Unverified Voracity Tried Unplugging It
![600full-the-shining-screenshot[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/1debb2f7ff40_A0AA/600full-the-shining-screenshot1.jpg "600full-the-shining-screenshot[1]")
Hey, kids! Death to Comcast! No internet until just now today and my backup plan wasn't working. Apologies. Anyway:
Maybe you can do it after all? Luke Winn is my favorite college basketball writer for pieces like the one he just published on three-point defense. Inspired by Ken Pomeroy's repeated assertions that three-point defense is random* and that you should therefore try to reduce the number of threes opponents get off, Winn looks at the problem in more detail, finding a couple of notable exceptions:
After writing a story on the Pack-Line Defense -- a packed-in, help-oriented man-to-man that Dick Bennett first used at Wisconsin-Green Bay in the mid-1990s -- I couldn't help but notice that three teams running pure Pack-Line this season were among the leaders in three-point field-goal D: Arizona, which ranked third nationally at 28.5 percent; Virginia, which was sixth at 28.9 percent; and Xavier, which was 22nd at 30.5 percent. Meanwhile, two teams that seemed to encourage opponents to take threes, Florida State and Syracuse, also managed to rank in the top 50 in defensive three-point percentage and were top-20 overall defenses in efficiency.
Syracuse in particular demonstrates that three-point defense probably exists in a meaningful way. In the ten years Kenpom has data for Syracuse has finished 8th (out of about 350), 6th, 63rd, 129th, 63rd, 185th, 8th, 22nd, 29th, and 47th in defending three pointers. That's one or two mediocre years, three good years, and five outstanding years. Clearly there's a lot more variance in three pointers**, but you can defend them. There may be a price (Syracuse, unbelievably, was 341 of 345 in defensive rebounding while being 33rd in offensive rebounding), but you can do it.
Also, this is why you are right to pull out your hair at Tim Hardaway long twos:
If you don't think the long twos-vs.-threes argument is important, consider this: While Wisconsin held its opponents to just 0.807 points per possession on three-point attempts -- an amazingly efficient rate -- it allowed just 0.628 PPP on long twos. There's a reason Ryan charts and cherishes the two-point jumpers UW forces outside the paint. The odds on getting beat from that area are miniscule.
Long twos are the worst shot in basketball, and you can get them with 25 seconds on the shot clock because teams don't care if you take them. If there's ten seconds left, sure, go for it. Eschewing the offense in favor of The Worst Shot In Basketball makes Brian crazy.
*[If you look at shooting percentages from the first half to the second half of a season, there is almost no correlation. I think this might be a sample size issue.]
**[Variance for the statistically disinclined: imagine the difference in variability in 50-point 30-foot Rock 'n' Jock baskets versus dunks.]
Feel the love for the system. The Insight Bowl is no longer going to be named after some sort of computer company I think or an abstract concept. They made the mistake of asking the twitter what the twitter thought they might rename it to. If this feels like a softball covered in butter, yeah:
The Tempe Municipal Government Cheddar's Casual Cafe' Quality Food & Service Bowl, at Sun Devil Stadium #NameTheGame
i want a bowl game called the Horrybowl. someone ask Robert Horry if he's interested in starting a liability-only car insurance company.
Jason Kirk's list of suggestions has some excellent candidates:
Molybdenum Ore Bowl
Insane Maricopa County Sheriff Bowl
P.F. Chang's Rock 'n' Roll Arizona Marathon & 1/2 Marathon Bowl
Erosion of public support due to shameless profit-seeking, etc etc etc. This is definitely a meaningful indicator of bowls' public face and not just the internet snarking on stuff.
Basically. Via Ira at WTKA, former Alaska-Anchorage player Justin Bourne responds to a piece on the superiority of the major junior route:
As someone quickly approaching their 30th birthday thinking about what I’d do if I were a young player now deciding between the two, I can’t help but think: I’d have to be awfully damn good to choose major junior hockey over college. It’s not taking anything away from those who choose to go the CHL route, it’s just that one way seems a little more all-or-nothing than the other. Both seem like flying down the highway on a motorcycle, but one affords you a helmet. …
Nobody can say for certain what’s the best route – each player has a different set of developmental needs, and each league fulfills those differently.
But for those who could use a little more time to develop and miiiigghht just want to hedge their bets on the future with an education, college hockey is the way to go.
That's about right. If you're not going to be in the top two rounds, junior is a gamble on a longshot when there's a less risky route that doesn't require you to give up the gamble, or even seem to hurt your chances much. Given the NHL hit rate of secound-rounders, you could argue that even those folks would be making a better decision to go to college.
Unless you just don't want even the tenuous amount of schooling you have to go through to be in college these days, the best argument in favor of the CHL is usually "they offered me money." If so, fair enough.
I would like to see the man behind the curtain, because there is only one. Michigan is investing a cool half-million into a giant curtain they can put in Crisler when it hosts women's basketball and gymnastics events so that the place feels less abandoned. Michigan averaged about 1700 fans per game at basketball last year.
It's probably the right thing to do, but putting up a curtain so attendance at certain sports is less embarrassing is… well, it kind of sums up the whole NCAA thing. The football players make a bunch of money, which is then spent on the strangest things.
Demar lands somewhere nice. Demar Dorsey will play his college ball at Hawaii, so at least he got an adventure out of everything. No, he's not coming here. I just told you he's going to play at Hawaii. No, still not coming. I am beginning to think you have the brain damage.
Etc.: Big Ten hockey hires Steve Piotrowski as its head of officials, which is a good move. Better move would be to clone him and put him on the ice for all games. Piotrowski #1 would be a super Piotrowksi. Dennis Norfleet gets really excited when he blocks a shot, understandably. SBN is making the case for relegation.
NO DEMAR DORSEY IS NOT COMING TO MICHIGAN
If you really want to boil it down, in a world where people go to bed hungry every night why are we spending half a million dollars on either of them? This is sports though, so we have excepted all reality.
Faulty logic? Where? You can't take one part of my argument and let it stand alone and then call it faulty. How can I compare the two? They're both expenditures by the athletic department. Why is it self-evident that a capital improvement is more important than a branding exercise? How do you value them? NPV? I'd bet the MMB in Dallas is has a higher NPV than the curtain. You don't think that Herbstreit and Mussberger wouldn't have mentioned the absence of MBB? People we talking about it on Alabama message boards. Not genreally borne by the athlettic department? True, but we don't generally play the first game of our season in Dallas against the reigning national champions. It's clear by the reaction of the athletic department that more than the people in the stadium would have cared. Further, you do notice when MMB isn't at a game. It's always clear when they aren't at away games.
I've been at both an MWBB game and a gymnastics meet in Crisler and never felt like it detracted from my enjoyment of them game. MMB not being in Dallas definitely would have detracted from my enjoyment.
And, quite frankly, I think they should do both. We have plenty of money.
Like they mention that the MMB isn't there for big night games at Penn State? The only reason it would merit a mention is because it created local controversy. I'm not a fan of the whole Jerry's World boondoggle anyway, but I think the band should be there if only because it was sold to Michigan fans as a bowl-like experience. However, that's not the same as being noteworthy at all to Musberger. And Dave Brandon, whatever you may think of him, is not dumb enough to set a precedent for the AD paying for the band.
What does merit a mention by commentators and fans on blogs is the quality of facilities when other equally ranked teams come to Ann Arbor. Now, to be sure, not many schools draw much for women's basketball, but Utah, Alabama, and Georgia manage to fill a similar sized arena for gymnastics. Seeing the uninspiring facilities gives the *appearance* that Michigan just doesn't care about non-rev sports. While that is not true for baseball and softball (thanks, Mr. Wilpon -- visitors are impressed by the facility!), it is very true for other sports. Improving Crisler just a bit more -- to the level with peer institutions -- for a mere $500,000 more isn't the same as sending the band to Texas. And fortunately, big improvements to all the other facilities -- $250 million -- are on the schedule next.
You made the original value judgement that the MMB was more important. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion because I never questioned the decision. It is therefore beholden upon you to defend your value judgement not me.
You also falsely equate the MMB with the football team. They are two completely different entities. One might even note that the MMB is not a sport at all. I doubt you mean to argue that reducing the MMB's budget would significantly alter the money brought in by the football.
MMB is not the football team just like the curtain is not the women's basketball team, but MMB contributes to the gameday expereince in football just as the athletic facilities contribute to the gameday expereince. While it would be silly to equate the two, there are certainly similarities.
You seem awfully hostile. What's up here? I gave you my logic. Now I'm asking for yours. That's how a discussion/argument goes. My opinion is malleable, but "RAWR YOU ARE STUPIDZ FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME" is not going to change my mind.
I'm arguing on behalf of non-revenue sports, which my family attends regularly, in Crisler. It would be nice if we had a spare nice old-school fieldhouse like Illinois and Penn State do for their non-revs, but we don't.
Wrestling, like men's gymnastics and volleyball, competes in a space the right size for the event. Cliff Keen reminds me of nothing more than an elementary school gym, but at least the fans aren't rattling around like the last handful of peanuts in the bottom of the supersized Costco can. And I'm pretty sure that when these teams host Big Tens or regionals in Crisler, they will be using the curtain, too, regardless of gender.
Heyyyy, we're past the ad-hominem attacks. Nice.
I agree, having been at both women's basketball and gymnastics, that it does feel more than a little empty. I also agree that it gives the appearance that Michigan doesn't care about non-revenue sports. I am also not arguing against a curtain, though I'm not sure I'd be exstatic about it if I were an gymnast either since it is a tacit admission that we can't fill the arena. I just think that the overall benefit to the AD of having the band in Dallas is higher than having a curtain in Crisler. It's like pompoms for home games or shirts to make the block-M, not really within the purview of the AD, but they still pay for it. With respect to the curtain and the band, the AD has the money and should do both. I'm not arguing that the AD should pay for MBB to attend a random away game scheduled by the the B1G either. I think this is a special case since we gave up a home game and are getting paid somewhat like a home game to do it.
The curtain has the benefit of not being a single use item and not filling the landfill with maize, but otherwise, they are soft goods for use within the arena.
As to ad hominem attacks, only one person in this thread has implied that other posters are jerks.
They all contribute to the game day experience. To me the the fact that one is a group of humans and the other is made from polyethylene isn't germane to the conversation. The MMB exists primarily because the athletic department does. In both cases we're talking about the AD spending money to enhance the gameday expereince for the student-athletes and fans.
I see a difference between purchasing goods -- durable or disposable -- to enhance the home arena, no matter how temporarily, and paying for travel expenses for people not within the department.
No, I think conflating the decision to give a non-Athletic Department entity a free gift with the decision to spend money on it's own literal infrastructure shows that you truly have no logical process going on. One is the obligation of the AD, the other is a generous gift - the AD should take care of it's obligations first.
It's not logical. You think that the AD should prioritize a gift to the band over an invenstment in their physical infrastructure.
That's not sensible.
Calling a stupid statement isn't ad hominem, it's honest. I didn't insult you, I insulted your argument, which merits it.
IT'S NOT A GIFT.
How hard is this to understand? The AD is not paying for the band to go on vacation to Dallas in the winter. The band is going becuase they provide a service to the AD that the fans demanded. If the fans and boosters that fund the athletic department thought that we needed clowns at the game, the AD should consider getting clowns. It wouldn't then be a gift to the clowns; the AD is hiring them. IT'S NOT A GIFT. IT'S NOT A GIFT. IT'S NOT A GIFT.
And I'd contend that the AD should be spending money on the Athletic Deparment, not the School of Music. That fits more with the purpose of the Athletic Department.
The Band has a fundraising arm whose purpose it is to pay for trips - like it pays for its own travel to road games.
Then let's not give them the "gift" of free tickets to the stadium or free field passes either. Same goes for basketball and hockey. They have a fundraising arm that can pay for their tickets just like I pay for mine.
While we're following your logic, let's not send them to bowl games either.
Flyovers? Cheerleaders? Dance Team? Don't need em. Not a part of the athletic department. ROTC putting the flag up? Nope, they have to pay too. Police to direct traffic? Traffic is not part of the athletic department.
You can get ridiculous with this stuff.
Bottom line, the band is part of the gameday expereince of the football team. This was a home game replacement. They held seats for the band at Cowboy Stadium for a reason, clearly the AD is more on my side than yours here. The band should have gone, and the band is going. Period. There's nothing illogical about that.
Things the AD has never paid for:
Sending any of the above to bowls or away games.
That has either been paid for by the bowl, or by the organizations themselves.
They're inviting the football team! You're acting like they're separate entities. It's not like they're negotiating with each. "Well, we'd like to invite your football team to the Sugar Bowl...but we're negotiating with Syracuse's band to come play at halftime"....
And the football team's "earnings" go to pay for a whole lot of "not involved with the team" people to go. The cheerleaders, various athletic department officials, and University big wigs all get expenses paid on these trips. But they're not going because they earned it or are funding it themselves. (Regents Car Wash at Pioneer High!) It off the football team's work and earnings.
The Cheerleading team is part of the Athletic Department. So yes, the Athletic Department pays for their travel.
"Various athletic department officials" are part of the Athletic Department. So yes, the Athletic Department pays for their travel.
I'll give it you - Mary Sue Coleman probably gets to go, expenses paid. Tha magnitude here isn't the same.
I never said that only football players go. I said the AD, until now, pays for people and organizations that fall under its purview.
Acting like the AD not paying for an organization outside of it's budget list, and spending an identical amount on of their teams is missing the point of the Athletic Department.
You've managed to drag this discussion so far off the tracks:
The AD spent money on the curtain as a capital upgrade to a facility it owns and maintains. That's their purview, and it's fine. Pretending that it would have been smarter to spend the money on an organization it has no financial relationship with is stupid.
With no financial relation is stupid. Even this trip, Brandon has insinuated that the department didn't want to fund the whole bill. A bowl trip isn't too separate contracts. They're under the same contract! How is that no financial relationship?
And I bet that The President, Regents, their entourages, and every other Ivory Tower person who makes these trips (including Dallas, I'm sure) traveling first class, charter jet, and staying in the penthouses adds up to quite a bit. The reason bowl teams lose money on bowl trips (outside of the whole ticket argument) isn't because the bowls don't pay enough for the team and band to go and have expenses covered, but because they drag along all sorts of people for extended stays that have nothing to do with any athletic success.
And what contributors more to the game-day experience for the student-athletes? The band being there, or some associate AD who doesn't even work with football making the trip? We're not talking the AD, the equipment guys, and the academic people when we say "Athletic Department personnel"...we're talking about a bunch of people (and their families) who may have never spoken to a football player in their career.
Their "purview" isn't so black and white. The cheerleaders have a separate webpage not on MGoBlue.com. But they "fall under the Athletic Department". Well, kinda. I don't think the AD is paying for scholarships for the team. But they are related. Just like the band is. It has little to do with purview, and whatever one thinks is important to the "game-day experience" or not. Since we're loaded, I would think both could be done. Picking and choosing certainly shows what Brandon thinks is important. Which is his right, but other people can disagree.
*Sigh*
This is my last repsonse, as its clear that you're speaking from "what you think" and "what you feel" instead of what you know.
The simple fact is that this will be the first time in the history of the two organizations funds the travel of the band. That's fine. The idea that the expense is assumed to be shouldered by the AD is simply incorrect.
Also:
What are the out of pocket expenses to be on the Michigan Cheer Team?
There are no out of pocket expenses. All practice gear, uniforms, warmups, shoes etc. are paid for by the Michigan Athletic Department.
All travel expenses: transportation, meals are paid for by the Michigan Athletic Department.
Perdiem is given for preseason training from August 22 to September 1, and for any games over breaks.
Here's a group that the Athletic Department pays for (well, another), that actually doesn't fall under the AD's purview. They pay all the expenses but are not 1. scholarship athletes 2. officially part of the department, as they have a separate webpage and act "on behalf the Athletic Department", but not fully representative and 3. has nothing to do with admissions to the University, like they do with all other students who fall under the Athletic Department. It's an organization funded by the department that doesnt' fall under what you think the AD should only be paying for. But they do. Because they pay for things not directly related to facilities, Scholarships, and team travel and meals. So you're facts are awfully cloudy. But I'll look forward to your non-response about what you think you know.
You're not reading.
They are part of the AD. They are a budget item. Like the curtain.
The Band is part of the School of Music. They are not a budget item. Unlike the curtain.
Enjoy your black and white world.
It's not "probably" the right thing to do, it's stupid. Yes kids, grow up--you play a sport that isn't that popular. There is nothing wrong with that, lots of good sports aren't popular. Does anyone really think rolling out that curtain is going to make the women's team feel better? "Hey, Crisler feels much more crowded today!" What a condescending, typicallly ccllege administrator decision. Let's do that, but balk at taking the MMB to Dallas!
Maybe it's a Title IX move? If I'm not mistaken you have to spend equal money on both men's and women's sports...
You don't have to spend equal money on each gender - you just need to have an equal number of scholarships available to each gender. This is why Title IX has been killing small college football, because football requires more scholarship players than any sport.
Per wikipedia:
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs:
- Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
- Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
- Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
So, no, you don't exactly have to spend equal money. You don't even have to have an equal number of scholarships, although that would be the most straightforward way to meet prong 1 at a school with roughly equal male/female enrollment.
Those curtains are used all over. Breslin has one for WBB, and I think they draw more to a women's game than we do.
We should have just tried to buy the old one they used to have at the Silverdome for Pistons games. That's the biggest curtain I've ever seen, and might have been cheaper.
It's about the fan experience. Not even so much the TV appearance. It isn't that pleasant to sit in an empty cavernous space. Cliff Keen has less comfortable seating but it is much more compelling to watch volleyball there.
Having a curtain is not unusual. It's not even really noteworthy, except that Crisler has been neglected for so long, and Dave Brandon was trying to make nice with the Title IX conference going on in town.
The athletes know what's up. And it's not like they don't read this blog and know exactly how you all feel about their contributions to Michigan.
I understand that nobody wants to feel like their sport isn't drawing fans, but its not like the curtain also blinds the participants from reality. Yeah, sorry - you play a sport that relatively few people want to see live. That's okay - I loved running track and cross country when I was younger, and nobody came to those except parents and other participants. It happens.
Putting up a curtain will help with the aesthetics I guess (if one can suspend reality about just how small the active area of this arena apparently is) but won't change the small number of people in the arena. That's why I have no problem paying football and basketball players a bit of a stipend - they are paying for the other programs to function, and so why not recognize that.
Thereby taking money away from those other programs.
Hello: Demar Dorsey?
I won't stop believing until DD has 100% exhausted his college eligibility
Until he signs with an agent, he could always pull the Jason White/Case Keenum infinite eligibility trick.
Demar. Without the other...
Le fin.
I agree with the qoute from the guy comparing the CHL and NCAA saying they both offer different things. The thing I don't necessarily agree with is that you only go the CHL route if you are sure of a second round pick.
I don't know the structure of hockey in the US, but here in Canada we are in midget at age 14, 15 and 16 then it is juniors (at least it was when I was playing. I had to make the choice of playing in the CHL when I was 16 years old, that is 2 years from the time I would have been going to university.
What is a kid supposed to do if he is good enough to play in the CHL but likely not going to be a second round or better pick? Play inferior hockey for 2 years so he can be eligible to play in the NCAA? That's just ridiculous.
I played in the CHL and then went to university in Canada and played their as well, but I can honestly say if the NCAA didn't have the idiotic rule about the CHL I would have gladly played their instead. I think the NCAA would have tons of interest from former CHLer's who didn't make the league if they didn't have the lame rules.
I guess my point is really just that in Canada there is nothing for a really good hockey player to do between midget and university except the CHL unless they want to play much lower level hockey, and who wants to do that.
I was in the postion as well to get drafted by CHL and play there. My options at the time were play CHL or wait 2 years and then maybe play NCAA. Or maybe not. Those 2 years would be spent playing junior A in crappy towns around Ontario, wearing you down mentally. It's difficult to play for so long on teams with inferior players. The rules about considering CHL players 'pros' are ridiculous.
double post.
why should I have to? Why can't I play at the level my talent dictates while still having the opportunity to play in University if I don't move on to the NHL? As I said, we can do it in Canada and that is the route I took, though I would have left to play in the NCAA in a heart beat if it was an option.
Most kids my age that played at the level I did (midget AAA) are dreaming of making the NHL. The idea that it would be a better decision to "think about my future" by wallowing in tier II until I could go to university and thus give my self a back up plan is just too silly to contemplate for me.
It isn't like a person shouldn't be able to do both. I finished my CHL career at 21 years of age which gave me plenty of time to go to university and get my degree. We can do that here in Canada. Why you can't do it in the US is beyond me.
This last part I want to say without sounding like a jackass...but tier II hockey for me at 16 would have been like going back and playing midget b. The competitiion, coaching, facilities and player development in tier II are so far below that of the CHL it isn't even funny. I don't mean to be a dick, that's just a fact.
Maybe playing in that Church league at age 17 yrs is to blame for the lack of interest I received from the NHL entry draft....
At least I now know it wasn't my lack of size or talent!!
Great post, Yarmouth, as usual. BTW, while playing in the QMJHL, did you attend any of those fine institutions that are now under lock down?
I'm sorry but it has been a long day at work and I'm afriad I don't follow your question. Which institutions are you referring to? Again, it is probably painfully obvious but I have been run off my feet today and can hardly string a sentence together at this point.
I was referring to these crazy francophone students shutting down all their univerisities over the $300 hike in tuition. Any insignts?
I actually played in the Q and subsequently went to University back in the mid 90's and early 2000's. I can say that I think they are a bunch of cry babies and the whole thing is absurd.
If the people in the US were following this they would have a stroke hearing how little these kids are paying for university and yet still complaining about it. I mean, it would be great if all education was free like in some european countries, but Quebecers have it pretty damn good.
Even the majority of the Quebec population are siding with the provincial gov. on this and want the students to piss off. The bottom line to me is they (Quebecers in general) just like to have something to bitch and protest about. Seriously, they are a breed all their own and quite militant whenever they get the chance.
It makes sense to me. You've just spent a gajillion dollars on a place that is (like nearly all sports venues) underutilized, and which feels cavernous and empty for some of the events held there. Add the curtain and you've improved the facility, making it a more appealing venue for a bunch of events as well as for the ones that are being held there already.
I too would love to see the AD do even more things that would make more people attend the events that are more sparsely attended, but I think this is a problem on a lot of campuses and probably requires a culture change. Would $500,000 (the curtain price) be enough to do that?
I think it's a good investment in the facility which might, in itself, make the events more appealing to spectators (as Diabeetus points out)
Comments