and... i like them? I think I like them.
- Member for
- 4 years 12 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|19 weeks 1 day ago||Well, sure, if he proved to||
Well, sure, if he proved to be a "TE who can block" that would be super-smashing-great-and-lovely but what evidence exists to support the notion that he can be that guy? Precious little thus far.
But rather than worry about that let's focus on what he *can* do. Put him on the field, throw him the ball and let him catch it. He can create havoc.
A monster WR is a pretty valuable commodity.
|42 weeks 3 days ago||Streams are your friend||
I live in Scotland. As discussed above, you can sometimes find UM games on ESPN America. The match against UConn seems unlikely to be one such fixture. Even if it is on, there are few pubs in Ireland or the UK that subscribe to ESPN America and even fewer who do who are also likely to put an NCAA football game on the TV at 5pm on an autumn afternoon. 5pm is for soccer results and there's usually an English premiership game on then too. (Possible exception: London which, because it is so vast will have somewhere you can watch the game. If it is on.)
Your best bet, frankly, is to watch online via a stream of dubious legality. Not perfect but, in my considerable experience, generally just-about-good-enough. Most UM games can usually be found at stream2watch.me
Not as good as watching it on "proper telly" but better than not being able to see it at all.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||livestream?||
Anyone know of a stream that's working for people outside the USA? Thanks!
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Unbelievably stupid||
Did I say unbelievably? I mean all too credibly stupid.
Simple east/west divide* with nine conference games and no protected crossover would have been fine, simple, workable and about as fair as you can get.
This? This is the opposite of that.
*Draw lots to see which division gets Purude and which is left with Indiana.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||TV money||
It's not just about the BTN (though it is partly about the BTN) but about all the TV monies. the new contract is up to for negotiation in 2017. Adding states with a population of 15 million people to the Big Ten "footprint" makes a difference to the expected value of that contract. It probably also increases the value of the BTN too.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||9 conference games||
If - unlikely as it may be - we stick at 14 teams but expand to schedule nine conference games then, then playing three teams from the other division each year but scrapping protected cross-overs means you could ensure that you'd play everyone at least four times a decade. Hardly ideal but not much worse than at present.
Even with a 16 team "conference" you would be playing every team in the other division once every four years, not once every eight. Assuming, that is, a 9 game schedule and no protected "rivalry".
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Hoops||
Well, the Terrapins won a national basketball title in 2002 so I guess they've been "nationally relevant" more recently than, er, we have.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||East and West is Best||
Of course it's about money. Adding Maryland and Rutgers brings another 15 million people into the Big Ten "footprint". That's worth quite a lot when the next TV contracts are signed.
Maryland doesn't really "bring" the DC market since the Dc market is a) dominated by the Redskins and b) Virginia Tech is probably second there. After Va Tech it becomes pretty fractured with "exiles" from state schools across the country bringing their thing to the party and, incidentally, making DC one of the best places in America to watch college football.
Still, Maryland has room for growth. So, obviously, does Rutgers. And, anyway, if you're going to be expanding (which I'd rather was not the case) who else is left to add that doesn't involve adding someone from the other side of the country? At least Maryland-Rutgers is contiguous and all that jazz.
Maryland doesn't feel like it gets enough respect in the ACC. It won't get any more in the Big10 but at least it will make more money. So it makes some sense from their perspective.
The obvious thing now is to move to a nine game conference schedule and eliminate protected crossovers. If that means not playing for the Jug every year then so be it. A shame but let's not pretend that this would be the end of Michigan football.
Simple east/west divisions would be the best thing: UM, Sparty, OSU, Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland in the east. Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota in the other.
Argue about which of Purdue/Indiana goes west. Am fine with whatever choice you make. But for sake of argument our opposite-division games could, for the sake of illustration, go like this:
Year 1: Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
Year 2: Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue
Year 3: Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois
Year 4: Northwestern, Nebraska, Minnesota
Year 5: Purdue, Iowa, Illinois
Year 6: Wisconsin, Miinnesota, Nebraska,
Year 7: Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern
Year 8: Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota
Year 9: Wisconsin, Purdue, Iowa
Year 10: Northwestern, Illinois, Nebraska
Over ten years that gives you a minimum of four games vs each opponent. Not ideal but better than the SEC's "let's meet once in a blue moon and pretend we're in the same conference set up".
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Who will replace Notre Dame? Auburn?||
As mentioned above, Georgia is one possibility. But the likes of Oklahoma, Texas, USC, LSU, Florida, FSU are pretty unlikely. So too many of the next tier of teams (eg Virginia Tech has already announced home and homes with the likes of tOSU and Wisconsin).
There's one good possibility, however: Auburn. I could cope with a home and home vs those Tigers. At present they seem to have no-one scheduled.
Even so: home and homes aren't the same as a regular rival. It will be good to get back together with ND so let's hope that happens.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Sad news||
Which is more interesting? Games against ND or games against Baby Seal University? Hmmm. Not a difficult question!
So if this is more than a mini-hiatus in the series this is a shame.
I'd like to see us play two decent non-conference games a year with Western/Central/Eastern etc rotating through the schedule as a local warm-up.
How likely is that? Not very, I guess and especially not if we move to a nine-game conference schedule.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Yeah, except...||
There is no reason except that this is football and sometimes things happen for no reason. If every game were decided by "talent level" there'd be no need to, you know, actually watch the games. It would be quite boring.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Depressing||
Dave Brandon: because nothing says class like sneering at the opposition's teeny stadium wherever it is located in football-palookaville and suggesting, openly or not, that UM is far too big and grand and old to play in your back yard.
Michigan is, what, one of the five wealthiest athletic departments in the country. It doesn't really need an extra couple of hundred thousand dollars.
Anyway: I'd rather play at UConn than host some of the non-conference games Brandon is scheduling.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||ESPN Gives Ohio to Michigan||
Nevermind how Michigan is recruiting across the midwest; focus on Ohio instead. By ESPN's estimation michigan is going to land a greater number of the top 20 kids in Ohio than will tOSU. UM has 8 so far; the best Ohio State can manage (on present rankings) is 7.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||The dumbest thing...||
is ranking Va Tech ahead of Clemson. They played twice this year and the combined score was Clemson 61 Virginia Tech 13.
Also, annoying though it is I think I'd probably rank Sparty ahead of Michigan. If I were being honest and all that. Going 1-1 vs Wisconsin is not a disgrace.
Still, you know, am kind of super-gla it's the Wolverines in the BCS and not anyone else from the state.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Comically unpersuasive||
104-23 in a three-school career kinda makes it obvious that Meyer is more than just the guy fortunate enough to have Tim Tebow. He's been a success everywhere; he will be a success at OSU too. No reason to suppose otherwise.
Doesn't mean he will have a Tresselesque record in the Game but it's dumb to try and kid yourself into thinking he's not "really" that good a coach. The facts suggest he knows what he's doing.
|2 years 44 weeks ago||Like a Rugby shirt||
Weird to have a throwback jersey that ain't much like anything Michigan has ever worn. On the other hand they're not so different from the Otago (New Zealand) rugby jersey circa 1999-2000:
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Yeah, right||
You'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only Big Ten team with more recruits in the current ESPN top 100 is Ohio State. So, yeah, that's pretty underwhelming. The incoming class is shaping up nicely.
The boys are doing ok for a team that doesn't currently have a superstar and is one of the youngest in the country. Patience is sometimes rewarded, you know?
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Up to a point...||
Point taken. But RichRod was brought to Michigan to install his system. It wasn't stubborness that made him do this, it was what the university wanted when he was hired. Otherwise he would not have been hired.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Sign me up for a dirt nap then.||
When you disparage the Oregon offense as "basketball on grass" that ain't proper football and can't work just days before Oregon plays for a feckin' national title against another spread team then you are, my friends, a certifiable oaf.
And, lo, here is Coach Hoke proudly sporting his Oaf Badge. Being dumber than a bad of rocks ought to be enough to disqualify him from further consideration for the UM job. Sadly, the reverse seems to be true for some.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Impossible? Maybe.||
Year One was always going to be difficult. Perhaps even impossible. Not only did few players from 2007 return, UM was switching its football philosophy. The most predictable major program in the country was going sexy.
But without a QB to run the offense it was doomed from the start. And since UM had hired RR to install his system it's daft to argue that he should have adapted it to suit Sheridan and Threet. The whole point of RR was to change things.
So Year One was essentially Year Zero and I think you can make a decent argument that RR has been fired after just two "proper" years in which he had players (albeit young) who had some idea of what he wanted and aptitude for it.
Of course there were mistakes, most obviously on defense. And the results and all the rest of it do make it hard to make the case for keeping RR. You can see why it has panned out this way. But if getting Harbaugh was a reasonable and consensus First Choice for next year I'd say that giving RR one more shot was a reasonable Second Choice.
Sure, there would have been pressure and intense media speculation and a new DC and all that. But we'd also be better placed to see if the building could be finished, even late and over-budget, than is the case now that we've abandoned a half-completed project and are looking for a new architect to finish it in, well, lord knows what kind of style.
So good luck to RR wherever he lands. I understand why it's happened this way but I can't help but feel somewhat sad about it all.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Unbelievable||
Possibly the most ridiculous post in the long history of ridiculous internet nit-pickery. And so, therefore, a peculiar, if appalling, kind of awesome.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Hmmm||
Who knew so many Michigan Men secretly hankered after becoming Notre Dame?
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Recruiting a QB||
Another reminder that, despite other needs, we could still do with a QB in this coming class. There's a pretty good chance that either Denard or Tate leave soon. It might be useful to have more than 2 QBs on the roster. (No offence to Jack Kennedy).
All will, I guess, become clear soon enough. Mercifully.
But, yeah, you keep DG off the field even if that costs the game.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||Can you really have too many Ninjas?||
I have no idea whether Prince Holloway can be a credible threat at the next level. But Rodriguez has taken two guys for the slot in each of his two most recent recruiting classes so it should not, perhaps, be a surprise that he's doing so again.
As for "positions of need" well, sure, on the face of it slot isn't a priority. On the other hand I think RichRod has some idea of what he's doing, not least on the offensive side of the ball.
Personally I'd still like to sign a QB since we're only a couple of injuries away from that becoming a super-high risk position.
But perhaps we should all wait until Holloway actually commits? Then again, where would be the fun in that?
Still, if he becomes a Wolverine then good luck to him.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Deaf...||
Wouldn't it be sensible to use sign language when describing music to a deaf man?
Just sayin'. 'Cos you can't sign on Mgoblog...
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Hey||
Too bad none of these Auburn "points" actually count. First-half scoring is all that matters, dude. :-)
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Hmmm||
Or, you know, you could just piss off.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Yup||
Agreed. Great post Brian. At the moment defending RichRod - while acknowledging the real problems on the defense - feels a bit like being one of the lads at Rorke's Drift. There are an awful lot of Zulus circling the outpost, armed with very sharp spears...
But we know how "Zulu" ends, don't we?
Anyway: there seem to be some people who expect perfection on every drive and think that the offense is failing if that's not achieved. Way to guarantee disappointment, eh?
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Slow start?||
Yeah, why can't we ever score on the first play of the game?
|3 years 21 weeks ago||Maybe||
Fair enough. But it is, to an extent, a question of picking your poison. The secondary's youth means they have to be protected wherever possible. Inevitably that has an impact upon what you can do with the front 7.
You say "excuse". I prefer "reason" and not just because it's a less pejorative term. Of course we'd like to see more production from the linebackers (in particular). But Obi Ezeh was not likely to suddenly become a stud while Mouton is merely uber-Mouton this year.
Before the season started we knew there would be problems there. Moundros tells you that and so, alas, does the thankfully-abandoned attempt to fit Roh in at linebacker.
So we shouldn't be shocked - shocked! - that LB play has still been a problem this year. Some of that can probably be ascribed to coaching but some of it is down to talent too.
You're right that the secondary's youth can't explain everything but it is an important factor nonetheless. These problems aren't the product of any single problem (if they were it would be easier to solve them quickly) but a combination of factors which, when taken together, multiply the damage.
Nevertheless, it *is* reasonable to suppose that some, maybe most, of the defensive players will improve next season. (Some of them won't but that's a question of ceiling and the fact that not every recruit has the career we'd hope for them.)