Green. Both because the new weight will almost certainly be a better quickness/power mix for him, and because the change suggests a work ethic that will produce improvement in other areas of his game.