|07/19/2018 - 9:25am||Actually, looking back over…||
Actually, looking back over the article I kind of wonder whether he really is being moved to 3T rather than NT. A lot of casual football fans do not understand the difference between the two interior DL positions. The headline says "nose guard;" even if the reporter knows the difference (no guarantee of that) the headline could just as easily have been written by some editor. Jeter himself is only quoted as saying he's been moved "inside." And 3T seems like a more natural destination for a guy originally slotted as an SDE.
|07/19/2018 - 9:19am||I think Bo used to call it …||
I think Bo used to call it "Middle Guard," though probably in a 5-2 front.
|06/22/2018 - 1:33pm||Some reasons:
1) Recruiting ranking may be depressed by possibility that Velasquez chooses baseball. May have received fewer offers for similar reasons.
2) Recruiting ranking may be depressed by lack of camp appearances related to baseball.
3) Probably our two best fan analysts, Magnus and Space Coyote, both think Velasquez can play.
4) Velasquez' best positional fit is probably at a hybrid LB/S role, such as Don Brown's viper--so schools without LB/S hybrid positions may not value him as highly.
5) Hudson was also a RB prospect, so could have received offers from schools intending to play him on offense. Those offers are irrelevant to a defense-only comparison.
6) Brown has a proven track record of identifying players who fit his system and who can produce for him irrespective of universal football ability.
|05/30/2018 - 1:09pm||Two Cokes||
Correct. The only thing worse than being responsible for the Two Cokes promotion is blaming subordinates for the Two Cokes promotion.
|05/23/2018 - 6:57pm||Insurance ads||
The mayhem guy is pretty entertaining.
|05/23/2018 - 5:29pm||Wildcat||
Do you genuinely believe these things or is this some kind of joke you are attempting?
|05/21/2018 - 1:49pm||Hamilton||
But the staff didn't pass on Hamilton, he got a Stanford offer shortly before NSD and flipped.
|05/21/2018 - 1:33pm||Mulch||
Was sitting at a hearing of a Virginia Senate committee earlier this year and saw a parade of fire chiefs testify about the dangers of mulch. Apparently the stuff has a way of self-igniting when piled too high under the right atmospheric conditions. (Despite this I used a rake to spread nine bags of the stuff around my own yard this past weekend).
|05/11/2018 - 1:41pm||All or Nothing||
Even if the film crew's presence could be shown to negatively affect the team's chances of winning games--a notion I find highly doubtful-- it would still be worth it IMO.
|05/03/2018 - 2:41pm||Tackles||
We still haven't really recovered from the 1-2 punch of LTT's dismissal and then Newsome's injury. With LTT we might have been able to redshirt Newsome, and then if Newsome hadn't gotten injured like he did we'd potentially be looking at him starting this year as a RS junior--at worst a true senior. Instead, we are once again reduced to hoping either the light goes on for JBB or that a RS freshman pans out quickly.
|05/03/2018 - 6:49am||What is cooler?||
College football with student-athletes or NFL-lite with guys who ain't come to play skool?
|04/26/2018 - 7:28pm||Black regiments||
I don’t really have a quarrel with the content of your post, SQ. But making these points in response to the OP comes across diminishing or minimizing the contributions of the black regiments who participated in D-Day. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention, but I find it very unfortunate.
|04/25/2018 - 1:39pm||QBs||
I wonder if there is a reasonable way to break this down by playing style. Peters strikes me as a cerebral QB who could be dominant as an upper-classman, but has a longer development path. Patterson seems like more of an athletic playmaker who was closer to his full potential as a first- and second-year player, so we'd have expected Patterson to perform better so far but for the gap between them to narrow.
|04/19/2018 - 10:51am||WRs||
I think the reason the WRs were disappointing had more to do with Black's injury, Crawford's struggles, and the lack of visible improvement from McDoom. Pretty clear in retrospect that not having a dedicated WR coach was a mistake.
|04/19/2018 - 10:44am||Coaches||
I thought Drevno came across as the guy who might have been too nice. He was very reserved and deferential at points and almost seemed like he was maybe not going at the same speed as some of the other coaches. But Hamilton and Harbaugh I thought were both very impressive. Don Brown and Mattison too, but I almost feel like comparing the defensive coaches to the offensive staff is apples & oranges.
|04/19/2018 - 12:55am||Pep Hamilton||
I thought the Amazon series showed Hamilton to be an outstanding coach. He was assertive but not argumentative. Always seemed to pick the right spots to teach and communicate. Had the respect of the players and other coaches. Fiery, but cerebral and methodical. Level-headed and calm during stressful situations.
I realize those kinds of shows can give a distorted impression of reality sometimes, but the treatment of Pep seemed genuine. I’d be surprised if he’s not a HC somewhere within the next couple years.
|04/16/2018 - 6:37am||NYC Fan 3||
NYC Fan 3 probably goes to the airport 9 hours before boarding time, never drives with under 3/4 of a tank, never lets his phone battery get below 93%, tries to make reservations at McDonald's, etc.
|04/11/2018 - 10:04am||Promises||
Well, one limitation is that the promise probably needs to have been made in bad faith. If the coach promised the recruit he could play QB because the coach genuinely thought he'd be a QB, then that's not really bad faith. It would need to be more of an Ole Miss situation where the coach is actually lying--i.e., he knows he's going to put the recruit on defense, but just tells him he'll play QB to get the committment.
I don't really have an opinion either way. But I can see this turning into a real mess.
Let's take the situation where the player claims the coach promised him that he could play QB, and that's why he committed. Which of the following statements would you consider a promise:
I think most people would agree that the first statement is not a promise and the last one is a promise. But the middle three, I think, are all arguable. So where do you draw the line?
And then, of course, often the alleged promises would be oral statements from years earlier--so the people involved may disagree on the exact wording, there will be differences in context and background circumstances that bear on interpretation, and so forth.
Transfers are pretty common. Nobody likes to sit out. So wouldn't a player usually have an incentive to seek this type of waiver if the staff at his initial institution made any kind of statement that could be construed as a promise? That could be pretty disruptive if coaches are constantly having to respond to these kinds of claims from transferring players--especially when an element of this is proving the coach made these promises in bad faith and thus the coach's reputation is really on the line.
|04/11/2018 - 7:56am||Patterson||
Of course it's reasonable to think that, and surely there are many elite prospects who would have decided against Ole Miss for that reason. But that is not necessarily true. So the question is what Patterson would have done. Would it have made a difference to him specifically?
Patterson's says it would have. But if Patterson had information before signing with Ole Miss that suggested major sanctions (such as a post-season ban) were likely and he still enrolled there anyway, that would suggest the opposite. Or if he had information suggesting that the Ole Miss coaches were lying to him and he didn't take further steps to learn the truth about the NCAA allegations before signing with Ole Miss, that could also undermine his case. And I think it's possible that evidence of this nature could well exist, because Ole Miss was widely suspected of cheating for years before the NCAA allegations came down, becauase the NCAA allegations (and possible punishments) were public documents Patterson would have had access to, because Patterson was a high-resource recruit with plenty of people he could have sought advice from, and because Patterson had personal interactions and visits with Ole Miss and would have been in a position to potentially observe additional things not reported in the media.
I hope Patterson gets his waiver and I don't personally have any information suggesting he won't. I'm just pushing back against this idea that "we know Ole Miss lied, therefore this case shoudld be a slam dunk." Everyone knows Ole Miss lied. But there's more to it than that.
|04/10/2018 - 3:29pm||Precedents||
But this is exactly how precedents work. Ole Miss lies to recruits to get them to sign. Those recruits later argue they should be given a waiver to transfer without sitting a year because they were decieved. If the NCAA grants the request on this basis, now there is precedent saying that if an institution secures a player's committment through deceptive means, then the player can transfer elsewhere without sitting a year. Then somebody comes along and says "I was deceived too, I should get to transfer without sitting." The subject matter of the deception in the second case may be different ("they said I could play QB, now they want me at safety"), but that's arguably irrelevant--the principle is the same (i.e., had they told me the truth about the thing I cared about, I never would have signed there).
|04/10/2018 - 1:58pm||Patterson||
Not really. For one thing, that assumes Patterson would not have enrolled at Ole Miss had he known the truth about the NCAA investigation. Certainly that's what he says now. But is that true? I think that's a fair question.
Second, even if Patterson actually believed the Ole Miss people, that doesn't necessarily mean his belief was reasonable. Certainly there was plenty of smoke around Ole Miss providing improper benefits before the NCAA took action. He had ample opportunity to investigate and evaulate the program before committing to it. It certainly seems possible that Patterson came across information in that process from which he should have known what he was signing up for.
|04/10/2018 - 1:28pm||Patterson's bro||
Yeah, that's a good question. But the dynamic here is kind of unusual. The NCAA may care about the reasonable reliance piece, but that doesn't do Ole Miss any good. Ole Miss is claiming they never lied to Patterson or the other recruits--well that's obviously bunk. But it wouldn't help Ole Miss to shift their argument to the much more plausible, "yeah, we lied--but you knew we was cheatin' and signed with us anyway." So if the brother did indeed warn Shea then M wouldn't have any incentive to admit that evidence and Ole Miss wouldn't either. But I wouldn't be surprised if Freeze lied to the brother too anyway.
|04/10/2018 - 1:16pm||Patterson||
I don't think there was ever any serious question about whether Freeze and other Ole Miss people lied to recruits. That's the easy part. But typically, a person who claims to have been deceived needs to show they "reasonably relied" on the false statement(s). If Ole Miss lied to Patterson, but he had other information from which he knew or should have known Ole Miss was full of shit, then that could prevent his waiver from being approved. That's why I think those text messages he sent other recruits are so important--they tend to show that Patterson believed what Ole Miss was telling him. Assuming that belief was reasonable (which it may or may not have been), I think those texts win the case.
|04/10/2018 - 1:06pm||Precedent||
Okay. Say Patterson wins his appeal, and next year some player wants to transfer without sitting because his coach supposedly promised him something (playing time, a starting position, whatever) and didn't deliver. Does the NCAA then have to determine whether such a promise was made, what the terms were, etc.? If not, aren't we letting coaches lie to recruits? I don't think tge Pandora's Box angle here is insignificant.
|04/10/2018 - 11:14am||Ole Miss||
I think the critical piece of this article is right here:
"Mars cites the recruiting weekend of Jan. 29-31, 2016 as a pivotal moment in the misrepresentation of Ole Miss troubles with the NCAA. The crux of Patterson’s waiver appeal is what he alleges Ole Miss said and didn’t say between Jan. 21, when Ole Miss received the Notice of Allegations, and Feb. 3, National Signing Day. Patterson, the top-rated quarterback in the 2016 recruiting class, enrolled at Ole Miss on Jan. 25."
WIth the NCAA notice of allegations coming in on Jan. 21 and Patterson enrolling on Jan. 25, that means Ole Miss only needed to mislead Patterson for at most four days before he enrolled. My concern the whole time has been whether Patterson could reasonably have relied on the false statments he was hearing from Ole Miss people. But this timeline wouldn't have given him much of an opportunity to check around before he enrolled. Perhaps he could have delayed his decision another week until NSD, but then he loses the ability to enroll early. And then you have the contermporaneous text messages Patterson was sending other recruits saying "don't worry about the sanctions," which tends to corroborate that he was misled by Ole Miss and that be believed what he was being told. On the whole I think that is fairly convincing. Plus it looks like Ole Miss' response is dogshit.
|04/10/2018 - 10:07am||NCAA process||
Not sure if serious, but if the NCAA is planning on making this decision based on arbitrary notions of "perception" rather than evidence, I don't know how Mars could have determined that it was ever "open and shut."
|04/10/2018 - 8:08am||Mars||
I don't know. Typically bluster is a sign of weakness. A lawyer who has a good case keeps his mouth shut and wins it. A lawyer who has a shaky case insults his opponent and says shit to the media like "it's an open and shut case"--probably so that if he winds up losing he can whine later about how unfair the process was or how badly the tribunal screwed it up.
I hope Mars knows what he's doing but the signs so far don't inspire a ton of confidence.
|04/09/2018 - 5:59pm||Saginaw||
I grew up in Saginaw. I am stronger for it, in the Nietzschean sort of way.
|04/07/2018 - 9:31am||Confused||
According to the article, Kelly said Hayes was absent from practice for "academics." That's not necessarily the same thing as "grades." The author suggests that players miss spring practice sometimes because of class time conflicts, but that wouldn't seem to explain why Hayes wasn't there at all.
|04/06/2018 - 6:27pm||Big 3||
Probably since the early '90s. Football felt a little stronger then than it does now, but hoops feels more solid due to program cleanliness.
|04/03/2018 - 10:57am||Runors||
The OP violated sacred Uber driver-rider privilege.
|04/03/2018 - 10:35am||Uber||
But what if the Uber driver was Mo Hurst?
|04/02/2018 - 9:30pm||Go Blue!||
Well, we've lasted longer than Kansas.
|04/02/2018 - 3:53pm||South U lightposts||
Back in '98 after M won the hockey title, I was celebrating on South U when I see some fool scale a lightpost and stand up on top of it. Then I looked more closely and realized I knew the guy. His name was (well, is) Byron. He graduated from UM around 2000 and later returned for his MBA at Ross. But the thing is, in between all that Byron joined the Army and was in like special forces or something.
So when I see somebody standing on top of a South U light post, I figure that dude is probably a serious badass.
|04/02/2018 - 2:01pm||Work?||
My 10-year-old is actually on her spring break this week and although we are going on a short trip later in the week, lack of practical child care options meant she got to come with me to the office today--where I am demonstrating a prodigious example of non-productivity.
Since arriving ~ 9 a.m., here is what I've accomplished:
I should probably just call it a day right now.
|04/02/2018 - 9:22am||Little Casear's||
Maybe FauxMo should go to LC today and insist on paying for his lunch combo.
(The thought of which actually reminds me of the old pizza pizza commercial where the dude is like, "if you give me two, then I will pay for two" -- I promise an instant upvote to anyone who finds it)
|03/31/2018 - 5:27pm||Transfers||
Right. If M has helpful documentation I don't know why they'd hold it back. About the only thing I can think of is if it's embarrassing to Ole Miss and M had a reason to think this evidence could tip Ole Miss from waiving their response to opposing. Seems like a good lawyer would have gotten a committnent from Ole Miss before withholding helpful evidence though.
|03/30/2018 - 2:19pm||Loyola article||
The author of the piece is a tightly-wound English professor who evidently pays almost no attention to college sports. He explains in the article that he had intended to hold his usual evening poetry class the same night that Loyola was playing in the tournament, but after seeing all of the attention being paid to the game in the Loyola community and even having his class disrupted by cheers from a nearby classroom, he eventually broke down and decided to show the game in his own class--and found the experience rewarding and valuable. He explains how watching the game with his students helped him and them build a camaraderie and community within the school environment that otherwise would not have existed. It's an argument for the sincere power and value of intercollegiate sports, and a suggestion that those of his kind--who might ordinarily disdain something from popular culture like the NCAA hoops tourney--might reconsider.
Somehow you interpreted this as a veiled stab at Michigan.
I realize it's only a quarter after two in Ann Arbor, but seriously quit drinking and go to bed.
|03/30/2018 - 1:30pm||Loyola article||
Okay, I read the article and I think the OP is very misleading in how he presents the piece. The author does not compare Loyola to Michigan or any specific institution, other than to illustrate the minor role of athletics at Loyala versus "big money schools." I certainly did not read or infer a suggestion that Loyola is more selective, more prestigious, or otherwise superior to M.
|03/28/2018 - 11:54am||Leadership||
Yeah, it's not as though there aren't any candidates to pick up the leadership slack with McCray moving on. Winovich is a 5th-year guy. Kinnel is a senior. Talented juniors like Gary, Hill, and Bush could take on leadership roles. I don't think anybody is trying to diminish McCray's contribution in the leadership department when this kind of turnover is part and parcel of college sports.
|03/28/2018 - 9:30am||Harbaugh||
Michigan will likely be ranked in the preseason top-10, will again have one of the absolute best defenses in the country, will either have an experienced starting QB or a 5-star RS freshman who beat out multiple experienced players for the spot, and only needs to hit on a couple 4-star OL prospects to have a complete offense. The current nucleus of this Michigan team will remain intact for at least another two seasons, and already another top-10 recruiting class is being assembled for 2019.
Yes, the program is coming off a frustrating bowl loss, which capped a disappointing 8-5 season. But if that's a tire fire, then sign me up for some third-degree burns.
|03/27/2018 - 1:46pm||RBs||
Yeah, I just feel like it's a lot more difficult to tell with these guys.
Certainly you have the Leonard Fournette types, where you watch two minutes of film and say, "yup, that guy's awesome." But there aren't many of those in a recruiting cycle. When you get down into the lower ranks I think it becomes very difficult to tell who "has it" and who doesn't.
Somehow the Michigan staff watched Taylor's film and decided he was worth a scholarship. So they must have thought Taylor "has it." Were the wrong? Maybe. But this is the same staff as the one that found guys like Higdon and Evans, so it's not as though they had no clue what to look for.
|03/27/2018 - 10:09am||Kurt Taylor||
Alright. I am not going to die on the Kurt Taylor hill. If you've watched the guy enough and think he doesn't belong on the field, then fine. I've never seen him play and if I watched his film, it was back when he committed and I've long since forgotten about it.
That being said, RB is a weird position. It's a spot where you see guys come in with five-star rankings and all the speed, size, agility, etc. in the world--and then do nothing. You also see unheralded guys like Karan Higdon come in, work hard, and emerge as quality backs two or three years later. There is definitely some amount of uncertainty around pretty much every position on a football team, but it seems to me that RB is arguably the highest--at least up there with OL and pro-style QB. So I am always loathe to write a RB prospect off until he's had a chance to show what he can do in a game setting.
|03/27/2018 - 9:49am||Expressions||
I thought the new saying was "make a like a tree and fiddy?"
|03/27/2018 - 9:23am||Taylor||
I think guys like Deveon Smith and Sione Houma have proven there will be carries available and in this offense for a tough, physical back who blocks and doesn't fumble--even if that guy isn't a major big-play threat. If Taylor can be that guy then he can get into the mix. I realize he didn't come in with all the starz like some of the other backs but let's give him a chance to show what he can do before we count him out.
|03/26/2018 - 3:17pm||Legal system||
"A wealthy person has a much better chance of winning with everything else being equal." Okay, let's put that aside for a minute. That isn't the statement I was responding to.
The comment above was: "Basically, if you have money you're going to win regardless of the facts."
I am not normally one for defending the American legal system. I tend to be more frustrated by its many shortcomings than impressedby what it does well. But legal cases are decided by judges and jurors, the vast majority of whom try their best to treat the parties fairly and decide cases based on the law and evidence. It's simply not true that "if you have money you're going to win regardless of the facts." Having money can give you an advantage in some aspects of litigation, it is hardly a guarantee of victory.
Of course, that statement was obviously intended to be hyperbolic, my disagreement was mostly with its overall message. So let's now turn to your slightly more modest contention that "a wealthy person has a much better chance of winning with everything else being equal."
What "everything else" are we talking about? Are we talking about the facts of the case? Are we talking about the law of the jurisdiction? Because those are the fundamental determinants of litigation outcomes in the vast majority of cases.
Money can make the difference between havng a lawyer and having none, or between having a skilled, dedicated attorney and having inadequate representation. In that type of scenario, the wealthier party's advantage is undeniable.
Some types of litigation may require expensive expert witnesses or other forms of evidence that may be cost-prohibitive for some litigants to obtain--again, this would be a scenario where wealth supplies a distinct advantage.
But for the most part, a wealthy litigant is not likely to prevail in court against a party who has a solid factual and legal case. Our legal system is flawed. It's not meaningless.
|03/26/2018 - 2:46pm||Disrespekt||
MSU will be disappointed to see that they are only ranked #191 on the disrespect index. But I would tend to agree that they deserve much more disrepect than that.
|03/26/2018 - 2:41pm||bus a bus||
I think crg's autocorrect underperfomed against phrases borrowed from the French.
|03/26/2018 - 1:39pm||Kemp||
Hey SC, how big do you think Kemp needs to be for 3T? I only ask because I remember Jibreel Black playing 3T at 275-280 and having trouble holding up--though certainly strength and technique are undoubtedly important factors as well.
|03/26/2018 - 1:25pm||Newsome||
Yeah, I think if Newsome was going to be able to come back he'd at least be participating in spring camp--even if on a limited basis.