META: Pro Sports are OT:

Submitted by formerlyanonymous on March 5th, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Ladies and gentlemen of mgoblog,

  • WHEREAS Lions and Piston threads have shown up with more frequency of late, and

  • WHEREAS Red Wings fans have difficulty remembering this, and
  • WHEREAS Several Michigan alumnni in hockey have been traded of lately between pro teams, and
  • WHEREAS A Red Wings fan posted in a thread the other day that while he considered if his Red Wings thread was off topic or not, he deemed that he didn't think it was off topic,

I HEREBY would like to draw attention to "MGoBoard FAQ", Section "What's the offtopic policy?", Article "OFFTOPIC", as cited by MGOBLOG.COM CEO Brian Cook, posted at July 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 PM EST:


  • Pro sports of any variety

That is all.



March 5th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^

From the same FAQ


* Anything Michigan sports related
* Anything related to other Big Ten teams or upcoming opponents
* Stuff about the blog itself
* University of Michigan topics that don't relate to sports

Technically wouldn't that be "Michigan sports related" since they are alums?

Agree with everything else all of that should be OT (although it is quite obvious that it is).

Clarence Beeks

March 5th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^

I would think it needs a common sense distinction. If the news is about a player who played for Michigan, but the news is about their professional career, it's OT (because it's not about Michigan sports). If the news is about a player who played for Michigan, but the news is about their time at Michigan, it's not OT.

gpsimms not to…

March 5th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^

that people get so worked up about this. since we have a title for each post, can we not leave it to the reader to determine whether this topic is 'on' or 'off'?

if someone clicks on a post entitled "comrie traded" and is disappointed to find out that it is a post about the nhl, then may god have mercy on their soul, etc.


March 5th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

And for me personally, it goes even a little farther. It's not about 'on' or 'off' but rather 'to read' or 'not to read'. Whether or not the title has 'OT' in front of it rarely, if ever, has any bearing on my decision to read it (or not). I'm far more irritated by poorly worded titles.


March 6th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

Honestly, I think we're spending too much time quibbling about this. If it's obvious from the title what it's about (like "Red Wings Win"), I don't think adding an "OT" is necessary. I think the "OT" should be used more for cases in which there could be ambiguity (like say, if there's a pro athlete named Rodriguez who gets in the news for some reason).