- Member for
- 7 years 20 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 17 hours ago||2004, I assume you meant.||
2004, I assume you meant.
|1 week 2 days ago||Same day as John L blowing||
Same day as John L blowing that FG attempt right behalf half and OSU blocking an returning for the TD, right? "Playing their butts off and the coaches are SCREWING IT UP!"?
|1 week 3 days ago||Goddammit, AC1997... you realize||
Jake B might not have ESPN insider, right? Rats.
|1 week 5 days ago||I don't know. Maybe the||
I don't know. Maybe the networks don't know about wolverine1987's appointment conflict?
|1 week 5 days ago||You might be the only person who associates him with that play.||
You might be the only person who associates him with that play.
|1 week 6 days ago||I'd take this down||
I know OP meant no harm, but this is more than a hashtag or "unifying" thing for a community. I know OP knows this, and I don't intend to be guilt him, but mods, I'd remove this.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||0-2 start for Wisconsin, yikes.||
0-2 start for Wisconsin, yikes.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Interesting video. May be my computer||
but not sure I'd say that's "very clear," but agreed that the TV replay seemed to consistently come after the WR went out of bounds (thus not showign the contact/non-contact that led him OOB).
|3 weeks 3 days ago||The Burke 3||
Never mind - I get your proposing the "foul up 3" strategy.
But man... that Burke 3 was from the parking lot. Calling it malpractice after Burke hits a 30 footer seems a bit like hindsight bias.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Huh?||
|4 weeks 9 hours ago||Based on small sample sizes for both, but Speight obviously.||
Based on small sample sizes for both, but Speight obviously.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||21-6, Michigan||
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Brady Hoke's a nice guy||
And hearing him talk about his time at Michigan has gone a long way towards helping me get over the MSU loss. Man, this program is in a better place now with JH.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Yeah, it got shitty offensive||
Yeah, it got shitty offensive comments because some of our fan base can't resist obvious baiting; at least not when a keyboard is nearby. Not a lot of "discussion."
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Hill is the worst of the||
Hill is the worst of the Spartan fan base. But geezus, this thread highlights some shitty aspects of UM's fan base, too.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Re: #9 (Saturday's game)||
Agreed MSU would not have likely hit a FG from that distance if O'Neill fell on ball. But getting it off wasn't an issue; time would stop on change of possession.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Concedes||
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Jesus Christ, y'all are way over sensitive.||
Jesus Christ, y'all are way over sensitive.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||The thing I do think is insanely stupid about following||
recruiting is when fans/message boarders/posters say negative shit about a kid based on their choice, or express some SUPER SERIOUS I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THIS YOU GUYS opinion about the kid based on watching 3 minute highlights on Hudl.
I follow recruiting because I follow everything related to U of M; hell, I follow the UM Solar Car team on twitter. When they win something, I don't pretend to know anything about the fucking technology of the car. My lizard, pro-UM brain just says, "U of M good, me, happy."
Same with recruiting. Sure, some kids "appear" to be really good at football, but at the end of the day, almost all people who follow recruiting are total amateurs when it comes to assessing a HS football player's future ability; it's probably why scholarship offers aren't made after consultation and finding consensus with message boards.
Recruiting is almost all about perception; it's a separate competition fans follow outside of the actual competition in the games. And that's fine; but while football players suit up and compete on the field and thus probably expect some of the stuff -- both negative and positive -- that go along with engaging in competition at a high level of sport, they're not signing up for the message board-recruiting-perception competition that so many people get involved with. It's utter bullshit to be pissed at a kid because he was (1) lucky enough to get a scholarship offer by the coach of the school you offer; (2) lucky enough to get other scholarship opportunites; and (3) opted for a different opportunity.
Reading people rationalize why kid A should come to Michigan because of some criteria that the poster deems relevant has almost eye-rolled me to complete blindness. Shocking, most Michigan message boarders think a kid should choose Michigan. Related note: most Michigan message boarders have visited maybe 5 other universities in their lives, never spoken to any of the relevant people involved (head coaches, assistant coaches, etc.), never peered into the soul of the kid to know if he's the type to thrive away from home, close to home, in a challeging kick-your-ass environment or in a softer, more training wheels type environment (News: some approaches/environments work for some and not others).
Basically, if you're perceived "good" (highly rated), I want you to come to Michigan because of that secondary competition-perception part of recruiting. OR, if you just commit to Michigan and I haven't heard of you, I'll be excited because "yay, Michigan!" Any other message board analysis about what the kid should do, didn't do, or sour grapes about not coming to U of M is stupid.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Have you ever been emotionally involved in the athletic||
performance of college teenagers you don't know?
|8 weeks 3 days ago||Jesus, spoiler alert on American Beauty EGD||
The movie JUST came out 16 years ago.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||I don't think you mean frippery||
Also, I find it odd that Connelly uses PPP as a proxy for explosiveness. Would seem that % of plays that exceed, say, 10 yards, would be the way to go (since a team that runs 2 plays of 0 yards and 1 play of 10 yards is different than a team that runs 3 plays of 3.3 yards, or some such variation). But I might not understand the tool very well. Nice write up.
|12 weeks 4 days ago||This thread is proof||
That you don't need to be popu-lar
To find out who your true friends are.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||I've become a "get off my lawn" old man type when it comes to||
commitment ceremonies, etc...
But, huh, I actually dug that video (even if I wish the decision was different). Nice work.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||"We (OSU) slow-played him."||
True or not, would have saved you carpal tunnel syndrome.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||Go blue.||
Thanks for that, Brian.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||The word catholic||
Just means all-embracing, wide variety; basically, he's saying that those posts cover even MORE wide-ranging Michigan topics than this site (which is typically, football, basketball, hockey.... [big drop]... high-profile niche UM things)
|14 weeks 4 days ago||Klatt -- the big question about him is||
Great sports commentator or greatest sports commentator?
|18 weeks 3 days ago||Chuck Norris doesn't read a post's fine print||
He reads its weaknesses; and then destroys it.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Too hard to read.||
This isn't grammar policing; the post is unreadable. Spend some time reviewing your post before you hit submit. People appreciate the high quality of posting here. Good luck with the next post!