well that's just, like, your opinion, man
- Member for
- 7 years 31 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Have you seen any good movies lately? If so, which ones? Details, but not spoilers appreciated...
- Have you tried any new restaurants recently? Discuss. Bonus points if they are Mexican restaurants, given your MGo-Monicker
- Have you had any profound thoughts in the past month?
- Any thoughts not-so-profound that you want to share before billions on a sports blog?
- Politicians will say anything. This was originally brought up by Hillary: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=0
- It's a speech. And polititians never write their own speeches. Y'all need to cool off on that.
- a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- racial prejudice or discrimination
|4 weeks 3 days ago||As a 35 year old||
...who has similar investment strategies, I heartily concur. Read the statement once a year, talk about things with an investment pro, adjust, wait, and win. Not exactly rocket science.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||He was at the Lansing State||
He was at the Lansing State Journal for a good long while. I think he had a MSU beat for a while. His name was on many Izzo and Dantonio articles over the past decade.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Interesting||
I hear you on the hardware thing. I may do a cheaper option (streaming stick) as a pre-cursor to a more expensive option (streaming box). I probably have enough devices (for now) that I can handle letting it saddle a device if needed. Or maybe I should put it this way, when I upgrade my dumb phone to a smartphone, I will have at least one old tablet (iPad) which can send things to a chromecast or fire stick. All I really know is that I don't want to reserve a laptop for full-time streaming purposes...
As far as "tech savvy" goes, I'm tech savvy enough to be dangerous. I've found that there is little that you can't accomplish when you spend some time thinking, working, tinkering, and reading stackexchange. I use lots of open source tools for work (R, LaTeX, Markdown) and run a linux box at work (Ubuntu-Gnome), but that makes me a picky user (I just hated it when MS or Mac products made decisions for me) and not quite a hacker/coding genius.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Sure...||
Questions for you to answer:
How's that for threadjacking?
|10 weeks 6 days ago||So what you are saying is...||
You think that he should become the vice president:
|11 weeks 3 days ago||(No subject)|
|11 weeks 3 days ago||Google Doc spreadsheet or it||
Google Doc spreadsheet or it didn't happen.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||Also...||
Let's just agree that Coach Harbaugh is smart and strong enough to win by building up his team and not have to resort to childishly tearing others down.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||hmmm...||
Is Brian your friend or your Michigan Sports info dealer?
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Except we all have a 12 year||
Except we all have a 12 year old bouncing around inside of us. And every now and then that 12 year old gets us to think that watching a dumb movie is a good idea. And people do make movies for the inner 12 year old in adults. How else can you explain Bad Santa?
But I actually feel that this is why we have children. So our inner 12 year old has some friends to play with...
|14 weeks 5 days ago||I heartily endorse this||
I heartily endorse this take.
I can only stand Adam Sandler when I'm feeling like acting like a teenager. And, sadly, with a 2 year old and a 6 year old at home...Adam Sandler movies aren't exactly appropriate for them right now.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||hmmm...||
The fact that you call it "dumb comedy" suggests that you realize that it is, in fact DUMB, and not GOOD.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Market is shifting||
I hear that, but I doubt the $100/month figure. I mean, HBO is already doing it for WAY cheaper.
You can get it for $14.95/month...no TV subscription needed. It is only a matter of time before your favorite news channel does the same thing...and BTN...
And if ESPN doesn't get on board, they'll lose out. Leagues won't want to put games on their network because their network isn't in enough homes. Cable companies figured this out a while ago when they started providing internet service. And right now, who is competing with them. DSL? (Yes, this was intended as a joke). Satellite? (Has good download speeds, but terrible upload speeds.) They are in the clear until Google Fiber comes to bear. But that is a LONG way off...
|14 weeks 6 days ago||META: Not feeling that this is really politics||
It is definitely sports-relevant, and it follows an active discussion that has been ongoing here for years.
To me, there is an argument to be articulated which stands irrespective of how much money the NCAA makes. (The fact that the NCAA is a gigantic cash cow only amplifies the stakes). The argument, as I see it looks like this:
We (faculty members) hire good students all the time to work in our research labs. Do well in my physics class, and I'll invite you to join my research group. Do well in my research group, and I'll give you more responsibility and a raise. Even if you are already on a scholarship (of any sort). I'm hiring the best and the brightest for a reason. There is a market for good physics students to be making money on (and off) campus -- in my lab, in other faculty labs, and in tutoring opportunities (I made a few hundred a month by tutoring students in both HS and college in my off hours). Why can't the same be said for athletes? Why can't a hometown athlete go and work a summer camp, and make a few grand in the process? He has skills to contribute to a market that exists. And assuming that the employer can afford to pay him...why not? Is not one purpose of college to accrue skills that you can apply in the marketplace to earn a living?
|14 weeks 6 days ago||True but late...||
There was a whole thread about this yesterday, specifically talking about assistant coaches forming a class action suit because this ruling "unfairly limits compensation opportunities" or something similar http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/antitrust-calling-mgolawyers
For example 30 Blue 07 had this to say:
Whole thread is worth a perusal.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Totally agree...||
And not to thread-jack this into a cord cutting thread...but I'd totally pay for access to WatchESPN (to see the games I want to see) and a few of the other cable channels that my wife, kids, and/or I would watch.
I sure as hell don't need 200 channels. I feel like people only get 200 channels to get the 5-10 (and a bunch of these are broadcast over the air for free...) that we want to watch. $20/month guys...what can I get for $20/month...?
Between Netflix (shared account with the parents), Amazon Prime (my own account), HULU (sticking to free there), and really good internet (plus certain sports streaming websites), who needs cable? We cancelled our subscription to cut costs while we are getting out of debt, and I haven't missed it one bit.
(That last paragraph is _so_ cheesy, but I'm too lazy to make it better. I just feel like I became a spam bot who is posting, "I made ten bajillion dollars last month working from home and YOU CAN TOO!!" ) <returns to lurking>
|15 weeks 3 hours ago||Sure||
The aforementioned tweet by DPJ is here: https://twitter.com/dpeoplesjones/status/719232046745300993?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
...But there is a further discussion at the first link (and that tweet is also embedded there.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||Totally agree||
Title IX is the big roadblock here. 15-20 additional football scholarships require an additional 15-20 scholarships for women's sports. (Or an in-kind increase in spending on women's sports).
Actually, this might even be more beneficial for the smaller schools, as most sports at smaller schools don't hit their scholarship limits. If they can generate donor interest for improving their football team, they don't have the overhead of starting a new women's sport to compensate. While larger schools are already fully funding their entire women's teams. As an example, I ran cross country at Valparaiso University, and the coach basically had a fixed amount of money he could spend on scholarships equal to 5 full-rides for both teams. Anyone who knows anything about CC knows that each team scores their first 5 athletes, and a varsity squad is comprised of 7 athletes. Most NCAA teams have significantly more members though (Michigan's men's team has 26 and their women's team has 33 according to the roster). The NCAA scholarship limit is 12.6.
Looking at some results...http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-xc/recaps/100315aaa.html...yeah, they have all 12 scholarships claimed. (They have 12 guys running 8 km in under 26 minutes. Back in my day at Valpo, we had 1...sometimes 2.)
|16 weeks 5 days ago||Lots of politicians get||
Lots of politicians get accused of plagiarism.
Two follow up points:
|17 weeks 4 days ago||NTTAWWT - Not that there's anything wrong with that|
|17 weeks 4 days ago||Hey||
I'M RIGHT HERE!!!
|17 weeks 5 days ago||This is funny now that points||
This is funny now that points are back.
+1 real points to you
|25 weeks 4 days ago||definition||
This is not the definition of racism.
White privilege =/= racism. It would be equally racist to not hire a white candidate simply because he/she is white as it would be to not hire a black candidate simply because he/she is black.
|27 weeks 4 days ago||Naw...||
It's potentially dangerous with track spikes on.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||I guess we have different definitions of "worth it"||
Remember baseball cards? You could get a pack of 20 cards for like $2 or $3. This was ok since common cards were worth like 10 cents. And if you got a good card, it might be worth a couple bucks. End up with a rookie card for a future hall of famer, and it could be worth thousands someday.
Now, how is the math on that if a pack of cards is $10? Not nearly as good. The lottery is like that except (1) common cards are worth nothing and (2) good cards are both rarer and more expensive. People don't win with the lottery. That's why the state runs it. So they can make money. It is like a casino on steroids.
"Ok" you say, "but I'm not an addict, and this is part of my disposable income. What do I have to lose by playing? Plus, I MIGHT EVEN WIN!!!" Well, maybe. Problem is this: fast forward a couple of years ahead in the life of a typical jackpot winner, and you often find that they are WORSE off than they were before they won. It turns out that they were generally poor money managers in the first place. So when they get lots of money, they go into debt even faster. And because they are "rich" banks are happy to loan them even more money. So instead of wasting $2 on a lotto ticket, they spend $2000 on toys.
Maybe you are different. Maybe not. Like I said, this isn't worth it to me.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||Jackpot is still too small||
Here's the math (lite version):
And more math (more technical):
For those who don't want to click through, the PB jackpot required to make the eROI >$2 is $1.7 Billion.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||Ok, I'll be that guy||
The lottery is a tax on the poor and people who can't do math. I pay enough taxes. Don't believe me? Ask this funny guy:
|31 weeks 3 days ago||Just read 3 and out myself||
...and my take:
that whole debacle was 90% on Martin + Carr + Mary Sue, and only 10% on RR. GUYS IT'S CALLED MENTORING. New Assistant Professors get 100x the amount of mentoring that RR got.
|31 weeks 5 days ago||Yes||
The winning stills are in the 33-35 second range. My two favorites:
|32 weeks 22 min ago||Tiny nit||
Bryan Mone should probably be a "other returner" not a "returning contributor". At least based on his on-field performance so far: http://statsarchive.ath.umich.edu/VS-Football/cmaster.php?pkey=1995
But he should be a monster. As should the QB which emerges from the 5 person deathmatch that exists there right now. Should be fun :)