swalburn

March 20th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^

I have the exact same elite 8, final four and championship game as the President.  I don't know it that is a good thing or a bad thing.  I have Louisville beating IU in the title game.  I also have 15 out of 16 of the teams he has in the sweet 16.

I love March Madness.  Now if only Spring would arrive.

roosterbaan

March 20th, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^

my apologies, wasn't trying to be political. just thought the bracket was interesting. i can see how my reply could be interpretted as over the line...i actually tried to make this thread as apolitical as possible by only linking the bracket. i also thought the relatively favorable position the potus gave michigan would mitigate obama vitriol. lesson learned.

1464

March 20th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

Right, because none of us were able to take time off of our jobs to fill out a bracket.  I'm not posting this from work.  You didn't post your flamebait from work either, right?  I have no strong feelings about Obama either way, but your attack insults your own intelligence. 

Opponents of sitting Presidents have been doing this forever. 

"OMG Bush just took a 20 minute shit!!! Doesn't he have better things to do?!?!?!"

"Obama went golfing UGHGHGG!!!"

It's funny how each demographic is enraged about golf.  Republicans defended Bush's right to golf, but attack Obama's.  Vice versa for the dems.  If the President were to be all policy, all the time, he would flame out quickly and start eating his own hair.

I hate this train of thought.  It's stupid to a point that I cannot disregard.

WindyCityBlue

March 20th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

...with the no politics rule, but here it goes.  This is probably a good move for Obama.  Many studies suggest that many to most people don't really vote on the issues at hand.  This was especially true during the past 2 elections.  Instead, they vote on who they like best.  As a proud Libertarian, I don't agree with most of Obama's policies (or a Republican's for that matter), but I can definitely say he has a very likeable personality.

Doing these brakets only ups this quotient. 

Bodogblog

March 20th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^

Othewise you'd be picking each higher seed, and where's the fun in that.  Complex ventures are rarely solved through populist means.  And I don't see it working in this case.

MGoCombs

March 20th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^

I thought the same thing (and nothing because of politics). I have the same final 4, same title game, same champion, 6/8 elite 8 teams and 15/16 sweet 16 teams.

It's not a knock on the President's ability to pick games, but pretty much every sports fan sees the President's bracket. And I thought I was being creative :/

Dantana

March 20th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^

Seems like everyone is taking Louisville vs Indiana. I think one of them will not make it to the final four. Both have pretty tough roads. Louisville has a St. Louis squad that in any other bracket would be a favorite to make a long run and then either MSU or Duke. Indiana could face a talented but inconsistent NC State team, the zone of Syracuse and then an experienced Miami team.

If I had to guess, I would say Indiana will not be making the trip to Atlanta.

Soulfire21

March 20th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^

Ugh.  And here I thought I was being oh so clever with a Louisville/Indiana final.  Damn.

/s

Louisville and Indiana are both in my final four right now, however I sort of think one may not make it.  Hrm.  I wonder if I should revisit my bracket, have until noon tomorrow to submit it for the work pool.

Section 1

March 20th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^

This is politics, by the MGoBoard's past standards.

The annual "Obama Bracket Pick" is used by the White House handlers, to promote the president as a young-minded, hip, regular guy-slash-knowledgable sports fan.  It is every bit a promotion of the president, evidenced by the fact that the White House handles it happily and wholeheartedly, even letting it be televised and making it the subject of official releases.  They don't do that, unless they want it to be part of their news cycle and their chosen narrative.  We should all get that.

I started a thread a few weeks ago, concerning the president's comments (some of which were frankly strange) on the issue of concussions in football.  It was taken down by the mods, notwithstanding the fact that it was a basic factual question about the incidence of concussions in college football versus professional football, without any other political discussion included or implied.

Now, I'd be the first to agree that the Obama NCAA bracket picks are a harmless diversion and could easily remain part of the MGoBoard without any serious problem.  But the MGoBoard has proven itself to be very prickly about Obama-related threads.  And as long as there has been a standard set, I am going to point that standard out.

Section 1

March 20th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^

This thread is a lot more Obama-positive (without saying so) than my thread was Obama-negative.

In my thread, I posed one specific question about whether there had been any cases of concussion-suffering college football players who had been left unprotected and uncared for.  As Mr. Obama had suggested.  It was a fact-based college football question.  It didn't ask about partisan politics, and it didn't even ask about nonpartisan policy.  I specifically advised all about the nature of my question and warned against political diversions.  It wasn't good enough, and the biggest factor might have been that it was I who posited the question.

So yeah, David, I think I understand the double-standard at work.  What I would say for the mods is that they probably can't be fair, with guys like you populating the Board.  This isn't really a debating forum.  It is an entertainment, for like-minded members.  Can't have any collective freakouts.  In this case, the protected class is the Michigan Fanboyze, who probably skew the towards Obama in the age 18-29 demo (60% for Obama nationally; higher numbers in Ann Arbor - 67%- and, no doubt, among the university community).  So I am under no illusions that fair and/or consistent rules apply.

M-Wolverine

March 20th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

How in the world is this:

 

michigan in the elite 8, iu winning it all

Followed by a link directly to the bracket (not an article with commentary about the bracket, but just solely the bracket itself, like any one of thousands in the challenge) positive in any way? If you wrote ANYTHING in your post it would have to be more negative or positive, just because it would have contained SOMETHING. In this case you can't read between the lines, you'd have to read between the words....because there's not even more than one line.

Section 1

March 20th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^

I don't have a problem with this thread!  I thought I made that clear enough.  It is harmless fun; the president's NCAA bracket.  I said "it is politics" inasmuch as it makes Obama look like a regular guy whom you'd like to have a beer with and discuss your picks.  And I now see that that is exactly what some commenters thought.  Mission accomplished for the White House communications team.

All that I suggested was that my own thread (it was from early February, I think) which called into question an assertion made by the president with regard to the treatment of concussions in college football, was just as factually-based.  I posted his quote, and asked for comment on that quote, alone.

So no; I don't see any harm in this thread.  Just as I didn't see any harm in my thread from six weeks ago which was taken down.  I have only observed that it seems that some Obama threads are better than others.

Edit. - I just upvoted the OP.  So that's what I think.  Leave the thread up and open, I say.  And to David from Wyoming; I hope this answers your query as to whether I was griping to the mods.  The mods are welcome to leave it up; not that they'd listen to me.  I only wanted to call attention to the double standard.

joeyb

March 20th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^

So, let me get this straight. Your thesis:

"This is politics, by the MGoBoard's past standards."

implies that we should take this post down. Your reasoning?

"I started a thread a few weeks ago, concerning the president's comments on the issue of concussions in football.  It was taken down by the mods"

But then you say

"don't have a problem with this thread!"

So, essentially, the entire point of your comment was to bring up how YOU had yet another thread removed. No one cares that you were wronged in some way. It happened  weeks ago, as you said. You need to move on.

Section 1

March 20th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^

Whether you think I "implied" that this thread should be taken down, I didn't say that.  I have said the opposite.  I say leave this one up.  I said that this thread "is politics by the [past] standards of the Board."  The standards that were applied to me.

My previous thread got taken down, unfairly.  At least unfairly to me.  It is possible to delete offending comments, if they arise.  Without obliterating the OP.  My thread, which was no more "political" than (or, just as political as?) this thread, got taken down.  No doubt, because it was posted under my avatar.

I stand by every word.  This is a harmless thread in good fun, and there's no reason to take it down.  The thread that I posted was within the "no politics" guidelines, and shouldn't have been taken down.  But it was.  Despite the fact that my thread raised a much more serious, substantive, factual point.  The comments in my thread devolved presumably and perhaps only because it was my name on top.

And just to top it all off, I sympathized with the MGoMods, who have to deal with all kinds.  They have to preserve the peace to operate Brian's MGo commercial operation.  Which requires them to deal with the base elements of the MGoMembership.  MGoMobControl.

 

M-Wolverine

March 20th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^

But for board purposes the difference is discussing something done for political reasons, and discussing what is done. The act of filling out  a bracket may be political; discussing said bracket isn't. It'd be like discussing the reasons Congress voted for us to go to war vs. discussing military strategy. (Both of which might be way too OT for this site, but the first is political, the second isn't). 

It seems you (at least now) agree with that, so I have no more objection, other than what joeyb said in that it makes the post seen pointless, but hey, whatever.