I don't understand. So UM is a football school that fails to set aside the same resources for bball as bball schools do, but you also think that UM spends as much as KU on bball?
And I don't think it makes sense that UM could pay as much as KU. I thought we all agreed that UM pays less NIL than other schools (even for football). I acknowledge that UM pays established players more than freshmen, but I still don't think we can touch KU or UK or Duke.
Hunter is a great college bball player who was coveted by a lot of teams. He went to a top-5 program for a lot of money, I imagine. This is not hard to understand, right? Frankly, he should have gone a year earlier.
As for the actual team, I agree that body language still looks OK. But it's hard to argue with the defensive numbers.
I think you're missing the point, which is that CFB is generally run by old (white) men in various positions, many of whom never played college football, so it's ironic(? counterintuitive?) to be one institution with an AD who can relate better than most to what many (most) of today's players are experiencing, and yet... nope.
It would be an incredibly stupid decision to come back when projected as a top-5 pick. Where else do you go from there? You would have to pay me 2x the rookie scale given the potential for me to get injured, delay the rookie contract start (as OP said), etc.
I would guess that a lot of recruits learn that the earning "potential" promised by programs isn't real or doesn't keep coming if you don't play + win.
So, honestly, if a Michigan kid named his tumor "Ryan Day" you'd look down on that? You wouldn't think that's a fun way to handle a horrible situation?
I do think these replies are basically proving my point. There's very little room for nuance, and I'm disappointed by it.
I don't need a new thread, I'm good. I love this blog and I have no desire to needle for needling's sake. This whole thing is starting to sound political and it bothers me. But urbanachiever said it better down below. I'll just +1 that.
I will say that I'm gratified that the feedback is "start a thread" instead of "this should have been a comment in an existing thread"!
Don't you know where you are? You can't be critical around here.
To me, it was a nice sentiment, but a bit over the top and too 'us-vs-them'. I wish we could all acknowledge that UM fans are a tribe as well, and that we have the potential to be blind to stuff, and that we can have bad eggs, and that OSU fans are also humans. It's a bit beyond that pale to suggest that JTT intentionally injured Zinter, for example. I also don't believe, if the Zinter injury were to happen at OSU to one of their OL, that those fans wouldn't be chanting for that kid also. We're much more alike than different.
The Big Ten screwed this up, yes. OSU might have been the tattle-tale and they deserve some turnabout. I hope we beat them 50-0 for the next 50 years. But can we honestly pretend that we're a program of love given what we've done to Thamel and Finebaum and anybody who had the temerity to report any of this?
Honestly: are you suggesting that OSU players conspired to 1) hold Zinter in place and 2) get blocked or intentionally dive into his leg in such a way as to injure him?
If yes, can I direct you to Harbaugh's recent press conference where he bemoans the animosity between fan bases?
I love this blog, but the recent vitriol and idiocy reminds me a lot of what we accuse other fan bases of being about.
So, this past Saturday, I could have recorded the entire Michigan - OSU game on a device, made it available to others who were interested - via a centralized server, DVD, or videotape. And, as long as I didn't "charge" for access - or provide any analysis, this is perfectly within the rules.
Right! Except that this is totally irrelevant, bc that's not what CS did. No one got mad about UM fans having youtube accounts with full game-sideline recordings.
I find the "you can't prove we did anything wrong!" crowd to be insufferable at this point - they're about as mature as me at 8 years old trying to get out of trouble by arguing technicalities with my parents. We know what he did, and it was phenomenally stupid given how easy an alternative should have been. Then the Partridge coverup is all the more bizarre.
That said, the justifications for the Big Ten's penalties are nonsensical. Everything should have waited for the NCAA to do its thing first.
Kevin: "Somebody on staff came and got me and asked me to come in the locker room." I said, "Well, I'm not really on the team, so I'm not going in the locker room."
He [unknown] said, "No, we need you to come in and talk to Barry."
I said, "What's going on?"
He said, "Well, he's in the back of the locker room. He won't talk to anybody."
And I went in and he's sitting back by the lockers, by himself. Everybody else was gone. I said, "Man, you had another solid year." [and] "Hey, when you break the record next year, no matter where I am, I'll be at that game. I'm coming to see it. I want to witness it for myself."
And [Barry] said, "I don't know if there's going to be a next year."
Oof. Thanks for the writeups and clips, especially since a lot of us couldn't watch the actual game.
I was trying not to get too high after the first 3, and I'll try not to be too critical after this, but clearly this team has exploitable weaknesses, even when shots are falling.
I'm really encouraged by the defense of Reed & Burnett also. Tschetter is obviously putting in the effort, though fouling a lot. I'm hoping it's infectious to whichever wings are in and that it can make up for Dug, who seems to wander a bit on some possessions
I don't understand it. Unless the foes have 3-4 guards to spend on this, the defender gets just as tired.
I said in other columns that full-court press must be the worst way to try to disrupt Dug. I expect bigger B1G teams to put larger guards on and play half-court, continue to force him to use screens (poorly, so far) and prevent him from getting into the lane any way they can.
If he keeps up the 3pt %, though, he's going to be a problem
I don't really understand UM fans clamoring for "Stalions did nothing wrong". It's pretty clearly against the rule. I don't care if there's a lawyery pedantic way of explaining that Stalions took advantage of 3 loopholes to avoid being technically in violation of anything. He was either supremely confident he'd get away with this very tenuous approach or extremely dumb in covering his tracks.
I thought we all (including Brian) agreed that Stalions did something wrong, but that it was just Stalions, and that it never made that much of a competitive difference, so any punishment needs to fit the crime, and only after the NCAA is done with its investigation.
Oh and also everybody else shares signals in-advance, so maybe somebody should look into that...
I feel challenged to download play-by-play rushing figures for a few games and compare the variance to prove the point, because I don't know how else to do it.
Generally I'm with you, and I was exaggerating to make a point, but I would say we didn't have 75-80% meh runs - we had 50% "ouch" runs, 35% "meh" runs, and 15% "amazing" runs.
To me, it just felt like we didn't have much rushing success apart from a few blown assignments. To other points in this thread, whether that's luck or scheme or something in between about being opportunistic is debatable.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills a bit. We have weaknesses. Our PG is tiny, doesn't see the whole floor, and doesn't use screens effectively. He's got an amazing handle and speed and finishing ability, and with a new 3pt shot, he will be deadly, but if Big Ten teams don't body him and slow the game down, I will eat my shorts. He will struggle at some point.
Last night reminded me of playing VCU in the tourney and demolishing them - it was just the perfect opponent for us, a disciplined, unselfish team with good ballhandling. If St Johns had just played halfcourt defense, they may have had more success.
I think this chart is correct. I did not have the happy cozy feeling that we were running the ball at will during the game. I felt like PSU was stopping the vast majority of our stuff and we broke a few when they made mistakes. The rosy view of that (see earlier front-page post) is that we planned on that and took advantage because that's what PSU gave us.
We had 3 TDs, 1 FG, 5 punts, and ended both halves with the ball. It wasn't the domination some were predicting, that's for sure. If those two fumbles go the other way (or if Frames isn't coaching), things may have gone a lot worse.
Anyway, if that was the plan, it worked and we won. But let's not pretend we averaged 5 yds/carry because we got 5 yards each carry.
I would love to sit in on a practice and hear how the coaches address that. You can't make the kid taller, but they obviously want to run the offense like this, so they need him to see and make the pass on time.
I rewatched some of those clips from last year and it's concerning to see the same stuff so far this year. I hope his new 3pt shot sticks around if he's not going to be taking playmaking to a Simpson level.
This is great stuff. It's only marginally easier to see the detail of plays happening live in bball than it is in football, so this is really interesting to watch after the fact.
During the game it seemed like they were scoring at will, but now my takeaway from this is that there is a LOT to clean up in these motions to create really easy looks. Pass is late, PG is not tight to screen, backside screen is late, PG is not seeing the whole court...
What's your expectation level at this early in the season, given the newness of the starting lineup? And do you expect that these schemes do get cleaned up by game 10, 15, 20?
Maybe, but Purdue had a safety at 30 yards on every pass play. Even the incredibly open passes are tackled immediately because he's essentially doubled. I'm not sure this is the game to complain about the lack of the deep ball.
What, you think they can just analyze a full football game from TV film? This level of analysis requires video at a scale that requires a 'vast network' of 'associates' to help out, and I don't if you've been following the news, but those days are over.
I understand, but it doesn't change the landscape of how Things Actually Work.
If there's no NCAA, there's no reason (other than nostalgia) for maintaining the old ways. UM fans aren't going to stop watching if UM can't play NW or Rutgers any more. Any NW and Rutgers fans don't matter, because TV money won't work flow via markets like that in the future, and there's not enough fans themselves of those teams to justify the money they get.
This whole thing is going to make a lot of people more open to (/enthusiastic about) something like a minor professional league model where the top (40 in SP+) teams play in (four 10-team) divisions with a true playoff at the end.
Screw P5 conferences, screw NCAA. Without B1G allegiance, I don't have a lot of love left for the CFB model.
That is a tightrope. "MSU is negligent and misfeasant, as proven by how they allowed Nassar to continue assaulting people for so long, and now they're continuing to be negligent and misfeasant by not allowing Tucker to work at MSU."
Call me defensive, but this is not clickbait - that is explicitly what he said to the media.
asked what Fields believes is causing him to overthink in games: "You know, could be coaching, I think"
"My goal this week is just to say F it and go out there and play football how I know to play football"
[Fields] spoke to the Bears staff about his concerns and felt that coaches were receptive to his diagnosis of what went wrong
Coach Matt Eberflus said that he did not feel the Bears were overcoaching Fields
Emphasis is mine, but they are fundamentally on different pages. Even in coachspeak, the coach did not agree with the QB.
Then he realized everybody got a kick out of his comments (taken "out of context") and he wanted to rephrase them: "Just know I need to play better. That's it. Point-blank. That's what it should have been in the first place."
To your points: of course those are the concerns. Sounds like the coach is pretty set on the existing approach but would like him to feel better and play better, not to go off-script.
Well, I think you have the whole "sign me as a free agent bc the Bears suck, not me" angle to lose if you go too far off script now.
I acknowledge that I posted this out of schadenfreude instead of pure football acumen, but it just seems remarkable to say this in public, even if you truly believe it.
And, if the problems are rooted in OL, starting field position, skill positions, etc., then he doesn't have a shot even if he does play free and loose.
A) there isn't an open market in football, so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. It's all controlled on every level (salary cap).
B) can you link to any documentation about the $70k etc? I'd be curious
C) I'm not here to judge whether "doing something" like signing autographs is "worth" the dollar amounts. I'm simply explaining that the difference in requiring that something is the difference between TAMU and UM
The statement about teaching athletes how to use NIL for life and making sure that athletes are doing something to get paid by the collective seemed a little amateuristic.
We are talking about amateurs, yes? If you mean that Warde looks like an amateur, see below.
If Joe Smith's dealership in Brighton wants to pay a recruit or current player $100,000 to do an ad campaign because they are a good player and not because they are good at selling cars, I am fine with that.
So is everyone else. That's what NIL is. It requires time (labor) to earn the NIL money.
Also, is it normal for an athletic director to sit in with a collective and tell them what they should do.
He's telling them that there better be some actual NIL-labor activity tied to the $. Yes, he can tell them to follow NCAA and UM rules.
Remeber that some (most?) admins, fans, and the NCAA aren't OK with paying $100k to come play football at this school, no signing events, commercials, or time required. That's an inducement/pay for play.
I don't mean to be a jerk - is it still hard to differentiate between these? You must be already at UM to earn. You must do something other than play football to get the money. Whether you agree or not, that's been consistent from UM AD.
Other schools don't care about that line. "Come here and we'll pay you to play football". That's a football (at-will) employee, and it's technically against the rules.
As an English major, you'd be better off arguing that the colloquial usage is so well established that it's fine that you didn't follow the grammatical rule, and that everybody knew what you meant, which was "this raises the question" (in which case, you should just say "raise" the question to avoid the grammar police)
You could actually beg the question by saying something like "Juwan would never leave Michigan because he's a great coach and he's the best person to turn this thing around"
I don't think you can call the Stanton injury 'luck' given how often it happens to running QBs. It was a game plan/approach with a known risk involved.
Yeah, you could add other systemic/global issues to this list.
If you want to worry about something, I would continue to worry about humans. They'll make earth a hard place for people to live long before computers do
If Arch Manning is a Heisman finalist in one of the next two years, and then commands less than $2M for his senior year, go ahead and make that comparison
Recent Comments
Uh, no. It has to be egregious to call it with 4 seconds left.
I don't understand. So UM is a football school that fails to set aside the same resources for bball as bball schools do, but you also think that UM spends as much as KU on bball?
And I don't think it makes sense that UM could pay as much as KU. I thought we all agreed that UM pays less NIL than other schools (even for football). I acknowledge that UM pays established players more than freshmen, but I still don't think we can touch KU or UK or Duke.
Hunter is a great college bball player who was coveted by a lot of teams. He went to a top-5 program for a lot of money, I imagine. This is not hard to understand, right? Frankly, he should have gone a year earlier.
As for the actual team, I agree that body language still looks OK. But it's hard to argue with the defensive numbers.
I think you're missing the point, which is that CFB is generally run by old (white) men in various positions, many of whom never played college football, so it's ironic(? counterintuitive?) to be one institution with an AD who can relate better than most to what many (most) of today's players are experiencing, and yet... nope.
Yeah, that was some impressive 1) snark or 2) ignorance
It would be an incredibly stupid decision to come back when projected as a top-5 pick. Where else do you go from there? You would have to pay me 2x the rookie scale given the potential for me to get injured, delay the rookie contract start (as OP said), etc.
our 2pt…
our 2pt play in triple overtime is so excellent that it counts for 4 points
I would guess that a lot of recruits learn that the earning "potential" promised by programs isn't real or doesn't keep coming if you don't play + win.
So, honestly, if a Michigan kid named his tumor "Ryan Day" you'd look down on that? You wouldn't think that's a fun way to handle a horrible situation?
GO BLUE!
I get it, I'm asking for it, and I'm OK with it.
I do think these replies are basically proving my point. There's very little room for nuance, and I'm disappointed by it.
I don't need a new thread, I'm good. I love this blog and I have no desire to needle for needling's sake. This whole thing is starting to sound political and it bothers me. But urbanachiever said it better down below. I'll just +1 that.
I will say that I'm gratified that the feedback is "start a thread" instead of "this should have been a comment in an existing thread"!
Don't you know where you are? You can't be critical around here.
To me, it was a nice sentiment, but a bit over the top and too 'us-vs-them'. I wish we could all acknowledge that UM fans are a tribe as well, and that we have the potential to be blind to stuff, and that we can have bad eggs, and that OSU fans are also humans. It's a bit beyond that pale to suggest that JTT intentionally injured Zinter, for example. I also don't believe, if the Zinter injury were to happen at OSU to one of their OL, that those fans wouldn't be chanting for that kid also. We're much more alike than different.
The Big Ten screwed this up, yes. OSU might have been the tattle-tale and they deserve some turnabout. I hope we beat them 50-0 for the next 50 years. But can we honestly pretend that we're a program of love given what we've done to Thamel and Finebaum and anybody who had the temerity to report any of this?
Honestly: are you suggesting that OSU players conspired to 1) hold Zinter in place and 2) get blocked or intentionally dive into his leg in such a way as to injure him?
If yes, can I direct you to Harbaugh's recent press conference where he bemoans the animosity between fan bases?
I love this blog, but the recent vitriol and idiocy reminds me a lot of what we accuse other fan bases of being about.
Right! Except that this is totally irrelevant, bc that's not what CS did. No one got mad about UM fans having youtube accounts with full game-sideline recordings.
I find the "you can't prove we did anything wrong!" crowd to be insufferable at this point - they're about as mature as me at 8 years old trying to get out of trouble by arguing technicalities with my parents. We know what he did, and it was phenomenally stupid given how easy an alternative should have been. Then the Partridge coverup is all the more bizarre.
That said, the justifications for the Big Ten's penalties are nonsensical. Everything should have waited for the NCAA to do its thing first.
Kevin Glover was in Baltimore to watch the game.
Kevin: "Somebody on staff came and got me and asked me to come in the locker room." I said, "Well, I'm not really on the team, so I'm not going in the locker room."
He [unknown] said, "No, we need you to come in and talk to Barry."
I said, "What's going on?"
He said, "Well, he's in the back of the locker room. He won't talk to anybody."
And I went in and he's sitting back by the lockers, by himself. Everybody else was gone. I said, "Man, you had another solid year." [and] "Hey, when you break the record next year, no matter where I am, I'll be at that game. I'm coming to see it. I want to witness it for myself."
And [Barry] said, "I don't know if there's going to be a next year."
better?
Oof. Thanks for the writeups and clips, especially since a lot of us couldn't watch the actual game.
I was trying not to get too high after the first 3, and I'll try not to be too critical after this, but clearly this team has exploitable weaknesses, even when shots are falling.
I'm really encouraged by the defense of Reed & Burnett also. Tschetter is obviously putting in the effort, though fouling a lot. I'm hoping it's infectious to whichever wings are in and that it can make up for Dug, who seems to wander a bit on some possessions
I don't understand it. Unless the foes have 3-4 guards to spend on this, the defender gets just as tired.
I said in other columns that full-court press must be the worst way to try to disrupt Dug. I expect bigger B1G teams to put larger guards on and play half-court, continue to force him to use screens (poorly, so far) and prevent him from getting into the lane any way they can.
If he keeps up the 3pt %, though, he's going to be a problem
I don't really understand UM fans clamoring for "Stalions did nothing wrong". It's pretty clearly against the rule. I don't care if there's a lawyery pedantic way of explaining that Stalions took advantage of 3 loopholes to avoid being technically in violation of anything. He was either supremely confident he'd get away with this very tenuous approach or extremely dumb in covering his tracks.
I thought we all (including Brian) agreed that Stalions did something wrong, but that it was just Stalions, and that it never made that much of a competitive difference, so any punishment needs to fit the crime, and only after the NCAA is done with its investigation.
Oh and also everybody else shares signals in-advance, so maybe somebody should look into that...
I feel challenged to download play-by-play rushing figures for a few games and compare the variance to prove the point, because I don't know how else to do it.
Generally I'm with you, and I was exaggerating to make a point, but I would say we didn't have 75-80% meh runs - we had 50% "ouch" runs, 35% "meh" runs, and 15% "amazing" runs.
To me, it just felt like we didn't have much rushing success apart from a few blown assignments. To other points in this thread, whether that's luck or scheme or something in between about being opportunistic is debatable.
I feel…
No weaknesses?!?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills a bit. We have weaknesses. Our PG is tiny, doesn't see the whole floor, and doesn't use screens effectively. He's got an amazing handle and speed and finishing ability, and with a new 3pt shot, he will be deadly, but if Big Ten teams don't body him and slow the game down, I will eat my shorts. He will struggle at some point.
Last night reminded me of playing VCU in the tourney and demolishing them - it was just the perfect opponent for us, a disciplined, unselfish team with good ballhandling. If St Johns had just played halfcourt defense, they may have had more success.
I think this chart is correct. I did not have the happy cozy feeling that we were running the ball at will during the game. I felt like PSU was stopping the vast majority of our stuff and we broke a few when they made mistakes. The rosy view of that (see earlier front-page post) is that we planned on that and took advantage because that's what PSU gave us.
We had 3 TDs, 1 FG, 5 punts, and ended both halves with the ball. It wasn't the domination some were predicting, that's for sure. If those two fumbles go the other way (or if Frames isn't coaching), things may have gone a lot worse.
Anyway, if that was the plan, it worked and we won. But let's not pretend we averaged 5 yds/carry because we got 5 yards each carry.
I would love to sit in on a practice and hear how the coaches address that. You can't make the kid taller, but they obviously want to run the offense like this, so they need him to see and make the pass on time.
I rewatched some of those clips from last year and it's concerning to see the same stuff so far this year. I hope his new 3pt shot sticks around if he's not going to be taking playmaking to a Simpson level.
This is great stuff. It's only marginally easier to see the detail of plays happening live in bball than it is in football, so this is really interesting to watch after the fact.
During the game it seemed like they were scoring at will, but now my takeaway from this is that there is a LOT to clean up in these motions to create really easy looks. Pass is late, PG is not tight to screen, backside screen is late, PG is not seeing the whole court...
What's your expectation level at this early in the season, given the newness of the starting lineup? And do you expect that these schemes do get cleaned up by game 10, 15, 20?
Maybe, but Purdue had a safety at 30 yards on every pass play. Even the incredibly open passes are tackled immediately because he's essentially doubled. I'm not sure this is the game to complain about the lack of the deep ball.
What, you think they can just analyze a full football game from TV film? This level of analysis requires video at a scale that requires a 'vast network' of 'associates' to help out, and I don't if you've been following the news, but those days are over.
Can you provide 3 examples?
I understand, but it doesn't change the landscape of how Things Actually Work.
If there's no NCAA, there's no reason (other than nostalgia) for maintaining the old ways. UM fans aren't going to stop watching if UM can't play NW or Rutgers any more. Any NW and Rutgers fans don't matter, because TV money won't work flow via markets like that in the future, and there's not enough fans themselves of those teams to justify the money they get.
This…
you're not wrong.
This whole thing is going to make a lot of people more open to (/enthusiastic about) something like a minor professional league model where the top (40 in SP+) teams play in (four 10-team) divisions with a true playoff at the end.
Screw P5 conferences, screw NCAA. Without B1G allegiance, I don't have a lot of love left for the CFB model.
Yeah, this is the only one of these threads we need
This line of questioning/reasoning is quickly becoming invalid. Even OSU doesn't want to deal with it anymore.
Gene Smith: "A practice of asking a school for a fee to simply visit campus has emerged; asking for $5,000 just to visit has become common..."
And so he's asking for federal legislation to establish:
Does that still sound like "school helping"? Because it sounds to me like UM is ahead of curve at this point.
That is a tightrope. "MSU is negligent and misfeasant, as proven by how they allowed Nassar to continue assaulting people for so long, and now they're continuing to be negligent and misfeasant by not allowing Tucker to work at MSU."
Call me defensive, but this is not clickbait - that is explicitly what he said to the media.
asked what Fields believes is causing him to overthink in games: "You know, could be coaching, I think"
"My goal this week is just to say F it and go out there and play football how I know to play football"
[Fields] spoke to the Bears staff about his concerns and felt that coaches were receptive to his diagnosis of what went wrong
Coach Matt Eberflus said that he did not feel the Bears were overcoaching Fields
Emphasis is mine, but they are fundamentally on different pages. Even in coachspeak, the coach did not agree with the QB.
Then he realized everybody got a kick out of his comments (taken "out of context") and he wanted to rephrase them: "Just know I need to play better. That's it. Point-blank. That's what it should have been in the first place."
To your points: of course those are the concerns. Sounds like the coach is pretty set on the existing approach but would like him to feel better and play better, not to go off-script.
Well, I think you have the whole "sign me as a free agent bc the Bears suck, not me" angle to lose if you go too far off script now.
I acknowledge that I posted this out of schadenfreude instead of pure football acumen, but it just seems remarkable to say this in public, even if you truly believe it.
And, if the problems are rooted in OL, starting field position, skill positions, etc., then he doesn't have a shot even if he does play free and loose.
apropos of nothing, but how long until people don't have to add the "/ twitter" after saying something was on "X"?
and just for the final hit of endorphins, where would you put Thorne this year?
Uhhh...
this was well covered in HTTV
but generally:
best school in all of Washtenaw, no doubt
And yet much of your post reads remarkably like a defense lawyer's opening statement.
A) there isn't an open market in football, so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. It's all controlled on every level (salary cap).
B) can you link to any documentation about the $70k etc? I'd be curious
C) I'm not here to judge whether "doing something" like signing autographs is "worth" the dollar amounts. I'm simply explaining that the difference in requiring that something is the difference between TAMU and UM
What are you talking about, though? This is possible right now. Athletes get some money if you buy a jersey.
That's A) not that much for most players since their share is small and B) doesn't start until one is on the team and worth their own jersey.
Are you asking to pay recruits to get them to come here?
We are talking about amateurs, yes? If you mean that Warde looks like an amateur, see below.
So is everyone else. That's what NIL is. It requires time (labor) to earn the NIL money.
He's telling them that there better be some actual NIL-labor activity tied to the $. Yes, he can tell them to follow NCAA and UM rules.
Remeber that some (most?) admins, fans, and the NCAA aren't OK with paying $100k to come play football at this school, no signing events, commercials, or time required. That's an inducement/pay for play.
I don't mean to be a jerk - is it still hard to differentiate between these? You must be already at UM to earn. You must do something other than play football to get the money. Whether you agree or not, that's been consistent from UM AD.
Other schools don't care about that line. "Come here and we'll pay you to play football". That's a football (at-will) employee, and it's technically against the rules.
As an English…
Oof, no.
As an English major, you'd be better off arguing that the colloquial usage is so well established that it's fine that you didn't follow the grammatical rule, and that everybody knew what you meant, which was "this raises the question" (in which case, you should just say "raise" the question to avoid the grammar police)
You could actually beg the question by saying something like "Juwan would never leave Michigan because he's a great coach and he's the best person to turn this thing around"
- injuries/freshman pg…
how?
uh, somewhere in the middle?
uh, you sure about that?
I don't think you can call the Stanton injury 'luck' given how often it happens to running QBs. It was a game plan/approach with a known risk involved.
I would say that money isn't the only reason. Have you looked at the roster recently?
Also, what if the NIL simply can't "be increased"?
Yeah, you could add other systemic/global issues to this list.
If you want to worry about something, I would continue to worry about humans. They'll make earth a hard place for people to live long before computers do
Wait, what? What has Arch Manning done?
If Arch Manning is a Heisman finalist in one of the next two years, and then commands less than $2M for his senior year, go ahead and make that comparison
just as close as OSU did or just as close as TCU did?
In hindsight, he should have left last year. May have cost himself $1M+ at the height of his earning potential