I'm finishing my MBA at William and Mary's Mason School of Business this spring. I'd say if you want to get into Ross, you'll need to crack 700 on the GMAT.
The one thing I'll say is that admissions are weird.
I got a 670 (only took it once). I didn't apply to Michigan for grad school. I applied to CU's Leeds, Case Western's Weatherhead, and W&M's Mason. Leed's was supposed to be my safety school, and it was the only one I didn't get into (getting nice scholarship packages to the two I got into).
I know people who got 780s and 790s who didn't get into HBS and people with mid-600s that got into Wharton. Having a clear goal: knowing what you want to do, preferably both function and industry (and experiene in at least one of them), will help you both in your school applications, and, more importantly, in your job search.
Key things:
Practice your interview - don't bumble into it/wing it.
Own your work experience - Even if you hated it, be able to enumerate what you learned from it.
Have a plan - Know what you want to do. Research the program and how that program specifically will align with your goals. When they ask 'Why Ross/Why School X', be able to speak intelligently on the subject.
" Jordan Morgan and Jon Horford each picked up two fouls early in the second half, leading John Beilein to play Max Bielfedt for 12 critical first-half minutes."
Man, when I was on the team, I don't think 95% of us were sober enough in the morning to make it onto the mountain, let alone squeeze into GS suits and compete.
I know Seth didn't do the analysis, but he did make the graphs, and while the total is meaningful to some extent, the recruits/college is certainly more useful in determining if the schools in each conference are capable of fielding good/elite teams. He, infact realized this, at least, tangentially, showing the number of recruits per top two schools in each conference, but including them in the same graph makes the data cumbersome at best. It's not a parallel comparison, which is really the only justification for having them as part of the same graph in the first place.
Incredibly poor attempt at displaying visual information. Like, for serious. One, not labeling your axes is just bad. Like, really bad. Two, the fact that those conferences have different numbers of members, an average # of recruits per school in each conference would actually, you know, mean something (other than which conference is bigger). The separation of the two best schools in each could best be done as a separate graph so you could actually see it. This is mind-bogglingly basic stuff. How did Michigan give you a degree?
Energy = Mass*Speed^2
Big linemen don't move very fast. A 220 lbs Safety running at 20 MPH has almost twice the energy as a 320 lbs LT coming off the line at maybe 12 mph. Add in the safety coming down and hitting a WR sprinting straight twords him at the same speed, a 40 mph collision with two 200 lbs guys is WAY more dangerous.
I worked out and mowed my parents' law, so now I'm watching Sherlock Holmes on tv, and enjoying an Atwater Vanilla Java Porter, and playin' some EVE Online.
There are a few instances when pie charts are usable, but they only show one dimension of data. If you want to show percentages and how they change overtime, for example, an area graph can concisely present the information, whereas you would need to produced multiple pie charts.
Only if there some significance to the order. The fact that Iowa is before or after Purdue has no bearing on how many recievers each team put up against Michigan, or how many DBs Michigan used to counter it.
There is no reason why this is a line graph. It implies a relevant relationship over time; that somehow Purdue being played right after MSU is relevant, and the # of Recievers/DBs between those two games somehow has relational relevance more significant than Ohio State vs Western Michigan. Each offense Michigan played had no relationship to any other offense. A scatter plot of Recievers vs DBs with each point representing a game would actually present some sort of coherant data. This? Not so much. Also, making conclusions off of the 'average personel' numbers is dubious, at best, since 1.) the data you're averaging is marginally significant to begin with, and (probably more importantly) 2.) taking an average throws the distribution of plays out. e.g. A team that only uses a 4-3 is going to look the same as a team that 50% of the time uses a nickel and 50% of the time runs a 4-4.
Another example is of poor use of your options graphically, is this:
While this graph has the relevant data hidden in it, it's a poor way of showing it. You're trying to make the point that halfway through the season, Gordon's production increased. You're trying to show the rate of change of this graph (number of tackles per game), so show it. While in this actual graph, it is appropriate to show as a line graph, the data you want shouldn't be. Ideally, this would be a histogram of tackles per game. More significantly, you could create a graph showing percentages of tackles per game. This would have the nice effect of controlling for opponents offensive style/tempo, and show who was really contributing the most, tackles-wise.
What you're really missing here, is how effective each defensive set was verses each offensive set. Was the defense lowering YPP when they added a nickelback against 3 WRs? How well did the offense do with 3-Wide against the 4-3 vs the nickel? This is data you have, and it would actually be interesting to see. This post, however, is not.
This whole post is a wonderful example of how some people don't know what types of graphs (or statisitcs in general) to use to display useful information.
Yes, there may have been 30 linebackers, but there were probably, at most, 5 MLBs (or RTs, or any given position) that started the majority of games the seasons they played.
These lists are pretty dumb. In a ten year span, you have, probably 4 starters, tops, at any given position (and, in general, the standouts will start for 3-4 years, so that brings it down to about 3 players vieing for an 'All-1980s Michigan' position). So you're listing 4 players, out of ~4 starters.
Hurray! Pointless lists! Names!
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I've owned or played extensively every NCAA since 2006, except 2007. I gotta say, I really liked the improvements to zone blocking in NCAA... 10? Whichever one that was 'the new thing'. Run blocking in 12 was completely idiotic, though. Zone blocking with a medocre line routinely produced 30+ gains, where even with a 90+ line across the board would get you TFL on the reg with, say Off Tackle Power.
As much as Cook loves to whine about coverage being the issue, in particular, being 'too weak', he's bitching without knowledge of what to bitch about. Unless you're playing on Varisty, which... n00b... the issue with coverage is that even if a WR has 2 steps and you throw a perfect pass, most of the time, the ball will be dropped, assuming any contact within 3 seconds of the catch.
My real issue is with the differences between zone and man blocking. In (again, I'm pretty sure this is the one, they all seem to blur together at this point) 2010, they were at least balanced, and there were OL players who did zone blocking well, and those that did man blocking well, mostly varying on size vs. speed. In the most recent iteration, which I have only played the demo, and 2012 there seems to be a distinct advantage to zone running, regardless of OL talents.
In general, I think there is an ever so slight trend upward with the games. However, our expectations for "what obviously needs to be fixed" are rarely satisfied. The house rule we had in college was buying every other year... which was frequently disregarded because the flesh is weak, but I think it's a good policy. The additions this year, on paper, seem like a nice step forward, but when, the day the games comes out, a friend(who's pretty darn good) tells me he threw 6 picks in his first game... something is probably wrong.
p.s. Anyone remember those terrible articles in the Daily previewing the games via a playthrough between two of the Daily sports writers (whose names elude me). Yeah. Those were painful.
Having worked at SQuad Dining, I know for a fact these guys aren't eating the 'normal' dorm food. Training Table food is pretty lux, even if it's 'diet' food.
Getting ready to hit up a few of the Midtown bars. Currently preparing myself with my usual drink, a Sidecar (though this will be the last one as I have apparently just polished off the last of my brandy).
Aluminum doesn't 'rust'. You can oxidize aluminum, but it's very difficult, and requires a VERY high tempurature and a bunch of additional oxygen. Thermite is this reaction. Very very dangerous, but also very cool.
If you're sure the hood aluminum, it's possible
1.)the paint is breaking down, UV light breaks down polymers (which is why you put clear coat on it)
2.) the paint was applied poorly, say, after repair work, and never bonded properly with the hood
3.) It's not actually an aluminum hood, and it's rusting.
Regardless, it's fixable by taking the paint off, sanding, and putting on a new coat.
However, if you're concerned with rust, you should check the body of the car, particularly the exhaust, suspension, and subframe for other signs of rust. Remember, rust begets rust. If there's a little, it will spread.
EDIT: Ford 500s have steel OEM hoods. Sounds like rust.
While I think shooting the laptop is a silly (I would have just sold it) I don't think it's 'wacko'. The kid is a brat and should have her interwebz/computer/life privileges revoked. Kids get away with murder and really don't have any consequences for their actions. Whining/laziness are rampant problems with todays youth. I have a few that work for me, and its shocking to me that an 18 year old doesn't understand that in order to get paid/not fired, they have to actually do work.
While the religious aspects are slightly more complicated, I wish we hadn't gotten away from the Calvinist work ethic. Hard work leads to happiness. Maybe we wouldn't have such a rampant depression problem in this country if people actually expected more than the bare minimum from our young people.
Pass is good at all Vail Resorts mountains and Arapahoe Basin, so that includes, Beaver Creek, Vail, Northstar at Tahoe, Heavenly, Breckenridge, and Keystone. A few years back, we tried to buy Copper, too, but the state of Colorado said we'd have a monopoly, so we couldn't.
You think Vail is snobby, and you're recommending Aspen? Snowmass is a blast, but all of the Aspen resorts are rediculously expensive, and VERY douchey. Vail is the corperate retreat, Aspen is the celeb retreat.
I don't know really what you're whining about Vail for in terms of the mtn. Any kind of terrain you like, Vail has tops, other than very steep groomers, other than Blue Ox, Pepi's Face/International(which is now renamed 'Lindsey's'). Trees? Birdbath/Pumphouse, West Vail Trees, everything off 10, Mushroom Bowl Earl's Bowl past the gate, Pete's Stash... Bumps? Look Ma, Highline, Roger's, Skipper, Spruce face, below Lover's Leap, half the stuff off 37. Cliffs? East Vail/Mushroom, Miller's, Hollywood, Dragon's Teeth, South Rim, North Rim, the stuff below 17 in the trees. Chutes? Laundry, Smokies, Frontside, Hairbag, East Vail (if you can keep up with Seth Morrison, that's where he is everyday).
Most of the good stuff you won't find on a map, but just about run you name, I can find something equal to it or better at Vail, other than a few specific things, like Corbet's.
While Breck is a fun town, the mountain sucks. It has the nickname Blowin'Fridge for a reason. It's always really windy and cold. The people there are a bit more stoner burnout than the other resorts.
If you're staying in Breck, ABay is all of about 15 minutes away, and your pass will work there. Outside of Vail, it is probably my favorite resort owned/semi-owned by Vail Resorts. It also, in general, has the best/most snow. ABay is one of the only mountains in Colorado that isn't a 'resort' it's just a mountain, which, as someone who lives in, essentially, Disneyland, is a nice draw, but that's more personal preference. ABay is a locals mtn.
Vail will have a bit better snow than the Beav, but BC is generally quite a bit less crowded. While January isn't very busy, in general, the lack of terrain open means the crowd density is just as high or higher.
Currently, the frontside is all that's open in Vail, and we've been slowly closeing runs, now opening new ones, due to the total lack of snow. We're supposed to get a storm on Saturday, but as I said before, we need a full snow cycle to hit, not just a few inches.
As for 'Chasing Rabbits' trying to insult me for being a lift op, I'd like to point out that everyone here is talking about vacationing (and spending a hoard of money to do so) in the place I ride every single day of the week (and get paid to do it 4 of those days), and when the snow is shitty like this? I don't feel obligated to go. Will I spend forever here? Probably not, but my post-college sabbatical involves shredding everyday, and in the summers mtn biking and hiking everyday. I got to ride 120+ days last year during biggest snow year on record (524", plus another 4+ feet after we closed to the public).
I'm a lift op in Vail. In no way will this make you look like anything but a gaper. This won't make you 'cool', Rep your school during Apres, not on the mtn*.
It screams "Hi everyone! I ski, at most, 10 times a year, think I'm really awesome, and will probably be riding down with patrol in a toboggan by the end of the day." I know you put a lot of work into this, but we seriously have games about people who wear shit like this to help pass the time while we work. Put in on a little shelf in your house as a keepsake. Wear a real helmet when you are out on the slopes.
Also: The 'no snow' thing isn't changing anytime soon. We need a 30"+ snow cycle to even open the rest of our lifts, let alone the majority of the terrain.
*The one exception to this is if you're a park rat, you can get away with rocking a jersey over a hoodie, but if you suck, you'll look like even more of a douche (and even if you rip, you still kinda look like a douche).
I've spent the last year and a half having faith in GERG. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. RR has proven successful everywhere he's been. GERG's success has been occasional. Yes, he hasn't been helped by issues beyond his control (RIP 2ndary '10), and I know whoever is DC next year will have experienced players unless 'Defensive Apocolypse II:Ankle-Break Harder' happens. But Michigan DOES have the cash, unlike other programs, to buy a guy who's tried and true at DC.
Yes, who ever gets these players will fall into a English situation (though the raw talent level will be lower, just e-pinion). After today, and our failure to adjust our D with a novel concept of 'covering the RB', I just can't get behind the "he knows what he's doing, he's getting paid a lot of money to do it". I don't want to put the players through another coaching change, but I'm not going to be upset if we drop GERG. (RR, on the other hand: I would murder babies if he was fired.)
Really, 95% of the time, the Heisman goes to the on of the top few team's best (or at least most talked about) offensive player. That isn't to whom the award SHOULD be given, but that's how it happens. e.g. Ingram getting the award. He wasn't even the best back on the team, let alone the best player in FBS.
OSU is #2 in the country (and has been near that spot for all of Pryor's career). Therefore, he gets the hype.
Recent Comments
I'm finishing my MBA at William and Mary's Mason School of Business this spring. I'd say if you want to get into Ross, you'll need to crack 700 on the GMAT.
The one thing I'll say is that admissions are weird.
I got a 670 (only took it once). I didn't apply to Michigan for grad school. I applied to CU's Leeds, Case Western's Weatherhead, and W&M's Mason. Leed's was supposed to be my safety school, and it was the only one I didn't get into (getting nice scholarship packages to the two I got into).
I know people who got 780s and 790s who didn't get into HBS and people with mid-600s that got into Wharton. Having a clear goal: knowing what you want to do, preferably both function and industry (and experiene in at least one of them), will help you both in your school applications, and, more importantly, in your job search.
Key things:
Practice your interview - don't bumble into it/wing it.
Own your work experience - Even if you hated it, be able to enumerate what you learned from it.
Have a plan - Know what you want to do. Research the program and how that program specifically will align with your goals. When they ask 'Why Ross/Why School X', be able to speak intelligently on the subject.
Good luck.
The feminine singular of 'alumni' is 'alumna', not 'alumnus', which is masculine. If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
Man, when I was on the team, I don't think 95% of us were sober enough in the morning to make it onto the mountain, let alone squeeze into GS suits and compete.
I know Seth didn't do the analysis, but he did make the graphs, and while the total is meaningful to some extent, the recruits/college is certainly more useful in determining if the schools in each conference are capable of fielding good/elite teams. He, infact realized this, at least, tangentially, showing the number of recruits per top two schools in each conference, but including them in the same graph makes the data cumbersome at best. It's not a parallel comparison, which is really the only justification for having them as part of the same graph in the first place.
He's not doing it for free.
Incredibly poor attempt at displaying visual information. Like, for serious. One, not labeling your axes is just bad. Like, really bad. Two, the fact that those conferences have different numbers of members, an average # of recruits per school in each conference would actually, you know, mean something (other than which conference is bigger). The separation of the two best schools in each could best be done as a separate graph so you could actually see it. This is mind-bogglingly basic stuff. How did Michigan give you a degree?
Epic fail.
Acceleration is not speed. I hope you didn't go to Michigan...
Please don't call people out when you clearly don't have a HS physics level of understanding re: the topic at hand.
Big
Energy = Mass*Speed^2
Big linemen don't move very fast. A 220 lbs Safety running at 20 MPH has almost twice the energy as a 320 lbs LT coming off the line at maybe 12 mph. Add in the safety coming down and hitting a WR sprinting straight twords him at the same speed, a 40 mph collision with two 200 lbs guys is WAY more dangerous.
I know it's college VBall, but this announcing is truly awful.
I worked out and mowed my parents' law, so now I'm watching Sherlock Holmes on tv, and enjoying an Atwater Vanilla Java Porter, and playin' some EVE Online.
3 Dollar Tavern
There are a few instances when pie charts are usable, but they only show one dimension of data. If you want to show percentages and how they change overtime, for example, an area graph can concisely present the information, whereas you would need to produced multiple pie charts.
Only if there some significance to the order. The fact that Iowa is before or after Purdue has no bearing on how many recievers each team put up against Michigan, or how many DBs Michigan used to counter it.
...And we can tell it's yours because it's off-center.
Well, for starters:
There is no reason why this is a line graph. It implies a relevant relationship over time; that somehow Purdue being played right after MSU is relevant, and the # of Recievers/DBs between those two games somehow has relational relevance more significant than Ohio State vs Western Michigan. Each offense Michigan played had no relationship to any other offense. A scatter plot of Recievers vs DBs with each point representing a game would actually present some sort of coherant data. This? Not so much. Also, making conclusions off of the 'average personel' numbers is dubious, at best, since 1.) the data you're averaging is marginally significant to begin with, and (probably more importantly) 2.) taking an average throws the distribution of plays out. e.g. A team that only uses a 4-3 is going to look the same as a team that 50% of the time uses a nickel and 50% of the time runs a 4-4.
Another example is of poor use of your options graphically, is this:
While this graph has the relevant data hidden in it, it's a poor way of showing it. You're trying to make the point that halfway through the season, Gordon's production increased. You're trying to show the rate of change of this graph (number of tackles per game), so show it. While in this actual graph, it is appropriate to show as a line graph, the data you want shouldn't be. Ideally, this would be a histogram of tackles per game. More significantly, you could create a graph showing percentages of tackles per game. This would have the nice effect of controlling for opponents offensive style/tempo, and show who was really contributing the most, tackles-wise.
What you're really missing here, is how effective each defensive set was verses each offensive set. Was the defense lowering YPP when they added a nickelback against 3 WRs? How well did the offense do with 3-Wide against the 4-3 vs the nickel? This is data you have, and it would actually be interesting to see. This post, however, is not.
This whole post is a wonderful example of how some people don't know what types of graphs (or statisitcs in general) to use to display useful information.
Yes, there may have been 30 linebackers, but there were probably, at most, 5 MLBs (or RTs, or any given position) that started the majority of games the seasons they played.
My point is how banal this is.
These lists are pretty dumb. In a ten year span, you have, probably 4 starters, tops, at any given position (and, in general, the standouts will start for 3-4 years, so that brings it down to about 3 players vieing for an 'All-1980s Michigan' position). So you're listing 4 players, out of ~4 starters.
Hurray! Pointless lists! Names!
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I'm pretty sure it was being said before 2006. I thought I remember it back in my freshman year, which was 2004.
I've always though 'You Suck' was a little Sparty-esque. At the games, we always just sang the lyrics to Temptation.
I totally forgot about that hit at 2:50 against WMU. Nothing like crushing a MAC safety in the open field.
I've owned or played extensively every NCAA since 2006, except 2007. I gotta say, I really liked the improvements to zone blocking in NCAA... 10? Whichever one that was 'the new thing'. Run blocking in 12 was completely idiotic, though. Zone blocking with a medocre line routinely produced 30+ gains, where even with a 90+ line across the board would get you TFL on the reg with, say Off Tackle Power.
As much as Cook loves to whine about coverage being the issue, in particular, being 'too weak', he's bitching without knowledge of what to bitch about. Unless you're playing on Varisty, which... n00b... the issue with coverage is that even if a WR has 2 steps and you throw a perfect pass, most of the time, the ball will be dropped, assuming any contact within 3 seconds of the catch.
My real issue is with the differences between zone and man blocking. In (again, I'm pretty sure this is the one, they all seem to blur together at this point) 2010, they were at least balanced, and there were OL players who did zone blocking well, and those that did man blocking well, mostly varying on size vs. speed. In the most recent iteration, which I have only played the demo, and 2012 there seems to be a distinct advantage to zone running, regardless of OL talents.
In general, I think there is an ever so slight trend upward with the games. However, our expectations for "what obviously needs to be fixed" are rarely satisfied. The house rule we had in college was buying every other year... which was frequently disregarded because the flesh is weak, but I think it's a good policy. The additions this year, on paper, seem like a nice step forward, but when, the day the games comes out, a friend(who's pretty darn good) tells me he threw 6 picks in his first game... something is probably wrong.
p.s. Anyone remember those terrible articles in the Daily previewing the games via a playthrough between two of the Daily sports writers (whose names elude me). Yeah. Those were painful.
Having worked at SQuad Dining, I know for a fact these guys aren't eating the 'normal' dorm food. Training Table food is pretty lux, even if it's 'diet' food.
Getting ready to hit up a few of the Midtown bars. Currently preparing myself with my usual drink, a Sidecar (though this will be the last one as I have apparently just polished off the last of my brandy).
Switzer not being #1 illigitimizes this list.
Greg "Gerg" Robinson Purveyor of Self-Immolation
Aluminum doesn't 'rust'. You can oxidize aluminum, but it's very difficult, and requires a VERY high tempurature and a bunch of additional oxygen. Thermite is this reaction. Very very dangerous, but also very cool.
If you're sure the hood aluminum, it's possible
1.)the paint is breaking down, UV light breaks down polymers (which is why you put clear coat on it)
2.) the paint was applied poorly, say, after repair work, and never bonded properly with the hood
3.) It's not actually an aluminum hood, and it's rusting.
Regardless, it's fixable by taking the paint off, sanding, and putting on a new coat.
However, if you're concerned with rust, you should check the body of the car, particularly the exhaust, suspension, and subframe for other signs of rust. Remember, rust begets rust. If there's a little, it will spread.
EDIT: Ford 500s have steel OEM hoods. Sounds like rust.
I don't think I actually can because of the UMG copyright on the music. Sorry.
Lightbox. Though the frame size is wrong because I didn't really care that much.
Should be fixed now.
I don't know how he hasn't been listed yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Schmitt
Come on, meow... how many walk-ons get NCAA Football covers?
I'm 25, no kids, and a gun owner.
While I think shooting the laptop is a silly (I would have just sold it) I don't think it's 'wacko'. The kid is a brat and should have her interwebz/computer/life privileges revoked. Kids get away with murder and really don't have any consequences for their actions. Whining/laziness are rampant problems with todays youth. I have a few that work for me, and its shocking to me that an 18 year old doesn't understand that in order to get paid/not fired, they have to actually do work.
While the religious aspects are slightly more complicated, I wish we hadn't gotten away from the Calvinist work ethic. Hard work leads to happiness. Maybe we wouldn't have such a rampant depression problem in this country if people actually expected more than the bare minimum from our young people.
Pass is good at all Vail Resorts mountains and Arapahoe Basin, so that includes, Beaver Creek, Vail, Northstar at Tahoe, Heavenly, Breckenridge, and Keystone. A few years back, we tried to buy Copper, too, but the state of Colorado said we'd have a monopoly, so we couldn't.
You think Vail is snobby, and you're recommending Aspen? Snowmass is a blast, but all of the Aspen resorts are rediculously expensive, and VERY douchey. Vail is the corperate retreat, Aspen is the celeb retreat.
I don't know really what you're whining about Vail for in terms of the mtn. Any kind of terrain you like, Vail has tops, other than very steep groomers, other than Blue Ox, Pepi's Face/International(which is now renamed 'Lindsey's'). Trees? Birdbath/Pumphouse, West Vail Trees, everything off 10, Mushroom Bowl Earl's Bowl past the gate, Pete's Stash... Bumps? Look Ma, Highline, Roger's, Skipper, Spruce face, below Lover's Leap, half the stuff off 37. Cliffs? East Vail/Mushroom, Miller's, Hollywood, Dragon's Teeth, South Rim, North Rim, the stuff below 17 in the trees. Chutes? Laundry, Smokies, Frontside, Hairbag, East Vail (if you can keep up with Seth Morrison, that's where he is everyday).
Most of the good stuff you won't find on a map, but just about run you name, I can find something equal to it or better at Vail, other than a few specific things, like Corbet's.
While Breck is a fun town, the mountain sucks. It has the nickname Blowin'Fridge for a reason. It's always really windy and cold. The people there are a bit more stoner burnout than the other resorts.
If you're staying in Breck, ABay is all of about 15 minutes away, and your pass will work there. Outside of Vail, it is probably my favorite resort owned/semi-owned by Vail Resorts. It also, in general, has the best/most snow. ABay is one of the only mountains in Colorado that isn't a 'resort' it's just a mountain, which, as someone who lives in, essentially, Disneyland, is a nice draw, but that's more personal preference. ABay is a locals mtn.
Vail will have a bit better snow than the Beav, but BC is generally quite a bit less crowded. While January isn't very busy, in general, the lack of terrain open means the crowd density is just as high or higher.
Currently, the frontside is all that's open in Vail, and we've been slowly closeing runs, now opening new ones, due to the total lack of snow. We're supposed to get a storm on Saturday, but as I said before, we need a full snow cycle to hit, not just a few inches.
As for 'Chasing Rabbits' trying to insult me for being a lift op, I'd like to point out that everyone here is talking about vacationing (and spending a hoard of money to do so) in the place I ride every single day of the week (and get paid to do it 4 of those days), and when the snow is shitty like this? I don't feel obligated to go. Will I spend forever here? Probably not, but my post-college sabbatical involves shredding everyday, and in the summers mtn biking and hiking everyday. I got to ride 120+ days last year during biggest snow year on record (524", plus another 4+ feet after we closed to the public).
I'm a lift op in Vail. In no way will this make you look like anything but a gaper. This won't make you 'cool', Rep your school during Apres, not on the mtn*.
It screams "Hi everyone! I ski, at most, 10 times a year, think I'm really awesome, and will probably be riding down with patrol in a toboggan by the end of the day." I know you put a lot of work into this, but we seriously have games about people who wear shit like this to help pass the time while we work. Put in on a little shelf in your house as a keepsake. Wear a real helmet when you are out on the slopes.
Also: The 'no snow' thing isn't changing anytime soon. We need a 30"+ snow cycle to even open the rest of our lifts, let alone the majority of the terrain.
*The one exception to this is if you're a park rat, you can get away with rocking a jersey over a hoodie, but if you suck, you'll look like even more of a douche (and even if you rip, you still kinda look like a douche).
I work with Stoutland's niece. Should be interesting how this pans out.
I've spent the last year and a half having faith in GERG. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. RR has proven successful everywhere he's been. GERG's success has been occasional. Yes, he hasn't been helped by issues beyond his control (RIP 2ndary '10), and I know whoever is DC next year will have experienced players unless 'Defensive Apocolypse II:Ankle-Break Harder' happens. But Michigan DOES have the cash, unlike other programs, to buy a guy who's tried and true at DC.
Yes, who ever gets these players will fall into a English situation (though the raw talent level will be lower, just e-pinion). After today, and our failure to adjust our D with a novel concept of 'covering the RB', I just can't get behind the "he knows what he's doing, he's getting paid a lot of money to do it". I don't want to put the players through another coaching change, but I'm not going to be upset if we drop GERG. (RR, on the other hand: I would murder babies if he was fired.)
Lion's Den (NTLD) is a good place to watch the game. Got beers given to us by Penn State fans after the loss as a consolation.
I was expecting this article to be about Dantonio...
Stop stalking high schoolers.
"Player collaborates victim’s statements"
I think they mean 'corroborates'
This is fantastic. +1 to you, good sir.
I've been debating if this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLgdmGkAUz0 or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53gjP-TtGE&ob=av2n is a better song for each of these wins (the Kanye song obviously being Denard's theme music).
But yeah... On to the Next One.
That seems extreme.
Really, 95% of the time, the Heisman goes to the on of the top few team's best (or at least most talked about) offensive player. That isn't to whom the award SHOULD be given, but that's how it happens. e.g. Ingram getting the award. He wasn't even the best back on the team, let alone the best player in FBS.
OSU is #2 in the country (and has been near that spot for all of Pryor's career). Therefore, he gets the hype.
It's not how it 'should' be, but it's how it is.
I believe that is Paul's droid phone being held up on the left of the picture. I know he was about 3 people to the left of Nard'dawg.