...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
- Member for
- 4 years 18 weeks
|1 year 23 weeks ago||This.||
This, a thousand times. They seemed obviously in over their heads -- to me that was most of the problem, not the (admittedly) bad calls they were making.
|2 years 16 weeks ago||You said it perfectly:||
You said it perfectly:
"For these seniors, Beat Ohio!"
Wonderful write up, and I agree with others -- it would be great to see something like this every year.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||Much better on the pads than||
Much better on the pads than on the hanger - but I still wish the kids would get the hell off my precious lawn.
|2 years 40 weeks ago||Yes||
This is exactly how I feel, and so I LOLed when I saw this.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||wow||
I have let loose some rants in my life -- but this, sir, is awesome.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||'spam filter'||
I'm trying to post a reply in the Mark May thread, and I'm getting a message about triggering the spam filter and so my message won't be posted. Any idea what sort of things set off the filter?
edited to add: no profanity in the post, no brand names, and obviously I don't want to post the text here in case this won't post it either.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Not ALL teams||
You beat me to it, but I agree. The better teams - Iowa, Wisc, PSU -- don't feel that way about Michigan. But I do think the OP is right -- we get much better games from the bottom half (ie, Indiana, Illinois, and unfortunately didn't play Minn or NW) because we're the 'Big Bad'.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||'rivalry'||
And how great a rivalry can it be if only CU considers it a great rivalry?
|3 years 17 weeks ago||Turnovers by player experience||
This caught my eye:
Are there any stats to back that up? I mean, intuitively, it makes sense, but have you seen in all of your TO research anything that flatly says freshman fumble at this rate, sophmores at this rate, etc? or something about years starting/TO rates?
Because I think we were all hoping that there'd be many fewer turnovers this year, and yikes...
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Flack is relative||
I agree - I think Michigan/RR would have taken a lot of flack for trying and failing a 2-pt conversion. But it's definitely relative: By comparison, ISU's coach is getting some positive press for doing exactly this (going for two after they scored second in the first OT) in their game against Nebraska. I think if you're a David (ISU, or going back even further, Boise State) against a Goliath (Nebraska, or Oklahoma) it's 'gutsy' -- even if you fail.
But if Michigan tried and failed, RR would have been crucified for being desperate, I think.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Comparison to other teams||
This is fascinating -- thanks for the hard work. I was reminded of Diarist tpilews' work on projections, and how tpilews, when trying to project games, downgraded UM's non-conference stats to account for the tougher B10 schedule.
I presume all B10 teams' stats (offensive or defensive) would take a similar hit upon getting to the conference schedule. Makes me wonder what the average 'hit' is -- ie, offensive stats drop by X% -- and then you can see which teams (or types of offenses?) suffer the least. For example, the average drop in offensive yds/game goes down 20% upon entering B10 play, but UM's only went down 15%. (Wishful thinking...)
|3 years 22 weeks ago||2-1-1||
Thanks for my first laugh about the game. Scary but true.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Contrasting pictures||
Anyone else notice how the pictures of the UM offense almost universally show the player running, with Indiana players trailing along behind? Nice to be on the PLUS side of those kinds of photos for once.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Florida bad||
I don't Florida has done anything at all to warrant that #7 ranking.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Ouch||
Wow, glad I'm not the quarterback playing behind someone who doesn't even want to play offense line.
|3 years 28 weeks ago||Great series||
I've followed football my whole life, and have considered myself fairly knowledgeable. However, since I never played the game, your explanation of the eligible receivers was the first time I ever learned who was eligible and why. The rest of the entry was very helpful as well - thanks for this, looking forward reading the rest of the entries.