|03/19/2018 - 1:21pm||This must be a mistake.||
This must be a mistake. Surely Mr. March, Tom Izzo, has made the Sweet Sixteen at least seven times in that span.
|03/01/2018 - 5:30pm||I can't believe I'm so||
I can't believe I'm so thrilled with an overtime win against a shitty Iowa team. The deck was as stacked against us as it could possibly be thanks to those incompetent (malevolent?) zebras, and we somehow pulled it out.
Hope everyone other than Duncan got their shooting woes out of the way. And glad that MAAR and Wagner should be well-rested for tomorrow. I'm going to the game on Saturday if we get there -- if not for yourselves guys, do it for ME. Pretty please?
|02/27/2018 - 3:08pm||As is so often in life, I||
As is so often in life, I feel like my beliefs on this issue are the most rational and logical, yet I rarely see them expressed in the media. Would appreciate the board letting me know if I'm delusional or not.
I hate the idea of colleges paying players (beyond tuition, of course). If athletes are choosing schools based on where they can get the most money, as opposed to more intangible aspects (quality of coaching, education, student life, etc), then what is the point of a team being affiliated with a university at all? Why not abandon the charade, and just turn the NCAA into a professional sports league with no university affiliation?
Before the negging commences, let me clarify -- this does not mean I think that athletes shouldn't be paid. The problem is that they currently don't have a choice. The NBA and the NFL use colleges as their free minor league systems, with arbitrary age restrictions that force kids to go to college instead of earning a paycheck. This whole issue could be rectified if the NFL and NBA expanded their drafts, created their own versions of the minor leagues, and drafted kids right out of high school - like MLB does. Thus, any kid who isn't interested in college and wants to start earning a paycheck can go the minor league route (if he's good enough). If a kid attends college, it is because either he is not good enough to get paid coming out of high school (in which case, he can't complain), or he places greater value on a college education than a minor league paycheck (in which case, he can't complain).
The NCAA is always portrayed as the villain, but I think that the NBA and NFL get off way too easy -- these are extremely rich organizations that could easily start their own minor leagues, but instead choose to use the NCAA as their free farm system, and then let the NCAA take all the heat for a problem of the professional leagues' own creation.
Put it this way--no one complains that college baseball players are being forced to provide free labor, because any college baseball either voluntarily chose not to sign a minor league contract, or wasn't good enough to do so. In my ideal world, college basketball and football would work the same way.
Some may protest that if the NFL and NBA formed their own minor leagues it would destroy college sports as we know it. This is absolutely true. But having colleges pay players to attend their schools would also destroy college sports as we know it, and anyone who says otherwise is being naive. It seems to me that many people want to have it both ways -- they recognize that student athletes shouldn't be forced to provide unpaid slave labor, but they love college sports and don't want it to change in any recognizable way. This is unrealistic. If players are going to get paid, college sports are going to have to change dramatically. I would rather the quality of collegiate sports diminish to baseball levels, with many more athletes going pro immediately after high school, than have college athletics determined by which school is able to maintain the highest payroll.
Please let me know why I am way off-base.
|01/03/2018 - 2:46pm||If you're fouled on a shot||
If you're fouled on a shot and then hit free throws, it doesn't count as a shot for purposes of the box score. But if you're trying to determine how efficient an offensive player is, you really should include it as a shot attempt. Thus, those nonexistent "shots" are included as such for purposes of determining your "shot equivalents."
|11/07/2017 - 1:16am||I'm in that picture at||
I'm in that picture at Bollinger's house. I get a tremendous kick when it is posted on Mgoblog once every five years or so.
|09/28/2017 - 7:45pm||You misunderstand. He says||
You misunderstand. He says that the NCAA only targets small schools, which is why schools like Louisville have gotten away with nursernin the past. The FBI, on the other hand, is targeting the big fish.
|06/22/2017 - 11:06am||Thanks. Not sure why I'm||
Thanks. Not sure why I'm getting bashed for this post. I saw an article I thought was interesting questioning whether DJ's first round promise might fall through because of intervening events and thought that was worth sharing with the board. Not sure how anyone could read my post as bashing DJ or his decision to declare, and I don't see how my heading was misleading in any way.
|04/18/2017 - 3:00pm||He missed one game with a||
He missed one game with a concussion. Hardly a Wally Pipp situation.
|04/18/2017 - 1:59pm||Harbaugh got more than anyone||
Harbaugh got more than anyone expected out of Alex Smith in his first year with the Niners, getting to the NFC Championship Game.
The next year he benched Smith in favor of an athletic upstart with more upside and mobility, and went to the Super Bowl.
Not sure why that comes to mind.
|03/17/2017 - 3:29pm||I still think it's going to||
I still think it's going to be hard for Zak Irvin to erase this year's first MSU game from the top line of his Michigan legacy ....
Hah, hahahahaah. I can't tell you how happy I am that Irvin was not only amazing in the most important game of his career, but that his outside shot was on fire. So glad that he turned around his Michigan legacy so definitively, and is going to be remembered glowingly for the rest of his life.
|01/09/2017 - 8:50pm||Well if they were to go head||
Well if they were to go head to head I would take Aaron Burr over him.
|01/09/2017 - 5:40pm||I hope he doesn't throw away||
I hope he doesn't throw away his shot. I heard he's young scrappy and hungry, but the problem is he has a lot of brains but no polish.
|10/31/2016 - 5:17pm||The North remembers, and this||
The North remembers, and this mummer's farce is almost done.
Actually, wait. Forget the "almost." This mummer's farce is done. Enjoy having Christmas break off, Sparty.
|09/17/2016 - 9:56pm||You're looking at stats||
You're looking at stats without context. In the first game that he faced a decent secondary he couldn't complete a single throw downfield, and couldn't complete a pass to the guy who is supposedly our best receiver. Almost all of his yards were on long runs after short passes. If this wasn't disconcerting then you weren't paying attention.
|09/14/2016 - 4:58pm||With Braden/Bredeson||
With Braden/Bredeson struggling so much, is there any reason Kugler didn't get any run? Or is there an injury that I'm not aware of?
I remember everyone being very excited with Kugler as a recruit given his pedigree, and he seemed to do well against Hawaii. Is there any hope that he can shore up our weak spot?
|09/09/2016 - 1:44pm||(No subject)||
|09/07/2016 - 1:05pm||What are you talking about?||
What are you talking about? Liquidated damages provisions in contracts are typical. In any case, this isn't so much a "penalty clause" as an agreed upon cancellation fee that allows the parties to terminate the contract before its end date. You can't just unilaterally cancel a contract with no consequences.
|08/18/2016 - 10:24am||Re Colorado||
When last we saw them: Michigan has never ever played Colorado ever don’t bother searching for it on Youtube because there’s nothing to see here.
Obviously I know what game you're referring to, but wasn't the last time we played them in 1997? If I recall correctly, that was the game when we first realized that HOLY SHIT OUR DEFENSE IS A WORLD-DESTROYING MONSTER!
|07/25/2016 - 9:30am||If that site's not working,||
If that site's not working, try this:
|07/25/2016 - 9:23am||Here's the website. Michigan||
Here's the website. Michigan Alumni Club is sitting in section 113.
|07/01/2016 - 11:00am||Whenever I hear his name I think of Dr. Seuss||
|05/25/2016 - 5:30pm||"Random" fat guy? That was||
"Random" fat guy? That was Alvin from the Cosby Show! You fucking millenials.
|05/20/2016 - 9:21am||It's a free rider issue. If||
It's a free rider issue. If a magical genie were to tell me today that football as a sport would cease to exist if I stopped watching, I would feel morally compelled to stop watching for the health benefits of those who play. But that's not going to happen -- if I, individually, stop watching, it's not going to change a damn thing.
|05/20/2016 - 9:18am||It's not that complicated.||
It's not that complicated. The game is tremendously entertaining -- I'm sure that all of us became fans long before we knew of the long term health problems caused by playing.
Now that we know of those health consequences, if any of us individually were to stop watching, it would not change a thing -- the game would still be played, so we might as well enjoy it. (I acknowledge there is a major free rider phenomena occurring here.) But we can control whether our own children suffer from these health problems, so we do.
Also, you seem to present the issue as football or nothing. There are other sports that we watch and enjoy in addition to football. If our children aren't playing football, odds are that they're playing soccer instead, or something else. If, among the many sports I enjoy, I encourage my kids to do something other than football, that doesn't mean that I am only allowed to follow the one sport that they play going forward.
|04/29/2016 - 11:16am||During that time frame the||
During that time frame the Big 10 has produced two of the greatest quarterbacks of all time (Brady and Brees), and one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL today (Wilson). So I think this stat says a lot more about NFL drafting than the quality of Big 10 quarterback play.
Brady, Brees and Wilson versus JaMarcus Russell, hmmm. Tough call.
|04/28/2016 - 4:59pm||I don't see this as||
I don't see this as hypocritical at all. No reason they should put themselves at a competitive disadvantage -- if other schools are going to come into their territory, they should be able to go to other areas.
The problem was that they were trying to force their self-imposed protectionist measures on the rest of the NCAA. Now that that ploy has failed, I have no problem with them participating on an even playing field.
|04/01/2016 - 1:38pm||It's pretty great.
If he were
It's pretty great.
If he were here, Chuck Norris would slap you.
|03/16/2016 - 11:19pm||I never doubted it for a||
I never doubted it for a minute.
|03/16/2016 - 11:17pm||Irvin under 65% from the line||
Irvin under 65% from the line for the season. That's terrible.
Good job here, though.
|03/16/2016 - 11:13pm||Holy shit Irvin hit a||
Holy shit Irvin hit a shot.
Hey and Walton apparently only play well with a minute or less left.
|03/11/2016 - 2:04pm||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me???
|03/11/2016 - 2:04pm||Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are||
Kam Fucking Chatman!!! Are you kidding me????
|03/07/2016 - 4:04pm||One weird thing about this||
One weird thing about this season -- I don't think we've had a single heartbreaking loss. No game that we should have won but gave away in the final minutes. No buzzer-beaters made against us, or missed by us. Every single game we lost, we just straight up LOST. There's not a single game I can point to and say "oh, if only that play had gone differently, our it would have changed our whole season."
Not sure whether that makes me feel better or worse.
|02/19/2016 - 4:52pm||"If we pull off a huge upset||
"If we pull off a huge upset against a top 10 team on the road, we shouldn't have to worry about making the tournament!"
|01/18/2016 - 11:43pm||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Rutgers is ranked 72 in US News and World Report college rankings, only slightly behind Maryland (57), and ahead of numerous Big Ten schools including Indiana, Michigan State, Iowa, and others. Not sure where the belief that Rutgers is poor academically comes from.
|01/18/2016 - 11:43pm||Rutgers is ranked 72 in US||
Deleted and moved -- this was supposed to be a reply to someone
|01/11/2016 - 12:42pm||How does fact that BC games||
How does fact that BC games were low scoring show that defenses have an "inherent advantage" over offenses? That's like saying that the fact that Baylor games are high scoring means that offense has an inherent advantage over defense.
Offenses don't put up points in a vacuum. The number of points an offense scores depends, in part, on the quality of the defense they play. If you play a terrible defense you usually score more than your average number of points, a mediocre defense you score your average number of points, and a good defense you score less than your average number of points.
If a great defense plays a great offense, the offense will score less than it usually does, but on the other hand the defense will give up more point than it usually does. This doesn't mean that one has an "inherent advantage" over the other.
|01/11/2016 - 11:40am||It is a truism in football||
It is a truism in football that if a great defense plays a great offense that the great defense usually wins. I have seen this happen so many times that I pretty much expect Bama to win.
Well, I dispute your overall premise. I haven't seen any stats or evidence showing that a "great" defense beats a "great" offense more than 50% of the time. Those terms are subjective in any event, so what you consider "great" can be altered so that the results meet your expectations. I mean, by most metrics Boston College had a "great" defense this year, yet they barely won any games, even against mediocre offenses.
As for your Alabama point, when you're using Alabama as an illustration the real question is "why does a team with the best defense in the country and also a pretty darn good offense usually beat its opponents?" The answer is pretty obvious. A team with a great defense, by definition, will usually hold a great offense to less than its usual number of points. So, for example, a Baylor or Oregon will score 28 points instead of 45. Combine that with a darn good offense as well, and it's hardly a surprise when a team like Alabama wins championships.
Hopefully it is a model that we follow next year.
|12/09/2015 - 5:40pm||In addition to all the||
In addition to all the factors Brian noted, we simply can't get away anymore with having one big man surrounded by four wing players.
It worked when we had six NBA players on the roster, but even then we had problems defending and rebounding against the Michigan States of the world, and needed ungodly offensive performances to pull out victories. You simply can't count on that, game-in and game-out, no matter how much of an offensive genius Beilein is. It's a lot easier to win games, even when your shots aren't falling, if you can outrebound your opponent and defend inside.
This team desperately needs a true stretch four who can play alongside a center, instead of masquerading as one. I hope, hope, hope that after this year, the plan is to play Wagner as a four, and have him play alongside Doyle, Teske, etc. (If Kam can ever learn to shoot a 3 he would be an ideal backup -- I'm not giving up hope on him yet). We need to have two people taller than 6'9 on the court at all times. Forcing the Irvins and Robinson's to guard power forwards is not going to work in an ordinary (read, non-Trey Burke, Stauskas, and/or Hardaway) year.
|12/02/2015 - 5:33pm||Maybe not this year given the||
Maybe not this year given the makeup of our roster (read, plethora of talented wings and dearth of big men), but in the long run is there any possibility of Moe playing power forward, next to a more traditional center (Doyle or Teske)?
For the entirety of Beilein's tenure he's been forced to play undersized guys at the 4, leading to major issues when we play teams with multiple big men. It would be so nice if, for once, we could trot out a true stretch four, rather than forcing a natural small forward to play that role. We'd be able to compete better on the boards and defensively without sacrificing spacing.
|10/03/2015 - 2:53pm||Actually, he's saying that||
Actually, he's saying that Rudock doesn't see the field well, and because of that Michigan is making it simpler for him by having him only look at half the field.
And he's right. How many times this year has Rudock simply not seen a wide open receiver? Field vision is a skill, just like any part of a QB's game, and one in which Rudock is lacking.
|09/27/2015 - 9:33am||Well, I for one think Mgoblog||
Well, I for one think Mgoblog is the perfect place for you to tout your skills as an airplane pilot and air your passive aggressive views of Captain Sullenberger. I mean, what else is this site for if not that?
|09/26/2015 - 3:19pm||Disappointing ending. Allowed||
Disappointing ending. Allowed them to break 100 yards at the end. This unit better figure out how to close games or it's going to be a long season.
(I don't really have to add a /s, do I? That was freaking awesome.)
|09/17/2015 - 6:33am||As a NJ native, I can tell||
As a NJ native, I can tell you that your ranking of colleges is way, way off. Lafayette and Lehigh are not particularly impressive schools, and Rutgers and Maryland are certainly not "safetey" schools if you don't get into them.
|09/02/2015 - 9:33am||But you didn't say "he's||
But you didn't say "he's there because he wasn't going to get the opportunity to play multiple positions here." That would have been unobjectionable. Instead, you said that he transferred because "he was going to have to compete for it everyday" here, making it seem like he was afraid of competition. Which was a complete misrepresentation of what was in the article, and a dick thing to say about someone who played hard for Michigan for years.
|07/01/2015 - 5:31pm||The checkmark shows up next||
The checkmark shows up next to his name in his biography, but not on each individual tweet.
|07/01/2015 - 5:23pm||I haven't seen this||
I haven't seen this supposedly-deleted Harbaugh tweet discussed anywhere on this thread, so apologies if it's been posted already. Anyone know anything about whether this is legit? Truly hope not.
|06/12/2015 - 10:48am||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, but in the first film didn't Sam Neill's character have a similar arc, in which he didn't like kids at first but then discovered a paternal side in protecting Hammond's grandkids from velociraptors (as one does)? I recall one of the final shots of the movie was the kids resting against him in the helicopter, while Laura Dern looked on approvingly.
As a larger issue I agree that popular media sometimes suggests to women that their greatest value is as a set of ovaries, but given that this franchise has already done a similar arc with a dude in this instance it may be a case of homage, rather than retrograde misogyny.
|06/12/2015 - 10:30am||Dear god people. No, it was||
Dear god people. No, it was not a serious question.
|06/12/2015 - 10:14am||"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic||
"No Spoilers"? It's Jurassic Park, not Game of Thrones.
I haven't seen it yet, but here are some spoilers nevertheless . . .
Someone will express concern about keeping all these dinosaurs in a theme park. Those in charge of the theme park will pooh pooh those concerns, claiming that their systems are state of the art, and there is no possibility that dinosaurs will escape.
Dinosaurs will nevertheless escape.
Some people will be eaten. The audience will not really care because wooh, dinosaurs!
Children will be in danger. They will not be eaten.
At the end of the day, the children, the hero and his love interest will be saved, and most people at the park will escape from danger. We will all learn a valuable lesson about attempting to bend nature to our will. But it will be clear that some have not learned that lesson, and that danger will again rear it's ugly head in oh, let's say three summers from now.
Apropos of nothing, I remember seeing the first Jurassic Park in theatres. Before the movie started, the woman in front of me was asking her friend about the title -- "What does Jurassic mean? Is that just a made-up word?" Anyone know the answer to her question?