|6 weeks 4 days ago||Virtually no chance Purdue adds hockey||
Among other reasons, Morgan Burke likes running a minimal athletic program (if they didn't count indoor and outdoor track separately, Purdue wouldn't even have the full 20 sports for Directors' Cup purposes), and the club team currently plays in Fishers (or other Indy-area suburbs), which is "convenient" the way having UM play on the north side of Detroit would be convenient.
And the budget is small enough that contributions from deep-pocketed alumni (say, Drew Brees) have to go to basic facilities or renovating ancient grounds rather than setting up new facilities, like a college-level hockey arena. Volleyball is probably the second-strongest sport at Purdue, and despite recent renovations to Holloway, it still doesn't have AC, which is kind of a problem when you play 4-8 matches a year in weather that makes a large room with many people in it very, very warm. Baseball and softball got new fields that AIUI are just modern. Ross-Ade expansion had to be put on hold because as you may have noticed, terrible teams at non-football schools don't draw very well, so to no one's surprise except Burke's, there isn't any extra money for anything.
Historically, Purdue's been content to run small-college athletics in a major-college conference. They're simply reaping what they've sown.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||FWIW||
A.J. Epenesa's sister Sam plays volleyball at Purdue; she was a highly-touted recruit out of Edwardsville HS and has been a solid three-year contributor (she'll be a senior in the fall).
That, plus the fact that Purdue barely garners a mention anywhere with respect to A.J., probably gives the average person perspective on the relative positions of Purdue's volleyball and football programs. (It is true that those sports offered package deals last year for days when both teams played. It's not true that you got a discounted football ticket with a volleyball ticket stub ... but maybe they should have done it that way.)
|22 weeks 5 days ago||FWIW, Weber was also a long-time Purdue assistant||
and was there with Keady when Painter played. Painter also took over at SIU after Weber left for Illinois.
|28 weeks 3 days ago||speaking of bad AD ideas||
Yeah, we posted about that when it came out: http://boiledsports.com/2014/heres-a-helmet-idea-that-wasnt-stolen.html. BTN had a follow-up post, and the final product apparently didn't look awful. I could go on at length ...
Michigan has a significant advantage in that the helmet design does not lend itself to Brandonesque clown games. OTOH, maybe a stunt like that would have gotten him fired sooner. (At least other big-money donors are stepping up to oppose Ross now - at least that's how I interpreted Denise Ilitch's public comments. Regent + Ilitch name/money = influence.)
|28 weeks 3 days ago||Re: uniforms||
I'm far from the target market for such things (I'm 47) but I'm not a fan of altering uniforms randomly at all. I definitely agree that it is a thing that works for Oregon, but I look at changing uniforms to draw recruits and/or fans kind of like Rodriguez and the 3-3-5: the thing that really works for Oregon is that the kids wearing the horribly ugly uniforms are also in a system that is churning out top-10 teams with offenses that are extremely fun to watch. Put MSU and South Florida in uniformz and that game is still one of the worst "football" experiences that have ever occurred. (Were they wearing uniformz? I can't even remember.)
I will also note that Purdue's dalliance with uniformz is not causing five-star talent to commit to West Lafayette. (It's also an odd thing for Purdue to do, because Morgan Burke usually won't spend a dollar unless he has a 50% off coupon and can haggle you down to 20 cents. Uniformz may be mostly free for the school - although I think there'd be a marginal cost in terms of storage and such for keeping an entire extra set of uniforms around - but it isn't as though the Boilers are good enough to get people to rush out and buy new jerseys just because they're different.)
|28 weeks 4 days ago||FWIW||
Etling has been benched in favor of Austin Appleby, who is managing to make a John Shoop offense not look like a train wreck. Pretty impressive, even with such a low bar.
Appleby's raw QBR in his starts are 98.2 and 45.7, but the former was against Illinois' "defense", so take the usual small-sample-size disclaimer and embiggen it.
On a related note, one thing I will grudgingly admit is that through the first three quarters of every game, the best QB is probably Cook. Fortunately for us all, the fourth-quarter hex Dantonio has brought upon himself is clouding Cook's stats ... even against the weak Boiler defense, he was pretty ineffective in the 4th.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||I hope it does hurt Brandon's ability||
to hire a new coach, by being another step in a process that results in Brandon being fired.
Questions about "stunts" should be directed at the guy who spends more time planning them in the stadium than understanding how to run a football program, much less actually running one.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||Same here, maybe||
It was either '72, because I think I was in kindergarten, or '74, because I thought the final was 49-0 only we left early when it was 42-0. So maybe we didn't leave early and it was only ever 42-0. I dunno. It's hard to tell when you're 5. Or 7.
Anyway, it was at once too much to comprehend and also quite a bit understated. The Big House is so big when you're little and it's full of people and you're coming in at kind of the middle, so it goes up a long ways and down a long ways ... but Minnesota back then was hardly a challenge, so it wasn't much more than a scrimmage, I think, especially not to the untrained eyes of a kid just learning about sports.
And then we left for the Land that Football Forgot, and I have not been back for a game. I had a chance in 2000, but, um ... it didn't seem like the right reason to ask permission to leave the state.
Anyway, I did see the 2008 48-42 loss to Purdue in West Lafayette. I had a friend at the time who liked to organize outings to games with people from both sides - at the time, it seemed cute, but looking back (and taking other things into account), it was maybe a bit sadistic. So I sat with a couple of Michigan-only fans in the crappy end zone section that was recently demolished, surrounded by Purdue fans, and watched a game that was exciting for about half the fans in the stands (obvs by then Purdue was selling a lot of tickets to away fans). I couldn't get my friend to understand why I wasn't excited by the win: a bad Purdue team (thankfully, Tiller's last) losing to a bad Michigan team. (I kind of root for the team that is better to win so that at least one of them has a chance at a good season ... so in football it's pretty much always Michigan.)
|44 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, if you go back and watch,||
CR7 found himself offside on a number of occasions, and on at least one, he basically just stood there, knowing he was so far offside he'd never get back. On another, he had 3-4 of his teammates with him. Nothing like timing the offside trap so that the entire attacking section of your opponent is offside.
Contrast that with Dempsey's goal, where IIRC the Portuguese defender is sliding to prevent a cross, but by his presence also preventing anyone from being offside.
|45 weeks 2 days ago||Let me be the first||
to express my concern about the value of Ronaldo's playing career; if it's truly in the balance, I think we can all agree that the important thing is the health of the player, and naturally that would mean resting his knee, starting immediately, rather than putting further strain on it.
|46 weeks 6 days ago||In literal terms, I don't think there is one||
At least one site has the US as 250-1 to win the World Cup ... in 2013, one oddsmaker had the longest shot to win the conference, Illinois, as 100-1. (I haven't seen 2014 odds yet?) So from that perspective, it's probably Purdue: not gonna happen, next question.
Even if you were looking at, say, the World Cup vs. the Hot New Play-Off Thing, the US is more like Northwestern, I think: once upon a time, they gave it a good run, but things were a lot different back then, and except for one crazy run where they came up well short, since then, they've never really had a chance at all. The quality simply isn't there.
With respect to getting out of the group stage, they probably have a better shot to do that than Michigan does to win the Big Tenteen, although the concerns could be similar: a lot of questions about offense, with a defense that's doing what it can but sometimes has unfortunate lapses. One really talented guy can't carry the offense himself; even with two or three really good players, you've still got other guys on the field that have to do their thing, too.
|48 weeks 17 hours ago||Wigan players unable to convert chances?||
(tries to find shocked face)
Figueroa contributed well to the Latics, as Espinoza does now, but IIRC it's been years since they had a consistent goal-scorer that wasn't on loan from United. Injury troubles on the back line eventually dropped them to the Championship, and Coyle's mismanagement gave them a deficit that may have affected their playoff odds, but scoring pretty much overcomes everything if you can get it, and they haven't done that consistently ... so I'm not too surprised to see a couple of their name players continue that in international play.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Purdue grad chiming in||
One of the hotly-debated issues on Purdue blogs this year was exactly how much leadership they had in the first place: whether this was even more of a blow or whether it was addition by subtraction (see: Guptill and Di Guiseppe). Given Painter's consistent comments throughout the season, I lean toward the latter.
Purdue does return three of their four most efficient players, in Smotherman, Davis, and Stephens, but as with Carroll (9.9% of possessions), none of them were even in the Significant Contributor range. The two who were Major Contributors are Hammons and Scott, and neither of them posted numbers to be thrilled about. (Scott's ORtg was 91.4, using 25.8 of possessions, the highest figure on the team. MIGHT BE A PROBLEM)
With the offense at its worst since Painter's first year (cleaning up the mess that Keady left) and the defense rapidly approaching that, another hot topic has been whether Painter is a good coach/recruiter who's struggling to find the right combination, or if he just got lucky with Moore, Johnson, and Hummel, and basically rode that group to an extension he did not deserve.
People in the former camp ask for patience and want to give Painter a couple of years to straighten this out. Without knowing the details of the buyout clause in Painter's contract, I can't be sure if that will happen, but I would not be surprised if he had exactly one more season to fix things.
Purdue has finished alone in last place in the conference five times in league history. Painter was the coach for two of them: 2005-06 (the first year after Keady) and this year. If it happens again next season, I can't see Burke retaining him. Gutting the football and basketball programs at the same time kind of affects your ability to generate revenue, and Burke is sensitive to that.
If Painter stays, I agree that it will take a while to turn things around. I don't think there are signs in his recent recruiting classes that he can draw another group of Baby Boilers and rebuild the team quickly. If he goes, a quick rebuild is possible, depending on who's available and interested. The Purdue job can be a decent one, given the relative importance of men's basketball on campus (i.e. above football), but it might also be perceived as a position where the rebuilding task is greater than most coaches might want to try in a power conference.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Did someone say "fan of Michigan and Detroit teams"?||
But wait, there's more! As an added bonus, I also root for my alma mater, you know, the Big Ten school that backed into a CBI invite and had the worst power-conference football team in the country. (Also the one that lost a regular-season volleyball match in five sets at home to Northwestern (??) and got whacked in the regional final by Wisconsin after crushing overrated Missouri at Missouri and sweeping Illinois at Illinois.)
And as awesome as the FA Cup final was, that was followed shortly thereafter by Wigan being relegated to the Championship, sleepwalking through much of the first half of that campaign, and then collapsing in Europa League play after being in position to qualify for the knockout stage with two matches left and their destiny in their hands.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||Another thing about Linehan||
is that he does not insist on running the ball when the team is not good at it. In 2011 (let's forget 2012 - no, really), the Lions were 31st in rushing attempts, just 10 carries ahead of a 4-12 Tampa Bay team that was probably worse than their record. He didn't go away from the run because the Lions sucked, he did it because the running game sucked.
Of course he also had/has Matthew Stafford and Calvin Johnson and a bunch of receivers not named Calvin Johnson who can still get open from time to time, and Borges does not (although Borges has a TE who can catch, at least until he officially becomes a WR), and Detroit is running the ball more this season because they have a back who can run in that offense ... but that just means Linehan is tailoring his play calls to the ability of his players. He is not calling power run after power run and hoping that his opponents magically do not detect the huge POWER RUN indicator in six-foot-tall letters above the formation he's just sent in.
|1 year 30 weeks ago||1972 as well||
although I was just 5, so other than "we played Minnesota" and "we beat them handily", I couldn't really remember anything else for sure. Oh ... also "the stadium is the most biggest thing ever." (Which is probably the case even if you are not five years old.)
For years I was convinced that we had left early and that it was actually a 49-0 game. (I lucked into a ticket when a friend's family had an extra one for some reason, and we moved three years later, so by the time I was old enough to wonder, it was too late to ask.)
So it was pretty much what you'd expect at the time: not Ohio? Then it'll be an easy win.
That turned out to be the only home game I've seen (see: moved three years later), so Michigan's averaging 42 points per home game I see in person. I should make plans for the Ohio game.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||What's interesting to me||
is that the punting and field-goal decisions basically come from the same idea: never mind trying to win, just don't make the loss look too bad. (So you punt to make the other team drive farther for the next TD, or kick a FG to lose by 32 instead of 35.)
And it may be just perception - although I trust you more than my general ideas, because you have data at your fingertips - but it does seem like the current changes are only about punts. Coaches still love them some FGs, even if they are relatively long attempts (a 40+ kick in the NFL is no sure thing; in college, it's even less certain).
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Sure, in a normal game||
but that's the problem that USF has. They're so bad that there are some situations where no decision is any good.
I mean, 6 for 26. They were 19 of 40 against McNeese State. If there were ever a modern team for which the quick kick was designed, it's USF.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||South Florida's decision was definitely correct||
They ended up averaging 2.5 yards per play, both passing (!!) and running, were 1-13 overall on third down (with the conversion by penalty, of course), and were facing a team with an offense nearly as bad as theirs. Their previous possession ended on a failed 4th-and-4 from the Spartans' 32, the only USF fourth-down attempt of the game. Their only hope to cut into that deficit was to give the ball back to MSU and force them to run some plays ... sadly, it didn't work out, but in this particular case, I think it was the right call.
On the other hand, on the second play of the fourth quarter, South Florida punted from their own 8 ... for 15 yards. (Sparty did get a touchdown on that drive, but not before ending up with a 3rd and 21.) So ... maybe the problem was not punting on third down.
We were watching that game in preparation for the big one. It was one of the worst offensive showings I've ever seen, and my family had season tickets to IU games in the late '70s.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Carlson's long was 48||
and he was no stranger to kicks from 40-49. (H/T Bentley. No Rose Bowl box? Anyway, it says 1938-78, but 1989-1991 are there too.)
Kicks by game, with misses in parens:
Notre Dame: none
1-1 under 20
That was some solid kicking.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||The thing about big schools||
is that people who haven't gone to one seem to have this idea that every day, everyone on campus runs around in random directions all the time, so you can't possibly see anyone more than once, because OMG TENZ OF THOUSANDZ OF PEEPUL OMG. (The best is when they now live in NYC or San Francisco or Chicago and can tell you about how they always run into this one couple on the way home from work. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.)
But when you consider only the people that have classes at the same time on a particular day, and then only the people that actually get up and go to those classes, and then only the people who are heading to class in the same direction, from the same direction, suddenly it's not such a big group after all.
Exactly how this works probably differs a bit depending on how campus is laid out - at Purdue, campus was/is basically one area, so even if you live off-campus, you're going to head in basically the same direction, so the group of Potentially Identifiable People is larger. If your destinations are spread out more, you're looking at even smaller groups, probably to the point where you can look out your window and see Hat Guy going by and think "crap, he's the last guy on time to class, I'm late".
|1 year 42 weeks ago||makes sense||
given that Indiana-Purdue is protected, it's probably easier to keep seven matchups the same across those two years and then do the same moving forward.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||except for all the others||
Stevens wouldn't leave for another NCAA job, but Lickliter and Matta had no trouble leaving the Horizon for the Big Ten. I would imagine the next coach will be more like the latter two than Stevens.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Minor correction||
In 1984, Purdue went to - and lost in - the Peach, not the Cotton. (It would be their last bowl appearance until the 1997 season.) The only team ever to appear in the Cotton Bowl as a member of the Big Ten was Ohio in the 1986 season. (Maryland, Nebraska, and Penn State went in their previous lives.)
The Peach Bowl was actually a cruel joke. I was a freshman at Purdue the following season; I can still remember seeing the occasional band member wearing their Peach Bowl jacket. With my Michigan background, I was accustomed to annual bowl games, and with Purdue returning senior QB Jim Everett and coming off a bowl appearance, I thought I'd be able to watch some quality football. (I was partly right - some pretty good teams came to visit Ross-Ade in those days.)
|2 years 12 min ago||The ninth-worst offense, actually||
the worst and best rankings use the same order (rather than putting worst at the top and 10th-worst at the bottom).
The second-worst offense is a Gary Nord offense, which comes as no surprise to anyone, period.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||71-60 UM||
go away, MSU.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Purdue's monster-in-the-middle||
is Mr. Hammons, btw.
This is good stuff. I think it reinforces the idea that context is really important for defensive statistics ... for example, Purdue's strong defensive efficiency (moreso in non-conference play after last night's beating) is really "Purdue's DE with A.J. Hammons at center". It isn't a coincidence that they're 10th in DE in Big Ten play and that Hammons has been in foul trouble in every conference game against non-terrible competition (fouled out against Iowa, 4 fouls against Illinois, MSU, and Ohio, 3 fouls including 2 early against IU).
|2 years 13 weeks ago||well, that's the thing||
A block simply means making contact with and appreciably altering a shot that is subsequently missed; it may or may not result in a change of possession. (And that's one reason to not get too caught up in analysis: a block can be deflected to a defensive teammate for a fast break, knocked into an offensive player's hands for a kind-of Kobe assist, swatted out of bounds, or who knows what, and all of them count as 1 block.)
It's like how blocking a kick doesn't count as a turnover in football. (Even stopping a fourth-down attempt isn't a turnover.) The name of the category is a simplification, so it covers some things it probably shouldn't and doesn't cover some things it probably should.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||19-20, 95% from the line||
I think some of Indiana's stats got compressed when you were writing that intro.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||87-85 Michigan||
The cabinet theory isn't particularly interesting. I like the bar fight theory better - corruption of "Whose ear?" - if only because it's dumber and thus more likely to be true.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||Michigan 84-55||
Purdue can't shoot. This isn't a problem in a game where scoring happens when you shoot, right?
|2 years 29 weeks ago||one note about special teams||
Kawann Short is very good at blocking kicks. This is probably not a surprise, given his strength and position, but is worth noting.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Morgan Burke's been doing that for 20 years||
a little drinking isn't going to change it much. Well, other than the fact that the stadium is uphill from the bars (and some of the tailgating areas). Bad planning.
Burke's approach, and that of George King before him, was that by God this is Big Ten football and you are going to show up. Actually improving the quality of the product on the field wasn't really a consideration (Exhibit A: every single coach under those guys; Tiller had partial success by running an offense people hadn't seen before and getting lucky with Brees, as much as it pains me to say).
Hiring a guy with no I-A experience on nothing more than Tiller's say-so did a lot to kill attendance. True, bar drinking does have a way of keeping people from getting to the game itself, but who wants to sober up watching Purdue fart away a lead against a MAC school or get crushed in Big Ten competition? (Not every game can be as exciting as you-know-which-one ...) And really, there can't be more than a thousand or so in the bars. That wouldn't even make a dent in IU's Memorial Stadium.
Burke seems to assume that he can focus on building competitive programs in other sports (which, TBH, he's done a pretty good job at) and that football will simply take care of itself. Younger fans might prefer to watch BTN; older fans have been through this many times already, thank you, no need to spend money on another 6-6 team. (It was one thing to have optimism in the mid-'80s with Jim Everett, or in the '00s with NFL-caliber QBs and Curtis Painter. Now, though ...) Burke's fortunate that a number of Big Ten schools travel well, or there'd be a much more noticeable drop in attendance.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||that is easy to explain||
aside from his having played for Ohio: Purdue has been less unimpressive, compared to recent seasons, than pretty much all other Big Ten teams, and everyone likes to be the first to spot a potential trend, so he's simply jumping on the bandwagon. Purdue: sucks less than other Big Ten teams. (Also, thanks to Wisconsin's collapse, the East Division is terrible. All Purdue has to do to win the title - ha ha! - is suck less than Wisconsin and then get lucky in the title game. Hope has shown he can get about one good game a year out of the Boilers, although unfortunately for him, they can't play Ohio in Indianapolis - that's who the good game tends to be against.)
Purdue's done a fairly good job containing Denard in the past. That seems less likely this season, given the overall suckiness of the LB corps. But then Borges could easily counter that by calling more I-formation plays and making Denard turn his back on Kawaan Short. Of course, what he should be doing is running a bunch of spread option plays, because ever since Tiller brought basketball-on-grass to West Lafayette, Purdue has been surprisingly unable to defend running QBs, which is pretty weird given that they should be practicing against some of those very same plays every week, yes? (Well, when you have someone like Painter running option plays, it's, uh, not quite the same.)
Marve was definitely the better QB prior to the latest injury, which is why APQBHG struck him down. (With an injured knee, he's most definitely a downgrade from CTB.) Henry is really the worst option of the "three", but don't worry, Gary Nord strongly believes in rotating QBs, because nothing strikes fear in an opposing coordinator's heart like facing the third- or fourth-best QB on the other team, so I'm sure he'll get some snaps Saturday. They will likely be running plays.
Prior to the Marshall game, consensus was that at least Purdue was bashing weaker teams, something they did not do in the past, and possibly, if ND was good, the Boilers might actually have a 7-5 team or something this season ... and with the conference looking so poor, maybe they could make a run. After that game, the usual questions about the defense and Nord's play-calling arose. (Also also, poor special teams play. There's this thing with covering kick and with missing XPs.)
So who knows? Purdue played a solid defensive game in South Bend, and they've moved the ball pretty well against bad competition. If Michigan's defense plays that role, it could be a problem. Purdue also just took a four-touchdown lead against a terrible team and desperately tried to throw it away; if they allow Denard to do what Cato did, they will not have to worry about blowing halftime leads, because they will not have one.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||back in another life||
I saw a game in SEC country against an SEC team, even if it was a bowl game and thus not at all the same thing. (The '87 Peach Bowl, Indiana and Tennessee. This was back when my allegiance was divided among hometown and 10 years of childhood and current school, and only one of those three was providing relatively cheap bowl opportunities.) I don't recall anything obnoxious from Tennessee fans - quite the opposite, actually - but of course Indiana, so even in the Bill Mallory era, I mean, why bother? (And still the Knight era, so anything like "you should go back to playing basketball" would backfire spectacularly.)
I saw two other bowls in SEC country, but neither against an SEC team (Florida State and then-independent South Carolina). It would be fun to go back and see one in a real stadium.
|2 years 32 weeks ago||Two field goals and a two-point return.||
Michigan botches the snap on its eighth TD. A UMass guy grabs the ball and takes off. No one really chases after him because it's 55-6.
|2 years 33 weeks ago||'hopefully' is not the right word||
given that Indiana just beat them 45-6 at home. I'd say a thrashing is the minimum requirement - I would prefer to see a walk-on fourth quarter.
|2 years 33 weeks ago||to the first part, not exactly.||
AIUI, it implies that in an average situation, QBs would be holding those teams back. As you point out, at least one of those teams is not in an average situation (OSU replacing a divot with an offensive coordinator).
ND did seem to have some kind of issues with Purdue. I suppose it's possible that Purdue's defense has suddenly improved from meh to really good, and of course the QB wasn't the only change on offense, but I would think it reasonable to suggest that having a freshman QB is hurting ND.
|2 years 34 weeks ago||Another thing about Purdue's dropoff||
is that they went from being a spread team with a hilariiously immobile quarterback (the option plays they tried to run looked as bad as Painter did in a Colts uniform) to a team with a bunch of QBs with little-to-no experience and questionable health. The running game was more of a necessity than anything else. (There are also questions as to whether or not Gary Nord can even run an offense, much less one that utilizes that crazy "pass" thing the kids keep talking about.)
Also, QB rotation = death to offense.
|2 years 35 weeks ago||It's Daryl Hall||
He's the one with the '80s hair (although you can't see it nearly as well in that picture). John Oates is the shorter guy who did not bring pointing skills to the table.
|2 years 40 weeks ago||Maybe Solecismic will put out an update||
for The College Years, but with NCAA licensing where it applies. (I never got into TCY that much - might be a good thing.)
|2 years 41 weeks ago||The past is essentially the present||
Purdue has won four of the last six against Ohio in West Lafayette, including wins in 2009 and 2011 that give them a three-game unbeaten streak against the Buckeyes. (Thanks, cheaters!)
It's true that Purdue hasn't won in Columbus since 1988 and hasn't beaten an Ohio team there that went on to break .500 since 1967, but who cares? A win in the Cooler would raise the possibility of gentlemen departing Ohio without a win over Purdue for the first time since the Korean War. (Purdue was 4-0-1 against them from 1943 through 1952, no doubt creating a generation of disillusioned vets who returned home to find the streak of shame continuing - Purdue was actually pretty good in 1943, going 9-0, but was nothing special the rest of the time.)
|2 years 42 weeks ago||Maybe, maybe not||
On one hand, Burke is all about building a competitive program in all sports ... with the obvious exception of football (and even that was competitive during most of Tiller's era), he's kind of done a good job. (The problem is that without a competitive football team, it's hard to generate the cash to support the rest of the sports, especially if you want to go out and build new facilities for pretty much every sport all at once.)
On the other hand, if a Boiler alum comes to the school with a nine-figure donation for sports, it's probably going to be for a) basketball, b) basketball, or perhaps c) basketball. (Unless it's Brees, in which case, who knows? It might go toward the general scholarship instead.)
Plus, campus is pretty crowded. I'm not sure there's room for another arena. You could put one on the West Lafayette outskirts and run buses up there, but that seems unwise for a brand-new sport. I'd think you'd want it close to campus to encourage students to go.
|2 years 49 weeks ago||not really||
they would be in the middle of a heated IU-Northwestern rivalry. This other one takes I-69 northeastish from Indianapolis. (I believe the planned route for interstate expansion will follow IN-37's current route from Bloomington to Indianapolis.)
|2 years 50 weeks ago||Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon|
|2 years 50 weeks ago||After 1981||
I kind of lost my taste for early-season conference snackycakes. It wasn't as bad as losing to Notre Dame, but it still started the Big Ten season 0-1.
But in the '70s, yeah, they were pretty sweet. (Aside from the narrow escape against Northwestern in '72; I was too young to be aware of that at the time.)
|3 years 57 min ago||Yes, they've been around||
The change to Outback Bowl and Tampa (in 1986) was followed shortly by a move to January 1 (for the 1987 season on 1/1/88). I was at the 2000 game (grr failed two-point logic walrus grr blown lead), but didn't realize it went back so far on New Year's.
The Citrus Bowl actually started on New Year's as the Tangerine Bowl, so in those days, I guess it had a legitimate claim to the date. It slid back in 1960 toward mid-December, but then after becoming the Citrus Bowl, it moved to New Year's for the 1/1/87 game.
The Gator Bowl also dates back to the '40s and also started on New Year's, then slid back to December, then was pushed forward onto the 1st, but it didn't rejoin the club permanently until 1/1/96.
So ... for younger people, yeah, those bowls are pretty much NYD fixtures. For older people, not so much (most likely defined by the Cotton Bowl: if you remember it as a big deal, you probably think of these other bowls as interlopers).
I think it's the simultaneity that makes it so obvious these days. The fact that there are garbage bowls played nearly a week afterward doesn't help either.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||that is odd||
considering they don't seem to me to be that common in the Indianapolis area.
But apparently you weren't hallucinating: they're also available in Delaware (??), Pennsylvania, Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas.
What's interesting is that most Big Ten states, including Michigan, don't allow out-of-state plates (Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana prohibit them as well), so maybe that explains why they're elsewhere - schools can focus efforts on fewer states. If Purdue can round up enough interest in NC, certainly Michigan can as well.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||not gonna happen||
They went out of their way to exclude out-of-state schools:
Anyway, they've been trying to push a bill to kill off most specialty plates as it is ... while it would make sense to offer more (and thus collect more revenue), it's unlikely to happen, especially with no surrounding states allowing out-of-state school plates.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||they don't allow any out-of-state schools||
but obviously UM would not be allowed no matter what. (I don't know that I'd want a UM plate on my car if I lived in Ohio. Targeting? No thanks.)
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Disappointing tournament losses are not new to Purdue fans||
although this recent one was actually a far closer game than it had any right to be: if it hadn't been against Bill Self, Purdue probably would have been down double digits most of the game. Painter played Inanimate Carbon Rods #1 and #2 for 29 minutes total and got not-bad performances out of them, particularly Marcius. It took Kansas 20 minutes to figure out that that #4 guy is pretty good and perhaps they should make other Boilers carry the scoring load, and to figure out that a team that shoots well from beyond the arc and attempts a fair number of 3s is perhaps a team you should defend beyond the arc.
But after 1986 and 1988 and 1990 and 1994 and 1995 and 2000, what's one more nail in the coffin? Plus it's hard to avoid thinking about what could have happened the last couple of years if only the parts for that bionic knee had arrived in time. It would have been nice to have made a serious run with a loaded lineup, not just to perhaps snag an elusive title, but also to have something to hold up when obnoxious Indiana fans do their obnoxious thing. (Great, you have five old titles, that's awesome, no one cares, and P.S., we still lead the series.)
It was a nut punch, though. Not as bad as Everette Stephens (IIRC) dribbling off his foot in Pontiac in '88, but with Michigan's loss just two days prior, it did pretty much poop all over the weekend. (But IU and MSU and OSU won. And Wisconsin. woo big ten. woo. At least Duke lost.)
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Population isn't a requirement if there's interest||
Bloomington is significantly smaller than Ann Arbor, yet IU averages more per game at Assembly Hall (larger than Crisler by a few thousand) and has for decades. The reasons are simple: basketball is the big sport here, and IU's been good enough often enough that interest can be sustained even through down times. (The same is true to a lesser extent at Purdue; much less national success, but enough conference success to combine with general basketball interest to put ticket sales in the top 25 despite having a significantly smaller arena than IU does.)
The thing is not that Ann Arbor isn't a big town - it's that Ann Arbor isn't a basketball town. Neither is Columbus. (Even with a larger, newer arena and significantly better teams than in the past, OSU struggles to outdraw Indiana and Wisconsin.) Neither is Minneapolis. (Minnesota hasn't drawn capacity crowds since 1999.) In 1989, Michigan was sixth in the Big Ten in attendance; in 1990, they were seventh. In neither season were they drawing capacity crowds. Basketball success is cool, but football success is paramount, and if there's a secondary sport, it's hockey, right?
At OSU, I doubt there's a secondary sport behind football. At Minnesota, I doubt there's a secondary sport behind hockey. Unless someone comes in and develops a program that takes the conference by storm, that won't change. (Look at how long it took Sparty to draw sellout crowds, and watch what happens when Izzo leaves.)
|3 years 10 weeks ago||It would be more accurate ...||
to say "refs who haven't called Big Ten games" because there are no Big Ten refs, just guys who do some Big Ten games. (Poorly.)
I don't think it has anything to do with the NCAA tournament specifically - even some of the worst refs don't seem to call more fouls in March - but more with adapting to a crew that the players might not have seen before, and doing so in a single-elimination environment. A bad call or two in January doesn't have much of an impact unless you're looking at seeding; a bad call in March can dig a hole for a team that it can't escape.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Nice Civ reference||
but I think it's more like the bug in V, where even after a city-state goes from anger to neutrality, you still can't enter its territory (as if it stayed angry at you even when pretending otherwise).
And that's fine, because you can still win the game without its help. Just move on to the next big city, acquire it, and let the silly little city-state rot on its own. In this version, city-states never get to dominate the world.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Bowl adventures||
Having lived in a college town associated with a lesser football school (Indiana) and attended a lesser football school (Purdue), I've had experience with several bowl cities, although I can't provide valuable information about any of them.
Birmingham, no longer in the rotation: sucked. (Freezing rain on New Year's Eve. WTF? This is the South. Also, everything was closed after the game. srsly. I don't care that it was 1986.)
Atlanta: probably outstanding, but I went with my dad, my brother and a friend, so we didn't really experience the Atlanta night life.
Memphis: probably decent, but see above.
Tampa: um, not too bad, I think. Not sure. This was also around New Year's, so there was a lot of drinking involved. I remember most of the first half, some of the second, and a nice little bar somewhere. This was not with my dad.
In short, if you can drink there, it's probably tolerable. If your team has just blown a significant lead in part because the head coach cannot stop chasing the 2s (something highly unlikely to happen with Hoke), drinking is a requirement, so any city would be OK. Being in a city where it's significantly above freezing is a Good Thing as well.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||2001||
They were 5-1 in the conference, but 5-6 overall. Their 24-21 win over Middle Tennessee State (also 5-1) put them in the New Orleans Bowl, where they lost to Colorado State.
|3 years 11 weeks ago||look at the ACC||
they were certain that Miami and Florida State would be meeting on a regular basis for the title, and they were moving into a conference that was significantly weaker than the Big Ten.
Miami's ACC title game appearances to date = 0. (Obviously the preferred comparison here would be Michigan = Florida State and OSU = Miami. Well, it would be nicer to have Virginia Tech's appearance percentage, but you get the idea.)
|3 years 11 weeks ago||It's also based on binary outcomes||
hit or out, success or no. There is no partial or extra credit. It's more like W/L on a smaller scale: adequate for a quick glance, but not as descriptive as a "weighted" stat (which is not as descriptive as a set of stats).
If you're looking at FO stats for more detail, at the "individual" level (because nothing, as of yet, is actually individual), then it would be DYAR or DVOA, depending on whether you want counting or rate. At the team level, you'd have DVOA.
And that's still only one way of looking at things. There are other sites that do similar work, and as with other sports, you'll get the best picture by looking at them collectively and matching that with your own observations.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||I believe it's because he's a stand-in for Purdue Pete||
thus the alliteration.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||This is not correct||
A player can give himself up without defensive contact.
7.4.1 An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended:
a) when a runner is out of bounds or declares himself down by falling to the ground and makes no effort to advance.
Note that this is separate from a QB kneeling (7.4.1.b) or from any player sliding (7.4.1.c):
(c) whenever a runner declares himself down by sliding feet first on the ground. The ball is dead at the spot of the ball at the instant the runner so touches the ground.
So Bradshaw could either fall down (and stay down) or slide feet first (I thought that applied only to QBs, but it does not), ending the play either way.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||"something less" is an understatement||
They've gone from "the Final Four isn't out of the question" to "I remember when Keady's teams didn't have to plan for the second week of the tournament either."
When the perimeter shots are falling, Purdue can be a good team. Perhaps the younger players will develop eventually, but this team is eerily like last year's team with JJ and 'Twaun gone ... meaning not replaced. No inside scoring, no reliable scoring options aside from Hummel. Byrd and Smith can provide points on occasion, and Jackson does a credible job running the offense, but this is not the same kind of team that Painter has had the last couple of years. (Terone Johnson - 18 of 53 from the line. That's approaching fat-guy-at-his-laptop accuracy.)
The defense has not really been there often enough, which makes their steal percentage puzzlingly high ... and in particular, their perimeter defense has not been good. That happened two years ago as well, but it wasn't that big of a deal because shots in the paint went the other direction quickly and Moore, Johnson, and half-season Hummel did a fine job of compensating at the other end. This season, it's a problem. Michigan needs to hit open looks from the arc, because they're going to get some.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||his veto could also be overridden||
so it's still important to contact your Congresspeople to make sure they know your position.
|3 years 15 weeks ago||Or perhaps that's what Hollywood wants you to believe||
Keep up the pressure on both the House and Senate until both bills are defeated. It's easy enough to shelve a bill for a while, wait for the furor to die down, and then bring it back later, even under a different name, just to see if they can sneak it through.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||1972 Aerosmith||
vs. 2012 Aerosmith, zombie edition?
|3 years 16 weeks ago||so then all we need||
is 2500 of him. One of them should be able to stay out of trouble.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||no kidding||
Grantland is a great site if you're into professional trolling. He might as well have ended that post with "Because if we can't enjoy this season, nobody should."
|3 years 16 weeks ago||if it's the X-Men character or the physics engine, yes||
but if it's "and let slip the dogs of war", then it's havoc.
|3 years 16 weeks ago||I believe you're correct||
In college, every play can be reviewed: while there are some things that can't be looked at, possession/catch things are definitely reviewable, and the booth can call for that after any play.
In the NFL, the booth can only review plays inside two minutes and plays on which points are scored. (I expect that'll change in the offseason to include plays on which points would have been scored if the call were reversed.)
Of course in both cases, a coach with a challenge remaining could ask for a review on a catch like that.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||I'm probably missing what you're saying||
but if it takes less than 30 seconds to get your field-goal unit on the field, then it's better to have the time on the clock than the time out in your pocket.
Someone yesterday (Billick, I think, during the Lions-Raiders game) threw out 18 seconds as the time you need to get the unit on the field. Maybe it takes more time in college, but even if it's 28 seconds, that's still less than you'd gain from using the time out on defense.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||But it's also worth noting||
that Oakland also called an aggressive game at times. On both the fourth-down play early and the third-down play late, they passed instead of running. Neither play worked out, and traditional media people would be all over Hue Jackson and Al Saunders (who is, by the way, a long-time coordinator and head coach) for the "failures", but I haven't read that.
Setting aside my Lions-fan bias, I liked the calls. If Palmer puts either of those passes on target, Jackson and Saunders would be getting praised, and deservedly so.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||I think I get what you're saying,||
but I think there are two key assumptions you're making that effectively undermine your entire argument. The first is the 60% number, and Mathlete has addressed that already: of course there exists a success percentage such that going for two will be a worthwhile strategy on any touchdown (until defenses adjust to stop you), but it's one thing to pick that number out of a hat and another to have it actually apply.
The other is related to the first. Two-point tries should generally be easier than other 3-yard situations, because in all other on-field situations, the defense must consider not only the possibility of a first down, but of a touchdown as well, and beyond a certain point on the field, the defense has significantly more ground to defend. (This ties in with running being more successful nearer the goal line: it's much harder to complete passes when the defense can drop seven in a 13-yard box.) A team that converts short-yardage opportunities from other parts of the field will not necessarily do so inside the 5; basing your conversion philosophy on your normal-situation philosophy will generally lead you to being more aggressive than the numbers support.
There is also another factor to consider: the two-point return. Unlike in the pros, a turnover on a two-point attempt is a live ball, which means that going for two opens up the possibility that your touchdown will effectively be worth 4 points instead of 6-8. It isn't a common occurrence, but it's a pretty significant penalty when it happens.
|3 years 19 weeks ago||That gap is about the size of the Mariana Trench||
so widening it a little isn't going to make much of a difference.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||Rooting for Purdue is probably a waste of time||
given their current situation. (Also, that assumes you're willing to overlook Danny Hope's insistence on creating rivalries where they don't exist. Side note: wouldn't it have been better to choose a team that a) no one else likes anyway and b) he's 2-1* against?)
In the best of circumstances, the teams are roughly equal. At the risk of stealing some of Heiko's thunder, Purdue was pretty much a meh team this year: the usual strong presence on the defensive line (Kawann Short this year), the usual half-court-basketball-on-grass offense (run crossing patterns and hope defenders fall down), the usual games where they play to their opponent's level. Their résumé is only slightly better than Western's: uninspiring games against Middle Tennessee, Rice, and Indiana, mostly weak performances against better teams (a close loss to pre-scandal Penn State the best of the bunch). Their best win was HA HA OHIO, and even that was in overtime.
With Ralph Bolden out yet again with a knee injury (no, it's not endemic at Purdue, why do you ask?), there are fewer weapons for Gary Nord to misuse against the Broncos. Nord and Hope have had many of their decisions called into question this season; it seems likely that Western can pull out a win, if by no other means than simply keeping the game close. F/+ has Western higher than Purdue, and Purdue's biggest strength, special teams, is actually a Western strength as well, so if either team is hoping to keep it close, it would likely be the Boilers.
Still, Purdue is lucky: earlier ESPN projections had them going to the Cotton Bowl II, where they would have given up eleventy-billion points to Houston. Here, they have a chance to win, but I have much less confidence this time ... and last time, they needed a last-second field goal to win.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||Fans don't get directly reamed||
so on the surface, there's no reason for you to notice that anything's amiss. You get to go to New Orleans, watch a bowl game, and have an excellent time. The athletic programs are the ones driving truckloads of money into parking lots to be picked up by men in blazers with garish logos on them.
But of course athletic programs are not going to eat that cost, oh no, and by the time you actually see how the costs are being passed on to you (higher ticket prices, PSLs or some shell game similar to them, waiting list crap and the like), there's not much to connect a portion of those extra costs with the bowl game you enjoyed. If it appeared as a line item on your invoice for bowl tickets:
**Mandatory team hotel fee: $20
you'd probably be a little more upset about it.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||Perhaps Brian is simply conserving the dollars||
because buying games at launch allows us to experience EEEEEEEEEEEEE immediately, but then we also pay out the ass for DLC and suffer through bugs that get patched eventually, while wise people like Our Host simply wait and get the whole thing, all at once, for a much lower price, while only missing the opportunity cost of having the game that much earlier.
EDIT: And if I'd read halfway down the page, I'd have seen him say basically that. +1 for psychic powers that no one will believe.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||just as long||
as it's not naked. Some things, you can't unsee.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||that would be a fine analogy||
if hospitals allowed residents to perform the same types of complex surgery that experienced doctors performed, or if there were days where only clerks were allowed to argue cases before circuit courts and state Supreme Courts, or where only interns negotiated budgets or project details or whatever.
But that's not what college football and basketball players are doing. They are not understudies. Those are the guys already in the pros, the ones on the bench who are learning at the hands of the experts, and for the most part, those are the underpaid players. The college athletes here are performing in the same spotlight as the pros, on the same channels, in front of audiences that are, in a number of cases, significantly larger than those of their professional counterparts, and with many of the same expectations before them. They aren't interns. They're less-experienced practitioners.
You wouldn't pay to have any of those interns do the work that you'd pay a professional to do, but I don't think there's a person on this site that bats an eye at paying for a ticket to the Big House (or any other stadium, for that matter). That's a false equivalence, and it's one that the NCAA is more than happy for you to repeat. They enjoy the idea that players are already "paid" (even though the same organization is more than happy to schedule games during weeknights so that they interfere with the athletes' ability to get those degrees, as long as those games bring in more money for the NCAA). They have no interest in examining their own role in this charade; in fact, their existence depends on not examining it, and on us not understanding it.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||That is correct||
Players had just three years of eligibility; it wasn't that their freshman eligibility was delayed.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||That's how the owners like to put it||
but it's just as accurate, if not more so, to say that pro sports cap salaries because owners want a progressively larger slice of the pie, and a salary cap is one way to accomplish that.
Besides, higher spending does not necessarily lead directly to losing money: it isn't like each franchise has a fixed amount of income and thus spending more means making less. (In fact, in some cases, like MLB, the discrepancy in income is so large that the salary "cap" has a marginal effect on payroll. Teams that want to win spend anyway and just pay a luxury tax on top of their payroll.)
I'd also disagree that pursuing winning makes you the most money. According to Forbes, in 2010, the three clubs who posted a loss for that season (Mets, Red Sox, Tigers) were also among the six highest-spending clubs in baseball. What generally makes the most money is spending as little as possible and seeing what happens: if you're lucky, fans will come out anyway, and besides, ticket revenue continues to become less of a factor at the professional level. (Premium seating is another story, I think.) If you'e not lucky, then you can just meet with your fellow owners and see if you can get another lockout to lower salaries so you can make even more money.
There are obviously other factors that would come into play at the NCAA level, but keep in mind that some of the same rules apply: there are some schools willing to spend as much as they can raise to compete and others that will spend as little as they can manage, regardless of whether or not they can be truly competitive.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||This year's Purdue-Ohio score was 26-23||
the eight-point win was in 2009.
Obviously, the LOL still applies. The vaunted program in Columbus has been unable to beat a team coached by Danny Hope (thank you, NCAA).
Hopefully Saturday will be the beginning of another nice streak for Michigan ... one of the W variety, that is. I am assuming there will be a (vacated) streak of some length before it. (2010, hopefully, is just the beginning ...)
|3 years 23 weeks ago||let's not be counting unhatched chickens||
There is the little matter of a Bucket standing between Purdue and a replacement bowl bid. I'm sure Kevin Wilson would love to cap his first season at IU with a win that knocks Purdue out of bowl eligibility. (There are more than a few Purdue fans who would appreciate that as well; I don't agree with rooting against your school in the hopes that the coach will be replaced, but some do.)
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Yes, one time ...||
maybe twice, if you want to count the first-and-goal play right before the end of the half ... but it was 22-7 at that point, and the two TDs were both on short-yardage plays from the 2. I suppose it's still not that good, given that Purdue is not good and thus those sequences probably shouldn't happen with the first-string offense.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Clearly||
Mattison is wielding a deck of Destruction.
GERG had scrolls of random uselessness.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Be careful what you wish for ...||
Straight from the 2011 FO Almanac:
Shotgun formations are generally more efficient than formations with the quarterback under center.
Over the past three seasons, offenses have averaged 5.9 yards per play from Shotgun, but just 5.2 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.
That does not mean that every team is more efficient running from the gun, and a contributing factor may be that not enough teams run enough plays from the gun to get DCs to focus on stopping those plays, but right now, it's not silly at all to question running plays from under center. In fact, it's fair to suggest that what's silly is not running more plays from the gun.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Of course Cutler's going to say that||
because a) he's already on shaky ground due to a number of things, some of which are crap, and basically saying that his OC doesn't know how to run an offense is not going to help his case, and b) the Bears' offense has been Martzed to the point where there isn't a lot they can do to help with pressure in the first place. (Their best TE is playing in Carolina, not that Martz believes in the position in the first place, and he's still using personnel groups that make it harder to shift protection.)
Contrast that approach with the Lions: a team with a line that might or might not be adequate is running more plays from the gun than any other NFL team (69.3% through 8 games, which would top their 2010 percentage of 64.5%) and also has a relatively low Adjusted Sack Rate. Part of that is Stafford learning to get rid of the ball more quickly, but a good bit of it is giving him time to find someone in the first place.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||allegedly.||
Well, Mattison would actually have saved them, but you know what I mean.
|3 years 26 weeks ago||that's because||
in Soviet Union, fumbles recover you.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Either irrelevant or completely wrong||
2002: Oct 26 at Northwestern W 42-13
"Historically" is a misnomer unless you're bringing in 30-40 years of data, and even then, it's still meaningless stuff, data that Craig James uses to kill time on the air. It isn't like any of the games above have anything to do with the teams on the field on Saturday.
Even so, both eras are easy to explain. The six-game winning streak coincides with the switch from Colletto to Tiller, matched with a schedule that coincidentally had relatively easy opponents that week. Starting in 2003, there was a combination of ranked opponents, derp, and Danny Hope.
The Hope era so far has been an era of meh; there's no reason that any given weekend during conference play should be any different than any other weekend, except perhaps for the last game in November, and even that has been split.
A more accurate analysis would be "Purdue has done nothing under Danny Hope to indicate that the relative 'glory days' of the Tiller years will return; aside from a win over a 2009 Ohio State squad that would likely have vacated the game if the result had gone the other way, Hope's Boilers are firmly a lower-tier team. A home win should be expected."
The coaches and coordinators are saying the right things, but this isn't a good Purdue team. Injuries, lack of depth, and questionable coaching decisions have been a problem throughout Hope's tenure. Occasionally he seems to get a good game from the players, but the Illinois game may have been their one good shot this season.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||because enough of those that do are in the SEC||
and thus the SEC can't (won't?) pass any meaningful reform. If the SEC keeps doing it, it doesn't really matter what the rest of the schools want.
It's not like the NCAA is a solid bloc of schools in the first place, which you may have noticed any time discussion of postseason play comes up. It's more like the House of Representatives, with athletic dollars standing in for population. The equivalent of Texas and Florida (or something like that) says whatever, we're doing it, screw the rest of you. New England can dislike it and it doesn't matter; they don't have the votes to ban it.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||as would I||
not just for my split allegiance, but because there are only seven obvious bowl teams in the conference, so the eighth would be either Purdue or that Columbus team that plays IU next. For them to avoid being bowl-eligible (aside from the NCAA coming to its senses), they'll have to lose at least three of four: Michigan (obvs), Penn State, and either Indiana (HA HA HA) or Purdue (HA HA).
So, might as well trade this game for a regular-season-ending win that knocks Ohio out of bowl contention. (If the side effect is that Purdue ends up at an undeserved 7-5 + bowl, giving Danny Hope an eleventy-year contract extension, some people may be pleased with that, and by "some people" I do not mean Purdue fans.)
|3 years 27 weeks ago||but then||
Houston was not the team that made Purdue look a) like a legitimate football team for 30 minutes and b) prescient for scheduling Illinois for homecoming.
And that was the week after making Ohio State look like it had an actual offense.
I don't know if that is justification for putting Houston 25th, but someone has to go there, and I don't feel that Illinois is a top-25 team right now.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||I disagree with your disagree||
The key is not where it hits the turf; it's where it hits something, and in this case, the something is the receiver. A ball that goes backward, hits a receiver, and bounces forward does not become a forward pass, unless you are a Big Ten ref and are thus unfamiliar with such concepts as 19-2-a:
A forward pass is determined by the point where the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything beyond the spot of the pass. All other passes are backward passes.
The ball in this case first strikes a player, but behind the spot of the pass, and is thus a backward pass.
|3 years 28 weeks ago||I don't think people are criticizing the right decision||
Time is roughly the same whether you kick or go for it: there is a slight edge to kicking in terms of field position, because you're probably not going to get the TD and then also drive inside the 20 unless their defense is derpy, but then kicking a game-tying FG is easier than trying for a game-tying TD because there really isn't an extra-tough FG defense you can bring out, something to match the Cover 7 thing that some teams will do against Hail Mary plays. Using up time to try for the TD here is the same as using up time to get the tying TD if you already kicked.
The really bad decision was the second-quarter decision to punt on 4th and 4 from the OSU 32. That's not a punting situation. Play for the first down, kick the field goal, or look for something in the end zone or close to it.
Punting on 4th and 5 at the 45, I guess that's OK, although if the Buckeyes' offense sucks then you shouldn't be as concerned about giving up the ball. 4th and 14 at the 42, punting makes more sense because of the distance you need for a first down. (If you're playing a team with a competent offense, punting makes less sense because they can more quickly make up the distance you gain from punting.)
What doesn't make sense to me is being a puntasaur through three quarters and then becoming Gamblor in the fourth. Except that it's Zook, so his lack of sense makes sense to me.
|3 years 28 weeks ago||exactly. It's about the minnows.||
Yes, Wigan is a great example of the Little Club that Could, but while their rise to the EPL was great for people to watch, they've essentially peaked. Even if Whelan were to sell the club to someone with very deep pockets, he'd have no way to get the Latics up to a top-tier side, especially not once the financial management rules kick in. The DW is far too small, and as you point out, they can't exactly justify expanding it unless they know they can stay up for years, and they can't be sure they'll stay up without more revenue, which basically means expanding the stadium, which they still wouldn't fill without more talent ...
And the thing is that in the vast majority of cases, an MLB team doesn't build its own stadium: it has the city and/or state build one. That's difficult enough these days when you know there will be an MLB team to fill it, as best as you can tell. Imagine trying to get a city to pay for upgrades when you can't even be sure the upgrades will be complete before the team is relegated. Imagine telling fans in Columbus or Buffalo or Indianapolis or Sacramento or New Orleans that they need to pay for improvements to their AAA stadium on top of the other stadiums they've built ... there isn't a single AAA or AA team that drew 10,000 fans this season, and even the A's drew nearly double that. A number of these parks are probably in places where you couldn't do much expansion (if any) even if you wanted to and if the city could afford it. Without that expansion, those little teams will be renting an MLB spot.
EPL works like that right now: nearly half of newly-promoted teams (23 of 53) were relegated in the season immediately following their promotion. For every Fulham (11 consecutive seasons in the top flight), there's a Crystal Palace (three promotions, three immediate relegations).
Sure, in an ideal world, promotion and relegation would boost clubs that are playing in leagues below their ability and sink clubs whose owners have no intention of competing, but the way it tends to work is that big-money clubs stay at the top and small-money clubs either throw money out the window to stay up or absorb a season's worth of beatings and sink down. (And imagine the impact it would have on overall attendance and TV ratings. The A's draw 30,000 per game on the road; if they're playing in Indianapolis, they aren't going to draw a third of that, and the ratings aren't going to be good. What happens to advertising if, say, the Mets or Cubs get relegated?)
|3 years 29 weeks ago||CFB agrees with you||
They calculate SRS back through 1953, and the worst Big Ten team in that period was the 1981 Wildcats, -14.39, just a touch "ahead" of the '89 Wildcats (-14.37). Minnesota, for comparison purposes, is currently at -14.07.
1997 Illinois was -12.97, 1988 Wisconsin (Wisconsin?) at -12.99. The only teams at or below -13, though, are Northwestern teams (the two above plus 1980, -13.3, and 1978, -13.6).
Surprisingly, the weakest schedule in the group is currently Minnesota's, at -0.29. Minnesota's 2007 team (-11.69 SRS) had a 0.87 SRS ... the Venturi (and '81) Wildcats had schedule strength in the 7s.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||to be fair,||
this is not measuring what they would measure. A more formal survey would include questions like these:
It would, as suggested below, also include some sort of random sampling ... the nice thing for the athletic department is that online surveys generally skewing toward more affluent people isn't an issue, given that those are the target audience of this marketing in the first place. (That's probably less true with respect to surveys about college activities in general. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of ticketholders have less than a college education and are not working on getting one.)
That being said, there's no guarantee that a) Gallup or a competitor would present the data to the marketing group in a way that would clearly explain what issues need to be addressed (for that matter, the CMO might ask for the data and have in-house people use it) or that b) Brandon would listen to what the results showed. Clients have a funny way of making the numbers say what they want them to say, no matter how you word the reports that present those numbers.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||No, it's marketing from a textbook||
The textbook shows a nice little graph and a simple little curve, so DB and his marketing crew are sliding their pens toward the point in the book that will generate the most income ...
except real-world marketing is not that simple. Demand is not automatically renewable; if they push prices beyond a certain point and attempt to back them down, they will already have lost a number of longtime ticketholders. Not everyone will be willing to go back to the top of the section and work their way down. The waiting list would have hidden the problem for a while, but the new fees will whittle that down as well.
Combine those approaches with the steady erosion of interest that is happening across all sports - there are so many more activities available to people as alternatives to attending games, and many can be combined with following the game - and Michigan, and other schools like them, will end up where professional sports are now: the tricks the pro leagues use to hide the drop in attendance eventually wear off, and then you have, say, Jacksonville.
And even that scenario, where Michigan runs out of deep-pocketed alumni willing to pay to see Western and Eastern, ignores the proverbial elephant in the room. Should athletic departments have to give their players more than what they are getting now, that money will have to come from somewhere, and if they've already bled the excess from their waiting lists, it won't be nearly as easy to come up with that money.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||exactly||
Players are employees. Fans are customers.
Well, fans were customers. Increasingly, fans who are not rich are no longer customers.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||Indiana-Purdue is definitely a 3||
there aren't clearly better academics or athletics on either side; Purdue has a substantial lead in football (both for the Bucket and overall) and in men's basketball as well, but it's been almost 45 years since both teams were good at football at the same time, and Indiana's national success in basketball tends to overshadow Purdue's success in the series, as well as providing an additional amount of support from people with no connection to the school.
Flip the support or titles to Purdue, or the in-series success to Indiana, and it's a #2.
|3 years 31 weeks ago||It's a pretty standard approach, at least on the NFL side||
and the rule sets are the same at both levels. FO uses 45% (of yards needed) on first down, 60% on second down, 100% on third or fourth as success points for the offense, and that comes from The Hidden Game of Football.
Of course binary data is easier to collect but less meaningful to examine: as you suggest, we get more information about the "win" and "loss" plays when they are weighted, but then if you don't already have a system for assigning those weights, you either spend a lot of time estimating them or you have arbitrary signposts to explain.
|3 years 31 weeks ago||I don't think that's the case||
I couldn't find a rule in either NCAA or NFL rule books that mentions a minimum amount of time that must run off the clock; that's more likely something that people have mentioned in terms of expectations, that you can't count on less than 4 seconds elapsing during a play.
|3 years 31 weeks ago||But it doesn't even help all AQ schools||
Remember, Connecticut lost their asses (relatively speaking) going to the Fiesta Bowl. They reportedly lost $1.6-$1.8M; this is coming out of the pockets of a program that had total expenses of $14M the season before and just broke even. (2010-11 data isn't up yet.)
By comparison, Michigan had $18M in expenses and took in just under $45M in profit* from football alone; Purdue had $11M in expenses and about $7M in profit.
The bowl system exists first for the suits and second for the really big AQ schools. The big guys sit up front; the little ones ride in the back of the pickup and suddenly realize what wind chill means.
*just revenue - expenses as reported to the DoE; obviously it's not "profit" like "woo dividends" but more like "woo new facilities"
|3 years 31 weeks ago||I like this idea||
mostly because of what you mention, the factors not related to relative strength that influence point spreads.
The danger is that errors in the model then become magnified, because you're using the model to modify the model's predictions, but I don't think that's any different than what other people have done. Models are constantly being refined anyway ... as long as the tools are all retrodictive, then it seems like a reasonable idea to me.
|3 years 31 weeks ago||I don't think he means option-style spread||
I think he means any kind of spread, so you get to count guys like Brees who ran a QBs-don't-run spread in college.
|3 years 31 weeks ago||there is no reason why||
unless Cutler doesn't think he can catch shotgun snaps. At least in the gun, he'd have a second or so to realize his line had collapsed. (Or maybe he doesn't want to take that half-second to make sure he catches the snap ... but is that really different from making sure you have an under-center snap? I honestly don't know.)
I think the option is extremely risky if you haven't practiced it a lot, and practicing (conventional) option plays takes away from practice time for the parts of the offense Borges would like to run and the parts he'll have to run for now. I mean, you're throwing the ball backward, often behind the line of scrimmage. Lots of things can happen, and many of them are bad ... particularly because they would involve giving the ball to someone not named Denard while still behind the line.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Why not talk first, sue later?||
Do you have data to support either assertion (that piracy in the US is rampant or that removing videos rather than negotiating with companies that post them actually reduces piracy), or is this like the arguments supporting DRM for video games that also allege massive amounts of piracy but have nothing to support their claims other than hand-waving estimates?
Do you have evidence or inside knowledge that all this third-party arm of the BTN wants is promotional space? If that were actually true, wouldn't it have made more sense for Thought Equity Unicorns simply to contact Brian and ask for that space?
Also, I wasn't aware that "entitlement" was something invented by whatever generation happens to be the subject of your rant. (FWIW, I suspect I'm not part of that generation and I support MGoBlog's use of that video.)
|3 years 32 weeks ago||I call bullshit||
on Hoke trying one in a game.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||You have to like a BCS conference||
where some of the members think it's a good idea to elevate a decent I-AA program directly to AQ status. (I'm assuming they'd have to do the usual transition thing, but who knows?)
I mean, if New Mexico and New Mexico State aren't available, Villanova's probably the next-best option, right? And they're already halfway in! Of course, they'll have to move their desk to the football side of the room, but whatever.
I still like the EDSBS idea of the Sunbeast Conference.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||It isn't that those decisions aren't that important,||
it's that they pay off in the long run, and for most coaches, there is no long run. It doesn't matter if your strategy is better, becaue if it's different and you lose, then it's your fault, therefore being different is wrong, therefore they need to replace you with a coach that will make conservative decisions. If your strategy is better and you win, then you're just one mistake away from losing, in which case it's your fault, and see above.
So a coach like Belichick can make the higher-percentage decision because a) he is the Honey Badger of coaches and b) he isn't getting fired no matter what. Harbaugh can't do that (even if he were inclined to) because he has about two years to turn the 49ers around before people will be calling for him to be replaced with Generic NFL Coach Possibility X.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||A couple of things||
but coaches tend to prioritize risk aversion over expected value.
Almost all of them do. If fourth-down choices were to shit your pants or go for it, and the book said shit your pants, dry cleaning businesses would have a lot more work on Sundays. Baseball managers still do that kind of stuff, and statistical analysis in their sport is about 20 years ahead of where it is in football, so it might be this way a while. (You'd think what New England does would change people's minds in the NFL, but so far, I think other coaches just write Belichick off as crazy.)
That friend is going to have more and more difficulty with his "offense" ... as DEs get faster and bigger, it's getting easier to shut down those QBs by lining up in that nine-wide technique, shadow the scrambler, and pop him if he holds the ball or switch to a corner if he throws it.
I could have told you it was REO. I remember when that album came out and remember watching the video ... it looked so much better on our wood-panel Magnavox, but the picture would go out when the cat moved to another corner of the set.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Allegedly.||
|3 years 32 weeks ago||correct||
There was once a rule against face guarding in the NFL, but that rule was removed about 10 years ago. There was one very visible incident when it was called - the 2006 AFC Championship - but the NFL acknowledged later that the call was wrong.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||not necessarily||
A quieter environment might have given Rees more opportunity to listen to the voice in his head saying "FLOYDFLOYDFLOYDFLOYDFLOYDFLOYD".
|3 years 32 weeks ago||One significant difference||
is that interns work alongside established professionals. For Denard to be an intern, he'd need to be on Detroit's practice squad or something like that.
This is more like kids running a lemonade stand ... except the kids don't run it, they just work there, and their stand gives Sonic a run for its money.
|3 years 33 weeks ago||exactly||
If you have a shaky defense and an untested FG unit that was awful last season, and DILITHIUM on offense, playing for anything other than TDs in overtime is crazy. In fact, I'm not even sure I'd kick XPs in the first couple of OTs.
Now, if you have the kind of defense that Michigan will hopefully have in a couple of years, and a kicker who likes American scoring rather than Australian-rules scoring, then you have more options.
|3 years 33 weeks ago||I was seriously impressed that he left it up||
because I absolutely would not have done that if there had been internets when I was what his age probably is - I would have deleted the whole thing and drank enough alcohol to block it from memory - but that doesn't mean I didn't spread the schadenfreude out on the floor and roll in it like it was catnip.
|3 years 33 weeks ago||One correction||
do not tell Notre Dame about three-leaf clovers. I think that variety is perfect for them.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||The problem with trying to answer a different question||
is that it's a much more complex question, particularly because it's going to be based on assumptions that can frequently be wrong.
Yes, it seems safe to say that Michigan is considerably better than Western Michigan ... but even so, to give a meaningful answer to your question, we need to know by how much, and also how that differs, if at all, from the current situation. Early in the season, that's extremely difficult to determine, especially when coordinators/coaches/schemes have changed from one season to the next ... and even in the season finale, it can still be difficult to distinguish game-as-expected from unusual-game.
Now take Notre Dame and South Florida. The Irish ought to be the better team, and it makes sense that a good team that makes a lot of costly mistakes can lose to a worse team, but even so, that still doesn't mean that you have better information on how the rest of the game will go. If anything, modifying the model in those situations will give you less accurate information, not more accurate information, because as USF stays in the game, the model will say "but it's OK, Notre Dame is better, so they're more likely than average to come back."
The analogy to dice is interesting, but the problem is that you're talking about something different than the issue of average team vs. current teams ... even if you know that the dice are loaded, you are still betting (or should be betting) based on the average rolls that loaded dice will produce, not on what the dice just showed. You're still looking at independent events.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||exactly||
The Big Less-than-12 will already be fighting to preserve their BCS spot. It's highly unlikely that non-AQ schools will be part of meaningful expansion (as opposed to, say, the Big 12 trying to fill out again to regain a championship game), which means that up to 16 schools are coming from BCS conferences.
Whether it's the SEC or Pac-12 first, with two 16-team conferences and 8 teams being pulled from the Big 12 and, in the end, from the Big East (say Florida State goes from ACC to SEC, then Connecticut goes from Big East to ACC; you see where the net loss is) ... it's not difficult to see those two conferences pointing out who really deserves the BCS bids.
Also, you want to get the schools at the top of your list. If that is, say, Syracuse, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Virginia Tech, you don't want to end up with Rutgers, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State because they were the best of the "remaining" schools.
Also also, there may be a clause in the BTN contracts that would increase revenue with the addition of more schools/more states to the footprint. If the Pac-16 and SEC-XL improve their deals first, then it might be something of a marketing thing to get the Big Ten's deal back to the top.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||41 points, hmm?||
The most likely explanation being two field goals or a missed extra point.
I see what you did there.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||Well, ah ...||
Definitely recruiting a high-profile kicker in NCAA 12, though.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||not to mention||
that most teams who do scrape by to become bowl eligble end up losing their asses as a result anyway. I doubt Michigan has to worry about guarantees, so it's no big deal here, but as a general rule of thumb, most schools are going to make more money playing better teams in the first place.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||Marking Purdue with a non-returning starter at QB makes sense||
given that no matter who the starter is now, he has no quality experience at the position. Remembering what it was like to be a scared rabbit doesn't seem like it should be an advantage.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||or maybe it could be added||
to the MGoApp ... a tailgating page.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||finally, things I can relate to||
Few things are more disappointing than conversations covering topics in which you never had a chance to participate. (We moved from AA when I was 7; I still have relatives there but don't get back often.)
Howeva, I vaguely remember drinking out of Mason jars at Dominick's on one return trip or another, or perhaps multiple return trips. Good times. (Also during the Art Fair, though, and thus not during football season.) I also have equally vague memories of going to Fraser's with our parents when my brother and I were little, and somehow managing to get quarters out of complete strangers for the pinball and puck-bowling machines.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||and they're also a private school||
unlike the other 11 in the conference, which may not seem like that big of a deal, but it affects things like "so hey we don't have a scholarship this year, but you can certainly walk on if you've got an extra $55K lying around the house."
IU has never really been capital-G good, so there's no way to test your hypothesis, but in the '80s when Mallory had them going to bowl games regularly, attendance still wasn't that great, partly because Memorial Stadium is small and partly because it sucks. (I haven't been to a game since the construction was done, but before that, it was just a smallish concrete thing, no real character or anything.) And partly because it isn't basketball.
Danielson's just mentioning Purdue out of wishful thinking, rather than admitting that Tiller's been the only decent coach there in 40 years. (Jim Young had three years of Mark Herrmann and two years of not-Mark Herrmann.) I suppose he has a point if he's talking about an environment where it's difficult to succeed: Purdue ADs seem to be fans of doing things cheaply and expecting them to work anyway.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||ISTM that there are a lot of ex-coaches||
who are more qualified to talk about what works in the Big Ten than DiNardo is. A 3-21 record in conference play, 4 wins against I-AA teams and CMU, and an "upset" of an Oregon team that finished 5-6 (although it's still impressive to win in Eugene, that's a scary place to play a road game) ... if anything, they should preface his segments with something like "And now, advice from a guy who knows all about losing in the Big Ten..."
|3 years 36 weeks ago||I don't think that's an accurate assessment of Purdue's offense||
The success they had wasn't from being one-dimensional, but rather from using an offense that wasn't familiar to Big Ten DCs. Once they had some exposure to it, the novelty had worn off, and talent and coaching became more of a factor again.
Purdue has produced quite a bit of NFL talent over the years (which frankly is pretty surprising, especially when you consider that quite a bit of it has been on defense, and it's been a long time since Purdue's defense has been good), but none of that talent was at WR. Only two guys in the spread era have made it to the NFL, Brian Alford and Vinny Sutherland, and neither had a game with more than 1 reception in the NFL. Anyway, without a great QB running the offense, and without solid talent at WR, there wasn't much to make the spread a threat, so for the most part, it's become no more effective than Purdue's offense was before Tiller's arrival.
Purdue's running game varied between reasonably productive and not so much, but those fluctuations didn't reflect the team's success nearly as much as the skill of the guy running the offense. In 2005, for example, Purdue was getting 5.4 YPC from its top two backs (234 carries total from Void and Sheets), but the two-headed monster at QB wasn't very good (only 5.9 AY/A from Kirsch and 4.5 from Painter), and Purdue didn't break .500. The previous year, the top two RBs were closer to 4.0 YPC, but with 9.0 AY/A from Orton, Purdue was 7-5.
In 2008, Kory Sheets had over 1100 yards at 4.8 YPC, but Painter managed just 5.7 AY/A and Purdue sank to 4-8 ... anyway, you get the idea. I think it would be more accurate to say that once Brees graduated and DCs had more experience against the spread, they realized that it was just average WRs in space, and with faster DBs, they could challenge weaker QBs more, and so you get what Purdue has now, which is a bad offense for the most part.
I don't disagree with your general point, that an offense built around only rushing or only passing is more vulnerable than a balanced offense, just that Purdue isn't a good example of a one-dimensional offense.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||It wouldn't be just A&M, though,||
and there isn't really another candidate that would bring something similar to the conference. Gains from adding Texas to the footprint would be offset by the redundancy of another team in South Carolina or Virginia or Florida or wherever, and while Texas A&M-Alabama would be fun to watch in football, Clemson-Mississippi in basketball maybe not so much.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||I'm guessing you mean nothing likely||
because certainly something like "Buckeyes, Mustangs Now Have Something in Common" would get pretty much everyone's pulses racing.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||used to?||
You mean you have a copy where LBs can't do that?
|3 years 38 weeks ago||I don't know about this one,||
but if they ever get their hands on the Beanpot, they'll probably call it Leaders and Legumes.
|3 years 39 weeks ago||indeed||
In a world where middle- and lower-tier DI schools didn't feel the need to play the NCAA lottery, EMU would be a I-AA school, and would probably be somewhat competitive there.
In this one, they're waiting to be shut down. Eastern finished with 5 Directors' Cup points this year, tied for 279th in the country. (They were 179th in 2009-10 and 265th the year before that.) They're playing a game they'll never be able to win.
|3 years 39 weeks ago||The way Purdue has played under Hope so far||
a Black Rain reference might be more appropriate.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||exactly||
If they have thoughts they want to keep private, then they should use something more appropriate: Facebook or Google+ or whatever, text, or just tell someone, and then trust them not to share it.
Tweeting things and then complaining because people pay attention ... hey, that's the whole point of Twitter, to follow what other people say.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||Memorial Stadium, FWIW||
The Colts have also used similar "mascots" ... they seem kind of pointless if you aren't allowed to throw objects.
But then IU used to have a really bad mascot, so maybe stupid inflatable drones are an improvement. (I thought I remembered it as something like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Cornhusker, but I guess I was wrong.) The thing on the left is obviously The Hunchback of Notre Dame, or something like that.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||somewhat different||
6, 4, 8, 2, 5, 7, 1, 3
Fake throwback jerseys are essentially advertising for the company that makes them, but they're not just in the stadium, they're on the players.
I dislike any losses to OSU, but it's not like the series is 124-14 UM (although that would be fun), so obviously there have been losses before, even if not in such a long string. Besides, the way things are going, most of those will end up vacated anyway.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||Indiana might lead for a number of reasons ...||
Besides, sometimes kids like to go against the grain. I'd rather see him at Michigan, but if he decides to go to Indiana, I wish him the best, and I hope that he has an allergic reaction to old gold and black.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||the Hurray was sarcasm||
but the general content was somewhat positive.
Translation: someone belonging to the species Internetus Assholus hacked a file on the server. Some visitors to the site may have experienced bad stuff as a result. They found it and removed it, aren't quite sure how it got there but are watching for it, and will continue to keep an eye on things.
If you're uncomfortable with the situation, there are a number of add-ons for browsers that can give you additional protection. On the Firefox side, NoScript will help you block scripts of all kinds from running. (Good news: bad stuff can be dumped on a site and you won't care. Bad news: injudicious use of it may prevent you from seeing certain features on some sites.) There are other add-ons that will do similar things as well; use them if you like.
|3 years 42 weeks ago||I would allow myself to fully enjoy this||
if I could be sure that the NCAA will act as everybody expects it should. From a neutral perspective, it seems as if there's a really good chance OSU will get a USC-type penalty, with an outside chance of something closer to SMU territory if some of the other allegations can be proven to the NCAA's satisfaction ... but I can't shake the feeling that we'll end up seeing some fraction of what we're expecting, with scarlet and gray "Ha ha"s echoing throughout the internets.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||It happens every time||
Brian mentions anything about people not understanding/refusing to understand statistics in context ... several people show up and promptly make his point for him.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||wish I could close your tags||
but I can't seem to do it.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||I think you pretty much missed the entire point||
and on top of it are trying to dismiss arguments that are based on analyzing data simply by disagreeing with them.
That is not a scientific way to approach any problem.
|3 years 44 weeks ago||I'll disagree with that||
I think last season has a lot more to do with this season than most people realize. I think people tend to focus on the team winning the New And Improved BCS Bowl With No Name, and because that is usually different from year to year, people sometimes assume everything else is too ... or maybe because individual teams can have dramatic turnarounds, they assume that's common.
Look at the Big Ten, for example. Most people could split it into top flight and second flight without much thought: UM, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State. Sure, we can take a couple of those teams and throw them in a bowl with Iowa and Illinois and draw two at random, but that's relegation/promotion for you. Some teams will shoot up and stay, some will collapse and stay, but generally speaking, most teams stay about where they are, and that's kind of the idea: drop the worst teams down and keep them from dragging the conference down, bring the next-best teams up and improve the top level of competition.
What would make the system unpopular with fans (assuming the current system is somewhat popular) is having to acknowledge that they have no chance to win a title before the season begins. (Of course, the vast majority of I-A teams do this anyway, but it's implicit, not explicit.) Winning a second-division title and getting to play with the big kids next season isn't nearly as exciting as grabbing a surprise share of a conference title and going to Pasadena.
Also, the top conferences tend to be more stable overall ... that's not necessarily a condition that makes relegation/promotion more effective (in fact it can be less effective, again using the EPL as an example, where a significant percentage of teams frankly don't have to worry about relegation), but in, say, the MAC, you might have some crazy results from season to season. Combine I-A teams into six superconferences and then you might be able to run an English-style system more effectively.
|3 years 44 weeks ago||The thing about the EPL||
that ensures the best English team isn't in the Championship or lower is the financial setup. When you have clubs spending 100-175 million pounds in the top flight on wages alone and taking in nearly 300 million pounds in some cases, it would be hard to find top-caliber players in the next league down (aside from recently-relegated sides), much less top-caliber teams.
I couldn't find financial information at the same level on Championship teams, but from what I read, they actually spend a higher percentage of revenue on wages than EPL teams do ... but there simply isn't enough money to do any better.
I think that what makes NCAA football seem so different is that the "divisions" are so much smaller and that talent isn't roughly organized by division. Over time, I think relegation/promotion formats might turn out like English football, if recruits move toward top-tier schools, but even so, you'd have to have superconferences for it to be more noticeable.
Also, yes, EA's stunning insistence on packing near-useless crap into new releases while completely ignoring significant, ongoing bugs has kept me from purchasing most EA games for a long time. Dear leagues, this is the result of exclusive licenses. You now have exclusively-licensed crap. (In relative terms; the Madden games during the 2K era were much more impressive, comparatively speaking. Ten years ago, EA wouldn't have released a half-ass online system and let it rot for three years before doing anything about it - I doubt it'll be any better in Madden 12 than it was in Madden 10.)
|3 years 46 weeks ago||wait for a hurricane||
and hold one of the "retro" jerseys up as a sail.
|3 years 46 weeks ago||I'm not sure that's how I would intrepret what they've said||
There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year.
Yes, you can teach players to strip the ball, and you can tell them to pursue the ball once it's out ... but that doesn't mean that teaching that skill therefore has a demonstrable impact on the outcomes of games, although recovering a fumble itself does affect the game in a way similar to missing a field goal or dropping a pass.
You may believe otherwise, but that's just, like, your opinion, man.
|3 years 47 weeks ago||no, they'll still suck||
They'll just be the uniforms worn during another glorious win over the team from South Bend.
|3 years 47 weeks ago||yesbut||
OSU hasn't really been imposing penalties on themselves proactively. It wasn't like "hey, look what we found out, this is not good, let's turn ourselves in." It's looking more like:
1. Whoops, someone did something wrong.
If it were just Pryor, then I think OSU could make the case that it was really out of their hands. Given the deep involvement of Tressel, neither Gee nor Smith can claim that they had everything under control - and it wasn't like they booted Tressel the first chance they had. That was more of the steps above:
1. Whoops, the coach did something wrong.
And it keeps happening. Not once have I heard any OSU official say something like "OK, we're really going to get serious about this." It's always "uh, mistakes were made ..." and I don't think the NCAA likes being played for a fool.
It's possible that with just the tattoo situation, maybe they could have got away with lesser penalties than USC faced, but at this point, I don't think we can justify that ... and who's to say that this is the end of the revelations? Granted, there will be people looking to pile on, claiming that Pryor sold them stuff or test drove their cars or whatever, but there may also be violations with evidence, and if more of those turn up ...
|3 years 47 weeks ago||the one thing Isiah does well||
is play basketball, and he's a little too old for that now.
WIth respect to identifying talent, I can only guess that you are pretending that his tenure with the Knicks never happened. (And, for that matter, his tenure with the Pacers - as a coach, developing talent is more important than identifying talent. Of course, he was both in NY, and look how that turned out.)
|3 years 47 weeks ago||Wigan also had a close call||
and thankfully I was not watching anything at the time, or I probably would have pooped myself. There is something about relegation/promotion that has no analog here ... the concept that your team could be playing at a completely different level the following season, especially going down from the EPL. (I didn't start following Wigan until 2-3 years ago, so I missed out on their ascension.)
I think it's a bit off to suggest that it's because sports are purely commercial here. The EPL is simply more like MLB with five or six Steinbrenners. The history helps, for sure, and there is most certainly an atmosphere in the stadiums that is not present here outside of perhaps NCAA football games, but money is also a significant factor over there. (See: clubs near the top of the table spiraling into debt to make European competitions, clubs near the bottom barely able to hang on long enough before being pushed into the financial muck that is non-Premiership football.)
|3 years 47 weeks ago||I don't see why not||
it's not really that different than Iowa, is it? And Iowa's getting kids from the eastern half of Big Ten country.
Do they need kids from that area? dunno. I mean, they're already recruiting in Texas and California. Obviously Ohio is going to open up more for a while, but Michigan might be a bit tougher, and if they can recruit well nationally, they don't necessarily need to go into new enemy country.
|3 years 47 weeks ago||does it help to remember||
that Fisher wasn't coming from a program that had been punished by the NCAA for violations that occurred on his watch? (He hadn't been a college head coach before, but my point is that he didn't take the job with an already-shady background, unlike Sweatervest.)
|3 years 48 weeks ago||If OSU compliance people were doing their jobs,||
they'd likely have collapsed from exhaustion.
It's supposed to work like it does in the example above: something's questionable and they harass you until you fix it. What happens at a school where they try to harass you and you say "suck it, this is how I do things"?
It surprises me, though, that Cowherd isn't supporting more punishment. The longer this stays in the limelight, the easier it'll be for him to find stupid stuff to say on his show. He can just start every day with "Ohio State: is the NCAA too harsh? Go."
|3 years 48 weeks ago||what else are they going to do?||
There's no way anyone with a decent track record will take the job until they know the full extent of the NCAA's punishment, and I doubt they're going to hire Available Mid-Major Coach either ... that pretty much leaves existing staff.
Sure, Fickell may end up being pushed out the door too (although in this case ISTM that Tressel is the biggest offender), but it'd look worse to leave the position open and not find any takers, especially if August comes around and they still haven't found a sucker.
|3 years 50 weeks ago||but the funny thing is||
that it's not even everyone in the SEC, or "everyone except Vanderbilt."
And, as mentioned before, that's a good thing, because then there are forces from within the SEC trying to change things, rather than just from the outside.
|3 years 51 weeks ago||Purdue's situation||
is partly due to not winning games and partly due to being in a state that isn't loaded with players or talent.
Indiana isn't that big, population-wise: although it's the 15th-largest state, it's the median Big Ten state (thanks, Nebraska!), and the four states above it have at least 50% more people. In addition, many people here apparently play some other sport - this you may have noticed - and thus higher-level talent is not as prevalent in football as it might be in other sports. Although a comprehensive listing of high school recruits isn't easily available, USA Today helpfully gathered information on every player drafted by the NFL from 1988 through 2008. Players from Indiana high schools made up 70 of the 6,414 selections.*
Purdue landed 12 of those 70, ahead of Indiana (9) and Illinois (8) ... looking at Notre Dame (5), Michigan (3), and Ohio State (1), it seems to me that there obviously isn't much talent here or a) it would have gone to South Bend pre-collapse and b) other Big Ten schools would be saying nom-nom-nom along the interstates that pass this way. They don't, so there isn't much here.
Thus, Purdue looked out-of-state to be competitive when they could (and to fill roster spots now when they're not so competitive), while Indiana recruits more in-state players because you might as well not flush recruiting dollars down the drain. (I'd guess the reverse was true in the late '80s.)
Interesting footnote: Boston College 3, California 1, Northwestern 2, Vanderbilt 2, Yale 1. Along with Michigan's 3, that's nearly 20% of the in-state talent heading to quality out-of-state schools ... Purdue's reputation is good, but then I didn't want to go to an in-state school either. (My dad made me. Blah blah cost blah blah money.)
* I know NFL talent isn't the same as recruited talent, but it's the closest thing I could find in large quantities.
|4 years 6 days ago||I think you mean 4:30/8 start times ...||
but forgot to translate the second from Central to Eastern.
And yes, those will be cold games.
|4 years 6 days ago||It's a little more than that||
considering that the second-largest county (Lake) and third-largest city (Evansville) are both on Central time. 12 counties are on Central: a few in the northwest corner and roughly half of the counties on the Ohio River.
To be fair, six others switched back to Eastern from Central time, so the proportion of the state on Central time has dropped a bit.
|4 years 1 week ago||It's probably not the book for you||
I don't have a problem with most long books, but the first third of Atlas Shrugged was painfully slow for me ... Rand's insistence on repeating a theme again and again and again and again had me nearly to the point of flipping forward.
I made it through, and I think the last two-thirds of the book makes up for the slow build, but it's definitely not a book for everyone.
|4 years 2 weeks ago||where I disagree with that||
is in the list of things that happened prior to this season. If it were just Tatgate, then sure, maybe it was just a coach making a bad decision, and then making another bad decision, and then not knowing which bad decision to make next.
But there are previous incidents that certainly seem like Tressel swept them under the rug, and other alleged incidents that seem similar. It doesn't appear to be the asylum that USC ran, but it also appears less likely to me that Tressel just messed up on this (cynical note: except by getting caught).
|4 years 2 weeks ago||Brian laid out almost exactly why there are discrepancies||
and it has nothing to do with Title IX. It has to do with experience and with Michigan softball being all out of chewing gum.
|4 years 2 weeks ago||That's the best part||
No matter how many times he does it, it'll never be 100%.
There may be a point where it will be practically the same, but it won't technically be 100%.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||It's not our fault||
If the marketing people hadn't used a yellow jacket when they clearly meant to use a bee, none of this would ever have happened.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||ntl;dr||
not too long; definitely read.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||It's kind of a combination of expenditure and scholarships||
but based on a ratio of male to female students and also male to female varsity athletes.
I think the idea is excellent* in concept, but horrible in execution. It basically requires the revenue sports to fund women's sports**, with the rare exception of a Tennesee basketball or whatever that might actually make money, but it doesn't force the schools to be reasonable in how they make those opportunities available. How many more scholarships could a school offer if it weren't paying a coach 10x to 20x their probably value?
I don't know that it will matter too much in the future ... at some point, the NCAA will be forced to confront the disparity between the revenue that football and basketball players produce and the value of the services they receive in return, and non-revenue sports for male and female alike will have to be dealt with differently.
*as much as an idea that makes people do things can be. It would be better if such opportunities had been voluntarily offered, not dragged out of ADs like cats from an overturned tuna truck.
**but of course that applies to men's non-revenue sports as well.
|4 years 3 weeks ago||I prefer to look at it as if it were in a directory||
Hmm ... Ks, Ls, Ms ... here it is.
Monster, Taco B.M., Ph. D.
I believe I might have had one once that deserved an honorary doctorate.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||unlikely||
Wireless itself wouldn't be as much of a problem - smaller pro stadiums already do that - but serving freshly-made video to that many customers could be an issue, because of course YouTube does that already and a sea change would be required to get the NCAA to allow any school to post replays on YouTube during the game. (Without existing infrastructure - on a smaller scale, of course - it would be a challenge to prepare and serve that much video that quickly, especially if it's HD, to mobile customers in some fashion.)
|4 years 4 weeks ago||they would probably tell you||
that the difference between a 7-game series and a single game isn't quite what you think it is.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||to be clear ...||
my +1 meant "yes, Nike would totally destroy one of the classic uniforms in all of college sports and then have the same look on their corporate face as someone who just puked all over himself and is trying to pretend it's a new fashion", not "yeah, that would actually look good."
To Nike, every school is a World Football League uniform waiting to happen.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||injuries at most positions can be endured||
but multiple injuries at goalie are a bad thing. Most teams would struggle throwing their #2 out night after night ... when you're down to a #3, no matter who it is, that's a problem, especially with the division title still up for grabs.
If it's "just" another run to the conference semis, it'll be a little disappointing, but things have been much worse, and there's been more than enough recent success to get me through the bad times, should they actually come back.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||that depends||
on whether you prefer online or offline play and how often you're willing to buy a new game.
Because if you prefer online play, then even those seasons end, usually in a sizeable group and without much warning, the assumption being that you don't care because of course you keep buying the same game every year ...
|4 years 4 weeks ago||I think it's easier than you might think||
assuming, as we all must, that the idea of the college athlete as "amateur athlete" is put to rest. (When I play coed rec-league sand volleyball, I'm an amateur.)
The NCAA simply lifts restrictions on paying players. No school has to pay them above and beyond what they're getting now ... it's up to the school. (Presumably this would be most applicable at what is now I-A football, but I suppose there might be a question about what happens at lower divisions, particularly DII and DIII, if you have an enterprising soul who wants to buy a title.) Obviously that would mean that I-A schools would need to pay their players something.
I don't think it would be a viable option to pay everyone the same, even on one team at one school ... and by "viable" I mean in terms of a solution that will compensate the players appropriately. It would probably be the only solution that would fit within the framework of college football as we know it today, and even then you would see a reversal in the movement toward I-A programs: Sun Belt and some MAC schools who are barely hanging on would have to drop down, they just wouldn't be able to compete, even with fixed costs.
And that's the question I think is difficult to answer, or perhaps the set of questions. The system that would be fairest to the players would be to allow the market to decide the amount of money they get paid ... what, then, happens to I-A football? It would certainly have to split ... if there were no cap on payments, you might get I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA football, with current I-AA dropping down to AAA and the weaker I-A schools dropping to I-AA. (Then again, if this applies to basketball as well, maybe DI as a whole would be redefined.) Schools like Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska could probably come up with quite a bit of money ... but Indiana and Northwestern likely would not.
Would the teams even continue to be associated with the schools? It seems like a silly question at first, but think about it for a bit. As much as we might say "just take X% from the coaches, divide up the scholarship money, and add in Y% extra from alumni", it's more likely to be "keep the coaches' salaries the same, increase support from alumni by Y*2%, and increase ticket prices by 200%." or more.
I think that major college sports are now where professional sports were through the '60s, maybe, well before free agency. Games were affordable because the owners didn't have to pay the players much at all ... when that logjam finally broke, owners didn't split the profits with the players, they simply found additional sources of revenue.
AFAIK cheap seats at a college game are already comparable in price to cheap seats at a pro game (again, for major programs) ... if a significant amount of additional money is required, does it come from ticket increases? Do students still get discounts? What happens if they don't?
For that matter, do sports still run together as a whole? Would football and basketball still support not only themselves, but the rest of the program too? And if not ... from where does that money come?
Those, I think, are the hard questions to answer. And maybe they're the same questions as yours, just a little farther down the road.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||It's "goddamn public utility"||
so you remembered it just fine. And the shouting is "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT", so again, just fine. A word here or there is less important than the point, and leaving out only an unimportant word affects nothing.
(I have both the '85 and '88 Baseball Abstracts. I bought one every time the Tigers made the playoffs, which in retrospect was something like living next door to Ernie Harwell and only chatting with him when my internet connection was down.)
|4 years 4 weeks ago||Losers' attitude? Certainly at the top||
as has been detailed in many places. Burke is a moronic tightwad who lucked into Tiller and Painter and thinks he knows what he's doing, even though every basketball coach he's ever supervised has had to consider other offers in order to get paid better.*
The sad thing is that the table above would be even worse if it weren't for basketball: thanks in part to being good before most others schools figured it out, Purdue has a winning record** against every conference opponent in addition to leading the conference with 22 titles.
National championships are even worse, and will make Burke think he's the shit. Three team titles, two under Burke's tenure; eight individual titles, six*** under his tenure. Northwestern has 6; Minnesota has the next fewest, with 15.
Burke wants to run a nationally-recognized program on a shoestring budget, and he can't figure out why it's not working (aside from the fact that Purdue funds only 18 sports, the fewest in the conference - even Northwestern has 19 varsity sports; no hockey in West Lafayette). A I-AA coach with a struggling team isn't filling the stands, which means less money for the non-revenue programs and less money to ensure your excellent young coach isn't snatched up by someone willing to write a check that starts with 2**** ... and of course those of you who are interested already know about the whiny "it's not our fault, it's yours" letter that was subsequently followed by a Tressel-like apology.
Maybe the Angry Purdue Knee-Hating God is striking back in retaliation for this approach. I can't blame him.
*Phrased for effect: of course there have only been two, but Keady did basically the same thing in the '90s as Painter did just now.
**AFAIK. Wikipedia says the OSU series is in danger of flipping, 83-82 right now. Matta can do something shady and get caught any time now, plz.
***From one guy, however, and I wouldn't give credit to Burke for that, but he was here while it was happening.
****Even when the women's program was kicking ass, the coaches were leaving on a regular basis ... granted that's a somewhat different situation, but still, Burke couldn't keep them around either.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||You're making the same mistake they did in football||
when this was discussed. An expanded conference schedule is not necessarily going to improve teams' SOS (especially not if Iowa or Indiana was a one-off the previous season); ticket sales are not going up and ratings aren't going up. Another Ohio State/Purdue game might draw reasonable ratings, but you don't just get the games at the top, you get the Iowa/Indiana matchups as well, and you can't mandate non-conference scheduling. Teams are just as likely to drop strong opponents as weak ones, maybe more likely if they feel they're bubble-quality teams.
Strength of schedule isn't an issue in the Big Ten: while this year, the selection committee may have been a bit generous, few Big Ten teams end up on the outside looking in when they have a decent conference record. It's not like the ACC or the Pac-10.
A longer conference schedule would make it more difficult to judge the conference's relative strength (by removing opportunities to measure ourselves against other conferences) and could even affect performance in postseason games by reducing exposure to different styles of play. It could be argued that there are two styles of play in the Big Ten: an outsider would probably describe them as "slow and slower". Playing extra games against Penn State and Wisconsin isn't going to prepare teams better for opponents like VCU and Kentucky.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||rivals?||
We're the only two left on the dance floor; it hardly makes us a couple.
Indiana, yes; Notre Dame, yes (if only in the same way that Michigan and MSU view Notre Dame, meaning that of course we all know these are rivalries even if Irish fans see U$C and no no else save the service academies); Illinois, kind of. (There is a cannon and all that.)
In basketball, Indiana (obviously) ... more recently, Michigan State and Wisconsin, but that's really it.
Delany saying something doesn't make it so.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||it's not like that changed with Nebraska's arrival||
The two years that Indiana and Purdue played only once (2008 and 2009), you'd have thought the world had stopped turning, or that the NCAA had actually levied a serious punishment on a big-name program, something of that nature ... protected rivals in basketball become too much to work out given that you're playing once anyway, and it usually ends up like MLB interleague play where you have some rivalries that actually mean something and others that bore you to tears (hey, those great Tigers-Diamondbacks games will stay with me until I die).
|4 years 5 weeks ago||Ryan Leaf is upset||
that you didn't mention him first.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||no||
I'm not worried about having too many good players to find room for another one.
It's a good problem to have.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||I don't get the idea behind vacating||
unless it's because some NCAA staffer was bored during a meeting and pointed out "well what if they would have won without the ineligible players anyway" and the NCAA went with it because, well, the same reason why they do half of what they do.
I liked forfeits better. The thing in 1994 with Sparty was nice because among their forfeits was a win over Purdue, which turned a 4-5-2 record into a 5-4-2 record, and because this was during the Colletto years*, .500 meant woo! (Even if it was after the fact and prevented the Boilers from going to the 1994 equivalent of the Motor City Bowl, which I believe was called "no bowl at all".)
Seems like schools like that one in Columbus might possibly consider something other than turning several blind eyes toward everything that happens if it meant that their precious, ill-gotten victories would turn into ugly** Ls instead of into dust (and thus not affecting their W-L record).
*as if those were any different than any other era in Purdue history, save perhaps the glory days under Tiller, such as they were
**ugly to Ohio State, "beautifully karmic and appropriate" to the rest of us
|4 years 5 weeks ago||pretty much wrong on all counts||
The question he was asking was "Do I have a chance to be a viable NBA player next season?" The answer to that question is pretty clearly "Yes." He's squarely in the middle of the pack among rookies in terms of PER, and included in the names below him on that list are guys like Evan Turner, Gordon Hayward, and Ekpe Udoh.
Landing on a bad team isn't necessarily a bad thing for a rookie; in fact, it can be quite the opposite, especially for someone who's leaving early. Instead of riding the bench and picking up garbage-time minutes, he's getting decent minutes and playing in a variety of situations. (He might also be demonstrating that unlike some other NBA players, he isn't going to sulk and pout if he's not on a 60-win team every year.)
As far as "worst team in a long time," well, the 2009-10 Nets, the 2007-08 South Beach Talents, and the 2004-05 Hawks disagree with you. Sure, the Cavs are bad, and they've had really bad stretches, but they didn't invent the concept.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||That's true across all sports, isn't it?||
I seem to recall being at NCAA men's basketball games and waiting restlessly while a giant NCAA logo filled the screens ... I guess they figure if they showed us what actually happened and the refs get it wrong, we might react poorly. (How this is different from not showing us what happened and the refs getting it wrong, I don't know. I don't think I ever met someone who said "Well, I would have yelled at the refs, but I didn't see a replay, so maybe I was wrong.")
|4 years 5 weeks ago||CC hung an 8 on the defending champs||
so it looks like it's time for another preview.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||agreed||
especially when we're faced with choices like "root for Ohio State or root for Kentucky." One of them is a dirty, dirty program, and the other one is a bitter rival.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||If Fred Taylor||
(NTFT) had punched someone, it probably would have been R. M. Knight.
That would explain a lot.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||actually||
if it came right down to it, and jumping were necessary, I would have asked that he jump from the RenCen and attempt to land on the offices of the Free Press, but looking at Google Maps, I see that's somewhat improbable.
However, perhaps Brian could be convinced to not actually jump, but glide instead ... large objects dropped from the proper height might do everyone some good (designed to damage property, of course, not actually harm anyone, even Drew Sharp, who may not even be human), and would also remove the nasty consequence of the fall.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||It now seems||
that Burke is enthralled with the idea of expansion as his legacy, and that presumably the remaining stages of football stadium construction will go on despite current attendance (and performance) issues.
Still seems like a bad idea to me ... the press box was definitely a needed upgrade, but the last thing a half-empty stadium needs is more seats. (On the other hand, more Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame fans will enjoy the opportunity to see road games.)
But whatever. Burke is, at least, working on improving many/all facilities, not just football and basketball, which is a good sign. Today they posted a video about the work they're doing on the baseball and soccer facilities, so clearly there's some money available for non-revenue sports. Maybe varsity hockey isn't completely out of the question ...
|4 years 6 weeks ago||agreed on Purdue||
There isn't even a viable site on or near campus to build a small arena. I suppose something might "turn up" if Indiana suddenly jumped to the varsity level, but it would still require a very generous benefactor: the current focus is on paying for the Mackey and Ross-Ade renovation projects, so the likelihood of diverting existing funds to a new varsity sport is basically zero. (The wisdom of said projects, well ... Mackey has needed modernization for a long time, but I don't understand the point in expanding a stadium that you can't fill in the first place, especially if the end result is going to be higher ticket prices that lead to lower attendance anyway.)
Interest in hockey in Indiana is mixed IME. It's better than it used to be (when we moved to Bloomington in the '70s, the local paper frequently skipped the NHL entirely), but from what I can tell, hockey is somewhere in the distance in terms of support, behind basketball (everywhere), football (moreso around that one city in the north), and soccer (moreso around that town in the south once you get past high school play).
I'm not sure I'd agree with unitedstatesofhockey that support for the Ice has remained constant. The drop to the USHL was significant: of course the quality of play changes, but it also seems like their visibility dropped as well. They still play a couple of times a year in Conseco Fieldhouse, but I don't think they can afford to do that much any more. (Conseco is a far better place to watch than Pepsi Coliseum: it's downtown and modern, whereas the Coliseum is old and on the state fairgrounds, so easy to drive to but not conducive to pre- or post-game activities.) But maybe that would change, too, if the two big public universities in the state moved up to the varsity level.
I'd love to see an eight- or ten-team Big Ten hockey conference ... it might just be a while before that happens.
|4 years 6 weeks ago||or perhaps||
contrasting the local media (RR witch hunt and so on) with a guy who was apparently asked to soft-pedal the Tressel situation and instead said what almost everyone outside of Columbus (and apparently more than a few inside it) is thinking: the guy is dirty and is a disgrace to the athletic program, the school, and the conference.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||It could also be the difference||
between mediocre power-conference teams at 8 and strong mid-majors at 9.
My hypothesis looks decent when reading the list of 8/9 teams who've advanced to the Sweet 16. The only 8 seed not from a power conference to do so was Rhode Island in 1998 against Kansas; the only 9 seed from a power conference was Boston College in 1994 against North Carolina. (Kansas was victimized three times, North Carolina twice, Stanford twice - once by North Carolina - and then a bunch of schools once, including (sigh) Purdue and Michigan. Also, DePaul lost twice as a 1 between 1979 and 1985, when teams were seeded but the bracket wasn't 64 teams.)
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Barlow is an energy guy||
who still hasn't been able to refine his game. He can defend the perimeter well, but he can also turn the ball over on consecutive possessions ... Purdue is pretty deep this year, so this isn't likely to affect them much.
If anything, it might snap them out of the sleepwalking they've been doing the last three games (with the exception of the second half against Illinois).
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Understand, but||
on the one hand, we have a team who closed the season 8-4 in their last 12 (all 4 losses against tourney teams) to finish tied for fourth in the toughest conference in the country (to KenPom, it's not really close).
On the other, we have a team who closed out 5-7 in their last 12, including a home loss to NIT-bound Mississippi State and another loss to Alabama, to finish sixth in the seventh-best conference in the country, and by seventh KenPom means "not as good as the Mountain West."
Tennessee doesn't shoot threes well, and their opponents get a lot of points from distance. Aside from the ARGH OFFENSIVE REBOUND bit of it, it's a pretty good matchup for Michigan.
Plus you never know ... not that it'll be more than consolation, but there's always a chance that even if Tennessee does win, it'll be vacated anyway.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||agreed||
Stickers belong on helmets that get stickers. They do not belong on helmets that don't have them.
It's easy enough to tell which schools fall into which categories. School in Columbus = OK. Michigan = not OK.
Also, not just for wins. We know the team's record. Award them for big plays or whatever. But again, not at Michigan.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||What it means is||
"I'm sorry I got caught, but glad I coach at OSU, a school that's not likely to get the banhammer it deserves for hiring a shady coach who's done a string of shady things ever since arriving in Columbus."
|4 years 7 weeks ago||you mean Lou Henson||
That's an easy name for me to remember: Knight, among others, hated him for what he (accurately) perceived to be a shady way of handling things in Champaign.
Ironically, Henson eventually moved on to New Mexico State to replace a coach they fired for cratering their program (essentially at the same time that this whole thing was going down) ...
|4 years 7 weeks ago||totally agree||
I said that at the time, too. The '88 Pistons' loss from Bird stealing the ball on the inbounds play was still painfully fresh in my mind, and while the circumstances were somewhat different, there were still guys running downcourt when the ball wasn't safely following them.
No matter who's got the ball, even if it's an awesome point guard, someone's got to hang back and help against the press. They didn't, and that was that.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||No-brainer Michigan lock?||
ha ha no. This isn't football. Yes, Michigan had a recent national championship, but so did Indiana, and Purdue had recent conference titles and national recognition as well. Fisher was recruiting against Knight, Keady, and Dean Smith ... how on earth would that be a lock for Fisher? (Had Montross gone to Purdue, though, I'm not sure Robinson would have followed ... Keady tended not to stock bigs, and I don't think Robinson would have been interested in sharing playing time in any way.)
If anything, it was bold of Fisher to try to pull a top recruit out of Indiana (or foolish, perhaps), and impressive that he was able to stay on the list when Montross narrowed it down. (Of course kids should go where they think it's best for themselves, but a much younger version of me didn't think so, and I had plenty of company. Purdue and IU fans pretty much united in criticizing his decision to go out-of-state.)
|4 years 7 weeks ago||no, that was later.||
Robinson was academically ineligible that year; the next year, his first, Michigan swept Purdue.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||not really||
given that a) Webber didn't stay two more years and b) left of his own volition anyway, as opposed to missing a season due to injury or whatnot. Webber's peak value and career value are both less than Russell's.
Also, c) Russell wasn't allowed to play as a freshman. If you're going to pull out hypotheticals, think about Cazzie's career if he'd had a full year of NCAA play under his belt ... surrounded by what would have to be considered lesser talent than Webber's surrounding cast, he still managed to take Michigan to consecutive Final Fours and to a third regional final appearance (albeit at a time when conferences got a single team in the tournament).