- Member for
- 4 years 12 weeks
|51 weeks 3 days ago||He should've gone to Mani||
He should've gone to Mani Osteria. We're SCREWED!!
|1 year 7 weeks ago||It is an interesting point.||
It is an interesting point. Does Peppers' success prove that our OL creates holes, but the other RBs just fail to consistently run through them? (Or, does it prove that our OL still needs work if only a guy like Peppers can consistently produce.)
|1 year 7 weeks ago||In a universe where it was||
In a universe where it was possible for Peppers to keep playing defense, I would love to see him as our starting RB. He has shown to be extremely resourceful in that position - his burst, power, and vision - and has the size to boot.
That said, I wonder about his NFL RB prospects (versus DB). (Even if that were a possibility, I could see him choosing DB simply because he'd last longer there.)
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Even if he was looking at||
Even if he was looking at private schools, it's still a misleading (and offensive) tweet.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||And yet somehow Hoke||
And yet somehow Hoke recruited well.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I'm excited about the||
I'm excited about the return of Nike as the next guy, but....
I recall we recruited pretty well under Hoke, notwithstanding the logo on our unis.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Assuming Brandon is fired||
Assuming Brandon is fired this year, I wonder how easy it will be to un-do his policies, even if we have the most student-friendly, tradition-minded replacement AD.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Please no.||
|2 years 19 weeks ago||this is amazing||
this is amazing
|2 years 19 weeks ago||I love that Funchess asked||
I love that Funchess asked for the #1.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||Here's the thing: we need||
Here's the thing: we need college sports to remain robust and profitable.
Why? Because those sports bring in lots of money to universities through alumni donations (Michigan's donation rates really do correlate to their success in sports); money which is used to build new chem labs and engineering facilities, and more.
Of course, the money isn't always spent most altruistically, but I really do believe sports help fuel innovation, so I don't think the solution is cutting off schools' athletic programs.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||Yeah, and I'm not counting||
Yeah, and I'm not counting the scholarship stuff as "compensation" (although I agree with BiSB's point re the NCAA's double-talk). What I'm talking about are the "money shakes." Just let them happen, and don't punish anyone for it. That way, the kids are getting paid, and you can keep the "student-athlete" fantasy going that people (including myself) love.
|2 years 25 weeks ago||I think one point that gets||
I think one point that gets lost is the fact that the student-athletes are already getting paid.
I think it's important to continue the "student-athlete" moniker (we don't want 17-year old kids having agents, do we?), but I also think it's clear that since the student-athletes are esentially forced to spend most of their time on sport than school, they should be compensated for that (notwithstanding all the money generated through their work).
I do believe we can have both by relaxing NCAA enforcement, which I honestly think will be part of the solution.
So, basically, let the kids continue to be paid underground - just don't punish them/the schools for it.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||Yeah, and I think it's wrong||
Yeah, and I think it's wrong to have the students bear the cost.
|2 years 26 weeks ago||So that's the reason rates||
So that's the reason rates have drastically increased...
I could've done without, and saved some cash - that, or have had the money spent on replacing diseased trees.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||My bad - I was actually||
My bad - I was actually basing my comment off of the similar Drake Harris photos. I didn't know it was because of the high school jersey thing.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||I feel like the #1 jersey||
I feel like the #1 jersey tease for recruiting purposes is getting a bit old, especially since the chances they actually get to wear it seem to diminish by the day.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||nice||
|2 years 31 weeks ago||I think it's just one of||
I think it's just one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. Manningham and Hemmingway probably should've gotten it, though.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||The NLRB ruling (assuming it||
The NLRB ruling (assuming it stands throughout the appeals process) would not play a role here in my view. The NLRB ruling merely allows scholarship football players at Northwestern University to unionize; and since the players casted annonymous ballots (the results of which likely will not be known until this appeals process ends), we do not actually know whether any bargaining will take place. The most likely extension of the NLRB ruling would be to allow scholarship football players to unionze at other private institutions, since the National Labor Relations Act (the federal statute allowing employees to unionize) applies almost exclusively to private employers. The NLRB ruling does not allow basketball players (or any other college athletes) to unionize. However, in my view, this NLRB ruling did lay the groundwork for college basketball players (and perhaps other college athletes) to unionize, as well - again, only at private institutions.
Now, the most obvious reason the NLRB ruling would not play a direct role here would be the fact that the universities, rather than the NCAA, would be deemed the athletes' employer - that is, the universities, rather than the NCAA, controls the day-to-day activities of its college athletes. Put another way, the NLRB ruling paves the way for players to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment with their employer only - that is, with the university, not with the NCAA. Of course, I would suspect that contracts relating to rights of publicity - that is, the issue in the O'Bannon trial - would be a subject of bargaining between any athlete unions and the universities, subject to whatever revenue streams exist. But, in terms of your question regarding pay practices, it would be the Universities, rather than the NCAA, which would be on the hook to abide by State and Federal wage and hour laws.
Anyone can chime in if I've analyzed this incorrectly, or if there is something I missed.
|2 years 52 weeks ago||Is it just me or does anyone||
Is it just me or does anyone else think GR3 is coming into his own?
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Fair enough. Thanks ya'll.||
Fair enough. Thanks ya'll.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Honest question: why are the||
Honest question: why are the coaches going after a RB in this class even though we had two really good ones in the 2013 class and another stud for the 2015 class?
Aren't there other positions where there's more need?
|3 years 11 weeks ago||Ha! Like that matters||
Ha! Like that matters anymore.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||Doo-blay post.||
|3 years 14 weeks ago||I hate to say it, but dIdn't||
I hate to say it, but dIdn't we stuggle to 5-0 a couple times under RR before we got handled by mediocre-to-good competition in B1G conference play? I think we have better coaches this go around, so I don't think we'll fall off quite as hard (if at all), but the point remains: 5-0 does not speak for itself.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||I played there as well this||
I played there as well this past summer - beginning of June. I was really looking forward it, but the course conditions simply did not impress me. I have to assume the funds to care for Radrick come from the same pot as those that care for the Michigan course.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||I don't think the elevated||
I don't think the elevated green on #3 is silly, especially when compared to #6.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||One of the reasons I've||
One of the reasons I've always loved the Michigan course, as a student, is how well-cared-for the track is - country club level (if not moreso), with plush greens and fairways. However, this past year, it seems as if the course has been looking and feeling a bit shotty (cutdown trees, and overgrown, hardened fairways, specifically). Apparently, some cost-cutting measures have led to the downsizing of the superintendent's staff. All the while, student rates (rather than Alumni or others') have gone up substantially, from $25 to $35.
Any insight into these changes would be interesting to hear about...
|3 years 18 weeks ago||While #18 is the favorite of||
While #18 is the favorite of many, I prefer #3.