chance of bowl: 13.6%
- Member for
- 4 years 1 week
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 21 hours ago||Well,||
it's a lot easier to fill a stadium with half the capacity of Michigan Stadium. Autzen's official capacity is 54,000 and student tickets are limited to 5400. Demand is far larger than the supply.
It's not really a good comparison to Michigan.
|1 week 23 hours ago||I've seen studies||
that free tickets actually discourages student attendance. It's too easy to blow off going without having some skin in it. Paying something nominal makes it more of an event and fosters more commitment to going.
I'm not sure what the ideal price point would be. Something more than $0 but signifcantly less than current prices. Students tickets should certainly be as cheap as possible.
|1 week 5 days ago||Dave's been talking||
to the team, it seems. BrandSpeak is contagious.
|1 week 6 days ago||And back to the point I made initially.||
You're making a shallow appeal to emotion, like "I think it's ridiculous that people don't like puppies and kittens."
It's not selling autographs for a few bucks that's the issue. The problem is that there's no way to do that without opening the floodgates to a whole lot of other stuff.
The reality is that the ban is not at all ridiculous, because the alternative is hundreds of times worse. Zeroing in on one small advantage while ignoring all the problems that come with it is dishonest.
|1 week 6 days ago||The problem is in regulating it.||
A player making a few bucks off of autographs on the weekend is indeed no big deal. How do you keep it limited to a few bucks, though? How do you keep boosters from funneling thousands of dollars to players through autographs?
Keeping track of how much they sign and how much they earn through it would be an accounting nightmare, with no way to ensure accuracy. There simply isn't any practical way to keep it at a low, reasonable level. Any cap imposed will be ignored and be even less enforceable than now.
You have to assume it will be abused for all its worth, because it will be. Allowing player endorsements inevitably means corporations hiring players as token spokesmen for possibly millions of dollars per year. College football then becomes a de facto professional sport, with athletes paid by corporations, and the school with the corporate backer with the deepest pockets wins.
That may seem alarmist, but I genuinely see no way to prevent that once the genie is out of the bottle. Maybe that scenario sounds great to you, in which case there's no problem. As far as I'm concerned, once players are professionals they are no longer students, and if they're not students then what they're playing isn't college football any more. The alternative is the current rule, which bans it completely. I don't see how any middle ground is possible.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Holy Wall of Text, Batman||
Your entire post seems to be "Michigan is stuck in the past." Thank for the insight.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Went to see UT-Chattanooga||
play VMI this afternoon. I had a fun time.
|3 weeks 14 hours ago||I was roundly laughed at||
after Rich was hired at AZ when I declared that Rodriguez would get Arizona to a Rose Bowl before Hoke got Michigan to one.
I love the smell of vindication in the middle of the night.
The fact that that man could not succeed here means that we were the problem, not him. We need to admit that and get it right next time.
|3 weeks 15 hours ago||Of all sad words of tongue or pen,||
the saddest are these, 'It might have been.'
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Leach would be great.||
Except his offense does not fit our personnel in the least, so we'd have another multi-year rebuilding effort as ex-players and alumni scream about how the air raid isn't Michigan Football.
Beyond that, they love him in Pullman and he seems to love it there. I don't think he's interested in Michigan or all the crap he'd have to put up with here.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I'm continually amused||
by these yahoos who don't buy tickets to Michigan games telling us what should be happening inside the stadium. Michigan Stadium is for Michigan fans to celebrate their team any way they want. If we're stuck in the '40s or any other decade, it's our own business.
When these clowns and 100,000 of their friends start buying tickets to Michigan games regularly, they can be the ones to decide what "fun" is. Until then, nobody cares what they think.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Other than all the stuff that everybody's really mad about,||
what's your problem with Dave Brandon, anyway?
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Butch Jones would be great.||
I've admired him as a coach for a long time, and complimented my Tennessee fan friends on their excellent hire. They seem to be quite pleased with him.
I don't think he's going to want to leave Tennessee, though, and I don't think Tennessee would let him leave.
A guy can dream, though.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Hoke obviously knew he was hurt.||
He greeted and consoled Shane as he came off the field.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Here's Hoke||
greeting and consoling Shane as he finally came off the field. He very obviously knew he was hurt.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Internet petitions||
have an amazing track record for fomenting change. It's the obvious way to go here.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||I had the impression at the time||
(probably mistaken) that Brandon thought he had Harbaugh lined up when he finally pulled the trigger on Rodriguez. Then Harbaugh stiffed him for the 49ers, and Brandon went all in on Hoke because he was the only option at that point.
Harbaugh was named the coach of the 49ers on January 7, Hoke was named as the coach coach of Michigan on January 11. The timing fits, anyway, and Harbaugh certainly has the personality to have done it. I thought it was pretty obvious through the whole fall that Harbaugh was gunning for the 49ers and that any interest he had in Michigan was simply to play one off the other.
No evidence for it, but at the time his praise for Hoke seemed artificial, like he didn't want to give away that Hoke was his 2nd (or 3rd) choice. Somebody will write a book eventually and we'll know the truth.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I will quibble||
with your characterization of the Western Conference a bit. The West in general was pretty wild and wooly with lots of college players that qualified as 'students' in only most abstract sense. However, the Western Conference itself was created specifically to establish eligility standards that were even stricter than those out East and eliminate professionalism among college players.
In the wake of the 1905 Crisis, the Big Nine adopted eligibility rules even stricter than are in place today (no freshmen or grad students, three years total participation by undergrads only). Michigan balked at that and quit the conference for a decade, trying to get in with some of the Eastern associations in the interim (Iowa also semi-quit, playing in the Missouri Valley conference for a couple years before coming back).
Of course, everyone did their best to circumvent the rules and as there was no NCAA (until 1905) it was entirely up to the individual schools to police themselves. This went about as well as you would expect.
So the formation of the Western Conference was not about sticking it to the Old Guard out East and their artificial rules, but creating a bubble of amateurism and fair play in the otherwise wild West.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||We have no one better.||
So whatever you think of Gardner, he's the best we've got.
Deal with it.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I believe||
I'll go to bed.
|16 weeks 18 hours ago||This is a very old argument||
that goes back to the 1880s when colleges discovered that the general public would pay good money to watch college football. We're not going to settle it here.The fight against professionalism and commercialism in college football existed long before the NCAA did. My point was that we've been here before, and allowing player endorsement of commercial products resulted in lots of problems that colleges found objectionable. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
At the heart of it was that long ago colleges decided they weren't in the entertainment business, and paid athletes had no place in the college world. The reality has rarely matched the ideal, but that doesn't mean the ideal should be abandoned. It is difficult to reconcile professional athletics with the educational mission of a university.
The irony is that while college football's commerciallism is at unprecedented levels, college athletics currently comes closer to the amateur ideal than at any point in its previous history. My personal preference would be to get rid of the commercialism rather than abandoning amateurism.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||It's currently prohibited for good reasons.||
Player endorsements were a major source of corruption in the past. College athletes as pitchmen for commercial products is a bad idea if you're serious about amatuerism and fairness. At one time, the Michigan football captain had a wardrobe supplied by a Detroit clothier so that his fans would all shop there and dress like him. Another Michgan captain had a brand of cigars from which he got a cut of the sales. Yale's captain had his own brand of cigarettes, conveniently displayed on the counters of all the businesses frequented by Yale fans.
The players become professional athletes, but with compensation coming from businesses rather than the university. It's a distinction without a difference.
It's not about players signing autographs for money, it's about Phil Knight offering blue-chippers a million dollars a year for endorsing Nike products if they'll attend Oregon.
You have to think in terms of how the process could be abused, because it will be. Most NCAA regulations exist to restrict alumni from abusing the system to the benefit of their alma mater rather than the actions of the players.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||I agree with you here.||
For 99% of college athletes, a college scholarship is the only compensation their athletic abilities will ever get them. Their market value is actually negative.
The idea of destroying the system and screwing that 99% so that the top 1% can get wealthy a couple years sooner seems outrageously wrong.
College athletics has plenty of problems that need to be fixed, but overt professionalism doesn't fix any of them.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Commercialism has plagued college football from the beginning.||
Colleges exist to educate, not entertain, but football proved so wildly popular that the temptation to maximize revenues has been a constant problem.
College football history is littered with reform movements seeking to rein in its commercial aspects. Unfortunately, it is a problem that can only be contained for a while, without ever being solved. The only things we can do as fans is vote with our feet and wallets: turning off the TV, refusing to pay excessive prices for game tickets, and not buying overpriced souvenirs.
|30 weeks 2 days ago||Minor league football has been tried many times||
and has proved repeatedly to be a financial failure. The expenses of football are too high and the season is too short. You can get away with 5,000 fans per game in minor league baseball because they play roughly 70 home games, but with football you can't.
Unless you've got some prominent stars to draw fans (and thus compete with the NFL for talent), you're not going to make a go of it.
|41 weeks 1 day ago||That's wrong, actually.||
There were only two games in the entire 2010 season that Michigan's offense (measured in yards per play) was below what their opponents gave up on average: Purdue and Mississippi State. Even in those, the ratio was about 0.98. Even against Ohio State, the YPP was higher than what OSU's defense allowed on average.
Not really interested in getting into a slap fight about it, but Rodriguez's offenses were pretty damn good. The defenses sucked, but give credit where it's due. Your assertion does not stand up to close analysis. Yes, his offense ran up big numbers against bad defenses. Good defenses certainly slowed it down, but it still outperformed most other teams.
|41 weeks 1 day ago||That's pretty much the definition of a good defense, though.||
It's not an indictment of Rodriguez's offense specifically. Every offense has trouble scoring against a good defense. That's why it's a good defense.
Even against good defenses, Rod's offenses did better than most others did.
|47 weeks 2 days ago||Even up two touchdowns at the half,||
I knew we were going to lose. I watched the second half out of curiosity as to just how they would give the game away more than anything else. Then I was depressed that they did exactly what I expected them to. I wanted to be surprised. I wanted them to shock me back into caring.
Alas, it was not to be.
|47 weeks 2 days ago||One more comparison:||
Al Borges at Auburn:
Looks painfully familiar.
OK, I'm done. I promise. :)
|47 weeks 2 days ago||Another comparison:||
Minnesota is another Big 10 team that started with a new coaching staff in 2011.
Their offensive YPP compared to their opponents' average YPP has remained fairly constant, on average.