- Member for
- 3 years 23 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Got SOME Tradition||
The Peach Bowl is the second oldest bowl game not already in the mix outside of Florida or Texas. The oldest is the Liberty Bowl and like you said, Atlanta has more cache than Memphis (although I do like Memphis).
What I kind of don't get is how Dallas has so much cache for hosting everything and is even trying to put together an Olympic bid. I know they've got JerryWorld, a ton of money and have hosted a few college football games. But considering the largest event they ever hosted was Super Bowl XLV, and by most accounts their hosting was a disaster, I feel like they shouldn't be penciled in as an automatic host for any major event.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Fun Fact||
Eastern Tennessee (where Knoxville is) tried to secede from Tennessee so they could stay loyal to the Union, and because they were mostly poor back-country farmers who didn't really have any interest in slavery. They were sorta like West Virginia, except that they were far more isolated from the rest of the Union, what with Kentucky being a warzone and all the other states surrounding them being in rebellion.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Less timeouts in basketball||
I hate how long it takes to watch the end of a game. I wish they had one timeout, and there was a heck of a lot less incentive to foul at the end of the game.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Agreed||
I hate how in the NFL PI on the defense immediately assumes that the receiver would've caught the ball, but on the offense (in the very rare case that it's called) it results in a 15 yard penalty AND THE DOWN BEING REPLAYED. Shouldn't the equivalent be an automatic turnover?
In a more general sense, though - what's wrong with a little bit of contact past five yards? I'm not saying some should be allowed to tackle someone, or grab ahold of them. But if a defensive player puts his hand on a receiver and pushes him a bit and the pass is incomplete because of it, I feel like that receiver ought to get in the weight room and suck it up.
Or even better, what's wrong with face-guarding? Why is that almost an automatic penalty in the NFL? Or, if a DB has position on an underthrown ball and the receiver runs into him, why the hell is that a penalty on the defense?
In general, I think pass interference is one of the least consistent, least sensible, least "football" rule in football. This is, of course, coming from a former DB.
|18 weeks 4 days ago||Sorry||
|18 weeks 4 days ago||Picture of Clint Eastwood?||
Tuco made that movie GREAT. Although it would be an ugly logo
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Kneeling Denard||
Because it's timeless, as classic as Michigan
|20 weeks 2 days ago||This was a nice recap of "BCS" seasons||
AC1997 did a nice job of figuring out what the best seasons were since Bo came to town based on some simple metrics. It sounds like you're looking for something that's both a) more comprehensive in grading a season and b) has a larger sample size (all seasons not just BCS-level ones). I don't think I've seen anything quite like that, and if I did I'd ask that someone add in pre-Bo seasons as well.
Either way I hope this year-old post can kinda help you get the info you're looking for.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Year 3 is key||
This is a really interesting post, and the data is very nicely presented, so kudos to you. I think you do a great job of defining where our expectations ought to be.
I think both Rod and Hoke cannot be fully captured by such a small sample size - their first three seasons are something like an "interview" period. As you state, 8-5 is not acceptable, but just as Rod's first two years can certainly be blamed on a transition, I think this year is certainly a victim of the circumstances Hoke walked into (and last year was influenced as well).
In year 3 it became clear that despite his offensive wizardry, Rod's defenses were bad and not getting better. I think for Hoke, while his third year isn't as critical as it was for Rod, we'll have a great idea what his ceiling is as a coach. We've got a young but highly-touted group of offensive linemen who'll be teamed with a veteran group of backs and a veteran defense, most of whom have proved their worth. While I agree whole-heartedly on your thoughts regarding the defense, I'm cautious about the offense - I think the drop in Denard's passing and the running game were because of the interior line. I know there was a shakeup there, but ultimately it does concern me that we lost only a single lineman from last season and saw the production drop that much.
That said, Funk and Borges have a track record for knowing what they're doing. I'm hoping that while our young O-Line may struggle next season and keep us from smelling Roses, we'll see a unit that's gelling by the end of the season, and poised for great things in 2014.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Thanks for the memories||
And representing us so well, Denard
|20 weeks 3 days ago||Denard's a Superhero||
Thanks for posting this, WH. Watched the whole thing through, and it's a great walk down memory lane.
It's been a while since I rooted for a player like I did for Denard. At some point I grew up, played ball myself and learned that football was truly a team game. Unfortunately I also learned that some of the guys on the TV could be absolute brats, too. I stopped believing in superheroes. I'm a grown-ass man now, but Denard made me root like a little five year old again. As silly as this is for me to say as someone who graduated before he enrolled at Michigan, Denard was like watching a superhero.
I'm sad to see him take off the winged helmet and the maize and blue, and I'm sad how his senior year felt a bit underwhelming. I'm going to miss watching him on Saturdays, and seeing him singing "The Victors" after a win with a smile on his face.
But I'm also excited for him to prove everybody wrong and light up the NFL. Good luck, Shoelace.
|24 weeks 10 hours ago||Kinda||
They used to use their forearms a lot more, hence the old forearm pads. It was all about moving your feet and driving through I guess. And pass blocking was crazy hard.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Ahh||
Sorry I misunderstood your original comment
|24 weeks 1 day ago||To further back up this point||
In 1905, Teddy Roosevelt threatened to outlaw football after 19 college players died that season. The NCAA was formed in 1906, and instituted rules changes the brought about the forward pass, 7 men on the line, limited pre-snap motion, and made a first down ten yards instead of five.
At the end of the day, while I loved playing on the kickoff team, and it is the most exciting play in the game, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it to make everyone safer and preserve the game I love.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Football has always changed||
Up until the 1990s, "bump and run" was legal in the NFL. Up until the 1970s, offensive lineman couldn't use their hands to block - so pass blocking was crazy hard. Up until the 1950s, substitution restrictions made almost ever player a two-way player.
I won't reach back into the 19th century to show further changes, but football was a very different game even just forty years ago - when Bo and Woody started their ten year war. I'm not saying that's a reason to allow this change (although I don't think it's a bad idea), but I disagree with your reasoning that the game isn't allowed to change. It already has changed, and it will again.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Chasing the rabbit||
That's an awesome idea! Would they be allowed to do it from anywhere on the field, from the point of the catch, from some predetermined position (20 yd line)?
I would LOVE this. I don't think Schiano's idea is bad - he first came up with it after Eric LeGrand's injury, I believe. But yours would a) make kickoffs safer, and b) make the most exciting play in football even more exciting.
Just think - do you want a QB catching the kicks? How do you set up plays on a kickoff? What strategy does a defense use to defend this? Is it possible to set up a "kickoff screen?"
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Your proposal got me thinking||
Along with an earlier poster saying "football is turning into flag 7 on 7." Would you watch the NFL if it turned into 8 man football? Wide open, lots of eligibility, a lot more open field tackling. Still football, but a very different version than the 11 man version we've known and love. Not sure if it'd be any safer (I don't think your 8-man kickoffs would be) and I'm also not sure whether I'd like it - but I feel like a lot of casual football fans would. And the lack of down linemen and need to open field tackle could make it safer too.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||What about protecting defensive players?||
I agree with most of what you're saying. There is a lot of poor tackling in the NFL, and other than with QBs a form tackle usually keeps defensive players from getting penalties. But my one concern with these fines and penalties is this - why is it okay for a running back to run full speed with his head down? A form tackle would almost certainly have the tackler taking the brunt of head-to-head contact. An ankle-bite is probably the only way to take that man down without head-to-head contact, and is a high-risk play since you're essentially making a low-flying tackle with little chance of wrapping up. But you'd never see that running back can penalized, and honestly I'd be pretty angry if he did get penalized for "running hard." Yet at the same time, the NFL is not protecting their defensive (and less marketable) players.
I'm not saying the helmet-to-helmet rule should go away, but I think ejecting players is too extreme.
|24 weeks 2 days ago||From a NOLA friend||
"They eat animals whole. I'm absolutely ecstatic."
|24 weeks 2 days ago||Would this help drive M-1 Rail?||
If it's near Woodward, it should help drive demand for transit in that area. Or is that just wishful thinking from this light rail supporter?
|24 weeks 2 days ago||I wasn't specifically talking about us||
I was more talking about how I don't think the move to the new college football playoff is worth the superconferences that seem to be hand-in-hand with it. Re-reading it, I did a pretty poor job of communicating it in this post. But also I think everybody really wants a playoff and so they didn't care too much for this, haha
|24 weeks 3 days ago||I agree wholeheartedly, but||
from the majority of the comments on this thread - and by nature of being on this blog, they are probably more than your casual fan - it seems that the three of us are in the vast minority. If this is what the majority of CFB fans want, then it's the right move for CFB. Even if I like the old way, with small conferences, round-robin conference schedules, and traditional rivalries mattered - most fans would rather see a playoff, even if all of those things have been sacrificed towards that goal. The powers that be are, incredibly, thinking about the fans on this one.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||I disagree on the point of a playoff||
My take on it is, if the two best teams have already played each other, and played a schedule of common opponents, then why would we need them to play each other again to determine who's best? Isn't that what the "regular season" just did?
|24 weeks 5 days ago||I'd actually just slept off a hangover||
I'd actually just slept off a hangover right before writing that.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||It definitely shouldn't have been us||
My beef is that Wiscy's one game outweighs the eight other conference games they played. They did roll, credit to them. But K State got rolled by a 7-5 team too. And I prefer the system where that costs them a lot, but is still just one of their conference games and statistically matters as much as every other one
|24 weeks 5 days ago||Rooting for Bama||
The SEC's run has been long, impressive, and very annoying. That said, the SEC's time will pass, and they'll be a bit less annoying when that happens. I feel like if it was ended by Notre Dame, we'd never hear the end of how "Notre Dame saved college football from the SEC" or something like that. I don't hate Notre Dame, but they are insufferable.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||This was a good breakdown||
I was expecting it to be a rant and was pleasantly surprised. Thanks
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I may be slow - But this is a great idea||
But I'm not quite seeing how this works - if the 3s play the 3s and 4s with 4s as crossovers, that's an uneven number of conference games?
If I'm not missing something, I still think this works, but you'll need to have the crossovers rotate on and off too. I'm guessing that was your original plan? If we stay at 8 conference games, you still see everybody in four years.
Either way, you've got my vote with the pod-scheduling. Send it to Rittenberg, I say! The only problem is Dave Brandon probably thinks Michigan and Ohio should be in separate divisions every year. Idiot.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||You left out one thing||
It's a good idea (well as good as any with a 14 team conference) but one question - when do the 3-team pods play each other, and same with the 4 teams? How do those rotate? Otherwise a good idea.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Purdue is guilty||
By association with Notre Dame