Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 1 year 51 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|14 hours 11 min ago||I was just telling my||
I was just telling my daughter today that it is very sad that when she is an adult, no WWII vets will be left.
Guarnere faced down the Axis at Brecourt Manor, and withstood their last desperate attacks at Bastogne. He took a shell, survived, and lived a full life.
In one sense, it's unfair that a few soldiers get all the attention from a much larger group of people. However, it is good for those of us too young to remember to learn about a few, so that we can better know the many. They were regular people who answered the call of the time, and we are greatly in their debt.
"Grandpa, were you a hero in World War 2?"
Grandpa said, "No. But I served in a company of Heroes."
|2 days 17 hours ago||Michigan has never had a||
Michigan has never had a completely consistent "maize" color, and attempts to fix things or revert them do not help. Back in "the day," or the 1990s/early 2000s for people my age, Michigan had one color of "maize" for football and another for basketball/hockey uniforms. I have authentic jerseys of the era to prove it. Hockey helmets, however, matched football and did not match the maize of the jerseys.
|2 days 17 hours ago||The rules haven't changed.||
The rules haven't changed. College basketball actually allows a lot of latitude in what teams wear, as long as there is contrast (and occasionally even when there isn't). Recall the title game run that Illinois made last year where they wore orange almost every game home and road.
|3 days 14 hours ago||Indiana has a set, but||
Indiana has a set, but despite the possibility of messing with their traditional look, the fans probably aren't too worried.
|3 days 15 hours ago||We only wore the blue because||
We only wore the blue because the regular blue road unis were shelved after the jersey-tear disaster at Minnesota. After that game they wore maize as much as possible, and rotated through other uniforms (including year-old versions) when blue was vital.
|3 days 15 hours ago||Ok, those are awesome. I'm||
Ok, those are awesome. I'm speaking mostly of the white uniforms, and somewhat about the blue ones. Michigan's white uniforms, to me, have the potential to be horrifically bland. The one they've used for the last two years is, in my opinion, a significant upgrade over past editions.
|3 days 16 hours ago||Gah, boring. One of the thing||
Gah, boring. One of the thing I like about the current uni is that the shorts actually have a design on them. I've never really gotten over them abandoning the old 80s blue-panel home shorts, especially given how plain the white uniforms tend to be.
|3 days 16 hours ago||MDen has a splash on the||
MDen has a splash on the front page already, calling them "tournament" uniforms.
|3 days 16 hours ago||Eh. I don't hate it, which is||
Eh. I don't hate it, which is a good thing. This jersey release is comparable to those weird print shorts they used last year as the blue unis (but pretty much rejected otherwise). And on that scale these are much better. I still actually like the existing uniforms quite a bit, but these aren't awful.
|1 week 4 days ago||Michigan has gone through||
Michigan has gone through periods with with talent but underwhelming dedication and/or character before. The teams were still good (until last year) but always frustrating. Good examples would be the freshman class that won it all in '98 but never really grew & by 2001 was getting passed over by sophomores, and the 06 & 07 teams that were loaded but offered little hope of larger success.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||A statistical analysis of||
A statistical analysis of total failure.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Because it was a magnificent,||
Because it was a magnificent, epic sporting event. Worth the time.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||This game serves to further||
This game serves to further highlight what an injustice it was that Ryan Duncan won the Hobey Baker.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||It's a restaurant in a nice||
It's a restaurant in a nice spot on the Lake, but he doesn't work there anymore; took some time off to raise the kids and, presumably, work on curling.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Well, clearly the Czechs||
Well, clearly the Czechs aren't the same team that won in '98 anymore.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||That may be true--after all,||
That may be true--after all, that's what folks were saying about Michigan a couple of years ago when we earned a share despite unfavorable H2H records.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||True enough.||
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Speaking of the unsuitability||
Speaking of the unsuitability of single-elimination tournaments in hockey, it should be mentioned that the NCAA hockey tournament has a great event for it's last four teams but is otherwise just about the worst-executed playoff imaginable on so many different levels.
Single-elimination to start with is challengingly random; a team can have a bad break or two, a bad call, or a bad bounce and have its season end. What's worse, their season probably ends at some neutral site that is 25% full of fans that are all there for the one team that is kinda sorta close by. Instead of the season peaking in the postseason, then, it ends with a heartless whimper.
When the issue of major junior comes up, we gripe about them paying players and making dishonest promises, and of course that is true. It remains a good product, however, that plays more games (what kid complains about playing more?) and has a killer post-season that almost every team qualifies for and starts at best-of-seven from the bottom rung. Thanks to their aggressive draft system, most teams that are decently well-run will be good enough to get to a conference finals at least once during a player's career. The teams that are lifting the best players (London, Kitchener, etc) are also rather good at being good enough to make even deeper playoff runs every year, and every game is packed with rabid fans.
This totally smokes the NCAA playoff system, where only the Frozen Four shines as an experience and most teams never make it that far. It's a hard sell.
And teams lose by random chance.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||This effect is real, but can||
This effect is real, but can still be quite random in its execution. Leaving aside the game-to-game issue for a second, a bases-loaded situation in the 4th inning seriously affects the pitch count; in the 7th, it helps the order... but if its a reliever in for one inning anyway, it doesn't matter. The A's gained nothing by loading the bases against Scherzer last fall, for example.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||They also have an extra foul||
They also have an extra foul (granted, they also have 8 extra minutes, which makes sense), and thus the effect of a bad call or two is significantly reduced. An NCAA championship game can be (and, as we remember, has been) swayed by a bad call on a key player early in a half, forcing them to spend significant time on the bench.
I love the atmosphere and accessibility of college basketball, and the regular season is worlds better, but the NBA has a far better set of rules.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||My perception, though I may||
My perception, though I may have read wrong, is that Brian means that the goal should be widened so that every shot that now hits post would get in.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Basketball is not random at||
Basketball is not random at all. Brian well-described how consistent the NBA is at determining a champion, for better or for worse; the "best team" almost always wins.
Baseball, unlike other sports, is designed with the randomness factored in. One game is not meant to be a true test of a team's full ability, particularly since only one pitcher can start on any given day. Thus, regular seasons have a different meaning; conversely, post-seasons are rather bizarre.
Hockey's randomness is not just a recent phenomenon, either. There have frequently been so-so regular season teams that have made big playoff runs, and of course all Wings fans remember what happened in 1996 after the greatest regular season ever. Perhaps things are amplified now, but hockey has long had this issue.
Brian's idea concerning goalie effectiveness is barking up the right tree, at the very least. Goalies are so good now that they are pretty much expected to stop every shot they can see and generally do. The rapid rise in goalie competence over the past 20 years has completely changed the game, and was an un-addressed root cause of much of the offensive doldrums that were the drive behind significant rule-changes after the lost season.
Anyone who watches film of, say, the Gretzky Oilers will be astonished both by the style of goaltending and the impressive number of goals scored by simple shots that would be no challenge today. Equipment is one factor, but goalies just play better now. The old stand-up goalie is a thing of the past.
I love it when players sell out to block shots, but when one combines the danger of the play with how effectively it throttles offense from the point, one wonders if limiting a player's ability to block shots should be limited. Perhaps ban players from leaving their feet to intercept pucks between the faceoff dots or something. Yeah, it would eliminate some sell-out play, but it would certainly increase offense. Make two-on-ones easier to convert, too.
Limit shot-blocking, widen the goal, shrink goalie equipment. I think it would all help.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Disagree. In my experience,||
Disagree. In my experience, the "pricier" Adidas stuff is still a far lower quality than the equivalent Nike product. This has contributed to me reducing the amount of apparel that I buy.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Following Tennessee's win,||
Following Tennessee's win, Adidas' record in college football has been disastrous. They managed to win contracts to a number of perennial powers; all of them suffered through uncharacteristic periods of extended mediocrity.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||You quote Taranto, a||
You quote Taranto, a conservative columnist; Smith appears to be, from his editorial position, choice of issues, and supported links, to be at least a fiscal conservative himself. He just appears to have it in for the U, where that is not your sole issue. Otherwise, there's a lot of similarity there.
You're not just "asking questions." You're screaming "Conspiracy!" at the top of your lungs. You may wish to refute by saying "I'm not even shouting," but when you repeatedly post basically the same things over and over again in short space, that is an internet equivalent to shouting.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||This is actually very||
This is actually very insightful.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Dude, Section 1, you are||
Dude, Section 1, you are being such an idiot about this. You are a discredit to rational, normal, non-flame-throwing people who hold positions similar to yours. I disagree with a lot of people on this board about a lot of issues (my signature would suggest at least one pretty significant issue) but it is possible to have strong beliefs and still have a rational discussion.
What you are peddling is just baseless conspiracy-ism. What's hilarious about this is that the person that would be most likely to be responsible for this in your "conspiracy" scenario is the Washtenaw Watchdog guy, with whom I believe you share some political views and whose tone and demeanor you closely resemble.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||It's not that what (maybe)||
It's not that what (maybe) Lewan was alleged to have done was worse than what Gibbons was alleged to have done. It is the fact that the Gibbons issue is an evidence + he said + she said case, and is it notoriously hard to tell what really happened with those.
But even if Gibbons is not guilty, the allegations against Lewan are quite serious. And, as you say, it seems that it should be easier to tell what he actually did. And if he did make those statements to a party involved with the victim, it should not have been glossed over.
This is where things get really murky, because the Gibbons issue is kind of shut, but if this stuff against (perhaps) Lewan has any legs or credibility, it's going to get worse. What if the friend he allegedly said it to goes on a local TV station and makes the accusation on camera? You can see how this can go.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||There's no doubt that||
There's no doubt that Michigan looks bad here. I am simply providing an alternative scenario. I agree that making something up about family issues, which rather than being simple obfuscation is a total falsehood, is silly. I just wonder if they felt obligated to go in that direction.
If Gibbons is off the team, and Hoke says it but refuses to give any reason, people will start sniffing around. Whether this was just a lie to throw them off the trail, i don't know.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||There's nothing to gain, and||
There's nothing to gain, and the only standard that will be applied was whether the U properly followed its own policies in rendering its verdict, which is non-legal. It only relates to his enrollment in the school.
Even if he could protest, what good comes of it? He would look awful even if he were legally exonerated. His eligibility is gone and cannot be returned, and he was never a prospect for the NFL.