Coaches' timeouts are worse. Basketball teams should get one, full stop.
- Member for
- 3 years 6 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|16 hours 28 min ago||Can we stop this "McGary is||
Can we stop this "McGary is too old nonsense already?" He is turns 22 this June and would be 23 if he comes back another year. Payne is sitting at 23 right now. How come we didn't talk about Paynes age as a big factor last year? The only way age is a big factor is if McGary comes back for 2 more years which is just not going to happen. It's a nice narrative but it really doesn't hold up.
|1 day 13 hours ago||Over at BTPowerhouse||
Over at BTPowerhouse (SBNation site), we compared Beilein and Miles and I thought it was a lot clsoer than many think:
|5 days 10 hours ago||Lol Indiana is in that||
Lol Indiana is in that picture...so no.
|1 week 1 day ago||In my opinion, there are a||
In my opinion, there are a lot of things that are impacting this drop in attendance, or at least in the reality of the issue, a drop in showing up on time from students. First, we have to accept that some of the aspects of student life have changed. We have a lot of data showing that today's college students are busier than any generation of the past. Along with this, the pressure of rising costs and debt pressures students to not only work more, but be more selective with their time and finances. This doesn't give them an excuse, but it's important to view this issue through the lens of the students and not as an alum or administrator. It's easy to look back and say you loved going to the games and wish you had attended more, but when you have a few papers to finish and have to work the remainder of the weekend, it's a lot harder to spend 4 hours on a Saturday attending the game. This is one of the major reasons that I believe the students feel so misunderstood.
Second, the quality of the product has decreased. No, I'm not talking about the play. Sure, if Michigan was undefeated, I think we would see at least improved attendance, but that's not the issue here. The "experience" of attending games has been decreasing. Rant to me all you want about Michigan football, etc., but with the addition of things like TV timeouts, extensive lines, and increased prices, it's hard to see how you are getting more value than you did in years past. Can alums even say they're getting more value? The scheduling here also has to play a factor, with the vast majority of games being against horrible opponents. It's hard to argue that an increase in prices has meant an increase in the quality of the product. Also, you at least have to recognize that the experience at home has grown tremendously in the last 20 years, especially with high definition and BTN. You don't have to necessarily go to either see the game or have a great time.
Finally, people need to accept that the general admission plan has been a complete and utter failure. Whether you believe this was in the implementation of the policy or in the policy itself, this policy has failed. Students hate the policy and it's certainly a factor in these numbers. I have been told directly by students that they didn't buy tickets specifically due to this new policy and have been told by others that they deliberately show up late to avoid the lines. Whether it's just improving the wait times or scanning, something has to change.
Overall, I think you are seeing a great deal of factors finally coming together and truly hitting the attendance. The general public's attendance has largely withstood some of these factors, but I think that's a ticking timebomb too. In my opinion, the best solution is to focus on each of the factors together. Make the experience better, make it easier on students, and pick a policy that's not going to make every student furious. It's easy to say, "lower prices and people will come," but I don't think that's the issue here. I've personally witnessed many students have tickets and simply not go to either work on homework or simply because they didn't feel like going. This will sound bad to diehard Michigan fans, but it's reality, not everybody is THAT obsessed with the team. However, look at the games people did show up on time. Both night games got incredible attendance. Why? Because people viewed it as a can't miss event. The experience is what got people to show up, not because of some ticket policy or season record. Make the experience better and help the other factors and maybe you can at least slow down this rising tide.
|1 week 1 day ago||Can pretty much guarantee the||
Can pretty much guarantee the majority of that 10% is due to the new ticket policy. Several friends I know didn't buy tickets solely due to that reason. To me, this isn't a huge problem because they can at least sell those tickets to other people. It's the people who stay too long at their party, etc. that are the problem. Buy tickets and show up at halftime.
|1 week 4 days ago||Cool, cheated out of that OSU||
Cool, cheated out of that OSU return game in Ann Arbor.
|1 week 4 days ago||How does the SEC look worse?||
How does the SEC look worse? They were considered a joke last year And frankly have been considered a joke for much of this season. If not for Florida saving them every year, they would be a complete and utter disaster.
|1 week 5 days ago||I wish I could upvote this||
I wish I could upvote this like 100 more times.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Well first, we already are||
Well first, we already are using backup big men. People just forget they were backups behind McGary because they're actually pretty solid. Izzo recruits and develops his bench. Maybe if he didn't go all in on Jabari Parker he would have a nice guy to play upfront or on the wing.
Plus, if Michigan was without LeVert or Stauskas, we would play the 5* recruit sitting on our bench: Zak Irvin. I'm not saying that MSU's injuries aren't real, but it's the coach's fault if he doesn't have solid depth to step in and play.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Minnesota at home should be||
Minnesota at home should be considered a bigger threat than Indiana at home.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||This is one f the worst||
This is one of the worst responses I've read. Appling and Payne both played today although Appling was limited. Also why on earth would we want to have MSU's defensive intensity? They just lost to Nebraska!!
|3 weeks 5 days ago||LOL McCaffery has passed||
LOL McCaffery has passed Izzo? Iowa didn't even make the tourney last year.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Has to be frustrating as an||
Has to be frustrating as an MSU fan. They schedule so many big games and marquee opponents, but play so many of them at neutral sites.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Biggest part of Burke's game||
Biggest part of Burke's game people overlook. Guy can run an offense and control the ball. That alone is worth having him on your team in my opinion. Plus, once he gets used to the NBA's speed and size, his scoring will go up too.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Burke scored double digits in||
Burke scored double digits in every "major" road game he played in as a true freshman. If you want to fairly compare though, you also need to include Duke and Iowa State, where Walton, where he was decent, but not as great as we are seeing now. Ultimately, happy for both guys, but we have to remember what Trey Burke was working with as a freshman too.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Seems more to do with the||
Seems more to do with the Lakers' contract than with Manny Harris' play. By next season, I think he will have landed on a roster.
|5 weeks 8 hours ago||This is perhaps my biggest||
This is perhaps my biggest concern for next season. I'm probably overblowing it since the offensive and defensive lines have a lot of question marks, but if Devin is forced to sit out spring practice and a good hunk of the summer, you wonder how fast he will hit the ground running at the end of the summer. Afterall, this is going to be a new system.
If people remember, Denard got basically no playing time as a senior largely to give the other guys time, but I feel like Devin needs to see the field with a new system this year and a lot of youth at wide receiver.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||This is really depressing.||
This is really depressing. Can't say that the place necessarily had anything great, but I lived up the street in undergrad and I always had good memories of popping in there either before walking to class or on my way back home.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Believe that Farrell should||
Believe that Farrell should be Ferrell and Sheehy should be Sheehey. Not sure if that was a joke or not.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||As some others have said,||
As some others have said, this result really doesn't impact anything in the Big Ten standings. Both of these teams have been out of it for AT LEAST a few days and probably even more if you're just being realistic about things. The odds of OSU and Wisconsin winning out are pretty slim and they're already probably too far back. To me, would have rather seen OSU lose since it would have started pushing them toward the bubble. Probably safe now.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I did read the article. They||
I did read the article. They just blindly listed off some names of elite recruits Coach Cal had landed and tried to link them to Nike relations. I can do that too. GR3, McGary, Zeller, Irvin, and Ferrell all must have selected their schools based on Adidas relations. You know what, Booker must have picked Kentucky because they have Nike. How could he possibly have two different shoe companies in his top group?
Ok, enough ranting and let's be serious about it. As I said before, I have absolutely no doubt that shoe companies are a factor. Kids surely want to look cool, but does it have a significant impact on the recruiting process? I highly disagree. The most important categories that determine who you get are the performance of the program and your facilities. If the shoe companies were that significant, Nebraska should have been in the race for Muhammad and if they were that significant, how was Kentucky even in the race at all? For 99% of recruits, they are not going to select their school based on the shoe company. Maybe it plays a small role, but for the massive majority of recruits, it is not the deciding factor.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||So because a single recruit||
So because a single recruit (who massively underachieved) was partially influenced by a shoe company, that's the overall trend? Mitch McGary came to Michigan largely due to the facility renovations. In fact, you can tie a huge hunk of Michigan basketball's rise on the recruiting trail to the facility renovations.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||This is just false. The only||
This is just false. The only and I will say ONLY school that I believe gets impacted by apparel in a significant way on the recruiting trail is Oregon (hehe Oregon trail). If you want Michigan to move in the direction of Oregon, go ahead, but I have absolutely no desire for Michigan to wear 15 different jerseys per season. Some may hate the current alternate jerseys (none this season), but it's nothing like Oregon. It works for them, but not for Michigan.
For those of you who actually still believe a recruit selects a school based on an apparel company, how about considering this - with the money Adidas pays Michigan, they can invest in all sorts of different things. All those renovations at Michigan do not come for free. Adidas did not fund all of them, but they certainly helped. So people would rather take "cooler jerseys" over better facilities and resources for the athletes? For me, the choice is obvious and to 99.9% of recruits, I think the choice is pretty obvious as well.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Here is the Eleven Warriors||
Here is the Eleven Warriors thread for when Michigan lost to Penn State last year:
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Lol Clowney over tebow||
Lol Clowney over tebow
|5 weeks 6 days ago||This.||
|6 weeks 9 hours ago||That's a pretty political||
That's a pretty political statement anyway without allowing responses.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Don't think Hardaway was a||
Don't think Hardaway was a lock.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||MSU's recrutiing overall and||
MSU's recrutiing overall and has been hit and miss for a few years now. You can probably say this about any school outside of maybe Kentucky, but for a program that has 6 Final Fours under Izzo (or whatever their stat line is now), they certainly do not get the results you would expect. Many like to throw them in with the Kentuckys, Kansas, and Dukes, but the fact is that they just don't get the results on the recruiting trail to justify it.
I've always used one metric to decide when a program is a "blue blood." You're a blue blood when you're in a top end recruit's top schools just about automatically. If guys get a Kentucky or Duke offer, it's practically a certainty that they're at least considering them. MSU has to work like crazy to get there with the top guys. Not saying other programs don't have to work hard, but if MSU was really on the level nationally that some perceive them to be, they should be getting much better results.
This is all opinion, but the only great recruit they've gotten in the last 3 classes has been Gary Harris. Everybody in Harris' class has been underwhelming, the 2013 class was an admitted backup plan from Izzo, and 2014 was built on backup options as well. If you're such a great program, you shouldn't be settling for backup plans for two recruiting cycles in a row. Just compare them to Michigan who in the same 3 classes has pulled in games including GR3, McGary, Stauskas, Irvin, Walton, and Chatman. Believable or not, Michigan has kicked their butts on the recruiting trail for the last few years.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||I would like to see Michigan||
I would like to see Michigan play MSU at full strength. Give us back McGary and we will call it even.