Unverified Voracity Lives On As A Hat

Submitted by Brian on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:56 PM


Tim Hardaway's hat lives!

Erm, okay. ESPN's Paul Biancardi was tasked with finding sleepers outside of ESPN's top 25 players who would outperform the rankings, and struck upon Derrick Walton:

1. Derrick Walton, PG, Michigan
Final ESPN 100 rank: No. 30

… Walton, who will replace Burke and take the mantle as Michigan's point guard, has some similar traits to Burke as he is small, tough and competitive. Although we have Walton ranked No. 30, which is relatively high, he still has to fight for everything he earns -- which is what makes him special. Walton will lead the Wolverines and will have a wealth of talent around him with a mixture of scorers, size and a strong incoming freshman class coming in with him. Look for him to push the pace with a high-speed dribble and find teammates off penetration with his peripheral vision. Walton is battle tested and has played on the travel team circuit against some of the nation's best point guards and had his way. Don't be surprised to see him get more assists than points in any given game, yet he can also make big shots when his team needs them most. He is a clutch performer with the perfect mindset for his position. The opportunity is there for Walton; look for him to capitalize on it.

Then Reggie Rankin was tasked with doing so with recruiting classes outside the top ten and picked three of the next four, one of which happens to be M:

2. Michigan (No. 12 class)
The Wolverines have added three ESPN 100 prospects who are not only talented and will excel in John Beilein's system, but also who address some of the team's needs after losing Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway Jr. to the NBA. Derrick Walton is an excellent point guard who pushes the pace and can deliver the rock at high speeds or execute when the defense is set. Zak Irvin is a quick fix on the wing because of his size, athleticism and ability to flat-out get buckets with his aggressive approach on the offensive end of the floor. Power forward Mark Donnal is skilled and can finish in the paint or stretch the defense with his range to about 18 feet. This class will excel in Beilein's system because all three have the IQ and skills to make high-level plays. Expect this Michigan class to be an NCAA tournament mainstay as long as it is together.

These are not bold forays onto the limb, but they do say nice things about Michigan, and from two different people. I might have gone with Donnal as more of a sleeper than the #30 player in the class, since Donnal's headed for a perfect fit for Beilein's offense and could blow up into a huge matchup issue down the road.

BTW, ESPN moved Zak Irvin up to #22, their last five-star spot, and Walton rose 10-20 spots as well, IIRC. I told Seth this and he was bored, because this is always what Beilein recruits do.

Now do it with your arms behind your back. Devin Gardner hits Jeremy Gallon with his eyes closed:

No, Jeremy Gallon did not change his hair and severely reduce his resemblance to Snoop from the Wire. No he did not. Shush.

In other news, this bodes well for throws made when Gardner is sneezing next fall. You'll have to think up something other than a field made of cat hair, Mr. Dantonio, if you're going to boringly cackle your way to victory this fall.

He may be biased, but the numbers are going his way. Netflix's CEO talks up the future of TV and includes some numbers:

The number of consumers turning to Netflix and other online entertainment providers has taken even Wall Street by surprise. Netflix has 30 million U.S. subscribers, a bit more than HBO and about 9 million more than the nation’s biggest cable company, Comcast. Hastings audaciously projected Netflix’s audience to grow to as many as 90 million as it expands globally. Its revenue, which exceeded $1 billion for the first three months of 2013, was a record. Minutes after the figures were announced Monday, Netflix stock soared more than 23 percent.

Eventually this will turn into various streaming buckets of content you can take or leave as you please, thus undermining the Big Ten's desire to expand into areas that have a lot of people who don't really care to watch Rutgers and Maryland play.

You might have to turn in your card. Brandon on the ticket hike:

"We raised the ticket prices, but we wanted to make sure the ticket price increase was not at all perceived to be an opportunity for us to make more money off of the students," Brandon said. "The incremental revenue that comes from the student ticket price increase, we're going to contribute (that) to the rec sports program up on campus -- which has nothing to do with Michigan athletics, but it's a way that we can take those revenues and support something that will benefit all the students."

So… instead of letting the students who play rec sports pay for rec sports, everyone who wants a football ticket pays for rec sports? That doesn't seem particularly Repub—[POLITICAL CONTENT REDACTED].

He does make an assertion that maybe if the tickets are more expensive students will be more inclined to use them that seems plausible. As previously mentioned, I don't think that'll move the needle with many out-of-state students with money to burn. Meanwhile, any student will be able to buy tickets no matter how disinclined he or she is to use them:

Michigan has no plans to cut the size of its student section inside Michigan Stadium -- which is roughly 22,000 seats.

"Every student who wants to buy a ticket will have the opportunity to buy a ticket," Brandon said. "That hasn't changed, and that's the way it's always been."

That's the way it's always been? Dave Brandon used this as an argument in favor of something? I am going to go lie down and panic at the possibility I have fallen into the mirror universe.

On the other hand, the angle of the sun will be right. Thumbs up to this:

OSU's Gene Smith says he has also spoken to Michigan's David Brandon and there is a consensus that "The Game" should be played at noon.

That's the way it's always been? I guess?

Sometimes the burden of proof should be on you. Remember that Duke player who put down 30k in cash and got a 70k loan for some jewelry in 2009? This is how the investigation went:

NCAA: Jeweler guy. Do you want to talk to us?

Jeweler: No.

NCAA: What about you, Lance Thomas?

Thomas: No.

NCAA: Okay we're done here.

As a result, no violations, but much eyerolling. Just dump the amateurism business so no one has to care about Lance Thomas buying some jewelry. Not only is it immoral; it's also unenforceable. This is not a winner.

Speaking of, Patrick Hruby won't stop bombing the NCAA, and it's beautiful.

Between 1985 and 2010, they report, the average salary of head football coaches at 44 Division I schools increased by 750 percent, from $273,300 to $2,054,700. During the same period, the average salary of university presidents rose by 90 percent, while the average salary of full professors rose just 30 percent.

Which group is more essential to the collegiate educational mission?

The OBC is on board with paying guys. Go OBC.

Etc.: Talking with Derrick Walton. Penn State @ 5PM is good news for people making the trip. Brady Hoke : Charlie Weis : Lincoln : Kennedy. False. True.



May 2nd, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^

The Hoke-Weis comparison is interesting and amusing to say the least. But nothing more, it really eases the nerves when an OSU fan defends your coach as being a really good coach*.




*Not in a sarcastic John Cooper way.

Hardware Sushi

May 2nd, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^

Brian - Maybe you could (or already have, although I'm here basically all the time so I doubt I missed it) expand on "paying" players.

Basically the Ws - who gets paid, when, what method, and then how do you determine it?

Is it a set rate for all all athletes? Set rate per sport? Negotiable prior to signing a LOI? Negotiable after being in school for a while?

It's really easy to say 'pay them'. I just haven't heard a logical or feasible way to do it.


May 2nd, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^

You use the word 'negotiable' in a way that makes me feel very uneasy about 18 year old kids signing contracts for lots of money. I am not saying it is wrong to pay them, but the thought of a kid having an agent and finding a deal that pays him a lot of money puts the athlete completely at odds with every other student at the university. A football player getting paid 100 grand a year obliterates the idea of a *wink* "student athlete".

I hope that is not part of the plan because while a market can set a value on a player's services, something like this would be chaotic, especially absent a draft. And then if a draft is instituted, who is involved? Does this mean Southern Miss can take Robert Kdemdiche (sp) No. 1 overall instead of him having the choice of where he wants to go to school?

Sorry for the rant but your question is a good one and one that I don't have an idea for myself. The best I can think of would be each athlete receiving the same amount and giving them the option of where they want to go. It's probably not perfect, and would cost some athletic departments lots of money and possibly some sports but I just don't see how a university has any business managing what at that point would be professional sports.

Mr. Flood

May 2nd, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^

So if you pay all the players, let's say $1,000 per month for arguments sake, is that going to preclude someone from grabbing the kind of cash it takes to buy $100,000 worth of jewelry? I don't think so. The cheaters will still cheat. It doesn't matter how much you give, some will always want more.

Mr Miggle

May 2nd, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^

The authors of the report cited, the one comparing the relative salaries of faculty, presidents and coaches, suggest reducing the number of football scholarships to 60, capping coach's salaries at around $400K and cutting spending for non-revenue sports. They also advocate revenue sharing among schools.

Brown Bear

May 2nd, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^

I'm trying to temper my excitement but I just have a "feeling" that Devin is going to have a huge year and we are going to be really good on offense. *deep breaths its only may*


May 2nd, 2013 at 9:39 PM ^

Really hard to take seriously a screed with hypocrisy in the title.  Just another adventure in selective fact picking.  Especially when the solution advocated seems to be socialism.


May 2nd, 2013 at 10:46 PM ^

Can we get rid of the out of state students with money to burn meme. U of M costs roughly 50k per year to go to out of state but I, and many others, came here because it's one of the best schools in the country. I and my parents scrimped and saved and got loans so I could attend this great instituion. Most out of state students do not have money to burn, and guess what? Every in state student isn't a diehard fan.

The Peanut Master

May 2nd, 2013 at 11:25 PM ^

I don't like the meme either, but not because most out of state students don't have money to burn, because from my perspective (just finished my freshman year) that really isn't true. Though there are out of state students who aren't really rich, the majority quite frankly are. I'm also sort of the exception in that my family isn't super-rich but with loans, good savings and such I'm able to attend (I'm from Los Angeles). My issue is that out state immediately = not just rich, but snobby, entitled, not true fans, etc. cause that sure as hell isn't true. Having said that, you are absolutely right that there are just as many in-state students who aren't diehard fans as out-of-state students. In fact, the vast majority of students aren't diehard fans period, ask a random student to name more than 5 players on either the basketball or football team and I can guarantee 90%+ couldn't do it. It does sort of piss me off that that stereotype/meme gets placed squarely on out of state students when they aren't the only culprits here.


May 3rd, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^

"Having said that, you are absolutely right that there are just as many in-state students who aren't diehard fans as out-of-state students."

While it would be hard to unequivocally prove this either way, I think you are absolutely wrong here.

Instate students are WAY more immersed in the Michigan football scene (I.e. games, tailgating, recruiting, etc) than out of state students. It's just a product of living close to U of M. And a lot of have parents, siblings, uncles, etc that went there that further immerse in state kids. Out of state students don't get this liberty unfortunately. And I would say the majority of out of state "diehards" go to their first or second game when they become students - they probably are not as diehard as they think when they finally get in campus.

I think even the non-Michigan fans in the state of Michigan know more about the culture and traditions of Michigan than most out of staters.


May 3rd, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^

I mean, I think it makes sense to give every student the opportunity to buy a ticket.  If you're paying thousands upon thousands for school here, it kind of makes sense that you should at least have the opportunity to purchase tickets to your school's football games.  I don't agree with the argument Brandon presents, but just a raw shrinkage probably doesn't make sense.


May 3rd, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^

As a non-rich, out of state former student who went to his first Michigan game while still in the womb and wore nothing but UofM clothes growing up and only got half-season tickets my freshmen year because it was '97 and that was the year before renovations and apparently the only year ever where student demand > supply....much rings false with this posting!  I don't really care though, I just found that funny, I also suck at grammar, go blue.  Unrelated, anyone else get pissed off whenever peole refer to Michigan as 'Big Blue?'