...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
- Member for
- 5 years 8 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 2 days ago||Jumping on the bandwagon to||
Jumping on the bandwagon to say, Great stuff. Thank you!
|2 weeks 3 days ago||And in the "Spike!" section,||
And in the "Spike!" section, you didn't even mention the charge he drew. His contribution level as a freshman and sophomore is just outstanding; when he was offered, I think most would have been happy with this level as a junior and senior.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||I think it's a version of Sam||
I think it's a version of Sam Cassell's big balls dance.
|3 weeks 17 hours ago||Play of the game was Sparty||
Play of the game was Sparty slapping the floor to open the second half. They proceeded to hold us to 45 points!
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I view us as an underdog||
I view us as an underdog also, but not because of the last game. I mean, before the Wisconsin game, if you had pointed to the prior game, you'd have thought we'd win. A lot of people fall victim to the "what just happened will always happen" trap, but looking at only the last game is a bit much.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Win the Game!||
Win the Game!
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I don't understand your||
I don't understand your point. More of bad is still worse.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||His age makes it more likely||
His age makes it more likely he'd take this shot before his career is up if he's ever had aspirations for it.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I think the fact that Izzo||
I think the fact that Izzo has ramped up his whiny b!tch 'woe is me' routine to a whole new level this year is indicative of the fact that he knows this year is his shot. After this year, he's staring down a multi-year rebuilding process to be elite again. As said above...if there's any time for him to make a move, it's after this year. Not saying it's going to happen, but I would absolutely not dismiss it out of hand just because he's turned it down in the past.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||You do realize he didn't post||
You do realize he didn't post it, right?
Also...congrats on your new role as arbiter of what is interesting for everyone else that is not you! Big job, big responsibility, but you seem to be taking it quite seriously.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Uhhhh, did you read the||
Uhhhh, did you read the article that these comments are related to? Just assume I agree.
Let me also be very clear...I do still believe in Hoke's integrity, but the actions of the athletic department in response to the actions of the university create an EXTREMELY easy case to question said integrity, and that's ultimately the issue because media and recruits don't begin with the same biased affection that we do.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Disagree. Or else, I'm an||
Disagree. Or else, I'm an exception. I've had a positive view of Hoke, and, in wanting him to succeed, the main thing that he had going for him that differentiated him is his integrity and desire to mold men rather than just football players. So, for me, having that leg potentially kicked out from underneath is both personally distressing but also I worry about the consequences out there on the recruiting trail.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||The call I had most issue with...||
...was Walton's "two pointer". I mean, if you can't get that right even after a review.................................
There's a lot in the end-game that might have gone differently if Michigan had another point.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Huh? Do you understand what||
Huh? Do you understand what majority means?
|6 weeks 2 days ago||The key phrase being "more||
The key phrase being "more than 50%". Let's not forget that part before we start throwing around words like "barest amount". It's not like we're talking about 0.1%.
I can understand someone saying they're not willing to make a judgment without a higher burden of proof, but not being sure why others are willing to make that judgment when there is a majority of evidence seems a bit much.
To layer on top of that, Gibbons waived his right to appeal. I recognize he could still be innocent even in light of that fact, but I personally wouldn't count on it.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||I agree with you that's it's||
I agree with you that's it's a very minor point (but again, even very minor points about such serious issues are meaningful).
A future victim of rape by a member of the football program will see a coach that was willing to protect his player by (a) calling his issue a "family" matter rather than a "personal" or "private" matter, which minimizes its importance as articulated above, and (b) letting him get on stage and address the team at the banquet. That creates the perception of an environment that disincentivizes a victim from coming forward.
Anyway, I'll let the dead horse be now.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||...||
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Fair enough, hope you're||
Fair enough, hope you're right and that this is already on its way to blowing over.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Well, I'd say that a "PR||
Well, I'd say that a "PR problem" around rape does create an intimidating environment for future victims if the football program is involved, though that very minor incremental difference is an issue "only" because rape is so serious.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||You don't white lie about||
You don't white lie about rape, because it creates the perception that larger, more sinister issues are at play. And that's exactly the problem here...by using a poor euphemism, Hoke created additional swirl around this story that was completely unnecessary.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Do you see a current||
Do you see a current sh!tstorm that was avoided by Hoke's words? Or created?
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Followed by, a few weeks||
Followed by, a few weeks later, this sh!tstorm when the real story comes out, WHICH WAS KNOWN TO HOKE AND STAFF AT THE TIME, followed by everyone saying:
"OOOOHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's why"
Instead of what we have here.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Clearly I agree with your||
Clearly I agree with your first point...we pretty much said the same thing at the same time. On the university's handling, I would say that the university has been over-aggressive if anything. Revisiting a case from four years prior upon a change in the policy seems zealous. In other forums, attorneys from other universities have basically opined that most schools would not revisit an old case, but that Michigan was taking an aggressive approach so as not to have its fairness and bias questioned, as you suggest. Who knows the truth, but would be sad irony if an attempt to do the right thing actually brought more scrutiny than if this situation were simply allowed to live in the past handled by the policy in place at the time it occurred.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I am shocked...||
...at the number of people who seem to think that Hoke's only two options were to (a) say what he said or (b) violate FERPA by spilling the entire details of the story. There is a wide swath of middle ground where most coaches tread in situations like this that involves statements like "no comment" or "private matter" that don't, in retrospect, look like a lie or a cover-up. That's the issue here, the perception that it has created (note that the act itself is out of scope of this particular comment; obviously it's reprehensible and I feel for the victim). It's not a good look for a university that prides itself on being "leaders and best". Those of you that don't think our rivals are out there telling recruits that we're about to be handed the Penn State treatment from the NCAA are kidding yourselves. And, more important, it gives the impression (which we all believe to be false, but outsiders don't have the benefit of our perspective) that Hoke was sympathizing with and covering for a "rapist". I mean, just go spend two minutes reading the comments to the various news articles out there. Even if we all think it's BS, the fact remains that a differently-phrased explanation of why Gibbons wasn't playing in the game would give everyone far less ammo and reason to get worked up.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||I think you missed something.||
I think you missed something. Check again...
(Hint: Michigan is 25th)
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Given the (justified) issue of class size...||
How about re-running (or at least adding) the numbers on an "average star ranking" basis?
EDIT: NEVER MIND. Beaten to the punch. Thanks, guys, well done.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||Seriously. Can't believe it||
Seriously. Can't believe it took that long.
|8 weeks 3 days ago||I think the division of||
I think the division of playing time is a hot hand / matchup issue. I'm just glad that Morford (combined entity) is giving us such competent production from the 5 position in McGary's absence. That's huge for this year's team.
|9 weeks 17 hours ago||Seems like an odd fit.||
Seems like an odd fit. Doesn't Kelly have a hand in play calling? Which is Borges' calling card (since we know it's not recruiting or development).
|9 weeks 17 hours ago||While we obviously feel we got an upgrade...||
I care way more about that one game against ND next year than I do how they do overall. And I have no doubt that Gorgeous would torch us. He always throws up 3-4 great games a year. The problem is he also throws up 3-4 stinkers, and you need to be consistent to win championships.