September 20th, 2009 at 8:09 AM ^

I agree with the sentiment of the article, but man how can someone who is paid to write in any capacity not know the difference between their, there, and they're (or you're and your for that matter)?


September 21st, 2009 at 11:44 PM ^

My apologies for the grammatical errors in the piece. I understand the frustration you feel when you read articles that are grammatically incorrect.

Grammar is an issue I work on with my professors.

I just started writing quite a bit in June, soon after my mother passed away, and it was an outlet for myself. After 12 years away from school and writing, I decided to take that next step into full time school for journalism/communication. I'm not a professional, but am a work in progress. Again, I do not mean to offend you, and I appreciate the critique. I will work harder on improving that aspect of my writing.

I hope you were able to enjoy the content though, as hard as it must have been to side step the grammatical errors.

Bleacher Report does not pay me. B/R is a fan site with information provided by fans. If you're (is this right?) interested in being an editor, please look into signing up on B/R.

Thanks again,
Jay R Nicols


September 20th, 2009 at 9:04 AM ^ bugs the crap out of me that he didn't take the trouble to compare how coaches' loans are held to those of other people. It's not bias-v-UM so much as basic critical thinking. Here an email I just sent to him - there is a way for him to resolve it honestly but I don't have high expectations:

It's fair for you to inquire about the status of loans at the Bank of Ann Arbor to coaches, but if you really care about supporting your claims, you have to go a step further - you have to compare the likelihood of a coach getting a loan and/or a coach's loan or line of credit being held by the bank (v. sold) to those of other people. You won't of course be able to tell if a coach's loan application is more likely to be accepted than those of other people, but I expect you'd agree that given the compensation these coaches receive, the chances of them getting a loan at ANY bank are pretty good. So that's less of an issue than how the loans are held.

So - 6 of the 7 the mortages sold (exc Beileins). This is probably pretty typical.

The lines of credit are probably less likely to be sold, for the reasons the bankers stated. Can you please provide some evidence comparing the coaches' lines to those of other customers of the bank?

If these numbers are meaningfully different, you may have a case. If not, you ought to retract; the implication is that there is something dirty going on but you haven't really shown that, and it's not fair to leave that implication hanging out there in the air if you can't back it up with real numbers. "Further Investigation Shows No Bias in Holding Coaches' Loans" or "Further Investigation Shows Coaches' Loans Treated Differently."

Without investigating this part of the story, you leave yourself open to claims that either your critical thinking skills or your motivation is in question. Or, for that matter, your knowledge of the banking industry. I expect such claims against you would be fundamentally unfair, and look forward to one the above headlines where you either eliminate that possibility or confess you got ahead of yourself.



September 20th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^

If Michigan fans whine about every legitimate news story we don't like we just come off like whiners. The News story was a legitimate issue that got the level of coverage it deserved, and caught Bill Martin contradicting himself. The article even has quotes to the effect that it's not a big deal. Save your rancor for you-know-what.