|01/05/2015 - 11:39pm||Hello||
I've been coming here since near the very beginning. Started posting during the first search.
|11/26/2014 - 11:41am||The impact of Ryan at MLB||
The impact of Ryan at MLB this year is seen on just about every defensive play. It didn't start out that way this year, as he seemed lost at times, but over the course of the season as he grew more comfortable with the reads you could see him playing faster on the field. Teams had to dedicate blockers on him at the start of plays without using them to chip off the interior DL first. This allowed our DL to make more plays in one on one situations. Even without being in on a tackle his play is often what led or helped in making tfl and sacks. Best ILB to play at Michigan in quite some time.
|11/24/2014 - 9:15am||I understand your points in||
I understand your points in your last paragraph. I don't check the board hourly or by the minute. I saw some pretty bad remarks from after the game to early on Sunday from people and it kind of got to me.
|11/24/2014 - 9:03am||The ones who have done so||
The ones who have done so know who they are. Not trying to be any kind of morality police for anyone here. Everyone's got a right to their opinion but it doesn't mean they have to display it for the world to see like what happens on other teams fan blogs.
Hoke may deserve to be fired for the performance of the football team but he doesn't need to be treated like crap in the process.
|04/12/2013 - 3:25pm||Sometimes, all the talent in the world.............||
...........just doesn't matter if the heart and desire are not there. All one needs to look at is the past few years of USC and Texas football teams.
And think about all of those guys going to UK, who were the big fish in the small pond for years, coming together and being a group of big fish together, each trying to get their expected piece of the action. It might work out for them, but I could also see horrendous infighting and ball-hogging going on which would impact the potential of how great that team could actually be.
If you look at the best Duke teams, for instance, they had a few stars on them, but also had the role players necessary who knew what their purpose was. Alpha males have a hard time adapting to the mentality needed for being a role player on a team.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part that Kentucky implodes next season and never reaches it's potential, but I have to think that their is a good chance that it will happen that way.
|04/12/2013 - 3:16pm||I was under the impression..............||
.........that Burke, along with McGary, and obviously Robinson and Hardaway, came from families where money has never been an issue for them. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
As for Burke leaving, I don't believe anyone across the country would fault him for jumping to the NBA now when his stock is as high as it is.
However, if Burke came back I just don't see his draft stock dropping at all, barring a horrendous injury, therefore I couldn't fault him for returning either.
And if he stays, you gotta think that the other three will stay.
So, to Trey, I say, Go if you must. Go if you believe you have what it takes. Go for your own reasons. You will be missed, but you will also be honored by the fans for what you have given out there on the court. We, the fans, would love to have you stay, mostly for our own selfish reasons. And if you do stay, the honor we would lavish upon you would, appropriately, rise to the level of one of the greatest UM athletes, ever. We have your back, either way you decide. And thank you for the memories of this year.
|04/09/2013 - 2:26pm||Honestly, I was thinking............||
.............at that point that it would be better not to foul at all, and just try to get a defensive stop. There were 50 seconds left, and after Louisville ran off the 35 seconds, 14-15 seconds would have been left. Go down and try for either a quick two or open three, and if made, then foul on the inbounds pass twice to put Louisvill on the line. Those free throws then would have been much tougher for them, only up by 1 or 2 points.
The way that it happened, we ran off too much time going for that first foul, giving them a renewed 35 second clock(which at that point didn't matter). Then too much time to get the second quick foul to put them on the line, all with them having a 4 point lead.
That's my take. Just picture us getting a defensive stop, and going down for a quick 3 pointer. Get two quick fouls, put them on the line, and even if they make both they are only up by 3. Get Burke open for the tying three, and lightning may have struck twice.
|03/30/2013 - 1:24am||Crean deserves Ferrell.||
He's a prick.
Beilein is a great guy on and off the court. He deserves to have a guy like Trey playing for him.
On top of that, Beilein is a better coach than Crean, as are 90% of the coaches in the Sweet Sixteen.
|03/30/2013 - 1:18am||I agree.||
McGary was somewhat functional through the season and came on a bit late in the season, but not enough to matter with how worn down Burke and the others were.
Now, though, McGary is playing like a dominant player, taking some of the heat and pressure off the others. For an overtime game, our guys seemed to be in much better shape than Kansas' players, though much of that may be from the letdown of going into overtime when just minutes before it seemed like they had the game wrapped up.
|03/30/2013 - 12:52am||Best play of the night?||
Easily Trey's 3 from San Antonio into Jerry's World, nothing but net.
Biggest hustle play? GRIII's scramble rebound and reverse putback with Withey nearly on top of him.
Biggest statement play? Everything MMFG did after Johnson's near sexual assault on him.
|03/30/2013 - 12:46am||All your subs belong to us!!!!!!||
But you can keep your crazy. We got enough of that right here!
|02/06/2013 - 3:42pm||So damn glad I wasn't taking||
So damn glad I wasn't taking a drink as I started to read this!
|01/09/2013 - 5:05pm||Barkley certainly didn't help his stock in the draft........||
..........but I don't think he hurt it much at all, either. On the year he completed nearly 64% of his passes and threw 36 TD's to 15 int's, going for 3300 yards in 11 games. Last year he was at 69% passing, throwing for 39 TD's to 7 int's for 3500 yards in 12 games.
His completion percentage wasn't that big of a drop-off from last year, and his yardage per game actually picked up a little, throwing nearly the same TD's per game. His biggest negative this year is the int's, which more than doubled. Overall, though, I'd say that his 2012 and 2011 seasons were similar, in terms of his performance.
Now that I've essentially defended a player I dislike, from a team that I hate, I'm gonna go throw up now.
|12/03/2012 - 11:34am||It was a bad end to a..............||
...........bad B1G season.
Nebraska, with a win in the B1G CCG, could have erased the memory of it's loss to UCLA, pitting an 11-2 Nebraska team against an 11-2 Stanford team, one just inside the top ten, and one just outside.
Instead, Nebraska lays the biggest egg of any team all weekend, promoting a five-loss Wisky team verses Stanford.
I agree with the posters who mention Ohio and PSU as hurting the perception of the B1G this year, as well. OSU won all it's games, while the other B1G schools beat up on themselves, resulting in "meh" records for most other teams in the conference. Most of those "meh" records were due to poor OOC play, against decent to good competition.
OSU - won all their games, but weak OOC scheduling helped
PSU - If they had found their stride at the start of the season, instead of partway through, wins over Ohio and Virginia would have propelled them to a 10-2 season. Much better.
Nebraska - The loss to UCLA hurt worse than people realize. If they show up and win that game, an 11-1 Nebraska team is playing for the B1G, likely ranked inside the top ten. Show up for the CCG, as well, and even a much closer loss looks better for the B1G. As well, it might have allowed for them to still play in a BCS bowl, if the other B1G teams had taken care of their OOC schedules better.
Wisky - Beat OregonSt., and they are 8-4 playing in the CCG, going 9-4. A nine win team in the Rose Bowl doesn't look nearly so bad as an 8 win team, especially given their circumstances, lucking into the situation as an unbeaten OSU and 10-win PSU were ineligible.
MSU - MSU actually fared ok in OOC play. It's unlikely, given their history, that they would breeze through that unbeaten again, since ND is on their schedule. They had the "misfortune" of losing to the rest of the decent B1G schools.
Purdue - Played pretty good in OOC play. If Hope was better coach, they win that ND game too, and are 7-5 at the end. Four of their five conference losses came at the hands of four of the top five teams in the B1G, including the game at Ohio, which again, if Hope was a better coach, they could have and should have won.
NW - A good year OOC, winning all of their games. And a competitive in conference season. They couldn't have helped any more with the perception of the B1G.
Iowa - Lost two OOC games, even as they beat a BCS team. Beat IowaSt., and Central Michigan(a team that MSU destroyed), and they are 6-6 and going bowling. Both OOC losses hurt the conference image, especially when they then open the B1G season with two wins, one being a blowout of Minny and the other being a close win at MSU.
Minny - Weak OOC schedule, even though they won them all. Much like NW, they couldnt' have helped the perception of the B1G any more.
Illinois - The poorest team in the B1G also was blasted the worst in the OOC portion, getting blownout by both ArizonaSt. and LaTech.
Indiana - Lost two in OOC play, both nailbiters. Win both of those, and they end up being 6-6, especially as both of the games they lost, to BallSt. and Navy, were against middling mid-major teams.
Us. Michigan. Well, we played what turned out to be the top two teams in the nation at the end of the regular season. I don't think we could have fared any better against Bama, as our D, although they played well, was still finding itself. The offense, under Borges, could have shown up better, but this was a likely loss going in. We all knew it.
It was the ND game, though, that we should have won. How many turnovers was it? 6? And we did move the ball up and down the field against them. Some of those they turned into points rather easily, even though their offense was sputtering against our D. Take care of the ball, and we win this one. 9-3 instead of 8-4. Still not BCS worthy, IMO, but looking better against any bowl matchup.
The B1G. As a whole, the conference looked terrible because of play in OOC. Win the games they should have, and all but one team in the B1G is at 6-6 or better. And the only OOC game the B1G would have looked terrible in was our own loss to Bama from the SEC. At the beginning of the season. The B1G likely would have had 1 more team ranked in Wisconsin, at the end of the season, in the BCS poll, and probably two of them, us and Nebraska, ranked inside the top fifteen. What's more, in the AP poll, that likely would have gotten the B1G 6 ranked teams, including a top-five OSU, and another top fifteen team in PSU. At that point, the B1G doesn't look nearly so bad, even if we only got one team in a BCS bowl.
|11/27/2012 - 12:46am||All of you talking.............||
.......about the recruiting issue, UM and ND going head to head for prospects, and that if ND wins it will hurt us obviously have forgotten the 90's. ND won a NC and UM still got great talent. Enough to have pretty damn good seasons throughout the 90's, including our own NC.
That's not enough of a reason to root against ND.
And yes, many of their fans are arrogant bastards, but that isn't even a good enough reason to root against them.
Me? I'll root for ND since they will be going up against an SEC team. Mainly because I think the SEC is full of a bunch of pricks that use rules as mere guidelines, who pay players overtly and the NCAA does nothing, who think that football was invented in the south, who believe that football is, and has only been, good in the south. They believe a NC for any of the SEC teams somehow becomes an SEC NC, rather than the individual school (show me the last time someone from the B1G claimed a NC when OSU won it in 2002).
They believe that the entire SEC, top to bottom, is tougher than any other conference, and that teams from other conferences, or ND, when they go unbeaten wouldn't be any better than a middle of the road SEC team. And all that, while they schedule the cupcakiest of cupcakes throughout their seasons, giving the equivalent of three or four "bye" weeks between their tough games. Meanwhile, teams like Oregon are playing USC, Stanford, and OregonSt. in back to back to back weeks. And all other conferences play their cupcakes in the beginning, prior to their conference seasons. Weak schedules for weak minded pricks, and then claiming that their middle of the road teams could go unbeaten in other conferences.
And when they have a team like Arkansas, predicted at the beginning of the season to be one of their top teams, lose like they did, they don't talk about them. Not one bit. Anyone hear any talk from a Bama or LSU fan about Mississippi State recently? That's because they lost their last five games, after starting 7-0. By playing no one of any significance.
No, I'd rather root for ND, even with their asshat of a coach. At least their school actually respects, you know, school. Learning. That sort of thing. They aren't just a pseudo-minor league conference of the NFL like the SEC is.
|11/20/2012 - 3:57pm||Kent State's coach.||
Kent state at 10-1 this year and 7-0 in the MAC with a victory over the B1G's newest member, Rutgers. Of course, their lone loss was to an abyssmal Kentucky, so there's that.
|11/20/2012 - 3:49pm||That "win at all costs" thingy......||
.......seems to be prevalent in the SEC. I can see Tennessee being extremely interested in Petrino, and possibly even Auburn, when they fire Chizik. Hell, maybe even Kentucky will take the flier on Petrino, betting that he keeps it in his pants long enough to turn them into more than cannon-fodder for the rest of that conference.
No way, though, that I see Petrino going to Cal. Cal looks over at their main rival Stanford and sees what they want and need in a coach, and will move to get someone similar. Not sure who yet, but it ain't gonna be Petrino.
|11/20/2012 - 3:33pm||I tend to agree on Ross.||
Add mass and another year of seeing opposing offenses, and his instincts that he already possesses will become even more apparent.
A 2013 Michigan defense featuring Ryan, Morgan, and Ross, with bench help from Bolden, should be approaching the typical, very good linebacking corps that the top SEC schools put on the field.
|11/20/2012 - 1:12pm||All one has to do is look back.......||
...........to Meyer's time at UF. He went there and won repeatedly with mostly Zook's recruits. When his own recruits came "of age", so to speak, other than an outlier or two, UF started getting worse, competitively. Some of that may be from other SEC schools getting better, but I put most of that on UF.
And all that as UF was still getting top-flite recruits.
My guess is that Meyer has a handful of good years at OSU before they "come back down to earth".
But your point about their wins stands. I'm not sure how one could even state that winning by such small margins, some of them with lots of luck involved(or just plain bad coaching moves by the opposing coaches), constitutes OSU being "far better" than any of the other conference schools.
Here's hoping that UM brings them back down to earth quickly with a win in Columbus.
|11/20/2012 - 1:02pm||That.......||
.....is most certainly a better way of looking at it.
|11/20/2012 - 12:56pm||I wouldn't say that it is.............||
..........."what's driving college athletics" so much as it is what is driving the two main college athletic sports of football and men's bball.
I include bball because of the Syracuse and Pitt moves to the ACC, as well as ND's move to the ACC in bball, and the near implosion in just a few short years of what was considered the most powerful bball conference, arguably, for the past few years.
It's about the money and conferences trying to achieve as close to a monopoly in a region as they can, both in dollars and conference footprint.
And as much as I love the tradition of the Big Ten, staying ahead of the game makes much more sense than being the one reacting to the moves from other conferences and finding out that the B1G is the odd man out. And as long as they attempt to preserve some of the traditions of the past, such as the UM/OSU last game of the year, I'll be ok with things.
What's more, increasing the numbers of teams will almost certainly force the schools to have 9, or even 10, in conference games, resulting in tougher schedules, and more competitive games on the field. It's hard to stomach watching 63-7 games against the Baby Seal U's most schools load up on OOC. And after the pushback the SEC garnered after last weekends slate of games against those types of schools, tougher schedules will be looked on favorably, even if some of the schools in the conferece are handing out those 63-7 beatdowns to in-conference teams.
|11/20/2012 - 12:33pm||Another point on the addition of Rutgers and Maryland||
I posted this in a topic yesterday, but the board was adding so many new topics that it may have gotten lost. Anyways, on the move to add both Rutgers and Maryland, there is this;
-Out of the Rivals top 100 2013 football prospects, 16 of them are from Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia. You must include VA in this group because of the heavy concentration of players from the suburbs of DC, where Maryland has some influence.
Out of those 16 players, only four of them are currently committed to B1G schools, with one other kid looking at us. That is five out of sixteen. The other 11 kids are mostly committed to ACC schools, with a couple heading out west and a couple to the SEC.
Having greater access to TV, via the BTN, the B1G schools can increase their own influence throughout that region of the country, which has, most years, a sizable number of talented kids in football. Being able to get more of those kids to come to a B1G school will/should make the B1G football product, on the field, even better.
And, with the TV markets there, Rutgers and Maryland themselves should be able to attract better talent, which should improve their own football product they put on the field.
So, it isn't near the disaster, footballwise, that many people are suggesting it is. Looking at the current product both schools field is just too short-sighted, in my opinion.
Overall, I think this move by Delaney and the B1G will turn out to be a very good move. And that includes the effect it will have on B1G football.
|11/19/2012 - 12:02pm||"Pawn Stars: Columbus"||
Customer: Hey, I got this signed Archie Griffin football from his second Heisman year. It's in perfect condition and has been sitting on my gramp's mantel since the 70's, encased in glass. I got offered $1500 for it last year by Archie Griffin himself, and an auction house declared I could expect at least $1250 for it if I put it up for auction with them right now. I want $1250 for it.
Joe Billy Nutlicker, proprietor: Ok. I'll tell you, I want this. Badly, in fact. I'll give you $5 dollars for it.
Customer: But it's worth at least $1000, minimum. I want $900, at least.
Joe Billy Nutlicker: Ok, but I still have to make money on it. I'll give you $25 for it, because you seem like a nice guy.
Customer: I'll take it. There's a Boren jersey selling like hotnuts down the street!
|11/19/2012 - 11:28am||I voted yes, but then, I'm||
I voted yes, but then, I'm looking at the bigger picture, in several respects.
Sure Maryland and Rutgers are lesser football powers than most B1G schools, and sure there are better prospective members, football-wise, out there, BUT, this is what Maryland and Rutgers bring to the table;
-Both of them expand the BTN's viewership footprint, and in an area of the country that produces some pretty good talent for football. Granted, many of the B1G schools were pulling from that talent pool, dominating it certain years, but this gives an even greater incentive for those considering schools from other conferences to instead choose a current B1G school over the VT's, FSU's, and SEC schools.
-The number 6,12,13,20,29,35,38,42,46,58,63,64,65,68,89, and 96 players in the current Rivals top 100 are from the MD, NJ, and VA area(I included VA as a market since Maryland borders VA and the DC and it's surrounding VA suburbs is a huge market in itself). That is 16 out of 100 ranked players. Not quite CA, TX and FL numbers, but huge in comparison to any other area in the country. And out of those 16 players, one is uncommitted and considering a B1G school with only four others committed to B1G schools. The rest have gone to the southern ACC, or VTech, out west to CA(USC and Stanford), and a couple to SEC schools.
-Both schools also excel in various other sports, including NCAAM and NCAAW basketball.
-Both schools, again for recruiting purposes, increase the footprint for the other major college sport, basketball, to the DC and NY areas, both fertile ground for top talent.
-Both schools are highly ranked, comparatively, to other major D1 universities academically, which would increase the available grant money from government and private sources given to the B1G and it's individual schools.
-If added, the B1G/BTN contract can be upped significantly, giving more $$$$ to each member school, resulting in even better facilities and athletic support institutions at the schools themselves, making them even more attractive choices for athletes to commit to.
So, yes, their football is less than stellar, but they bring enough other positives to the table that not having them become members doesn't make sense. Besides, Rutgers is currently on an upward trajectory, in football, and this year would probably compare competitively to the upper 1/2 of the B1G. Maryland might suck this year, but I'd imagine that their HC gig would become increasingly attractive to some better coaches, and that they would eventually become similar to NW, in that they field a competitive team that every now and then has a pretty good year. Just my opinion on that, of course.
In the wider view of this development, it makes sense, and will benefit the B1G overall.
|11/11/2012 - 2:53pm||That's my point.||
A couple years ago everyone would have been doing that praying/pleading thing after the catch. Yesterday, nothing but joy and 110k+ fans at the stadium and much more than that watching on tv knowing with as near certainty as one can have that the kick was all but through, before it was even kicked.
And we still have this kid for another year? One thing we certainly don't have to worry about next year.
|11/11/2012 - 2:45pm||ND. Bama. Ducks||
ND - Despite their incredible luck at times, their D is still one of the best in CFB this season. There is no real reason to believe that any of the top teams would take them just because they've barely eeked out wins against Pitt and Purdue this season. And I point to that Team Down South back in 2001. Using a stifling defense to eek out wins against MAC teams and bottom of the barrel B1G teams, but still going undefeated. Most prognosticators had them losing to Miami big in the NCS game, but they pulled that one out too. ND is a very good team, despite what some of us may like to believe. I'm ok with them being up there, even as I cannot stand Kelly and what a NCS game, or BCS win might mean for him.
Bama - Ranked #4. I thought they would move down to at least #5, behind UGA, but who cares, really. They should win out and win the SECCG as well. It would be one of the great debacles in CFB history if all three of the teams ahead of them now go unbeaten, and Bama still got into the NCG. Are they the best team? Arguably, yes. However, it's the season that is important. And they lost to a team that has two losses already. At home. That means alot, considering the season as a whole.
Oregon - Injury issues forced what should have been a cakewalk for them into a close game for one half. Their QB, to me, is every bit as good as the kid from A&M, and maybe a better passer. Their WR's aren't elite, but they all have talent and 6 TD's thrown by their QB shows it. I don't think Stanford can beat them, especially in Eugene, but, of course, stranger things have happened (A&M over Bama, for one).
|09/25/2012 - 2:58pm||As bad as the officiating....||
....was during that last Seattle drive that ultimately awarded Seattle the game win, I think people are forgetting earlier in the 4th quarter and GB getting a gift.
At around 11:30 or so left in the game, GB was facing a 3rd and 2 or 3 from around midfield. Rodgers pass was off, but the officials called PI on Seattle when it was clear in the replays that the Seattle defender never touched the GB receiver past the 5 yard from scrimmage mark. Never held.
If no PI had been called, GB likely would have punted the ball, and no GB TD would have resulted.
In the larger context of the entire game, that call was just another call. But place that drive, and that call, in the final drive of the game, and Seattle would have just as much to bitch, moan, and complain about, regarding the refs "giving" the game to GB.
Think about this for a minute; If no PI call on that play, no TD. Given GB's ineptitude during the entire game on offense, likely maybe only another FG would be added. That Seattle likely would have answered, as they got into FG range in their second to last drive. Given that, Seattle likely would have won the game anyways, but in a much cleaner fashion.
So, I have no sympathy for GB, or their players, or their fans, complaining about the officials awarding the game to Seattle for the mockery of football that was Seattle's last drive.
Quit complaining about the refs "giving the game" to Seattle when GB was on the receiving end of a call that nearly "gave the game" to GB instead.
|09/02/2012 - 12:06am||The lines are.......||
.....where UM got beat tonite.
Alabama's D-linemen were making penetration across the line of scrimmage all night long, which made it stupid to run it up the middle. It also allowed their linebackers to play more off the ball and looser from sideline to sideline, which shutdown any attempts at outside runs.
Alabama's O-linemen were moving our guys off the line and sealing off the running lanes exceptionally well.
|02/08/2012 - 9:11pm||I have.....||
....quite a bit of faith that BWC will end up a rock solid player on the DLine this coming season. He was one of those 5-star players who rated highly based primarily on his size and measurables, not on skill. And remember, he spent his first seasons at UM under the tutelage of people who could not, for various reasons, get him to where he needed to be. He has that now, has had it for one season and going on another. The jump he made between 2010 and 2011 was significant. Another jump similar to that and he will be amongst the dominant DLinemen in the conference. It is a shame that he couldn't have had Mattison and Hoke for all four years, otherwise, we might not be discussing this particular topic right now.
|02/02/2012 - 1:33pm||Haa!||
54 out of 99 four and five star players are still on the roster. While that is telling as far as the level of talent Saban is bringing in to Bama, it is also VERY telling as far as the numbers of players he cuts due to some reason or another if they haven't panned out. And yes, I understand that some of that 45 player difference is due to players only there four years(the 99 was counted since 2008), and yes, I understand that some of that 45 player difference is due to guys like Richardson who leave for the pros early. However, my guess is that the bulk of that 45 player difference cannot be attributed to four-year only players or players leaving early for the draft. It would be interesting to see a complete breakdown of those 45 players and where they are now, including how they got there.
|02/01/2012 - 1:23pm||Stupid double posting......||
.......computer! I'm damn close to killing it like I did my last one, only this time on purpose!
|02/01/2012 - 1:19pm||No, not necessarily.||
But, I have to admit that I've seen little to nothing about Nutt's recruits getting pushed to the curb like I have Saban's. However, given the amount of oversigning Nutt does, one has to believe that he does things very similar to Saban. Right now, due to the amount of evidence of kids being hurt by Saban, I'm going with him.
|02/01/2012 - 12:44pm||Some guys are..........||
........negative recruiters, some are positive recruiters, and that is overall IMO. Generally, some amount of negative recruiting is done by each and every coach, even when they are promoting their school only.
Consider this; If Hoke goes and tells a recruit that UM has the best business school in the land, he is implying that other schools the recruit may be considering do NOT have as good a business school.
Generally, though, recruiting like my example of Hoke above is not considered negative.
As for "dirtiest" I'd have to say that any coach who cares more about the numbers of recruits, and their talent, rather than the kids themselves, is a dirty recruiter. Hence, Saban is, by a very, very large margin, the dirtiest recruiter in the land. He makes the coach in "Johnny Be Good" look like a boyscout.
|01/31/2012 - 1:41pm||Great post!||
The list of "Addressing the Needs" is very telling. If one was to completely forget about the recent kids we missed on, and only look at that list, I firmly believe that people would be ecstatic about the class itself, and consider it a very, very successful recruiting season. And with the possibility of getting Diamond, most people would consider it either close to, or an actual, homerun of a recruiting season.
I hope that Diamond goes blue, because that would set our lines up for the future, both sides, to be dominant in the B1G.
|01/31/2012 - 12:49pm||3 top 100 guys||
That is quite a haul for M in BBall. McGary is much better than his ranking, as evidenced by his play over last summer over some very highly ranked kids. GRIII is going to be very, very good for us as well, and Stauskas could turn out to be a role player initially that finds himself in the spotlight during his upperclass years. I like it.
|01/31/2012 - 12:41pm||No....||
We got Frank Clark last year.
|01/31/2012 - 12:40pm||While I love getting the...||
.....highly rated kids, and it sucks to lose out on them, especially to schools like Ohio, this commitment was one I was hoping for.
The bulk of any good team is made up of the guys who are rated middle of the road, so to speak. Guys who just aren't highly rated for one reason or another, but can still play ball with the best of them. Mr. Willie Henry seems to be one of those guys, and I believe he will be a very good player for us in the future.
Welcome Willie. Here's to years of you planting opposing OL on their butts and opposing QBs and RBs 6 feet under.
|01/30/2012 - 9:19pm||We had a guy like that too.||
He was a two-time state champ and made the rest of his weight class look very, very small in comparison.
|01/30/2012 - 4:04pm||That amount of weight......||
........needs to be in context. For example, one rep of 370 is impressive, but not overly so. 5 reps of 370, or 370 at the end of a pyramid rep workout is VERY impressive.
My ex-HS wrestling coach used a pyramid workout that started with 10 reps of a weight, 8 reps of a heavier weight and so on down to one rep. At one point during our summer workout sessions he ended up with 505 on the bar for one rep. Just looking at that number is pretty damn impressive. But knowing that he did that after 10 reps of 350, 8 reps of 375, 6 reps of 400, 4 reps of 425, 3 reps of 450, and two reps of 475 is amazing.
So, If BWC put up 370 in any scenario other than a single rep during the workout, the number is quite impressive.
For the record, my old coach did a single workout rep once just because we begged him to and he put up just under 600.
|01/18/2012 - 1:51pm||People shouldn't put......||
.........so much stock into how Meyer is doing at Ohio as far as recruiting goes. Remember, at Florida he was pulling in 4 and 5 stars left and right, and yet, Florida, as a team, declined in competitiveness his last couple of years there. Screw him.
I care more about Hoke and Co. bringing in high quality, high character kids. That alone will translate to Michigan fielding a good/great team year in and year out. Will Ohio beat us in the future? Almost certainly. Will they dominate us like they did during the Vest's tenure as their coach? Not while Hoke is still our coach. I love the quality of kids Hoke has brought in, and personally, I cannot find a questionable recruit, as far as character is concerned. The fact that he is bringing these kids in, and them being amongst the highly rated ones too, should allay everyone's concerns about how Ohio is doing.
|01/12/2012 - 1:09pm||Another season that everyone forgets..........||
........but would have been a travesty for one team is 2005. USC and Texas were the preseason #1 and 2 teams. They remained that way all year long, and in the end were the only two unbeatens left. People point to it as a year the BCS "got it right", however, it could have turned out quite differently had PSU beat us in AA. PSU wasn't ranked at the beginning of the year and didn't get ranked until after the 6th week of the season.
They ended up beating Ohio by a score of 17-10, at PSU, while Texas beat Ohio 27-24, at Ohio. Essentially, those two games were a push, considering the common opponent. PSU had one other close game all year, other than Ohio and UM, when they played NW. Other than that, the rest were decisive wins, or blowouts.
Does anyone think PSU would even have been considered for inclusion in the MNC game over Texas or USC(assuming they beat UM that year)? I don't, even though they had as decent a schedule strength as Texas did, and including a similar win over Ohio as Texas did. As it was, PSU lost one game all year, an away game, on a last second pass(and a sweet pass and catch it was, too), and it cost them. If Henne doesn't make that pass and MM doesn't catch it, PSU could have found itself unbeaten, against a fairly tough schedule, but on the outside looking in.
|01/12/2012 - 12:35pm||Just one point on "if GA beat LSU".......||
If, in fact, that did happen, considering GA would have been 11-2 at that point, and have lost to BSU as well as South Carolina, then how could anyone at that point claim that LSU is one of those top teams? Keep in mind that at one point in the SECCG that we were headed towards a GA win and still probable LSU vs. Alabama MNC game. That would have been a complete joke of a MNC game at that point, rendering the entire regular season as meaningless to any team not within the SEC.
You stated that the BCS "GUARANTEES" the two best teams play for the MNC. And I ask you, then, how exactly do you know that LSU and Bama were the two BEST teams? The answer is that you don't, really. It's all your opinion, just as the rankings, whether AP or ESPN/USAToday are just the opinions of writers or coaches. As a poster stated above somewhere, the polling that determines the makeup of the MNC is nothing more than a popularity contest, and it starts before any games have ever been played. It is entirely possible, for example, that this season's actual "best" team was OkSt. Without any sort of actual playoff not based on human opinion, it is impossible to say 100% that the winner of the MNC is the "best " team in cfb for a given year, and the reason is that most times those top teams not only do not play one another, but also don't even have common opponents.
IMO, OkSt. had a much better resume over the entire season than Bama did in the regular season, going 7-0 vs. top 30 teams while Bama went 4-1. Could Bama have gone through the schedule that OkSt. did and remained unbeaten? Most people would say yes, however, most people would then be forgetting the bad games Bama had this season against both MSSt. and GA Southern. If those two games had been against, say, Baylor or Oklahoma, or even KSt. would Bama have won? And yes, one could then come back and talk about Bama's schedule and how OkSt. would have fared and made similar points. I get that. The point is that no one knows for sure how another team from a different conference would fare against the same opponents as any other team. Which leads to the point that the current system simply chooses, for a single game, who can participate and who is left out, without anything other than opinion, rendering the MNC game largely one of popularity, rather than the results on the field.
|01/11/2012 - 9:36pm||And that is the crux.......||
.....of the argument against Bama even deserving a shot. It has to do with the perception of the voters believing that every other team in the SEC was tough as well, meaning Bama and LSU had very tough seasons to go through. In LSU's case that was true, having played, and beat, the Pac12 and BE champions, who beat the B1G champ and ACC champ in their respective BCS bowls.
OkSt. played, according to Sagarin, the 3rd toughest schedule in cfb this year. They went 7-0 vs. top 30 ranked teams. Bama went 4-1. Considering wins, OkSt. had a better argument to be the #2 team and play in the MNC.
|01/11/2012 - 4:01pm||You are correct in.....||
......your statement that "It's all subjective". And any number of playoff inclusion formats, from a plus-one to 8 or 16 teams would be subjective as well. Formulas for inclusion of which teams make the playoffs would be subjective, leading to subjective matchups, and eventually the subjective NC.
The games themselves, though, are more definitive of who's a better team than in NCAA basketball, mainly due to the numbers of players involved in the games. That is why comparing a playoff in football to the NCAA BBall tourney is comparing apples to oranges.
There is no doubt that the BCS system is more definitive for determining a NC for the sport. And a plus-one would be more definitive than the current system, an 8 team playoff more definitive than a plus-one, a 16 team playoff more so than an 8 team. The problem is finding a balance between definitively identifying a champion and eliminating the downsides, or problems, that continuing to extend the number of inclusions can bring about.
IMO, the plus-one is the best format if you wish to have that definitive national champion. Anything more becomes too cumbersone and anything less leads to more arguments, such as the one this season about whether OkSt. or Bama should have been in the game.
|01/11/2012 - 3:40pm||That doesn't "presuppose" anything.||
As I said, the argument for Bama, or LSU, being better than OkSt. is nothing more than opinion based on the fact that they didn't play them. There isn't even a common opponent to compare them to, but even that isn't definitive, as transitive properties do not work in cfb.
The point you should take from my comment isn't that I believe on the field game results are all that matters, but that any opinion of who is the best team for a given year is a weaker argument without the on the field game result.
Let's assume, for instance, that OkSt. had made the game and got beat by LSU. No one would argue Bama being ranked second in that case, assuming they won their bowl game. No Bama fan could legitimately argue that they were better than LSU, as LSU won that game, at Bama. "Betterness", as you put it, can be shown on the field, but subjective to the season's body of work and opponents played.
And I did state that a statement about LSU, or Bama, being better than OkSt. cannot be definitively true. It may very well be true, and I can agree with a person's arguments about it, however, it is not proven, and can never be, unless a test(game) is performed.
|01/11/2012 - 3:09pm||The thing about......||
.....the voter's "perception" has to be eliminated as much as possible. This year the "perception" was that LSU and Bama were the two best teams in cfb. However, the B12 didn't really factor into the equation like it should have. A plus-one, or four team playoff, should never include 3 teams from the same conference, as there would be overlap between those 3 teams meaning at least one of them lost to another, or possibly both of the others, during the regular season. Arky, for example, lost to both LSU and Bama this season and the games weren't even close, yet they are somehow a top-five team?
|01/11/2012 - 2:42pm||Your point is made.||
I say that the voters got it right because of the results on the field during bowl season. The point is that that season's NC had a much more definitve feel to it than this season. And even though, say, a plus one format would have pitted Ohio vs. USC and UM vs. Florida, there is a high probability of neither Ohio or UM winning the NC that year.
I use that example of the 2006 season of how, in the end, another team got there shot that arguably should have been there, and that the results on the field backed that up. This season OkSt. had every bit as good an argument to be in the MNC game over Bama, and every bit as good an argument as Florida had in 2006, yet they didn't get to prove it on the field. That is the most important distinction between the two seasons. Florida got to prove they belonged in the game while OkSt. didn't, which is why I stated that the voters got it right during 2006 and possibly didn't get it right this year.
|01/11/2012 - 2:27pm||Thinking even more on this.....||
.....due to the hypothetical of OkSt. beating IowaSt. by a fg, and Bama losing only to the #1 team by a fg in OT, if that had happened, and OkSt. made the championship game, Bama very well could have had an argument for inclusion in the NC game, and I would have supported it.
The point about a playoff is to more definitively determine a cfb NC. Will it ever be a perfect system? No. Will there still be arguments about who is included and who isn't? Absolutely. However, a playoff with more than two teams will reduce the number of arguments about who is the best team from a certain year. IMO, four is the best number, as that is the closest number historically to the number of teams in a given year that have a legitimate argument for inclusion in the MNC game.
I want a more definitve conclusion to the season. That also leads to more football being played between top teams which is always a plus, and IMO, will create more drama for the last few weeks of the cfb regular season, rather than diminishing the importance of it. For example, considering this season, the last few week's games of many of the top rated teams would have had more on the line, including Oregon/USC, OKSt./OU, and even the Houston/USM game, as all could have had an impact on who is one of the four teams in the playoff. This season it was pretty much a given that if LSU beat GA that it would be LSU/Bama in the NC game, meaning none of the other games, and particularly the beatdown of OU by OkSt. had any impact on the NC game.
|01/11/2012 - 2:04pm||A I keep saying.........||
........., transitive property doesn't work well in cfb, otherwise, we should have beat MSU and had a closer game against Nebraska, if not a loss. Also, if transitive property worked, Oregon never should have lost to USC at home, being that they smashed Stanford who barely beat USC in 3OT's.
Each game is an entity unto itself. Let's say OkSt. makes that fg at the end of regulation and only beats IowaSt. by 3. Would you still be talking about how close OkSt.'s wins were vs. a team that barely lost to the #1 team in OT?
Better yet, how do you rate a team that high who had an FCS team hang close with them for a large part of the game, and that same FCS team was demolished by eventual FCS champion North Dakota St., who needed a late 4th quarter Int. to keep lowly 3-9 Minnesota from forcing an OT.
I don't discount the possibility, and probability, of the voters having been right this year. The problem is that we won't ever know for sure if LSU and Bama really were the two best teams. In 2006 the voters were proven correct by not including two teams from the same conference that had already played each other in the NC game. This year it's not definitive, and to me and many others, is a mythical NC for Bama. A plus-one format would have changed that, even if it did result in the same NC game that was just played.
|01/11/2012 - 1:40pm||It's only defensible......||
.....if one forgets about how OkSt. lost their game, or the fact that transitive property doesn't necessarily work well in cfb(Stanford).
In OkSt.'s case, while their loss was to an eventual 6-7 team, the loss happened immediately following a tragedy that happened and affected their entire sports family. If the plane crash doesn't happen, that loss likely doesn't happen.
In Stanford's case, they lost to Oregon, who lost to LSU. However, that game was close until both James and Barner went out with injuries and a true freshman, playing in his first game, fumbled twice giving LSU short fields and both 3rd quarter TD's. Without the injuries to James and Barner, keeping both out of the game for significant periods, that game is a toss-up. And, as we at UM know full well, just because we beat someone, and another opponent gets manhandled by them, doesn't mean we can automatically pencil in a victory(UM/ND/MSU).