Sam Webb on Bush and Walker.....
So Sam Webb did an update around 11:35 tonight on Scout.com and his gut still thinks Michigan leads for Bush and that Michigan lands him from his sources very close to the situation. When it comes to Walker though, he thinks FSU has really closed the gap and he cant put a gut feeling on that call, though he still thinks Michigan leads for Walker too. Needless to say, these next two days are going to give me extreme anxiety. Here's to hoping we get both!! Fingers crossed!
December 15th, 2015 at 12:19 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 12:20 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 12:40 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 2:44 AM ^
to be disappointed.
There's really nothing there to be excited about.
December 15th, 2015 at 7:44 AM ^
I have rode past that sign many times. It is on US-10 between Baldwin and Reed City and there is literally nothing there.
December 15th, 2015 at 6:12 AM ^
I'll wish them luck in life but not in college football.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:05 AM ^
that doesn't wish luck to recruits if they don't pick us? I must be a real bad guy.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
next to you in not giving a shit what happens to a guy that doesn't choose UM. And by not giving a shit I mean I could not care less what type of career he has - not that I hope any bad things befall him.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 12:22 AM ^
I'm not a member at Scout but I hope this isn't lifted info. Gotta let the man make a living.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:24 AM ^
Pretty shitty of you.
December 15th, 2015 at 7:45 AM ^
Well Scout is free til the end of the year, so, yeah.
December 15th, 2015 at 7:52 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
Make sure not to talk to anyone at work about what you heard on CNN last night. That information was for you and you only. Do not share any information with anyone else. Ever. Yes, I said you.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:28 AM ^
This was posted on the message board
December 15th, 2015 at 12:57 AM ^
We hear this complaint all the time and I don't really get it. I love Sam Webb, but if your income depends on protecting your IP through internet subscriptions, you have a shitty business model.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:03 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 2:32 AM ^
Exactly. What's the expectation here? "Shhhhh everyone keep quiet! The rest of the internet will never find out!"
December 15th, 2015 at 7:37 AM ^
recruiting roundup because I'm sure the question will be asked and that is free. Posting the information 30 minutes after Sam posted it for premium members is just wrong.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:06 AM ^
I don't get how it is wrong to post premium content... the vast majority of people on here have no problem sharing netflix passwords yet they are the same people saying sharing premium info is wrong. Not saying you are one of them but help me understand why sharing info that I may have paid for with others is wrong.
December 15th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
Once I've paid for something, in this case information, it now belongs to me and I can do whatever I like with it.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
So any knowledge i've received from my paid courses in college I must keep to myself because I paid to receive it from an expert?
December 15th, 2015 at 6:46 AM ^
There are always a bunch of idealists ready to stand up for the premium sites, but in this day and age especially, the very concept of paying for secrets and expecting that none of those thousands of subscribers will tell a soul is beyond naive. Yeah, you can pay to be the first to know. You can't pay to be part of a group of the only people that will ever know. Information doesn't work that way.
Also, how is it alright for the premium sites to sell info that in many cases was given to them in confidence? How often have premium posters said something like, "Now don't go spreading this, or my source will be very cross with me and won't share info in the future!" They're basically telling you that they just sold someone out in order to get you information. I know their honesty in those situations sure makes me want to post on mgoblog to defend them. And of course, if this information they're getting from those inside sources has a monetary value, shouldn't they be kicking some of it back to the original source? If they are, there's corruption inside the program. If they're not, they're asking us to pay for something that they got for free, that will inevitably spread no matter what they say, and that they were often told not to tell anyone else but did. And then there are the many instances where one premium site takes info from another and tries to pass it off as their own.
These are the people whose info many of us try to shame others out of posting. There are a lot of crusades worth taking up in this world, but excuse me if I don't see this as worth the effort.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:00 AM ^
It's not a crusade. It's a discussion as to whether Sam Webb's paid content is worth paying for. As I wrote below, when you pay for content you are either honorable or a rube. When you don't pay you are either smart with your money or a thief. Own it. Everything you wrote is completely secondary to the discussion.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:11 AM ^
How many posters on here have come out and said they just steal netflix and cable user names/passwords from parents and friends so they can watch free tv??? At least the people posting this "premium" info have paid for it. Shouldn't it be their right to share it? Anyone here share music in a similar way?
December 15th, 2015 at 9:14 AM ^
They paid for it, therefore they own it. I bought a newspaper this morning. After I finished reading it, I gave it to a coworker. Is that illegal?
December 15th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
But I could take the information therein, reword it myself, and republish it as original content. And that is perfectly legal.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:17 AM ^
Adds to the conversation. Also not passing judgement on those who discuss Sam's content. I am saying that "everyone does it" doesn't make it right.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:52 PM ^
My point is that people get on their soap box complaining about posters that share premium content that the OP has paid for and has the right to share but many of those same posters are stealing or have stolen TV subscriptions. For the record, I think it is wrong to steal netflix, etc and have never done it. I do not think it is right just because everyone does it. I do think it is OK to share premium content that has been paid for. If Sam didn't want the news to get out then Sam should have not put it out there in the first place.
December 15th, 2015 at 2:15 PM ^
and I think the board's policy on reprinting premium content has been both proper and effective. Certain modes of argument drive me nuts though... Among them pointing out mass hypocrisy. Hypocrisy matters in terms of credibility, but has no effect on the validity of a position. Posting premium content is right or wrong regardless of whether people pay for their own Netflix.
I once watched a guy looking for hiking boots without any leather content. He was apparently doing his best to live his vegan beliefs (which I vervently fail to share). When he left I listened to one sales dude tell the other, "Yeah, I'll bet his belts are leather".
Cheers and Go Blue.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:14 AM ^
If the entire concept is that you, as a subscriber are paying for information, then you can do with it as you wish. You don't buy a hamburger and not be able to eat it, you don't by a car and not be able to drive it, you don't pay for a vacation and not be able to go.
And you definitely do not pay for information and then not be able to share it or discuss it. That flys in the face of having the information in the first place.
If that is the intention of pay sites, than their model is badly flawed.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:54 PM ^
but if they want to know what the movie is about I would tell them, and if they wanted to borrow the DVD to watch it, I would lend it to them.
December 15th, 2015 at 8:49 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 8:53 AM ^
at least a decent portion of the users paying for a subscription. If you pay you are either honorable or a rube. If you don't pay you are either smart with your money or you're stealing.
In any event, don't use your own description of Sam's poor business model to rationalize your use of Sam's content for free. Be the thief. Or the rube or smart guy or whatever.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:39 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 2:51 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 8:04 AM ^
The very fact that you clicked on this thread (presumably to get info on recruits) sort of invalidates your argument.
EDIT: Post I was replying to now appears to be gone.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 4:42 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 12:23 AM ^
I honestly think Walker is more important with the inability for UM to run the ball like a top third Big 10 team...or heck top two thirds Big 10 team. If he doesnt come you might have to bite the bullet and move Jabrill over and say we are going to have a top 30 defense instead of a top 10 defense so that we can have a top 20 offense rather than a top 50 offense.
Obviously we need bodies at LB so not discounting Bush but just think the impact a rb can have immediately and thhe lack of playmaking ability in our group speaks to him as a need more.
Please just don't go 0 for 2!
December 15th, 2015 at 12:34 AM ^
a great shot at early playing time at Michigan.
So . . . . I'm hoping Walker's interested in early PT.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:39 AM ^
Dalvin Cook will be there next year, no? He's pretty good
December 15th, 2015 at 12:41 AM ^
Superstar Dalvin Cook is the situation at FSU! Dude who ave 7.9 per carry! Can't even imagine UM with a back like that.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/3116593/dalvin-co…
If he turns down UM for FSU it sure isn't for immediate playing time.
December 15th, 2015 at 8:35 AM ^
But it certainly tests my long term memory.