|06/22/2018 - 2:20pm||Ditto on #s 3 and 4…||
Ditto on #s 3 and 4 specifically.
I am a "overall, recruiting stars matter" type of guy, but context also matters.
Some solid kids are just lightly scouted for whatever reason (lives in HS football backwater part of the country; injury robbed a kid of the ability to show out during critical evaluation months; recent football convert or dual-sport kid; just a ghost & never bothered to go to camps).
Timing also matters. A nondescript 3 star kid offered earlier in the process is very different than us snatching up a nondescript 3 star kid at the 11th hour after it's clear that we whiffed our way several players down the board and it's clear a kid is Just A Guy.
You look at the context on this guy & I can easily see how he could be much better than what his generic 3 recruiting profile indicates.
|06/21/2018 - 11:19am||I'll defer to an expert on…||
I'll defer to an expert on the matter, but my understanding was that they just couldn't do any mandatory or substantive team meetings/film sessions or practices/drills.
|05/29/2018 - 10:37pm||Obviously stats don’t work||
Obviously stats don’t work this way, but if Black has stayed healthy and played every game, you extrapolate out his statistics and he doubles the production of Perry.
|05/28/2018 - 7:38pm||I'm a Shea optimist but Hintz||
I'm a Shea optimist but Hintz is right.
And that Auburn stat line looks pretty OK until you realize that at half time the score was 35-3. I didn't watch that game but my bet is that Auburn went into garbage mode pretty early in the 3rd quarter & it's likely that Shea racked up all of his decent stats against non-starters playing soft prevent style coverage.
Doesn't mean Shea isn't a hell of an upgrade for us & worst case scenario he provides amped up competition & better depth than last year. His abilty to hit a guy downfield & escapability should ease up some pressure on our weak OTs as pass rushers/blitz packages might get scaled back.
But the guy still has some question marks he'll need to address. It's entirely possible he WILL. And it's entirely possible the rest of his 2017 team didn't do him any favors. Their overall S&P Defense was like 113th in the country & the rushing S&P rank was a very middling 42nd. So it's possible opponents knew the only way Ole Miss would beat them was through the air on offense & so by the middle/end of the season they tee'd off on the Ole Miss passing game.
So it's entirely possilbe a top 10 defense & a top 15 rushing attack can open things up & that he can do it. But he's definitely got something prove.
|05/26/2018 - 12:53pm||Yeah that’s the hard part||
Yeah that’s the hard part about this game. I like regular Risk, the armies/players on a losing battle aren’t destroyed. Which means that the fewer territories a team has, the more likely they are to be fiercely defended. The only cure for that is hoping that a team has a major drop in morale/interest to the point that the members stop playing the rounds.
|05/19/2018 - 11:22am||Is there any other school in||
Is there any other school in the nation other than us that would benefit more in recruiting if/when Stanford ever regressed back to their mean and became an entirely mediocre/sub par team winning only 5-7 games per year?
Just seems like we sometimes suffer for being a “tweener” program in some recruiting circles. We aren’t an SEC or major juggernaut where we are in the CFP every year and where you don’t have to play school, but we aren’t quite as high caliber academically as Stanford. Maybe Notre Dame is in the same boat as us, but they’ve also got the Harvard for Catholics thing built into their sales pitch too.
|05/17/2018 - 11:01pm||Plus didn’t he run the scout||
Plus didn’t he run the scout team his true freshman year? I’m not privy to how teams are run, but if a guy spends his time running the scout squad mimicking an opposing offense for our team’s defense to practice against, doesn’t that rob him of the ability to really throw himself into learning how to run our own playbook?
|05/11/2018 - 7:28pm||I mean yeah definitely. If||
I mean yeah definitely. If the choice is “join randomly” vs “not at all” then we definitely want any help we can get. But if you really want to be efficient, get vetted through Discord & not only follow the specific orders, but make sure to log your intentions too, so we are flying less blindly.
And we do want to avoid getting too specific on MGoBlog. Lurkers/spies are everywhere.
|05/11/2018 - 6:02pm||MGoHorde||
BTW, the guys over at Reddit have already adopted a nickname for users joining from this discussion board--the "MGoHorde." Baiscally large volume yet low power (since many of us are new).
The way to maximize that is through efficient communication/strategy. Otherwise we end up throwing way too many bodies at a territory than necessary.
So, once you sign onto the game & pick Michigan flair, the next big thing you can really do is get vetted & confortable using that Discord app/chat.
Once you go through all that trouble & actually get vetted by the Discord guys to check out the specific orders/strategy, please make a point to LOG your intentions!!
The faster certain territory assignments fill up on Discord (and the only way we can know for sure is people log their intentions), the more quickly/efficiently we can re-allocate the overflow to an under-served territory or possibly expand our ambitions for that turn.
Otherwise we run the risk of just totally nuking one or two territories while either falling short in others and/or missing an opportunity to pick up an extra territory.
|05/11/2018 - 5:50pm||Right. You'd think if they||
Right. You'd think if they dont' do that, then Chaos would just have a totally insurmountable advantage unless snuffed out pretty quickly.
|05/08/2018 - 3:06pm||Long/Hill
Selfishly, I woudn't mind one bit if the two of them are overlooked for another year. Was hoping the same for Bush & Hudson but it doesn't sound like that will be the case.
|05/08/2018 - 3:04pm||Seems to me a mix of 3||
Seems to me a mix of 3 possibilities:
|05/08/2018 - 2:48pm||Exactly.
We also need to
We also need to remember that it's likely we will have a top 10 defense this year. In order to compete for the Big Ten championship even WITH a tough schedule, we don't need a top 10 offense. We just need a somewhat competent one.
Our S&P+ Offense overall ranking was 85th, whereas our RUSHING S&P+ was 14th.
Granted, I don't know how S&P works, so maybe the Maryland/Minnesota games skews that too much. But if not, then being14th in the nation rushing is when everybody and their sister KNEW by mid-season that we had no passing game and could likely stack the box without being punished too much is pretty dang good. So if we can just bring up our passing game to merely average, I'd make a bet that we'd also see our S&P Rushing crack the top 10 nationally.
Basically, this stuff all feeds on each other. All we need is for the passing offense not to be a major anchor weighing everything down. The factors in our favor here:
That last point also might not be a permanent situation.
As long as we can survive ND on September 1st, the OL will have 2 weeks of tomato can games to solidify basics and start to add in more complexity during practice. Then they get a doable 3 game stretch of Nebraska, @ Northwestern (aka Chicagoland Michigan Alumni Game) & Maryland where our defense should be able to tide us over. So by the time we hit the meat of our schedule--Wisconsin, @ MSU, Bye, PSU--the OL will have had an additional 6 weeks of practice to start throwing in some additional wrinkles.
Even if just 2 of those 4 bullet points above end up panning out, I think our chances of at least moderate passing game improvement is more likely than not.
|05/07/2018 - 10:23pm||Plus, I don’t give a rip||
Plus, I don’t give a rip about Ole Miss’s current roster. The only question that’s relevant is whether Shea is an upgrade for US.
|05/07/2018 - 10:19pm||True, but IIRC, they also||
True, but IIRC, they also threw the ball a lot more than we did. So overall passing yards wouldn’t be a good measurement to compare.
|05/03/2018 - 12:00am||I mean, as a||
I mean, as a compromise.....how about a 6 or 8 panel posterboard?
|05/01/2018 - 2:46pm||I was a law student so||
I was a law student so Dominick’s hands down in nice weather. We could walk 3 minutes immediately after class on a nice Friday and stumble home to our beds in the law quad easily at the end of the night.
We’d go with one of two different bars for the “all seasons” category when it was too cold outside or when Dominick’s was closed seasonally or if we wanted to keep the party going after it closed at 10pm.
If I just wanted to hang out w buddies it’d be Ashley’s. Better beer & you can actually hear yourself talk. But pretty terrible for meeting women. Just not conducive to meeting new people.
If the goal was to mix it up and maybe meet women it’d be Connor O’Neils or if we were being lazy, cheap, or really wanted to meet undergrads it’s be Scorekeepers.
|05/01/2018 - 11:31am||Don’t know about pass||
Don’t know about pass protection but Ole Miss running offense was in the 100’s last season. So was their overall defense. So bottom line there was A LOT of pressure for them to just win games by airing it out in the passing game.
My hope is that this is the reason for his TD:INT ratio. If teams know they need to stop the run then receivers should be more open, and if Shea knows he’s got a top 10 defense behind him he won’t feel the need to play hero ball and take as many risks.
|04/28/2018 - 10:30am||You can ask that about a||
You can ask that about a whole host of folks who haven’t been honorary captains yet. Has Denard done it yet? Navarre? Henne? Braylon? Griese? Hutchinson? Maybe yes to some of them—I don’t keep track myself. But I guarantee you Long isn’t the only one and it isn’t some slight or intended oversight by the school’s part.
|04/28/2018 - 10:21am||I think people forget what||
I think people forget what Brian’s opinion of Tate was when Tate was on campus. IIRC Brian was a big fan of the RR offense and of Tate in particular. Brian has said many times that Shea is like a moderately taller/more athletic Tate & that it is a compliment.
People seem to remember that the actual team records were horrible and that Tate didn’t play school. Those two things do not translate to the Shea comparison. Brian is simply saying in terms of playing style and skill set, Shea reminds him of Tate.
|04/25/2018 - 4:40pm||Slow day at work so apologies||
EDIT: Apologies for formatting. Don't know how to fix some of it.
Slow day at work so apologies for the longer posts/replies, but I've got nothing better to do today, so...
TL:DR Version--no we are not a basketball school now, I dont' think Brian quit but my guess is he is doing a reorganizaiton behind the scenes so that other folks will be producing more of the football content from now on--which actually is a good thing for everybody involved.
I obviously have no special knowledge of any of this since I'm just a random poster, but here's my read on the situation--
We aren't a basketball school & I sincerely doubt that the blog content will move AWAY from football. Maybe as they grow, they grow the basketball/hockey content MORE so that as a percentage, the football content shrinks. But I don't think that the actual raw amount of posts/content for football has or will drop in any meaningful way.
If I had to guess what was really going on w/ Brian, it's a mixture of this:
At first when I realized this may be the case, I was offended. After all, I am a loyal reader of this blog. And even though I'm not one of the big Hot Take perpetrators, I certainly don't feel good being lumped into a guilt by association thing. Plus feeling like our vaunted leader might disdain some of his own readership offended my sensitbilites. One ought not bite the hands that fees you after all.
HOWEVER, now that the bitter disappointment of last season has faded, I don't feel that way at all.
First, as a practical matter, this is Brian's own blog. It's his house & he can do & say whatever he damned well pleases. We aren't even paying customers. Second, upon reflection, I think Brian stepping back (if he so chooses) from some of the public-facing aspects of the football content is actually an indicator of several positive things under neath the surface.
In no particular order:
Anyway, that's my super long totally uninformed guess as to what may be going on w/ the blog behind the scenes.
|04/25/2018 - 3:36pm||Totally agree, but it's||
Totally agree, but it's important to remember that 2015 was a lost recruiting year. Harbaugh had 3 weeks to look around the recruiting landscape & grab JOK out of desperation and whiffed. Then he saw what he had in the QB room in the spring of 2015, grabed Rudock & turned him from a soon to be medical student into an NFL propsect within a season.
And as others have said in this thread, Peters--our 2016 QB recruit-- had a super awkward 2017 development path. He was bound to make freshman type mistakes, and once the competition level ratcheted up at Wisconsin that required him to perform beyond the simplistic game plans against Rutgers/Minnesota/Maryland, those showed. The bowl game was an offensive shit-show, but I'm not ready to put a ton of blame on Peters for that as in my view, in terms of snap counts, that was basically his 4th game of his entire career. If he keeps making those errors into Big 10 season without signs of imporvement, then I'd worry about Peters, but not before then.
Bottom line is we've got a ton of bullets in the chamber at QB now. So, one of two things will be true one year from now, regardless of whether Shea was eligible for the 2018 season, whether Shea did or didn't do well in 2018 if he does play, whether Shea enters the 2019 NFL Draft, or whether he decides to come back for the 2019 season.
I think the likelyhood of the first outcome is 95%+ chance and the #2 outcome is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
|04/25/2018 - 3:15pm||This is an excellent point,||
This is an excellent point, but unforunatley probably impossible to break down in any meaningful way.
But that does largely remind me of the whole Tom Brady vs. Drew Henson QB battle back in the late 1990's.
Henson was always the better raw athlete, so his skillset & ceiling would theoretically show up earlier in his development. He never played much in the league, but it's clear the uber athletes at QB also tend to see a drop in their careers earlier as their legs start to give out (not unlike RBs who get their bodies beaten up). Conversely, Brady's major skillset is the field vision, football IQ, killer instinct/psychological advantage. That stuff usually doesn't bear fruit until a few years of development, but the up side is that it also enables a QB to play longer in the league.
At the college level--especially with the newer 3 & out model--it seems like a college team may be better off with that raw athlete b/c they'd be more likely to get an extra season or so of productivity out of him, whereas going the cerebral route may give you a great upperclassman QB for a year or so, but you may only have a 1-2 year starter on your hands versus a 2-3 year starter.
|04/25/2018 - 2:58pm||Context||
First, I just want to say thank you for Seth for putting all this together--awesome job man. I don't think some people realize how long this can take to pull togther & it's like mana from heavan in the off season for a college football junkie.
Second--Guys--cut Seth some slack when he's on the MGoPodcast. It seems like you were running him through the ringer there a bit. Nobody puts Seth in the Corner!
Third--and to your point RE: various season records being a bit over the map with the QB years just above Shea's hypothetical 2018 season---all true observations, but obviously context matters. Like the strength of that team's defense overall:
Defensive S&P Ranking for the following seassons/teams:
Tons of caveats apply of course, but to me it seems like when you look at Seth's made up "QB Efficiency Percentile" stat & the grouping right above "Shea 2018" line, what you get is possibly a pretty decent correlation (admittedly not causation necessarily).
I'm not a fancy stat guy, but it seems to me one observation could be, "If a team's starting QB gets a QB Efficiency Percentile rougly in the projected Patterson 2018 zone, you can rougly expect the season record to break down along the lines of the team's S&P Overall Defensive ranking."
In other words, if a QB can get to that level, then that year the offense overall won't be a net drag/hinderance on the defense. Doesn't mean they're necessarily good enough to pull UP or compensate for a bad defense, but the team's season record won't significantly under-perform their Overall Defensive S&P ranking.
Michigan's Overall Defensive S & P since Coach Brown has arrived:
So, my totally unscientific feelings-ball conclusion just eyeballing Seth's QB Efficiency Percentile stat versus Overall Defensive S&P ratings is this:
Assuming this 2018 season:
.....it's not an unreasonable projection to say that what we're looking at is a 10+ win season.
Again, major caveats apply (strength of schedule, youth of the rest of the roster, avoiding key injuries, flukish football-god type events not breaking against our favor disproportionately). And some optimists have been saying 10+ win season is doable since the saltiness of our bowl game has worn off. But it seems to me that if you pair Seth's post & the Defensive S&P observation, there's a least a bit more hard data that seems to point to that 10+ mark as being a real possibility beyond mere hope/feelingsball.
|04/22/2018 - 7:51pm||Ain’t that the truth. As a||
Ain’t that the truth. As a fan base I think we had a tendency to get really down on BP for that bowl game, but we need to remember he was bound to have a few freshman mistake type games against teams with a pulse. I think part of the overreaction was just as a fan base we had PTSD where QB play was concerned, this a hypersensitivity. If for whatever reason BP is our starting QB this year, he’s going to be a good 30% better just from getting the freshman mistakes out of his system plus adding another 6 months of getting a bunch of snaps with the 1’s.
|04/20/2018 - 12:24pm||Other Transfer Requests||
Would we really know soon? Or is it possible NCAA waits for the other 4 or 5 petitions of former Ole Miss players at other schools and review/rule on them in the aggregate? Especially if the fact patterns are overlapping.
|04/16/2018 - 8:23pm||Welcome Aboard||
I can fall victim to the stargazing at times, but...
1) From a small state football wise so as Seth said, recruiting scouts sometimes don’t get there.
2) OL can be hard to project, and
3) There are certainly some lower ranked kids that have turned OT quite well for us. IIRC for example Sean McKeown wasn’t a high rated kid and he’s one of our best TEs.
5) If Warriner was involved with wanting this guy, I’m all in.
6). When it comes to OL, until we know we have a solid OL, I’m always happy to see more bullets in the chamber. Throw them all into a pile & eventually 5 really great prospects are going to pan out for us.
|04/16/2018 - 3:21pm||Unusual Offer Sheet||
A top athlete from Florida with some solid offers, but Florida & Florida State didn't offer the kid?
I find that odd. Maybe he fell through the cracks due to the coaching turnover at both schools?
|04/10/2018 - 10:45am||My Thoughts||
For the purpose of the thread, I’ll stipulate that the administrative, booster, & alumni culture are OK with going the Bama/Clemson route. I’ll also stipulate that our “money cannon” would be as big or even a bit bigger than the established SEC bagman networks.
So that being said, here would be the effect I think—it’d likely get us to the consistent top 5-7 level but not the perpetual national championship level. As others have mentioned, the academics, weather, and level of female...uh...”talent” is more favorable to certain guys who don’t want to play school. So we’d still lose out to some kids to SEC or West Coast schools.
The teams that would see a decrease due to our improved recruiting would be OSU, Penn State & MSU (they don’t have any weather advantage to blunt the Michigan money offers). Notre Dame would get their lunch eaten other than the most die hard catholic/ND families. Maybe some kids going to Stanford would go our way but I see them as being more resistant to payments as your average kid. Might skim a FEW kids from USC or SEC schools, but it’d only be the kids who normally find strong academic reputations a plus but merely went there because of the payments, which our payments would then negate through us matching.
Bottom line is it would not make us an indestructible juggernaut where we are in the CFP every single year. But it’d certainly get us back to the “big two little 12” in the Big Ten similar to the 1970 to 19990s where we win the Big Ten about 40-50% of the time and we’d be making CFP appearances once every 3-5 years and win a NC once every 7-8 years on average.
|04/09/2018 - 2:18pm||Totally agree. It's hard to||
Totally agree. It's hard to tell at least from the outside. Possibly also from the inside. That's why I'm fine with keeping him on this season at least. Totally screws with QBs if you're changing their QB coach every single year.
But as much as I actually liked Pep's personality in the show, personality does NOT necessarily transalate into being a good coach/play designer/play caller. Plus last year, the criticisms leveled at Pep IIRC didn't ever seem to be, "the guy's personality is lousy." So just b/c he comes across great personally, that doesn't immediately negate the criticisms of him.
But again, one year it's way too soon to tell if any of them are legit, or if he's largely a victim of circumstances.
The reasons for the poor passing game & in Pep specifically I've heard are various. Maybe they're all bogus, maybe thye're all true. More likely a mixed bag:
Now, if over another year or so it's clear the QB/WRs still don't develop, and if the passing game can't be tweaked to better compensate for that fact (better hot reads, TE/slot usage), and/or Pep turns a total dud on the recruiting trail, then fine. But it's definitely too soon to make those determinations.
The offensive coaching staff ALONE should provide a huge boost to Pep & the passing game this year. They've got a dedicated WR coach in McElwain PLUS Roy Roundtree as a grad assistant. They've got Warinner to be 100% focused on the OL instead of that odd Drevno/Frey combination thing.
The freshman WRs will be a year older w/ a healthy Black. And if the football Gods are friendly, Shea Patterson at QB, or at least a more seasoned Peters/DCaff.
|04/04/2018 - 1:02pm||Villian and Jeter both. Hope||
Villian and Jeter both. Hope they can get over those injury bugs for good.
|04/03/2018 - 4:05pm||Totally agree. Hell of a fun||
Totally agree. Hell of a fun season. My recollection is that pre-season we were projected to be 7th in the Big Ten & they making the dance would be a big win for us. Seeing the young kids grow, curb stomping Sparty twice, winning the BTT, seeing Sparty flame out of March Madness early, and making a FF & championship game is far beyond any reasonable fans expectations for this season. One for the ages.
|04/03/2018 - 4:01pm||Agree. There were at least||
Agree. There were at least 2-4 rebounds that landed in Villanova’s hands that I saw that were absolute luck. Maybe I had my homer glasses on, but I didn’t notice that many purely random rebounds landing in our direction. This game was lost primarily because Villanova is an excellent squad and too many of our guys were cold from the floor.
On the margins, some poor officiating calls, unlucky missed “and one” opportunities, our bad free throw shooting, and JB’s conservative auto benching philosophy may have cost us another cumulative 10-12 points. But when we lose by that margin, it’s hard to get upset at the marginal stuff. We simply needed one of our A games to have a shot to beat an excellent Villanova squad, and we didn’t bring it.
|03/31/2018 - 5:53pm||Yeah, this part is totally||
Yeah, this part is totally baffling:
Michigan could have been more aggressive and used more documentation that was made available to them from Shea's attorney.
The way I'm reading this is, "Michigan pulled their punches and didn't put forth the best case possible."
If so.....WHY? It totally baffles me as to why somebody would NOT include helpful relevant information if they had the ability to do so.
|03/28/2018 - 11:33pm||Really the two big questions||
Really the two big questions you'd think everybody has at this point is:
So I guess my question on the timeline is----did the NCAA actually send the official copy to Ole Miss and we just didn't know about it? Or is Ole Miss sending a response in based on the Michigan copy?
|03/27/2018 - 9:46pm||Not to mention both Ruiz and||
Not to mention both Ruiz and Shea were at IMG Academy. I could be wrong, but I also think Ruiz WAS Shea’s center for a period of time in high school.
If true, that certainly doesn’t hurt the center/QB exchange.
|03/27/2018 - 5:17pm||Very true, but as others have||
Very true, but as others have said, even on a personal level, Yaklich is going to be able to "distill" the scouting reports & game tapes that Michigan will be pulling on Loyola.
They have a limited 1 week turn-around, and a guy like Yaklich being able to provide additional context & insight is going to help Michigan more efficiently wade through the potentially reams of raw data & video that they undoubtedy already have.
How MUCH more efficient is anybody's guess. But it's not unreaslable to think that having Yaklich adding context may be worth a 10% or 20% bump in scouting factor. Over a 7 day period, that's like adding an extra 1-2 days of time to review things.
Plus as an aside, my understanding is that rumors are out there that Loyola's head coach may be entertaining offers for bigger schools. Plus the national media is going to be pestering Loyola for media access, interviews, etc. far more than Michigan this week. We learned back in 2013 that Beilein had preparation duties reduced bacause he was accompanying Trey Burke at various media & award events for the POY stuff. We don't have that issue this year & conversely Loyola may have those distractions this time around.
Bottom line is if you comine the possible Yaklich scouting efficiency advantage, plus factor in some of the potential Loyola off-court distractions, you might be looking at a preparation "differential" of maybe 30%---not an insignificant advantage.
|03/27/2018 - 2:29pm||I actually love the fact that||
I actually love the fact that the media is all over Loyola for various stories this week & that Michigan is essentially ignored.
My understanding is that JB said we went to the FF in 2013, a good chunk of his time was pulled away from game prep because he was accompanying events with Burke & the POY award stuff & associated media events.
Maybe this time around the Loyola staff will be distracted/hounded by media requests and let JB & Co prepare in peace.
Not to mention any "insider" type stories as to HOW Loyola prepares in-and-of-itself might be useful (albeit just a small amount on the margins).
"Hey world, this is what Loyola's game prep & war room strategies look like....." isn't something that's bad to know if I'm on the Michigan coaching staff.
|03/27/2018 - 1:36pm||I think it’s fair to say if a||
I think it’s fair to say if a kid is gonna be a game breaking Heisman type player then they usually show up freshman year right away. But there’s plenty of solid/serviceable All Big Ten 1st or 2nd team starter types that really don’t pop up on the radar until year 2 or 3.
|03/24/2018 - 8:12pm||So....is that a good thing,||
So....is that a good thing, bad thing, or indifferent?
|03/24/2018 - 7:48pm||"Easily" being the modifier||
"Easily" being the modifier there. Twitterverse is saying 90% Michigan fans, but that's anecdotal evidence only.
|03/24/2018 - 1:08pm||Unless we just constantly||
Unless we just constantly hang out behind the arc & hit them or get an enormous amount of fast break point, I’m also worried that FSU’s depth will allow them to be content to just hack us to pieces when they’re on defense. Basically be willing to burn some of their guys out on fouls the 2nd half because our free throw shooting is a relative weak part of our offense.
|03/24/2018 - 11:24am||Much clearer and more||
Much clearer and more relevant map IMO.
|03/23/2018 - 12:22pm||Exactly. I think we’ve got a||
Exactly. I think we’ve got a great shot to win, but if we don’t it’ll be because Mo and maybe one or two other guys like Matthews or Z get in foul trouble early, hurting our D. Then FSU uses their depth and our bad FT percentage to just hack us to death the entire second half.
|03/21/2018 - 2:13pm||I heard a rumor somewhere||
I heard a rumor somewhere that MAAR was sick or had the flu or something last weekend. Any truth to that? If so, I could easily see that impacting his play.
|03/18/2018 - 9:04am||Same here. I'm very lucky||
Same here. I'm very lucky with her in that regard.
My father in law never had any sons and made sure his two daughters were sports crazy. It just so happens he's in Illinois but his older daughter happens to be a Sparty and I converted his younger daughter/my wife to be a Michigan fan once she got accepted to U of M for her residency program.
|03/03/2018 - 4:57pm||Anybody have the link for the||
Anybody have the link for the press conference? I'd love to see it live.
|02/21/2018 - 2:08pm||I'm praying you're right, but||
I'm praying you're right, but since he doesn't have to sit out at all to go to NDSU, what would stop Patterson from enrolling in Michigan now (which he's done), participating in Michigan spring ball while he waits the NCAA ruling, and then if it's unfavorable, simply transferring out of Ann Arbor after spring term, landing in Fargo in time for NDSU's fall camp & starting for them in 2018?
Are there any rules preventing the number or frequency of transfers generally?
Because if not, the only thing that would stop him would be either his own pride, or simply the judgment that he's still better off either running the Michigan scout team for 2018 & either entering the draft in 2019 or alternatively sticking around to try to start here in 2019 and then entering the 2020 draft.
|02/21/2018 - 2:07pm||It sounds like the most||
It sounds like the most plugged in people are very optimistic which is awesome. But does anybody know what the exact burden of proof or elements need to be for a favorable NCAA ruling here? Preponderance of the evidence since it's a civil administrative issue?
And what exactly the breadth of facts that have to be proved?
Do the petitioners need to prove that it was orchestrated by the school formally or somehow systematic (rather than Ole Miss pinning it on one or two people "going rogue")? Are there any facts that cut against the case? Or is there risk that the submitted proof will be enough to release some but not all of the petitioners?
I mean, unless there's smoking gun email BETWEEN Ole Miss officials/coaches saying essentially, "Holy shit, we need to save this class! Quick, let's devise a strategy & spin plan to systematically feed these kids so we don't lose them all!", along with follow-up proven communicatoins with all the petitioners showing that they in fact executed that strategy, isn't there a risk that a skepic could shoot down the petitioners by saying that the evidence is asking the adjudicants to read between the lines too much & make favorable assumptions since the dots haven't been connected sufficiently? i.e., "it wasn't Ole Miss systematically, it was just one or two guys going rogue", or "one or two recruits misinterpreted what they were told by Ole Miss & conveyed inaccurate information to the rest of the class, thus it wasn't Ole Miss itself but just a bad game of 'telephone' inadvertently perpetuated by the recruits themselves."?
On that score, my understanding is that Ole Miss isn't intending to file any kind of objection to the petitioners. Does that mean that when they present their case to the NCAA, there won't be any "adverse party" situation where somebody is standing there proactively undermining the petitioner's case? Basically meaning that if whoever is ruling on the decision were inclined to read the petitions w/ a skeptical eye, that they'd be doing it without the benefit of somebody else spoon-feeding them any counter-arguments or adverse evidence?
|02/21/2018 - 1:07pm||One aspect in which the case||
One aspect in which the case decision DOES impact things is setting future precedent.
Even though the "damage has been done" on a player/roster level at Ole Miss in this specific case, giving the players a favorable ruling could provide a helpful "chilling effect" for future potential violators. Basically putting schools on notice that their willful or egregious or systematic (whatever the NCAA's internal guidelines might say) could trigger a far bigger exodous of players than what was previously thought.
One can hope anyway.
But then again, nobody has ever accused the NCAA of doing anything that resembles logic or good policy decisions.