|09/09/2017 - 7:33pm||Me opening this thread was||
Me opening this thread was crappy click management.
|08/08/2017 - 12:48pm||Your posts indicate you don't||
Your posts indicate you don't understand how they matter.
Many sources, very much including this blog, have demonstrated that recruiting rankings are broadly predictive of player success. So a higher rated class is generally going to outperform a lower rated class. That means when Rich Rod was bringing in classes filled primarily with 3* and low 4* players, "trust the coaches" was not a great argument - there was objective reason to believe that Michigan's classes would be worse than higher rated classes overall.
But this argument fails when you're recruiting like Harbaugh, with top 10 and (it looks like 3 out of 4 years) top 5 classes. Across the board, the rankings predict his classes will be as successful as virtually anyone else's. His evaluation of an individual player that Michigan has certainly scouted repeatedly in person is something that, against his overall success, fans can reasonably feel comfortable relying on. (Including because he'll almost certainly be replaced by a high 4*).
Harbaugh's not perfect - his evaluation was almost certainly wrong on David Reese, for example. He's also recruited guys like St Juste who blew up afterwards. But the idea - your idea - that a single player has a 5* ranking and some potentially commitable offers so Michigan must make them a priority is how you end up like Miami.
|07/28/2017 - 12:14am||100%. Bando has been a||
100%. Bando has been a constantly negative, one note poster here for years offering the same three takes over and over. Heaven forbid we hear from someone with experience or insight that deviates from Bando's narrative.
And as a lawyer, the idea that we should automatically believe accusers, or certain accusers, because of "power dynamics" is absurd. Whether you're a juror or community member, it's always appropriate to consider all of the facts that come out. In the last 24 hours I've had two clients (non criminal) face provably false accusations made by unstable, vindictive people - it's not some rare event.
|04/25/2017 - 4:32pm||As an attorney (and, I guess,||
As an attorney (and, I guess, citizen?) this is somehow the craziest post in this thread. You do not automatically believe accusations, you investigate them, regardless of the crime. You consider whether the story you're being told is plausible and seek evidence that either supports it or doesn't. The elevator story is bizarre; it may be entirely true, but it is one reason to legitimately wonder whether this accusation is false.
You are taking a real issue - stigmatization of sexual assault victims - and overcorrecting in a ridiculous way. You mention elsewhere that these are often crimes with the least amount of physical evidence; you must realize that this also makes them among the easiest to lie about. And despite the claims and "statistics" cited in this thread, people regularly (not constantly) do make false accusations about rape and everything else.
The idea that you want to revisit the principle of innocent until proven guilty - that we should presume guilt because someone with little or no evidence makes a claim, without any investigation - it's just so nuts. You must realize that. That idea is a foundation of society. I am legitimately terrified that this comment has two upvotes. We can take claims of rape seriously, we can investigate them legitimately, we can stop saying things like "she asked for it," but still, you know, not toss people in jail because the founding fathers didn't think about rape or something?
|11/16/2016 - 1:40pm||The firm||
The firm is demanding punishment without any sort of process. That argument is asinine even by small plaintiffs' firm standards - don't think I need to hear from the players on that one.
The firm can say any dumb thing they want, of course, and zealous advocacy is great, but people are allowed to think statements like those are dumb.
|08/17/2016 - 11:44pm||There is only one reason you||
There is only one reason you revoke passports for making false police reports - bad publicity.
Re-reading your comment, I realize that's probably the point you were trying to make. My fault. Having just finished a brief 15 minutes ago, it's blowing my mind to see some of the "legal analysis" here; I think that colored my reading.
|08/17/2016 - 11:21pm||Lol, "if the impression is||
Lol, "if the impression is given that these guys are getting extra prosecutorial attention because they got publicity"??? Brazil fails to prosecute the dozens of armed crimes that occur in and around Rio every day. You really think they would be pulling high-profile foreign citizens off flights because of conflicting statements to police under any kind of normal circumstances?
Whether or not they lied - and their stories sure seem iffy - this is a massive overreaction by Brazilian authorities because they got their feelings hurt. It's disgusting, and would be equally so if the U.S. did it.
|10/20/2015 - 1:33pm||Kobe King (Wisconsin||
Kobe King (Wisconsin commit) is actually the son of former Wake Forest player Chris King, who is Jimmy King's cousin.
|02/09/2015 - 1:06pm||I agree with your overall||
I agree with your overall point, and think the degree of recruiting overreaction has been ridiculous around here.
But to answer your question re: why Michigan was caught cheating and not other teams, it happened because Taylor or Traylor (accounts differ) rolled an SUV that (I beleive) belonged to Ed Martin and that definitely contained Mateen Cleaves, then a high school student. They were on the way back from a party involving alcohol, drugs and strippers. When it turned out that some part of their trip involved a stop at Ed Martin's house, investigators looked into and eventually uncovered Martin's relationship with the basketball team. The FBI and DOJ got involved, and things went downhill for Michigan from there.
If that SUV doesn't flip, none of this comes out, and Fisher probably coaches here for 20 years. Total fluke - the combination of a serious crash with significant injuries (Taylor was lost for the year with a broken arm) involving a high profile recruit and a guy running a significant gambling operation doesn't happen every day. We were caught and stopped cheating, but others certainly did not.
|01/29/2015 - 2:59pm||You mean 11-9, 4-3 in the||
You mean 11-9, 4-3 in the SEC Florida - a team that took our best big man who was also a fifth-year senior? I am too lazy to check but am willing to bet that roster is stacked with 4*s. It's not going so great for them, is it? And I agree with you that Donovan is a great coach.
But we're sitting on maybe the best basketball coach in the country. I get hoping for top recruits, and I agree it could make a big Final Four-ish difference with a coach like ours. But after the preceding decade of Michigan basketball - hell, even if you forget the Amaker era entirely - how can you be anything but thrilled with how things are going?
|01/29/2015 - 2:54pm||I don't think so, I keep||
I don't think so, I keep hearing no good players will come here.
|01/26/2015 - 3:19pm||With the background that I||
[Edit: it seems like evenyoubrutus has more info about this below than I did. I do think he knows someone - but if it's just someone tight with Harbaugh's old agent then I agree he probably knows nothing about Weber.]
|10/28/2014 - 3:40pm||And keep in mind - under this||
And keep in mind - under this theory, you hacked the account and spent YEARS sending dickish messages to people to some unknown end. But you were careful never to send anything containing curses or slurs or that was too outrageous, because [reason].
You can see why this makes much more sense than a thin-skinned doofus sending snarky e-mails to people complaining about him, his performance, and his friends.
|03/11/2014 - 1:13pm||Don't worry - I've been a||
Don't worry - I've been a Knicks fan for 27 (mostly miserable) years. Hardaway is a good young player, so he'll be long gone soon. We'll probably trade Hardaway and our 2020 and 2022 first round picks this offseason for Steve Nash.
|03/08/2014 - 8:33pm||Wasn't perfect, but got the||
Wasn't perfect, but got the win, Morgan played great in his last home game, and we pissed off NITom Crean. That's a good night.
|02/27/2014 - 4:53pm||This is right (as is the top||
This is right (as is the top post), and a lot of the "legal" commentary (including by the goofball who works at Michigan's Student Press Law Center) has been entirely incorrect about FERPA and its requirements. No sane general counsel's office is going to suggest that you comment much more about this kind of stuff than Michigan has - the final results of the investigation have been literally disclosed, as Michigan acknowledged that Gibbons was expelled for violating the sexual conduct policy.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of doing this, my billable hours appreciate it.
|02/22/2014 - 8:16pm||Racer 5 IPA||
Officially my favorite regular IPA, dropping the delicious Dogfish 60 down a spot.
|01/11/2014 - 10:40pm||I want to reiterate what a||
I want to reiterate what a couple of posters above said - I was not a huge fan of some of your work early, but it's been very solid lately. Good stuff man.
|07/29/2013 - 4:18pm||Proudest papa...||
|07/16/2013 - 12:00pm||They're also ignoring that we||
They're also ignoring that we are a matchup nightmare for VCU as a team that doesn't turn it over and responds well to pressure. Even if Walton and Spike struggle more than Burke, which is plausible, that game was a beatdown last year - and we're not relying on either of them to ALSO carry the scoring load like we were with Trey. I can't see VCU within 10 points of us on their best day.
|07/11/2013 - 2:11pm||"We can't really show you,||
"We can't really show you, but that's Mike Cooper pleasuring himself while watching porn at the Berea library, just across the room from the children's section. Take our word for it - and his."
"And you just reached down and grabbed yourself and started having sex?"
[Pause] "I, I did what I, I wasn't thinking, I made a mistake."
|07/10/2013 - 12:36pm||Later in the interview,||
Later in the interview, Dantonio noted that while he is wary of star rankings, he is even more wary of lawnmowers.
|03/05/2013 - 4:52pm||I think based on impact, this||
I think based on impact, this is Muppets worthy. WOOOO!!!
|03/01/2013 - 10:26am||Not quite =. Neither play a||
Not quite =. Neither play a lick of D, but Stauskas actually makes 3s. I like Vogrich, he seems like a nice kid, but he is not a good shooter.
|02/28/2013 - 4:00pm||Not that my opinion means||
Not that my opinion means anything, but I think you and BiSB are both good mods. It's a big forum and I'm sure it's a (typically) thankless and (occasionally) stressful job. Don't leave, maybe take a step back. IMO Bolivia is for McFarlin and his ilk and PEOPLE WHO JOKE ABOUT KOZAN AND DIGGS IT WAS NEVER FUNNY, not benevolent goofballs like Herm and His Dudeness.
|02/28/2013 - 2:26pm||I REALLY don't have a dog in||
I REALLY don't have a dog in this fight. But your judgment lately (this obvious overreaction, the two-hour NO TE'O nonsense) has been sort of iffy.
On the other hand, you prefer BF3 to CoD, which is good judgment. Lot of ins and outs here.
|01/31/2013 - 6:43pm||You're 100% right, he's such||
You're 100% right, Denard is such a terrible representative of the school and program we should probably cut ties with him altogether. He always has been a black eye on the program. And what a mediocre, boring career he had here.
They should go with Kovacs, or Brady, or Harmon, maybe Baas. I certainly wouldn't want Woodson, or Desmond, or Braylon, or Manningham, or Hart for sure. And I think Dileo or Jake Ryan could be great representatives in the future.
|01/31/2013 - 10:05am||Eight-year-olds, Dude.||
|01/28/2013 - 11:54am||And the best part is that||
And the best part is that when you ask people who actually have some idea of who can really coach - fellow NCAA coaches - they consistently say Beilein is among the best in the profession. That's what counts, and now that he has real talent, our success isn't a surprise to anyone who was informed in the first place.
I can't say I miss the days when people with no idea about basketball were ripping Beilein on this board a couple of years ago because MOAR REBOUNDZ. Now someone just convince GRIII to stick for another year and we'll be all set.
|01/23/2013 - 11:10am||Michigan 83-73.||
|01/16/2013 - 5:02pm||Particularly when an article||
Particularly when an article is researched in such obvious detail. The "more credible outlets" PGB wants to hear from were the ones almost certainly printing nonsense about an imaginary person without looking into it further.
|01/13/2013 - 4:38pm||1) You've come out against||
1) You've come out against Beilein and his system many times in the past, so you must have been waiting eagerly for this one.
2) Anyone calling for a football coach's firing after a close loss to a top 15 team on the road is an idiot, and it's not common here (and I know you're aware of this). "Fire Borges" didn't appear the first time his playcalling appeared to doom us - it started in full force maybe the fifth time.
3) As our resident basketball expert, please explain your evidence that we were "clearly [not] ready to play." Our extremely young team came out intimidated for 10 minutes in its first extremely tough road game of the year. You can only coach that out so much - the guys just have to experience it. Beilein proceeded to make adjustments and nearly made up a 21 point deficit. He allowed Burke to settle down and (IMO) expertly used Morgan and McGary in the second half.
Losses (certainly close ones on the road) can prove that you've got a rock solid coach. I'm not sure this one really did, but you can't put this game on the coaches simply because a young team fell behind early.
|11/19/2012 - 1:08pm||That's a historical||
That's a historical footnote. Should we say "no history of succes"? How about "no games worth replaying on BTN"?
If you want to say Rutgers has a halfway decent football program in 2012 and justify it that way, OK. If you want to say that NYC's imaginary Rutgers fans will cause this move to "deliver the NYC market," I disagree, but OK. Let's just not be ridiculous and defend Rutgers as some great football tradition.
Just for fun, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_Scarlet_Knights_football . Four paragraph summary of Rutgers football history. Two on the first season, two on "The Remaining Years (1870-2011)." You can't make this stuff up.
|11/19/2012 - 12:54pm||I got into this discussion||
I got into this discussion with someone the other day. Rutgers and UMD don't come close to selling out their stadiums. They have lower attendance than Illinois and Purdue, higher than Indiana (NW didn't come up so I don't know). Edsall was bitching within the last week that nobody wants to watch his tire fire in person, so there's that.
Not to claim you're doing this, but: other programs in the B1G with relatively low attendance =/= justification for adding more of them, particularly a school like Rutgers with essentially no athletic history of note in any sport, ever.
|11/17/2012 - 9:28pm||2011 stats (attendance per||
2011 stats (attendance per game):
Illinois - 49,548
So you're broadly right. You could more fairly rip Indiana and its 41k per game. But even if RU and UMD are no better than Illinois and Purdue (something I'd obviously argue), how is that a justification for adding them?
Of course Illinois and Purdue have outstanding basketball programs with great history, as does Maryland. And traditional rivalries within the conference. Rutgers has low football attendance and doesn't even bring basketball. The difference between adding Rutgers, UCONN, or Syracuse is negligible - the only difference is two of those schools play great basketball. That doesn't justify adding any of them to the B1G, of course.
PS, there were about 5000 fans at the Rutgers game I saw. It was snowing (not like a white-out, just cold crappy weather), but there were no more than 5000 people there regardless of the paid attendance stats.
|11/17/2012 - 8:50pm||Purdue and Illinois||
Purdue and Illinois basketball (and their die-hard fans) think that you have no idea what you're talking about. Illinois is popular in-state as well, and it has football fans too when the team is mediocre or better (more than you can say for Indiana).
No sane person in this thread is ripping Maryland's basketball program. But RU and UMD are not football powers by any stretch and nobody goes to their games. The ADs of both schools are bleeding money. I was watching a Rutgers home game last year that had *maybe* 5000 people there. You're probably just trolling, but come on now.
|11/17/2012 - 8:43pm||If that's actually true, then||
If that's actually true, then I'm assuming Time Warner doesn't have it in their basic package. That seems plausible - they're the other cable option in NYC. I find it hard to believe a school with next-to-no NYC fanbase changes that, but it's possible. This is not an opinion: Michigan has more fans in this city than Rutgers, and it's not close.
I don't think Delaney is an idiot. I firmly believe that he has a master plan here, and if we're doomed to expand, hopefully it involves schools like UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, UVA, etc. at some stage. I just don't agree that adding two schools with crappy football programs, athletic departments that are losing money, and fundamentally tiny fanbases is the right next step.
Ask your friends what football fans who live in MD and NJ watch on the weekend. I'm willing to bet their answers will involve a lot of "Giants, Jets, Ravens, Skins" and next to no "Rutgers and Maryland." This is an NFL region.
|11/17/2012 - 8:26pm||You can't make this argument||
You can't make this argument with someone who actually gets basic cable in NYC. I have the basic Verizon package (one of only two options in the city along with Time Warner) and get BTN. So you're just making things up.
Maybe all of NJ and MD will DEMAND watching games on TV that they certainly won't attend in person. Unlike you, I won't speculate on things I know nothing about. But as you're talking out of your ass re: NYC cable, I'm assuming everything else you've said is pulled out of thin air as well.
|11/17/2012 - 8:06pm||Don't be ridiculous.||
If the B1G goes to Texas, it's UTEP or bust.
|11/17/2012 - 7:56pm||I can't speak to DC or||
I can't speak to DC or Maryland demographics. I can say that if there are enough B1G alums there now, they would already have the BTN (if they don't currently). BTN is already on the basic cable package in NYC, and it's because we have a zillion B1G alums here.
Literally in the last week Edsall begged more fans to go to Maryland games. I think "DO NOT WANT" is the only sensible reaction.
|11/17/2012 - 7:33pm||Thanks for the link. This||
Thanks for the link. This still blows my mind. The Big Ten is "itchy" (per the article) for two schools with no fans but a big "footprint."
The BTN is already on every TV in NYC - it's part of the standard Verizon package here. Rutgers doesn't change that. I've wasted too much time in bars in this city, and I've literally never 1) seen any Rutgers gear or 2) heard "Turn on the Rutgers game." I'm sure they're big in central NJ.
Everyone involved with the B1G should be against expansion for expansion's sake. These schools aren't just not near Nebraska's level - they're not near Minnesota's.
FEAR THE FOOTPRINT
|11/17/2012 - 7:25pm||This is the Rutgers argument||
This is the Rutgers argument all over again. There is nobody watching Maryland football, it wouldn't matter if they played their games on the White House lawn. Nobody anywhere is upping their cable package to watch that team.
As of 2010: 39k fans per game, stadium is 72.5% full. And they bring more to the table than WISCONSIN? Uh, if you say so.
|11/11/2012 - 5:19pm||Do you post ANYTHING that||
Do you post ANYTHING that isn't critical of Hoke or a complaint that more people should be allowed to criticize the coaches on the board? There's room for debate, but you're straight trolling and add nothing to the discussion with comments like this. I can get you a link to MLive if you need it.
|10/24/2012 - 11:39am||Michigan 34-17||
|10/17/2012 - 10:49am||Michigan 31 MSU 13||
Michigan 31 MSU 13
|07/27/2012 - 1:27pm||Best part remains...||
"A Michigan Man, or Woman, does not discuss Purdue."
|07/25/2012 - 12:01pm||I agree with this, but would||
I agree with this, but would like to emphasize just how great No Man's Land is. It's not the quality of writing you get in Year One, Long Halloween, or Dark Knight Returns, but it's a great story and extremely fun if you have decent familiarity with the Batman universe.
A more complete No Man's Land just came out on Amazon - I've only flipped through volume 1, but it looks like it's the way to go.
|05/21/2012 - 10:25am||Grass not tall enough at SC||
Grass not tall enough at SC for layin in the weeds.
|04/22/2012 - 11:19pm||No LJ, not saying that at||
No LJ, not saying that at all. I'd say 60% got BigLaw (estimate - 2011 grad). My less-than-clear point was that the top 1/3 are the only people guaranteed BigLaw.
Many of my friends who struggled to find anything were around the median or just above that. Once you're outside of the top third at Columbia, you're no longer a lock, and firms want other things - connections, diversity, maybe work experience, etc. It's not that people from 50% to 33% uniformly had issues, just that the guarantee disappears after 33%.
And because you can't guarantee top 1/3 going in (especially at a school like Northwestern, for example, but also anywhere), taking the necessary debt on can be more than a little dangerous.
I'm lucky to be at my first choice firm, but I recognize that it easily could have gone differently if I had screwed up a couple of tests first year. Law school + massive debt is risky at a T14, it's nuts almost anywhere else.
|04/22/2012 - 10:38am||Just to emphasize, since the||
Just to emphasize, since the other person agreeing with this got moderated into gray - THIS IS BAD ADVICE. You absolutely cannot justify going into $180k-ish of debt to go to the schools you're thinking about. It's a dangerous risk at the T-14 schools, but it's batshit crazy at anything outside of them.
You've got a big enough scholarship at MSU that, if you are dead-set on being a lawyer, it would not be insane to take it. But you have to 1) deeply consider the opportunity cost, as others have mentioned, 2) understand that only 5-10 people (if that) from MSU per year get jobs paying $160k, and 3) assume that you will not be one of those 10 people.
Way too many of my classmates at Columbia figured that they would be in at least the top 1/3 of the class and would be guaranteed BigLaw (something more plausible there). Some were, but others were not, and now they face crippling debt that is essentially permanent with gov't jobs paying very little. And that's at a top 5 school. At MSU, you have essentially no chance at getting a job that pays a great deal of money, and "MidLaw" jobs (aka those that pay $80k-100k per year) are outrageously competitive and there are almost none of them.
So if you're set on law school, it would be criminal to your family not to take the money unless you're going to Michigan, Columbia, NYU, Harvard, etc. Think about any other option you might have, but if you pick law school, you HAVE TO take the money, period.