It is an interesting point. Does Peppers' success prove that our OL creates holes, but the other RBs just fail to consistently run through them? (Or, does it prove that our OL still needs work if only a guy like Peppers can consistently produce.)
In a universe where it was possible for Peppers to keep playing defense, I would love to see him as our starting RB. He has shown to be extremely resourceful in that position - his burst, power, and vision - and has the size to boot.
That said, I wonder about his NFL RB prospects (versus DB). (Even if that were a possibility, I could see him choosing DB simply because he'd last longer there.)
Assuming Brandon is fired this year, I wonder how easy it will be to un-do his policies, even if we have the most student-friendly, tradition-minded replacement AD.
Here's the thing: we need college sports to remain robust and profitable.
Why? Because those sports bring in lots of money to universities through alumni donations (Michigan's donation rates really do correlate to their success in sports); money which is used to build new chem labs and engineering facilities, and more.
Of course, the money isn't always spent most altruistically, but I really do believe sports help fuel innovation, so I don't think the solution is cutting off schools' athletic programs.
Yeah, and I'm not counting the scholarship stuff as "compensation" (although I agree with BiSB's point re the NCAA's double-talk). What I'm talking about are the "money shakes." Just let them happen, and don't punish anyone for it. That way, the kids are getting paid, and you can keep the "student-athlete" fantasy going that people (including myself) love.
I think one point that gets lost is the fact that the student-athletes are already getting paid.
I think it's important to continue the "student-athlete" moniker (we don't want 17-year old kids having agents, do we?), but I also think it's clear that since the student-athletes are esentially forced to spend most of their time on sport than school, they should be compensated for that (notwithstanding all the money generated through their work).
I do believe we can have both by relaxing NCAA enforcement, which I honestly think will be part of the solution.
So, basically, let the kids continue to be paid underground - just don't punish them/the schools for it.
I feel like the #1 jersey tease for recruiting purposes is getting a bit old, especially since the chances they actually get to wear it seem to diminish by the day.
The NLRB ruling (assuming it stands throughout the appeals process) would not play a role here in my view. The NLRB ruling merely allows scholarship football players at Northwestern University to unionize; and since the players casted annonymous ballots (the results of which likely will not be known until this appeals process ends), we do not actually know whether any bargaining will take place. The most likely extension of the NLRB ruling would be to allow scholarship football players to unionze at other private institutions, since the National Labor Relations Act (the federal statute allowing employees to unionize) applies almost exclusively to private employers. The NLRB ruling does not allow basketball players (or any other college athletes) to unionize. However, in my view, this NLRB ruling did lay the groundwork for college basketball players (and perhaps other college athletes) to unionize, as well - again, only at private institutions.
Now, the most obvious reason the NLRB ruling would not play a direct role here would be the fact that the universities, rather than the NCAA, would be deemed the athletes' employer - that is, the universities, rather than the NCAA, controls the day-to-day activities of its college athletes. Put another way, the NLRB ruling paves the way for players to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment with their employer only - that is, with the university, not with the NCAA. Of course, I would suspect that contracts relating to rights of publicity - that is, the issue in the O'Bannon trial - would be a subject of bargaining between any athlete unions and the universities, subject to whatever revenue streams exist. But, in terms of your question regarding pay practices, it would be the Universities, rather than the NCAA, which would be on the hook to abide by State and Federal wage and hour laws.
Anyone can chime in if I've analyzed this incorrectly, or if there is something I missed.
Honest question: why are the coaches going after a RB in this class even though we had two really good ones in the 2013 class and another stud for the 2015 class?
Aren't there other positions where there's more need?
I hate to say it, but dIdn't we stuggle to 5-0 a couple times under RR before we got handled by mediocre-to-good competition in B1G conference play? I think we have better coaches this go around, so I don't think we'll fall off quite as hard (if at all), but the point remains: 5-0 does not speak for itself.
I played there as well this past summer - beginning of June. I was really looking forward it, but the course conditions simply did not impress me. I have to assume the funds to care for Radrick come from the same pot as those that care for the Michigan course.
One of the reasons I've always loved the Michigan course, as a student, is how well-cared-for the track is - country club level (if not moreso), with plush greens and fairways. However, this past year, it seems as if the course has been looking and feeling a bit shotty (cutdown trees, and overgrown, hardened fairways, specifically). Apparently, some cost-cutting measures have led to the downsizing of the superintendent's staff. All the while, student rates (rather than Alumni or others') have gone up substantially, from $25 to $35.
Any insight into these changes would be interesting to hear about...
That's true. And I actually think your summary of Brian's argument on this point is much more accurate than mine -- that pro-style success depends on the OCs willingness to let 'em hang, so as to speak.
It doesn't seem to me that Brian is saying that pro-style offenses can't win championships. Obviously Bama's success would refute that point. I think he's just saying that, if a team uses a pro-style offense, the coaches better make sure they maximize their kids' talent -- something previous OCs haven't necessarily done at UM. Brian seems to think the story will be different with Borges at the helm, and I'd like to agree.
Aesthetically, I love the new stadium. It is truly a collosseum. And I love what Hoke and Co. is doing for the program. I don't think a national championship is at all beyond our reach. But we're officially in a new era of college football where kids aren't just coming to Michigan for the same reasons we did. Nowadays, the kids aren't going to come to Michigan simply because they want to be part of its tradition. Instead, they want more tangible things, like facilities - weight rooms, and stylish new arenas and stadiums.
I wonder - did these things always matter as much to recruits in years past?
Driver: Ping G10. Amazing value - I've yet to find a driver that's as pretty to look at over the ball, either.
Irons: TItlest 990. These have served me well even as my game has changed a lot in the 13+ years that I've had these. You can do a lot with these clubs.
Wedges: Cleveland 900 Gunmetal (52, 56, 60). These are great. The 60 is my favorite club in the bag. It's extremely versitile. I never got into Vokey wedges - never saw the appeal.
Putter: Ping Anser 2. I've always been meaning to upgrade, but this guy performs so well anytime you put a good stroke on the ball.
First of all, with the exception of Miles, your math is pretty far off. Second of all, we're talking about recruiting. Historically, we've done just fine with the assistants we've had. We haven't had to pay "top dollar" for assistants to come in here in order to attract top talent.
I'm not sure how this stacks up to other schools, but I think this list that comes off the top of my head is nice: Les Miles, Greg Mattison, Bill Sheridan, Brady Hoke, Ron English, and even Fred Jackson.
That might be true, but has this really been a "problem," as you put it? The assistants that have come out of here have gone on to have great coaching careers. Schools like Michigan are usually where assistants are developed, not bought.
I agree with your point regarding his defensive play. Offensively, however, I think a guy like GR3 really only has trouble creating at the college level because of the more cramped floor dimensions as opposed to those in the NBA.
I vote last night. The implications by itself push it over the edge (let alone the shock value). And by the same test, I'd venture to say that last night was our biggest victory since the 1999/2000 Orange Bowl, and maybe even the 1997/1998 Rose Bowl.
Recent Comments
A part of me is sad Spike wasn't on our team to be part of this win.
It is an interesting point. Does Peppers' success prove that our OL creates holes, but the other RBs just fail to consistently run through them? (Or, does it prove that our OL still needs work if only a guy like Peppers can consistently produce.)
In a universe where it was possible for Peppers to keep playing defense, I would love to see him as our starting RB. He has shown to be extremely resourceful in that position - his burst, power, and vision - and has the size to boot.
That said, I wonder about his NFL RB prospects (versus DB). (Even if that were a possibility, I could see him choosing DB simply because he'd last longer there.)
Even if he was looking at private schools, it's still a misleading (and offensive) tweet.
I'm excited about the return of Nike as the next guy, but....
I recall we recruited pretty well under Hoke, notwithstanding the logo on our unis.
Assuming Brandon is fired this year, I wonder how easy it will be to un-do his policies, even if we have the most student-friendly, tradition-minded replacement AD.
this is amazing
I love that Funchess asked for the #1.
Here's the thing: we need college sports to remain robust and profitable.
Why? Because those sports bring in lots of money to universities through alumni donations (Michigan's donation rates really do correlate to their success in sports); money which is used to build new chem labs and engineering facilities, and more.
Of course, the money isn't always spent most altruistically, but I really do believe sports help fuel innovation, so I don't think the solution is cutting off schools' athletic programs.
Yeah, and I'm not counting the scholarship stuff as "compensation" (although I agree with BiSB's point re the NCAA's double-talk). What I'm talking about are the "money shakes." Just let them happen, and don't punish anyone for it. That way, the kids are getting paid, and you can keep the "student-athlete" fantasy going that people (including myself) love.
I think one point that gets lost is the fact that the student-athletes are already getting paid.
I think it's important to continue the "student-athlete" moniker (we don't want 17-year old kids having agents, do we?), but I also think it's clear that since the student-athletes are esentially forced to spend most of their time on sport than school, they should be compensated for that (notwithstanding all the money generated through their work).
I do believe we can have both by relaxing NCAA enforcement, which I honestly think will be part of the solution.
So, basically, let the kids continue to be paid underground - just don't punish them/the schools for it.
Yeah, and I think it's wrong to have the students bear the cost.
So that's the reason rates have drastically increased...
I could've done without, and saved some cash - that, or have had the money spent on replacing diseased trees.
My bad - I was actually basing my comment off of the similar Drake Harris photos. I didn't know it was because of the high school jersey thing.
I feel like the #1 jersey tease for recruiting purposes is getting a bit old, especially since the chances they actually get to wear it seem to diminish by the day.
nice
I think it's just one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. Manningham and Hemmingway probably should've gotten it, though.
The NLRB ruling (assuming it stands throughout the appeals process) would not play a role here in my view. The NLRB ruling merely allows scholarship football players at Northwestern University to unionize; and since the players casted annonymous ballots (the results of which likely will not be known until this appeals process ends), we do not actually know whether any bargaining will take place. The most likely extension of the NLRB ruling would be to allow scholarship football players to unionze at other private institutions, since the National Labor Relations Act (the federal statute allowing employees to unionize) applies almost exclusively to private employers. The NLRB ruling does not allow basketball players (or any other college athletes) to unionize. However, in my view, this NLRB ruling did lay the groundwork for college basketball players (and perhaps other college athletes) to unionize, as well - again, only at private institutions.
Now, the most obvious reason the NLRB ruling would not play a direct role here would be the fact that the universities, rather than the NCAA, would be deemed the athletes' employer - that is, the universities, rather than the NCAA, controls the day-to-day activities of its college athletes. Put another way, the NLRB ruling paves the way for players to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment with their employer only - that is, with the university, not with the NCAA. Of course, I would suspect that contracts relating to rights of publicity - that is, the issue in the O'Bannon trial - would be a subject of bargaining between any athlete unions and the universities, subject to whatever revenue streams exist. But, in terms of your question regarding pay practices, it would be the Universities, rather than the NCAA, which would be on the hook to abide by State and Federal wage and hour laws.
Anyone can chime in if I've analyzed this incorrectly, or if there is something I missed.
Is it just me or does anyone else think GR3 is coming into his own?
Fair enough. Thanks ya'll.
Honest question: why are the coaches going after a RB in this class even though we had two really good ones in the 2013 class and another stud for the 2015 class?
Aren't there other positions where there's more need?
Ha! Like that matters anymore.
Doo-blay post.
I hate to say it, but dIdn't we stuggle to 5-0 a couple times under RR before we got handled by mediocre-to-good competition in B1G conference play? I think we have better coaches this go around, so I don't think we'll fall off quite as hard (if at all), but the point remains: 5-0 does not speak for itself.
I played there as well this past summer - beginning of June. I was really looking forward it, but the course conditions simply did not impress me. I have to assume the funds to care for Radrick come from the same pot as those that care for the Michigan course.
I don't think the elevated green on #3 is silly, especially when compared to #6.
One of the reasons I've always loved the Michigan course, as a student, is how well-cared-for the track is - country club level (if not moreso), with plush greens and fairways. However, this past year, it seems as if the course has been looking and feeling a bit shotty (cutdown trees, and overgrown, hardened fairways, specifically). Apparently, some cost-cutting measures have led to the downsizing of the superintendent's staff. All the while, student rates (rather than Alumni or others') have gone up substantially, from $25 to $35.
Any insight into these changes would be interesting to hear about...
While #18 is the favorite of many, I prefer #3.
Clearly, you aren't familiar with the term "hipster."
He's just making a point, man. Chillax.
Aesthetically, I love the new stadium. It is truly a collosseum. And I love what Hoke and Co. is doing for the program. I don't think a national championship is at all beyond our reach. But we're officially in a new era of college football where kids aren't just coming to Michigan for the same reasons we did. Nowadays, the kids aren't going to come to Michigan simply because they want to be part of its tradition. Instead, they want more tangible things, like facilities - weight rooms, and stylish new arenas and stadiums.
I wonder - did these things always matter as much to recruits in years past?
I could be wrong, but I always felt as if the Army All American game always boasted the better talent.
These look beautiful.
Driver: Ping G10. Amazing value - I've yet to find a driver that's as pretty to look at over the ball, either.
Irons: TItlest 990. These have served me well even as my game has changed a lot in the 13+ years that I've had these. You can do a lot with these clubs.
Wedges: Cleveland 900 Gunmetal (52, 56, 60). These are great. The 60 is my favorite club in the bag. It's extremely versitile. I never got into Vokey wedges - never saw the appeal.
Putter: Ping Anser 2. I've always been meaning to upgrade, but this guy performs so well anytime you put a good stroke on the ball.
Beautiful piece.
Well, in all fairness, the OP said "no joke."
No offense, but this entire post is one huge troll. Takes one to know one, I guess.
Uhh, I thought MGoBlog was a college sports blog. I'm pretty sure this kid neither plays sports or will be going to college. Get a life.
He's a high school kid who isn't even playing football. Get a life.
Agreed.
First of all, with the exception of Miles, your math is pretty far off. Second of all, we're talking about recruiting. Historically, we've done just fine with the assistants we've had. We haven't had to pay "top dollar" for assistants to come in here in order to attract top talent.
I'm not sure how this stacks up to other schools, but I think this list that comes off the top of my head is nice: Les Miles, Greg Mattison, Bill Sheridan, Brady Hoke, Ron English, and even Fred Jackson.
That might be true, but has this really been a "problem," as you put it? The assistants that have come out of here have gone on to have great coaching careers. Schools like Michigan are usually where assistants are developed, not bought.
I agree with your point regarding his defensive play. Offensively, however, I think a guy like GR3 really only has trouble creating at the college level because of the more cramped floor dimensions as opposed to those in the NBA.
I vote last night. The implications by itself push it over the edge (let alone the shock value). And by the same test, I'd venture to say that last night was our biggest victory since the 1999/2000 Orange Bowl, and maybe even the 1997/1998 Rose Bowl.