I think you will get your wish.
- Member for
- 2 years 4 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 hours 5 min ago||Fair enough, I stand||
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
|12 hours 2 min ago||Just because I typed earlier||
Just because I typed earlier that we shouldn't single out their fans for being worse than an average fanbase doesn't mean that I can't agree that this is totally delusional.
|12 hours 15 min ago||You think Tennessee people||
You think Tennessee people are significantly worse than other fanbases? I'd say that's a stretch. And you can't exactly base your opinion on the larger fanbase based on what some of them say on message boards, as even this place (and this is one of the "good" ones) can demonstrate.
Now, there is something to be said for getting out of a situation where you aren't popular and were even thought to be on a hot seat. I don't blame him. But let's not pretend that Tennessee folks are worse than other fans just because we're biased against the South.
|12 hours 27 min ago||Congratulations. We've had||
We've had 115 inches so far with more coming tomorrow. It's not bad, though--last year we had 135" and had 50" just in April, plus a few in May. It was absurd.
And until last week almost none of it had melted off. My sidewalk had five foot snowbanks on both sides--it was like Hoth.
But 95" is a lot for Michigan and more than our "average," so it's nothing to sneeze at.
|1 day 11 hours ago||That regret shouldn't be read||
That regret shouldn't be read as anything negative about the team, the staff, or the school; it was apparent to anyone closely following the team that GRIII had been passed by both Stauskas and Levert as offensive contributors, and when McGary went down the two-post offense (which I had always taken to be a move by Beilein to keep GRIII happy with his role) went away for good and GRIII had to go back to the 4 spot, which wasn't his best position.
As a consequence his draft stock has dropped; there's no question about it. He struggled a bit. It is not unreasonable for a person in that position to be a good teammate and still think that perhaps they would have been better off making the jump earlier.
So from that standpoint this doesn't surprise me at all.
|1 day 11 hours ago||Because he is establishing||
Because he is establishing himself as a long-term rotation player in the NBA with legit scoring touch a portfolio that already includes several special games.
It's not like he was, at any time in his career, ever expected to be a superstar. Most guys that are "NBA ready" aren't the next Lebron James; they're guys who people expect to be able to contribute to a team. And the fact is that not all of them work out--even the high draft picks. Look at the first overall pick for a good example of that.
He is doing quite well in the NBA because he has, in only his first season, proven that he belongs and that he has good things to offer to teams. This is significant. He'll get better, and he'll play in the NBA for quite a while. He is already close to meeting his perceived potential.
|1 day 12 hours ago||I can understand it, even if||
I can understand it, even if it's disappointing. He still has "athletic potential" right now. Another year of basically the same performance (and playing the 4, which he is known not to like but is the logical place to put him on a team with a shortage of bigs and a lot of wings) and he's not draftable at all.
I'm legitimately worried that we'll lose all three.
|1 day 12 hours ago||This is disappointing, but I||
This is disappointing, but I can understand the logic: Yes, GRIII could use another year to really refine his game... but if something goes awry and he doesn't improve significantly (including, say, an injury that limits his game for half the season), he won't get drafted at all. And then, even if his game does blossom, he would face a huge uphill battle to ever make an Association roster.
So he may be choosing to get out while there is still a lot of "athletic potential" attached to his name.
And if that's the case, I don't blame him. Even if he does improve quite a bit, he would still probably be the third option behind Levert (for sure) and McGary (if he comes back) next season.
Sometimes you have to make the leap. College will be there.
|1 day 15 hours ago||This is a difficult situation||
This is a difficult situation to deal with regardless. No legal charges were filed, and the issue was tabled, and then a laboriously slow University investigation begins...
If Hoke acts early, he looks good if Gibbons is guilty. If Gibbons is not guilty, it's Duke Lacrosse all over again.
I think acting prematurely in this case would have been rash, even if the result eventually warranted action. And I say this as a person whose worldview thinks very poorly of Gibbons' actions even if there was consent involved.
No question that this has been handled poorly, though. All kinds of bad pub for the program.
|4 days 8 hours ago||I tend to think that the||
I tend to think that the Gardner-to-WR decision was a staff-wide decision based on cost-benefit analysis. Receiver was a significant position of need, and they had a player as blessed with physical gifts as any on the roster sitting on the bench behind a once-in-a-generation unique talent. The most likely scenario for any backup QB playing would be a play or two when Denard got hurt, something that happened with some frequency, but nothing that a guy like Bellomy couldn't deal with. Meanwhile, receiver was a real need--and Michigan at the time was in a position to gamble, because the thought was that senior Denard had a chance to be special enough to elevate the team to some kind of championship, and having an extra athletic receiver was worth more than having a slightly better backup quarterback.
In the less likely scenario that Denard had to miss games, they could still move Gardner back to QB. And this, it turns out, is exactly what happened; we can debate whether Gardner could have helped Michigan win at Nebraska from the QB spot, but once Denard was out the move worked pretty well.
A position change that significant does not happen without the HC's input; who knows where it originally came from, but it surely made for a lot of discussion. And I think it actually worked out pretty well, post-Denard offense in Lincoln being the glaring exception.
|4 days 10 hours ago||Maybe they did. And maybe||
Maybe they did. And maybe Borges made changes that we don't have the breadth of knowledge to remember/notice. Or maybe he said, "I need to have a TE over LT for certain plays/concepts/blocking schemes, and if I don't have him out there some other times it's a tell to the defense." There are lots of defensible reasons, even if the overall effect is insufficient.
That's where meddling is problematic. Suppose (and this is plausible, if not likely) that Hoke demanded certain concepts be used or abandoned prior to the Nebraska debacle. Of course, we all know how it went, and we all remember the NU defenders suggesting that they could tell what Michigan would run.
Then, in this hypothetical scenario, Hoke pointedly asks Borges why they were so predictable. And Borges says, "Because you wouldn't let me run the stuff that keeps them off balance." Or, "The stuff they predicted was the stuff you made me run. I wouldn't call it that way otherwise." Either way, whether accurate or not, this hypothetical HC interference makes improvement much more difficult, and accurate staff evaluation much harder.
If, as I suspect, Borges had free reign to run the offense as he wanted in 2013, then his firing makes complete sense. If Hoke was actually ramrodding new blocking schemes and lineups down his throat ("Al, we need to bench Milker, and I want pulling guards next week. Make it happen,") then much if this season's chaos is on him and the Borges firing looks like a scapegoating. I'm not inclined to believe this, but that is a danger in meddling.
|4 days 10 hours ago||I wonder if we're missing||
I wonder if we're missing part of the issue here--he talks about minutes, which it is true he had trouble getting. But Beilein's system doesn't exactly feed post guys for low block iso plays, either, and that appears to have been one of is strengths. He just never had time to show it. If he really thinks that's a strength that he wants to explore, I understand this choice a lot better.
Because Mitch or not, Michigan is not going to spend a lot of time pounding the ball to the block and clearing out.
|4 days 11 hours ago||HCs delegate to their||
HCs delegate to their coordinators. When they meddle, it's a bigger problem. Now, a head coach who has expertise in an area may be heavily involved in that area, but then he usually leaves the other side of the ball alone. Cf Pete Carroll, Chip Kelly, etc.
I had issues with the Borges hire, but he had a pretty long resume coming in, and in the act if hiring him Hoke needed to give him the leeway to make those choices. To do it "his way." Meddling during the season at random times is probably not wise. Hoke made a mistake leaving things unchanged after 2012, but there wasn't much he could do about it in October.
|4 days 11 hours ago||Apparently he says that MM's||
Apparently he says that MM's decision has no bearing on his. Could be troubling, but then it could just mean that he knows he's not stabbing his teammates in the back and that freed him to decide based on other factors.
Also, if he said that MM's decision DID have an effect, it's a dead giveaway, so he has to deny regardless.
|5 days 2 hours ago||Holy cow. That's amazing.||
Holy cow. That's amazing.
|5 days 8 hours ago||A school cannot compel a||
A school cannot compel a booster to do something, and the NCAA would be unfair to make them. Nor can the NCAA compel former players to talk, or punish their former teams for that.
Can you imagine Michigan getting punished because, say, Desmond Howard thinks that there's a witch hunt and won't cooperate? That would be ridiculous.
It's the heart of many of the NCAA's problems. Remember, the Ed Martin stuff was resolved in part because Chris Webber was legally obligated by the Feds to talk to eligibility investigators.
|5 days 9 hours ago||Ouch.||
|5 days 9 hours ago||"Drug references are almost||
"Drug references are almost always correlated with minorities, while excused for non-minorities."
This is imflammatory, political, unprovable (or do you have a source for this?), and untrue.
I talk about drugs in my line of work from time to time, but it has nothing to do with the ethnic origin of the people involved. Usually it has to do with me working with addicts or ex-addicts or children of people who are in prison for crimes related to use and/or dealing. Some of them are white, and some of them are not, and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.
So watch it with the blanket statements.
|5 days 9 hours ago||1. Today =/= Bo's time, but||
1. Today =/= Bo's time, but today's rules are extensions of rules that have existed since Bo's time, and Bo cared about them. The "Rich guys making the rules" are actually bureaucrats continually tweaking rules meant to uphold rules and principles that have existed for decades. And there certainly was a lot of cheating going on in Bo's time.
2. Me either.
3. I didn't call them unethical. I explicitly stated that I don't care about the people taking the money; it's the system of people giving it (and, specifically, the University Athletic Departments that are letting it continue) that I have a problem with. It is an unethical system. If, in fact, Michigan makes some kind of attempt to not let this go on. I am aware, of course, that some stuff may occur here too.
4. I made my point about you putting your money up becuase your previous post seemed, to me, to imply that not giving these kids a cut of the money they were producing was ethically problematic enough that it required existing rules to be violated. Perhaps it was just a harsh reaction, which is understandable, but that's where my money comment came from.
|5 days 9 hours ago||You've been kind of obnoxious||
You've been kind of obnoxious in this thread, but I would actually like to see this. The SEC has effectively done this already; what you propose would be a massive, needed realignment in big-time college sports.
Frankly, the worst that could happen is that the SEC could get expelled from the NCAA. Then they could just play an SEC football season with paid players, crown the conference champion, and declare themselves the best college football team in the country... and they'd be right.
|5 days 9 hours ago||Because if you admit it the||
Because if you admit it the NCAA actually CAN do something about it. The reason the NCAA is impotent on this is because they cannot compel people to talk. They could ask a known bag man if he gave money, he could say "no," and that would be that. He is not under oath and they have no way of proving that he's lying.
But if they actually say what's going on, the NCAA has evidence and has proven that it will act on it. Disproportionately, even. The NCAA overreacts to certain things precisely because it cannot react properly to the worse stuff that it knows but cannot prove is going on.
|5 days 9 hours ago||What rich dudes? Amateurism||
What rich dudes? Amateurism rules may be an anachronism from a different time, but in that time there wasn't all that much money going around but these rules certainly do trace their origins to that time.
Are you saying that someone like Bo Shembechler felt it was crucially important to do things "the right way" not because he had a sense of integrity but because he really just wanted to keep all the money to himself and away from his poor, exploited student athletes? C'mon, that's idiotic.
Are you arguing that Michigan and its fans are, in fact, guilty of exploiting our athletes because this sort of thing is not encouraged here? Do you put your money where your typing fingers are and buy them lunch whenever you can?
|5 days 10 hours ago||What if this makes GRIII's||
What if this makes GRIII's departure more likely, since this virtually guarantees that he'll be seeing significant time at the 4 and we know that's an issue for him?
Just trying to find the tar lining on a silver cloud.
|5 days 10 hours ago||I care. I don't care about||
I care. I don't care about needy families getting help, grandparents getting a tractor fixed, etc.
What I care about is that teams that actually try to follow the agreed-upon rules of the game are punished for not breaking them. Michigan has, by all appearances, at least tried to do things the "right way."
Our reward is to watch programs who don't care enjoy a generation's worth of inflated success.
Let the kids have the money, fine. But what is going on is still unethical and wrong. At times like this I begin to think that the system needs to get blown up, and that I don't really care if that does mean irreperable harm to the sport.
And if it turns out that the blind eye the NCAA turns toward this stuff is not (as most, including myself, believe) due to incompetence but an actual deliberate act of overlooking stuff it knows it can't deal with, the Feds need to get involved. Like, criminal conspiracy to deprive paid employees of proper rights indictment involved.
Do I sound annoyed? I think I am.
|5 days 10 hours ago||Hadn't we just heard Horford||
Hadn't we just heard Horford confirm that he was coming back for his fifth year?
My initial reaction is quite disappointed. Horford brought a lot of good things to the table, and at times was as vital to the team's performance as Morgan. It is true that he seemed to decline late in the year, but I was still counting on him in a big way next season.
My hope is that this is just a tea leaf that means that McGary is back and that Horford knows Donnal will play ahead of him and he wants to try something different.
But then it might not mean that. He walks to the beat of his own drum. Who knows?
|5 days 10 hours ago||Jon Horford to transfer for||
|5 days 11 hours ago||I actually haven't held that||
I actually haven't held that assumption. A stipend is a nice way to cover the "real costs" of attendance, and perhaps it helps take care of some of the corrupt "$50 handshakes" around the edges that can get kids into, say, gambling problems.
But this stuff can and will still happen. There's a lot of cash available. The only way this gets interdicted (and I am not advocating this move) is to allow players to make as much money outside of the sport as they want, out of endorsements and such. That would introduce new semi-legitimate ways to funnel money to players, and a system of guaranteed endorsement deals and soft jobs would pop up. In that system, Michigan and Michigan State players could expect dealership and corporate sponsorships from Ford and GM and other such arrangements, while every Oregon player would become a paid Nike spokesman.
|5 days 11 hours ago||In this case, if the reporter||
In this case, if the reporter names names the story doesn't happen and he learns (and reports) nothing. All that he gets is a small smidgen of information, which he might report, which is then flatly denied. If he gets too specific he is threatened with lawsuits. Or he winds up harming his own reputation by "spreading rumors" without proper sourcing.
This reporter didn't want to go to the incredible legwork it would take to really make this a publishable story. His route was "easier," but still worthwhile.
And that is not a bash. I think reporting a real story that really named names and uncovered real corruption would be huge. It would also take almost Watergate-level reporting and effort with no guarantee of success. I don't blame the guy for reporting the way he did.
|5 days 11 hours ago||The reason cycling appears to||
The reason cycling appears to be "cleaner" is that they now use a comprehensive doping control method called the "biological passport," which goes beyond testing for foreign substances and actually checks the levels of chemicals and blood components in the system that doping is designed to influence. EPO, for example, is intended to increase the volume of red blood cells, which directly affects the body's ability to transmit oxygen to cells. Increasing this level will obviously cause a considerable boost in performance; with the bio passport a huge boost in this level will be immediately detected and Bad Things are supposed to happen.
This is not to suggest that the bio passport has no issues or that the management of it is free of controversy, because there certainly are issues of that nature. And this is not to say that doping still doesn't happen--it is just more detectable, and what does occur happens in a much narrower range that allows clean riders to ride and compete. Also, there are teams (like Garmin, whose owner makes anti-doping a priority and made clean racing a founding principle of the team) that have extra testing programs that build additional safeguards.
This is a sharp contrast from the 90s, when clean riders in excellent shape could not even keep up with the back of the field when everyone was doping--many didn't dope to win, they doped just to finish with the pack.
To answer a couple of other issues, doping must be illegal (or at least highly controlled) because it affects different riders differently, and because it can indeed harm the users. A number of riders died in the 90s because their EPO usage caused such high hemoglobin levels that they suffered cardiac failure.
|5 days 12 hours ago||I have a hard time believing||
I have a hard time believing that any major program is completely clean. I would like to think that Michigan is "as clean as it can be," but I don't know what that means and I have no evidence about it, other than the fact that Michigan hasn't been that good and maybe maybe that's because they aren't as corrupt as a certain rival.