|05/04/2018 - 6:49pm||My dad holds a couple of||
My dad holds a couple of Master's degrees from Chicago (MPP and M.Div)...based on his description of what campus life was like, I never even considered UoC for either undergrad or law school. Granted that he got those degrees in the 80s, so things could have changed, but I'm given to understand that it's still more or less the same.
|11/16/2017 - 5:00pm||Seth’s comment is mostly||
Seth’s comment is mostly spot-on for bankruptcy liquidations, but kind of misses the mark for reorganizations like the one Toys R Us is attempting. In these cases, executive bonuses like the one Brandon is gonna get are typically done with the full knowledge and consent of the major creditors. They do it for a couple of reasons, but the major reason is that the executives in place have the best understanding of how the business works, which of its assets or business lines are most valuable and should be retained as part of the reorganized company and which can safely be sold off to provide a cash recovery to creditors. (Creditors care about this kind of thing because most of their recovery will come in the form of equity in the reorganized company, so making sure the company’s assets remain as strong as possible is critical to them). That kind of information could be reverse-engineered by outsiders, but it’s cheaper and easier to just give bonuses to existing executives to make sure they stay on board and keep doing their jobs.
I’m not saying there’s any justice in this, because there isn’t. A lot of people who can’t afford to lose anything will lose everything, and a lot of already-rich people are going to keep getting richer. If you want to see something that will make you immediately either turn into a socialist or want to change careers to get in on the action,, spend some time reading the fee provisions in the debtor-in-possession financing contracts and fee applications submitted by the investment bankers and restructuring advisors in these cases; you will be shocked at how much money can be made from companies that are broke. But bonuses like these really aren’t thievery, at least not any more than everything else in our economy is.
|06/05/2017 - 7:55am||Which might or might not be||
Which might or might not be true, but is definitely pretty rich coming from Saudi Arabia
|05/04/2017 - 10:06pm||This is my non-MGoPodcast||
This is my non-MGoPodcast rotation right now:
-The Solid Verbal
-Rich Eisen Show
-Various Game of Thrones podcasts during the season for that, but mostly Game of Owns
-Chapo Trap House
-The Age of Napoleon Podcast
|04/17/2017 - 10:30pm||You should reread the post. I||
You should reread the post. I didn't say the debate is bad; quite the opposite, I'm glad Peters is providing real competition. I'm saying that the part of the debate where Peters "supporters" (for lack of a better term) say "Speight is bad, look at how Iowa, OSU, and FSU went," and then Speight supporters say "no, Speight played well enough to win those games, it was X's fault we lost," followed by relitigation of 2016's ending, misses the point and is counterproductive. I also think it is worth putting this debate in its broader context, which is that the fanbase has been arguing about Speight since at least a year and a half before he arrived on campus, with many of us who have been his doubters (myself very much included) coming out wrong each time.
If you find that to be condescending or "board refereeing," well, that's your prerogative.
|04/17/2017 - 4:16pm||The argument is that the||
The argument is that the back-and-forth dominating a lot of the Peters/Speight discussion -- the degree to which Speight is to blame for the team not winning the Big Ten/making the CFB last year -- misses the point and is unconstructive.
If the post is misplaced in Diaries, then of course I'm fine with mods moving or deleting.
|03/28/2017 - 4:15pm||My family moved from Boston||
My family moved from Boston to Ann Arbor when I was 6 for my mom to get her Ph.D at Michigan. One of the first things we did was go to the Big House for a game, and every other kid I knew was a big Michigan fan so it wasn't hard to fall in. Then, a couple years later, 1997 happened and that's the kind of thing that'll hook you for life.
|02/24/2017 - 5:49pm||This is true, but the||
This is true, but the advantage would not be as large simply because money has declining marginal utility. "I can get 40k at Ole Miss or 20k at Michigan" offers a different scenario than "I can get 20k at Ole Miss or nothing at Michigan." I'd bet that given the other advantages a Michigan degree/experience offers, there are some players we've lost to southern bagmen that we could have gotten if we were letting them get their beak wet a little bit, even if it wasn't quite as much as the Ole Misses and LSUs were throwing around.
|02/22/2017 - 3:44pm||Really awesome||
Really awesome discovery.
There may or may not be any kind of life on these particular planets, but findings like this reinforce my certainty that there is absolutely, positively no way we are alone in this universe. A couple hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone, itself just one of a hundred billion or more galaxies in the observable universe...
I hope that there is some secret to cracking interstellar/intergalactic travel, that we can discover it use it to find what else is out there. And that what we find is sufficiently similar to us that we can recognize it for what it is and find a way to communicate. That's a lot of things to hope for, but I've been a good boy this year.
|02/14/2017 - 3:25pm||Amen, my thoughts exactly.||
Amen, my thoughts exactly. One day, we will get to a point where it is illegal for humans to pilot cars on public roads...and on that day, I will throw a huge party.
The jobs thing is obviously very unfortunate, but I'll take the lives/jobs tradeoff without too much consternation.
|02/12/2017 - 4:50pm||"The first road win of the||
"The first road win of the season couldn't have come at a better time."
Counterpoint: @UCLA would have been a better time for the first road win of the year.
|11/28/2016 - 3:39pm||I don't understand the||
I don't understand the argument that conference championships have to be a big factor in the playoff in order to make conference championships and the conference championship games worth something. Winning your conference has intrinsic value in and of itself. Literally never in the history of college football has "winning your conference" had any kind of direct relationship to winning a national championship. Today, at least one Power 5 champion (and all of the Group of 5 champions) will be left out of the playoff, and the chance that a non-champion would get in has been present every single year (and OSU looks like a really strong bet to actually do it this year). Before that was the BCS, which crowned a national champion that had not won its conference in 2011. Before that were the polls, which operated under absolutely no formal constraints.
The goal of a playoff should be to put the best X teams in, and settle who's best on the field. Period. (I personally like 6 as a number, with first-round byes for the top 2 squads, but that's just me). If 2 or 3 of the best X teams happen to be in the same conference, the playoffs should reflect that. If none of the best X teams happen to be in one or more conferences, the playoffs should reflect that too.
|11/02/2016 - 4:50pm||...she did...||
|10/27/2016 - 5:17pm||I like how Seth was at least||
I like how Seth was at least 9000% more into this than the others
|10/26/2016 - 3:55pm||And teams must go for two||
And teams must go for two after any touchdown from the beginning. NFL games are already interminably long; let's decide these things in one OT as much as possible.
|10/26/2016 - 3:55pm||And teams must go for two||
And teams must go for two after any touchdown from the beginning. NFL games are already interminably long; let's decide these things in one OT as much as possible.
|10/22/2016 - 8:12pm||Very much agree, Harris was||
Very much agree, Harris was more like a foot short rather than two yards
|10/22/2016 - 8:01pm||Um, actually, *adjusts glasses*||
"At the end of his presser, Harbaugh asked whether anyone had seen a replay of the late review—on which Harbaugh challenged the spot on a third-down run with two minutes left, up 41-8."
That was actually a Drake Harris catch, not a run.
|09/21/2016 - 3:40pm||If Denard and Jabrill are on||
If Denard and Jabrill are on the same team, I might have to become a Jaguars fan.
Please don't do this to me, universe.
|09/14/2016 - 12:58pm||These statements ("Vegas is||
These statements ("Vegas is simply setting the line such that there is 50% of the money on either side of the equation" and "Fandom doesn't change the odds") are contradictory. If the books don't change the lines in response to fandom, they won't even out the money bet on each side. The fact that they do try to even out the money is why people think large fanbases can move lines.
Suppose it is known for a fact that the fair line on the game between Team A and Team B is Team A -7.5; which is to say, 50% of the time Team A will win by 8 or more, and 50% of the time the opposite will be true. So the book sets the line at Team A -7.5. In this situation, we expect sharp bettors not to bet (because there is no edge to be had in the line, so they are just losing money to the juice), and the general public to roughly even out on its own because there are no special reasons to bet either side.
Now add the supposition that Team A has a huge fanbase of homers who will bet on Team A regardless of what the line is, so a ton of money pours in on the Team A side. Unless the books move the line in response, they will wind up with a huge exposure to the 50% of the time Team A -7.5 hits, which means they lose money in the long run.
Accordingly, they **have** to move the line, in order to give sharps a reason to bet to even out the sides. If they leave it static, sharps still aren't betting anything because there's no expected profit; you have to move the line to give them expected profit in order to induce enough bets to counteract the homers' action. And because the books know that's how it will go, and because they don't want to middle themselves, they will try move lines against homer teams from the start.
(and because sharps know this, they may load up against homer teams regardless, which may pull the line back in the other direction because the books can anticipate *that* too, and this process can iterate to infinity, which is why blindly betting one way or another on homer teams based on trying to guess which level of meta-analysis books and sharps are operating on is probably not a profitable strategy)
|09/02/2016 - 3:14pm||ITS THAT WHOOP WHOOP||
ITS THAT WHOOP WHOOP
|08/26/2016 - 3:57pm||This is a very good call;||
This is a very good call; most people never think about Japanese whiskies so it's next to guaranteed to be a new thing...and its also really, really good
|08/26/2016 - 3:48pm||"Not many really know what||
"Not many really know what goes on in coach Harbaugh's mind"
Early understatement of the year contender
|05/31/2016 - 3:09pm||But the end of stoppage time||
But the end of stoppage time is the end of the game; you're not prejudicing anyone by cutting things off at that point, because the game is over. If you blow the whistle to go review an offside, however, you're invariably gonna hurt one of the teams: if the scoring opportunity ends because the attacking team loses possession, blowing the whistle kills the other team's chance chance for a counterattack; if the scoring opportunity ends because the attacking team slows down and tries to run offense, you're ruining their shot to do that before the defense can dig into position.
|05/31/2016 - 1:48pm||I don't think just allowing||
I don't think just allowing offsides and then going back to review it later works, because too often there's not going to be an immediate deadball opportunity after the offsides to do the review, and the game will get too far ahead of the infraction.
Example: Player 1 of Team A plays a through-ball to Player 2, who may or may not have been offside. Ref makes the "offside advantage" signal. Player 2 receives the ball near the edge of the box and dribbles forward to get into shooting position, but his touches are sufficiently poor that a defender from Team B is able to get back to cut off his advance (and, unless Player 2 is Messi, this is going to be the outcome a high % of the time). Player 2 breaks off his run and passes it to either Player 3 at the top of the box or Player 4 on the wing, and Team A begins to run its normal last-third offense, which may or may not even result in a shot, let alone a goal.
At what point does the ref blow his whistle to go review the offside? If he blows as soon as the immediate goalscoring opportunity is blown/passed up, he's ruining Team A's opportunity to run offense in the final third before Team B's defense gets dug in. If he waits until Team A loses possession, he's ruining Team B's opportunity at a counterattack. If he waits until a traditional deadball event (the ball goes out of bounds or someone is fouled), as he would do to give someone a yellow card after playing advantage, play might continue for 5 or 10 minutes before he gets the chance, and all that play might have to be erased if it turns out Player 2 was offside. If it's just up to his discretion when to blow the whistle, the result will be arbitrary, invariably unfair to one side or another, and open more opporunities for corruption, which soccer has had a significant problem with.
I don't think officials are getting offsides calls wrong often enough to justify this kind of disruption.
I could be on board with a rule that offside is reviewable if the player receives the ball in shooting position and immediately scores a goal, because then the offsides error is directly to blame for a goal that shouldn't have been scored, and that's a big deal. I could also be on board with an immediate review when offside is called, with the attacking team getting a free kick at the spot if the call is overturned (although that gets tricky for offsides called in the box). But I can't see playing "advantage" on potential offsides calls and then going back to see what should have happened after the action is over. That way lies madness.
|05/06/2016 - 8:10pm||What a bizarre take. We're||
What a bizarre take. We're talking about a technology that could make massive progress in preventing 30,000 deaths a year that disproportionately affect younger people, hundreds of thousands of injuries, and God only knows how many billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic damage...and your response is to bemoan the lack of risk in life? Do you also get upset about the polio vaccine? LIFE WAS SO MUCH MORE EXCITING WHEN YOU NEVER KNEW IF YOU MIGHT GET CRIPPLED AND DIE AT ANY MOMENT. WHEN DID WE GET SO SOFT?
I promise you, if you're still looking for ways to risk your life unnecessarily once autonomous cars take over, you'll not be wanting for options.
|05/06/2016 - 7:11pm||I welcome any and all||
I welcome any and all developments in autonomous cars. Some day in the future, there will not be even a single human piloting a car on public roads; I fully intend to throw a massive party on that day.
FTR, road traffic accidents are the #1 cause of death for Americans age 15-24, #3 among ages 25-34, #4 among ages 35-44, and #10 among ages 45-54. If autonomous cars can take the kind of chunk out of these numbers that the early returns suggest, we can make huge gains in cutting down early deaths.
|05/06/2016 - 6:55pm||Or, better, why pay $1.50 an||
Or, better, why pay $1.50 an hour in a garage when your car can just go turn on Uber and earn money for you being a taxi while you're at work?
|05/06/2016 - 6:53pm||Why on earth would you assume||
Why on earth would you assume that there won't be communication/protocols between cars?
Google's cars made it through 1.3 million miles of driving before they caused an accident; a quick search says that the average person drives 13,476 miles per year, so that's roughly equivalent to an average person going 96 years of driving without causing an accident. So, Google bested your mark by 400%.
For reference, human drivers average an accident every 165,000 miles. And that accident Google caused? A fender-bender where a bus hit the car at 15 mph; hardly the stuff of nightmares.
|01/29/2016 - 5:07pm||I'll be there, love it when||
I'll be there, love it when Michigan comes to NYC
|01/28/2016 - 4:46pm||One of the perversities in||
One of the perversities in the system is that colleges bear none of the risk of their students defaulting on their loans; they get paid up front and get to keep the tuition you paid no matter what happens later. If you changed the system so that universities themselves became liable when their students defaulted on loans, schools would find ways to control their costs right quick.
As is, there are many "schools" that exist for absolutely no reason other than to suck up student loan dollars, and they contribute hugely to the crisis. This is especially bad in my industry (law), where an absolute ton of law schools have popped up over the last decade, admitting tens of thousands of people who have no business whatsoever going to law school and enticing them to go by pushing misleading or outright fraudulent "statistics" about their graduates' career prospects. As a result, there are legions of people who took on 6-figure debt loads thinking they could pay it off with solid $80-$90k jobs and found themselves unable to get any work at all -- legal employers looked at their degrees and said "that's a shitty school, we don't hire attorneys from there"; and non-legal employers looked at their degrees and said "this person has a JD, they'll probably bail on me as soon as they can find a job as a lawyer." But the schools rake in millions regardless because the loan checks cash no matter what and there's always a new group of suckers to prey on.
|01/28/2016 - 3:59pm||Also (though I don't have||
Also (though I don't have direct evidence of this in front of me) I have to imagine that even for people who can afford their loan payments, carrying a debt that will take 10-20 years to pay off makes it more difficult to get financing for things like mortgages or small business loans.
|11/20/2015 - 6:04pm||Definitely shady and relevant||
Definitely shady and relevant to whether FD was engaged in fraudulent behavior.
Doesn't seem especially relevant to whether DFS games are a prohibited form of gambling though.
This issue is very annoying because it's hard for many people to disaggregate those two things.
|11/15/2015 - 3:17am||Don't discount the chance of||
Don't discount the chance of the Big 12 cannibslizing itself. Oklahoma State is the only unbeaten left in that conference, and by my estimation they are the third best of the bunch. They could easily fall to one or both of Baylor and Oklahoma. I think Baylor was eliminated tonight even if they do come back to win the conference...no one will believe they could hang with Alabama or Clemson after falling to Oklahoma at home. And Oklahoma, although they looked really good tonight, are on dicey ground...that loss to Texas was **bad** and is only getting worse.
In an ideal world, you could see something like:
Oklahoma > OSU
I can imagine the Big 12 getting left out in that scenario; could give us another way in if ND tops Stanford
|11/09/2015 - 5:39pm||But what's a goon to a||
But what's a goon to a goblin?
|11/09/2015 - 2:43pm||And a sequel in stageplay||
And a sequel in stageplay form.
Also, the idea that people should be "over" something three (actually 4 if we're talking the movies, 8 if we're talking books) years after it "ends" seems pretty ridiculous. The last Lord of the Rings book was 60 years ago, people are still plenty into that, and were before the movies came out too. We're talking about one of the most popular stories of all time, and one that the ascendant generation quite literally grew up alongside. No idea why it would be expected to go away.
|11/09/2015 - 1:55pm||Prefer Peppers at Beater tbh||
Prefer Peppers at Beater tbh
|11/08/2015 - 4:19pm||Yeah, kinda strange that we||
Yeah, kinda strange that we didn't see Higdon at all, maybe they're keeping him out until they finish exterminating the gremlins that make him randomly trip and fall before he can get to the hole.
Isaac is obviously getting disciplined for something, and as you pointed out it doesn't take too many guesses to figure why Green isn't getting more run. Best guess is that Houma came in above Higdon and Taylor-Douglas as a reward for doing good things in practice.
|11/06/2015 - 6:41pm||To say beginning any sentence||
To say beginning any sentence addressed at my girlfriend with an all caps WOMAN would "go over like a lead balloon" would be to overstate how well my girlfriend would respond to that by like 5 orders of magnitude. Fairly surprised Sam Webb is still alive.
|10/11/2015 - 12:58pm||"10 guys, 11 guys hustling||
"10 guys, 11 guys hustling and 10 of them blocking, blocking for Jehu and he got- he is the fastest player on the team. I know Jabrill said one of the fastest but he is the fastest, and he showed it today."
This made me laugh. Love Peppers not giving an inch on these things, love Harbaugh laying down the law on who the fastest guy really is, which you know Peppers will take as a challenge.
|10/11/2015 - 2:04am||Agree, Baylor is the worst||
Agree, Baylor is the worst matchup for us. Really good passing spread would ask tough questions of our secondary, their QB is mobile enough to put pressure on our DL to keep contain, and Shock Linwood is no joke at RB, very tough to deal with him in any kind of open space, of which Baylor creates a lot. I think we could contain Baylor because this defense is filthy, but in the context of recent history "containing" Baylor means giving up 30 points. I don't have much confidence that our offense could keep up with them...unlike TCU, Baylor plays some D.
|10/11/2015 - 12:17am||I definitely thought he||
I definitely thought he looked better today. Made some really nice cuts that we're often seeing M backs whiff on this year, looked to have good burst through the LOS, churned out some extra yards after contact.
|10/06/2015 - 11:57am||Not so sure about that; there||
Not so sure about that; there are a ton of huge games that day. In addition to MSU-Michigan, there's also Alabama-Texas A&M, Florida-LSU, and Notre Dame-USC. If Florida can put a convincing win on Mizzou this week and break into the top 10 (they're currently 11th), I think Gameday is going to their game, which is already slated as a prime time game on ESPN.
|10/01/2015 - 11:46am||Obviously that's correct, but||
Obviously that's correct, but no one is talking about "taking away the connection fans and alums have with a particular school and tradition." If the players are students at the University of Michigan, wearing the maize and blue, wearing the winged helmet, and playing in Michigan Stadium for the University of Michigan football team, who would possibly feel that their connection as alums and fans would be destroyed simply because the players were also able to sell the rights to their likeness to EA, or get a check from the university for their 50+ hours a week of highly valuable labor?
|09/30/2015 - 3:46pm||God, what a frustrating||
God, what a frustrating ruling. The idea that amateurism is a legitimate procompetitive purpose because it increases consumer demand is insanity. Is there anyone in the world that stopped watching the Olympics after they dropped their amateurism requirements? Is there anyone who watches Deveon Smith magically teleport through a pile or Amara Darboh make an incredible one-handed grab and thinks, "Thank God those guys aren't being paid to do these things, or else I wouldn't enjoy watching them"?
|09/30/2015 - 11:57am||Huh? I agree that the markets||
Huh? I agree that the markets in football are distorted and unfree, but it seems to me that the distortion results from the NCAA and NFL acting as monopolistic cartels within their realms and thereby exercising undue control over labor...i don't see how the government factors in to that distortion. Unless you're talking about the anti-trust exemption the NFL enjoys (and the NCAA too? I think they have one, but unsure), but that doesn't strike me as likely from the content of your post.
|09/29/2015 - 1:26am||I would have written more||
I would have written more here, but there’s nothing to write. How do you review a movie where no struggle occurs and everybody goes home happy?
I recommend scrolling through the Rotten Tomatoes page for Chef (2014) to see how this is done.
|08/13/2015 - 10:16am||A lot of Harry Potter||
A lot of Harry Potter mentions itt...I feel like things like Harry Potter, Star Wars, Marvel movies, etc. are sufficiently mainstream that liking them is not inherently geeky the way liking Dungeons and Dragons or Dr. Who or Marvel comic books is. It's certainly possible to *be* a HP/SW/MCU geek, like by cosplaying or reading Expanded Universe books or writing fan fiction or things like that, but it's also possible to be just a fan, even a big fan, of these things and not be a geek.
On that note, I'm a Harry Potter geek, as well as an ASOIAF/Game of Thrones geek. I used to be a baseball geek and a poker/gambling geek, but I'm much less so these days.
|08/10/2015 - 2:24pm||Fwiw, for all the "it's only||
Fwiw, for all the "it's only the first day" people, both Scout and Rivals had VIP pieces over the past few days saying that Shane has reportedly made really big strides over the summer. Scout's guy said he now expects Shane to start the opener...Rivals didn't go quite that far, but iirc they are thinking the competition will be very tight.
Obviously it's way too early to declare Shane the guy, especially since He has such a head start on Rudock in terms of chemistry and knowing the playbook and etc, but "Shane's getting better" isn't just a one day thing.
Personally, I very much hope Shane wins the job, given we know what sort of benchmark Rudock is setting. If Shane is past that, that would be huge given his upside.
|08/05/2015 - 2:27am||Well, that's the thing||
Well, that's the thing though, 5 star players are made, not born. To be sure, you need a ton of innate athletic ability to get there, but no one just rolls out of bed one day and discovers they're one of the thirty best players of their year. So, the question is kind of moot; if my son (eventually, I'm not a parent yet) has 5* potential in football, we'll likely never find out about it, because he'll be focusing his energies on other things.
That said, I'm pretty sure the athletic gifts that give someone 5* potential in football are pretty generally transferable to other sports...so if that happens, he'll just be one Hell of a baseball/basketball/soccer/tennis/Calvinball player