T1B

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:18 am**

WW, no offense to any of the Michigan fans here, but I don't really have 'em all sussed out. I have a better read on the various OU, Texas and Ohio St fans here.

mgo, sure, that season Michigan was certainly relevant. They went 11-1. Problem is, that was an island in a sea of recent meh-ness, and still it didn't amount to anything. They lost the two games they most needed to win. Relevant, yes. Impressive, no. Back to truly being Michigan, no.

Now that season is but a distant memory. Considering Carr had supposedly already mailed it in by then, overstaying his welcome and whatsuch, I'm pretty sure Michigan Fan would still certainly welcome a return to those heady days of yore...

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:52 am**

War Wagon wrote:She said she's joining the Peace Corp, but where she's going to go, I have no idea. She's got two more full years of school first, so maybe she'll change her mind. Not likely with her, though. Girl makes up her mind to do something, she does it.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:09 am**

Van wrote:WW, no offense to any of the Michigan fans here, but I don't really have 'em all sussed out. I have a better read on the various OU, Texas and Ohio St fans here.

mgo, sure, that season Michigan was certainly relevant. They went 11-1. Problem is, that was an island in a sea of recent meh-ness, and still it didn't amount to anything. They lost the two games they most needed to win. Relevant, yes. Impressive, no. Back to truly being Michigan, no.

Now that season is but a distant memory. Considering Carr had supposedly already mailed it in by then, overstaying his welcome and whatsuch, I'm pretty sure Michigan Fan would still certainly welcome a return to those heady days of yore...

there is no problem. as mgo pointed out, you made a claim, selectively laid out criteria, and when it was pointed out they met your criteria you dismissed it out of hand because it didn't really count because you said so. run on sentence for run on logic.

we don't want a return to those heady days of yore. we appreciate carr's tenure as coach, appreciate him even more as a man, and will stop at simple frustration when recalling the last half of his career against osu rather than going into a vitriolic rage. that last part might not have been the case had he not finally stepped down even though bill martin was willing to extend him until human extinction. bottom line was the game had passed him by, and he preferred retirement to adapting. he actually intended to a few years ago but bo talked him into staying. there are also murmurs of parkinson's. if true, we can understand how that zapped his motivation. but the status quo wasn't cutting it anymore, thus the patience afforded dickrod by the more reasonable of fans.

re: sussing out the big ten fans, every one aside from the jon is generally amicable, as well as reasonable about the team they pull for. the board started off with a lot of poop flinging, but the only one i can think of who wears hate on his sleeve is blind [go state, right?]. the mizzou fans are jokeshows who popped in only after their team became "relevant."

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:16 am**

M Club, you don't want a return to the days of 11-1 seasons? That's all I was talking about.

Otherwise, my criteria was perfectly logical. I laid it out for you, over many seasons. Michigan's had one successful blip recently, and it was only marginally successful. It was an island of a season, surrounded by a sea of not much worth watching.

Btw, as much as you keep making these weird ass comments about my "ESPN columns" and my "syndicated columns" and all that, one fact is clear: I don't do run on sentences. YOU do run on paragraphs, which is funny, since you give me crap for properly spacing mine, but I don't do run on sentences.

Regarding Big 10 fans, I have a pretty good idea about each one here...except the various Michigan fans.

Jon, he's a given. He and Mace are our resident Iowa fans, and they're diametric opposites.

Goobs and Arch are our Wisky fans. I'm well aware of each guy's posting style. Arch is a longtime pal and Goobs seems to've gotten over his visceral loathing of me...maybe.

Shine is our only Indiana fan, but he rarely posts.

mgo is our only MSU fan, and he's as familiar to me as the catbox in our bathroom. Funnier, and a much more welcome sight, but equally familiar.

PSU, for PSU, same deal.

The OSU fans are 88, Peter Dragon, buckeye_in_sc and probably one or two others I'm blanking on at the moment. 88 is well known to me, as is b_in_sc.

Other than Shoalzie, it's the Michigan fans I have trouble sorting through. For example, I know one of you is responsible for the whole Petrus/Namibia Polytechnic thing. I know there are no douchebag Michigan fans here, although Petrus did go undercover with them. I know I'm not liked by at least one or two Michigan fans, and you're clearly one of them, but I don't quite have it all sorted it out yet.

I consider the ND fans here (Terry, Killian and Lax) to all be honorary Big 10 types, and stellar people, and stellar posters.

The SECBSHs are obvious, and besides Trix I consider all of them "friends."

Lefty is Rice, and Texas, and he's as solid as the day is long.

I wanna say IndyFrisco is our only A&M fan, and up until recently I was unsure as to the difference between his nic and the guy known as FUBU. Now that I know who's who there, I know Indy is very solid.

Harvdog and Vito are Texas, and I believe there are one or two more. I've never had a beef with Harvdog, and I'm not aware of his having any beef with me. Vito and I had big fun in '05, but as far as I know we're totally cool now, in the Gwen Stefani vernacular.

Cuda and MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan are our Buffs fans. No problem with either of them, or recognizing either of them.

H4ever and whoever's using the Bradhusker troll keys are our Nebbish fans.

Lotta OU fans, and I wanna say some of them changed their nics, and I lost track of who's who. There was a Frozen Sooner, and I suppose he must be BtH. Either he or ouskull used to hate me, or maybe they both did. Not sure. There's a few other Sooner fans here, and every last one of 'em seems like good people to me.

WW and Adel (and Truman too, IIRC) are our Missouri guys, and Adel's always hated me. WW doesn't quite know what to make of me, from one moment to the next, but for my part he's obviously a good guy. Truman is a badass.

Degenerate and Mook are our Kansas fans, and Mook only showed up for that one short stretch of smoke and mirrors. Degenerate has never had any use for me.

Felix is our BCS Buster guy, from Boise St. His main thing is to get into it with Dins.

I'm not aware of any of the FSU guys ever having any problems with anyone here. Same with our lone South Florida guy, who's one of the most likeable people here.

The Pac 10 guys here are obvious.

Bottom line, there's nobody here I dislike. There's nobody here I wouldn't welcome into my home, if need be. There's nobody here with whom I have any problems. No matter how much shit m2 and I give each other, at least from my end, I couldn't care less. It's just fucking around on a message board. Same thing, with TVO.

You have a problem with how I write, and the fact that I like to write. That's fine. I won't attempt to change your mind about it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:12 am**

Van wrote:M Club, you don't want a return to the days of 11-1 seasons? That's all I was talking about.

Otherwise, my criteria was perfectly logical. I laid it out for you, over many seasons. Michigan's had one successful blip recently, and it was only marginally successful. It was an island of a season, surrounded by a sea of not much worth watching.

Btw, as much as you keep making these weird ass comments about my "ESPN columns" and my "syndicated columns" and all that, one fact is clear: I don't do run on sentences. YOU do run on paragraphs, which is funny, since you give me crap for properly spacing mine, but I don't do run on sentences.

i'd prefer to win every single game. i just don't prefer a return to carr. the program was stagnant. i don't disagree with you that michigan isn't a player on the national scene right now. what i took issue was your initial claim we're in deep trouble and the way you subsequently tried to reframe the discussion using selective criteria for selective arguments.

some of your longer posts cause me to think about mitch albom, that's all. i don't make attempts to change people's style. in fact, it helps when reading through the board to know who's who without relying so heavily on avatars. also, i didn't realise i generally wrote long enough to warrant many paragraph breaks.

i'll keep that in mind.

Other than Shoalzie, it's the Michigan fans I have trouble sorting through. For example, I know one of you is responsible for the whole Petrus/Namibia Polytechnic thing. I know there are no douchebag Michigan fans here, although Petrus did go undercover with them. I know I'm not liked by at least one or two Michigan fans, and you're clearly one of them, but I don't quite have it all sorted it out yet.

i don't have a problem with you. i think you bring a lot to the board. you do have a tendency toward the occasional bait-and-switch argument, but other than that you appear to enjoy discussion, which is never a bad thing.

i'm the one responsible for petrus. he received special recognition last year for getting the highest test scores in his class. he also writes every so often to tell me he's broke and i have to wire money that side so he can go home during school breaks, which is great because now another of my old students is in college in windhoek and also writes for money.

this is probably his cousin, same village and all:

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:34 am**

I'll look forward to PSU doing more with those latest Petrus pics...

As to this....

you subsequently tried to reframe the discussion using selective criteria for selective arguments.

Nope. I laid out my reasoning, right from the beginning. I never deviated from it, and it's hardly selective. It's basic stuff.

-Lack of wins
-Too many bad loses, at home
-Too many losses to nobodies
-Subpar recruiting
-1-7 vs your main rival
-No big wins in recent memory
-No BCS bowl wins in recent memory
-No end in sight, vs Ohio St

Those are all very reasonable criteria, and they remain unchanged. I use those criteria for ND, too, substituting USC for Ohio St. I'd also use those criteria for Nebraska, substituting OU and Texas for Ohio St.

I'm consistent. You have to beat your rival, first. That's your first yardstick. It doesn't matter how you do against Petrus Tech. You know who you have to beat before you're really back to where you want to be. Once you beat your rival, you have to win a big bowl game.

Nothing too complicated there. I use the same criteria for my own team, and for every team.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:41 am**

Van wrote:Terry, keep in mind, I said I don't consider Michigan or Nebraska to be back just because they manage to scabdick their way into a BCS game. If a three loss Nebraska team gets in by scabdicking their way through the horrible North, and then they beat a sleepwalking OU or Texas, no, I don't consider them to be back.

That's not the Nebraska team I have in mind, when I'm talking about a perennial national power returning from dormancy.

They have to win like Nebraska. They have to have no more than one loss, and they have to beat OU or Texas, on equal footing. Meaning, it's all on the line, for both teams.

That isn't the case, if undefeated Texas rolls into the CCG against a three or four loss North winner. That Texas team is going to a BCS bowl game, regardless of what happens in the CCG.

Conversely, merely getting Delany'd into the Rose Bowl doesn't prove Michigan is back, either. Michigan is back when they win eleven games and they legitimately win the Big 10, including a victory over Ohio St.

Okay, let's assume that ND gets a few consistent 10-2 seasons under its belt and winds up consistently in the BCS as a result, but is still getting blown out by USC on a regular basis. Is ND really back under those circumstances? Are they winning like ND?

In terms of winning percentage, probably. Even the best ND teams, at least over an extended period of time and in the modern era, didn't win games at a .833 clip. But that doesn't tell the whole story, at least not as far as ND is concerned. As we all know, ND traditionally has been at its best when in the role of giant killer. So in order to win like ND, ND has to beat the teams they should beat most of the time, and on occasion win the game that, at least on paper, they have no business winning. I'm talking about games like Pitt in '82, Miami in '88, Florida State in '93. In Weis' first two seasons, he was able to carry the first part of that equation. But it's been a long while since ND has been anything remotely close to a giant killer.

Along those lines, ND's lifetime record in OT games (without looking it up, I believe it's something like 2-7) is also appropos to this discussion. Now, I'm certainly no fan of college football's OT format, and I've shouted that from the rooftops (figuratively speaking, on this board) on more than one occasion. But again, part of ND's reputation was built on being at its best in crunch time, and OT, by definition, is crunch time, shitty format or no. ND has to get much better in OT in order to be winning like ND again.

So if it's your take that merely getting back to the BCS isn't enough, then ND has to do quite a bit more to get back to winning like ND. And while I'm far from certain that Weis is the answer in that regard, I'm every bit as skeptical about Gruden as well. His latest coaching tenure didn't work out quite that well, after all, and the last time he coached at the college level was 1991. Coaching at the college level is an entirely different matter than is coaching in the NFL, and while recruiting is the most visible of the differences, it's hardly the only one. For that matter, I would argue that it's not even the most important difference -- if it were, Weis (who's actually adapted to recruiting rather well) probably wouldn't be struggling to the extent that he is.

ND doesn't merely have the advantage of their BCS contract agreement. Oh hell no. They also have the advantage of every tv executive and every BCS bowl executive and everyone in the media bending over backwards to put them into a BCS bowl game, given even the slightest reason to do so. ND is never going to be the odd man out, in any BCS bowl game debate.

2002 says differently, not that I'm saying we deserved to be in the BCS that year. And of course, if the current rules had been in place back then, ND would've been in the BCS that season.

If their resume affords them even a reasonable argument, they're going to get in.

They're like the SEC, in that regard.

Nebraska doesn't have that. Nebraska has to win their way in, with either a conference championship or a monster season. Michigan doesn't have what ND has, but they do have The Delany Factor. All Michigan has to do is burp up a respectable ten win season (or even a nine win season, as we saw with Illinois) and a second place finish in the Big 10 and if there's even a sliver of a chance of pushing it through Jim Delany will make sure Michigan is in Pasadena.

ND, though, they just have the ultimate red carpet. Just win ten games, period. They're in. Doesn't matter who they beat. They don't have to win a conference. They don't have to win their rivalry games. They don't have to do anything special. Just win ten games. Possibly only nine.

Nobody else can touch that. ND has the sweetest BCS deal in the country.

ND has the advantage of knowing, at least as well as anyone can possibly know, exactly what record they need to have to get into the BCS. That having been said, if a Michigan or a Nebraska goes 10-2 and finishes no worse than second in their conference, I like that team's chances of going to the BCS in that year as well.

And while any team is going to need a little help to get to the BCS with 3 or 4 losses, I think Michigan or Nebraska has a better chance than ND of getting a BCS bid, because of the automatic conference bids. Michigan could sneak into the BCS with a 3-loss or even 4-loss season in a year where the entire Big Ten was down. A somewhat unlikely occurrence, but it has happened before (Michigan won the Big Ten in '04 despite a #13 ranking in the final BCS standings; Purdue was Big Ten co-champ in 2000 and got the BCS bid that year despite being unranked in the final BCS rankings, which only ranked the Top 15 teams back then). And Nebraska, as you previously conceded, could back into the Big XII CCG despite a lackluster season, then pull off the upset against either Oklahoma or Texas. ND? Not saying they have no chance at the BCS at 3 or even 4 losses, but in order to make the BCS, they'd need a lot more help -- and a far more unlikely scenario -- than either of the ones I mentioned.

I consider the ND fans here (Terry, Killian and Lax) to all be honorary Big 10 types,

:?

I wanna say IndyFrisco is our only A&M fan, and up until recently I was unsure as to the difference between his nic and the guy known as FUBU. Now that I know who's who there, I know Indy is very solid.

Indy took some flack for the fact that his nic could've been considered a combination of FUBUClown and Nick Frisco. That was unintentional, though, as anyone who has paid attention to the progression of his nics on these boards can attest:

Frisco Aggie ===> Indiana Aggie ===> Indy Frisco.

That having been said, of course, most people outside the Dallas-Ft. Worth area associate "Frisco" with San Francisco, not Frisco, TX.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:03 pm**

Van wrote:I wanna say IndyFrisco is our only A&M fan, and up until recently I was unsure as to the difference between his nic and the guy known as FUBU. Now that I know who's who there, I know Indy is very solid.

Alas, I am the only one remaining. Our former Aggie Gal has left us. May she rest in peace.

Of course, warren is an Aggie fan, but he never posts here. I believe he's more of a bandwagon fan. Should we have a good season, I would expect to see him in here. And I would rightly hand him his ass for being a fucking 'waggoner.

Oh, and Terry pretty much summed it up about my nick history. Surpried he remembered Indiana Aggie as that was about 5 years ago for a short period of time. Frisco, TX, though, is purty large now. Not San Francisco large, but large enough to be recognized. I moved there in 1999 when the population was about 28k or so. When I left in 2004 to move to Indiana, it was about 75k. Now over 100k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco,_Texas

Frisco is a city in Collin and Denton Counties in the U.S. state of Texas and a wealthy and rapid growing suburb of Dallas. As of the 2000 census, the city population was 33,714, while according to 2008 city and census estimates, the city's population has surpassed 100,000.[3] Frisco has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. In the late 1990s, the North Dallas development tide hit the northern border of prosperous Plano and spilled into Frisco, sparking explosive growth into the 2000s. Like many of the cities located in the booming northern suburbs of Dallas, Frisco serves as a bedroom community for many professionals that work in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex. A 2007 Forbes study named Frisco as the seventh-fastest growing suburb in the United States

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:09 pm**

Terry wrote:Okay, let's assume that ND gets a few consistent 10-2 seasons under its belt and winds up consistently in the BCS as a result, but is still getting blown out by USC on a regular basis. Is ND really back under those circumstances? Are they winning like ND?

Of course not, especially if they're also still losing their BCS bowl game.

A main part of the criteria is beating your rival. Compiling 10 wins doesn't mean dick if its ten scabdicks, against crap teams.

Gotta win the barometer games. Getting blown out each season by USC means ND isn't back to being ND. Neither USC nor ND has to beat the other every time, but the games have to be competitive.

Hypothetically, using your example, if USC went 10-2 three years in a row but ND and UCLA beat the tar out of 'em each year and USC also got lit up in the Rose Bowl each year, I'd consider those to be failed seasons. Without question.

Even if USC won those Rose Bowls, I'd still consider those seasons to be luke warm, at best.

First things things. Beat your rivals. Bare minimum, don't get slaughtered by 'em.

Now, if USC went 11-1 and then won their BCS bowl game to win the national title, but that one loss was a squeeker to ND or UCLA, I'd be alright with that. If that one loss was 38-0 to ND or UCLA, and it was legitimate, meaning USC wasn't missing half their key players or something, then I'd be shaky about being all that jazzed about it.

10-2, with two blowout losses to those guys? Fail.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:37 pm**

From Mgoblog....

Nehlen talkin'. Don Nehlen, former Bo assistant and the retired West Virginia head coach who told Rich Rodriguez to leap at the Michigan job, is old enough that he can say whatever he wants in public. The result is of interest:

I thought they'd do a little better last year, but I don't know enough about what he had to work with. But in talking to some of my Michigan people, they tell me the cupboard was really bare. They'd lost almost their entire offensive football team and the kids they had coming back went pro, they had no quarterback that had ever played ... couldn't run Rich's offense.

…

I think Rich will improve this year some, not as much as people want him to, but I think he'll improve. But he'll be playing a freshman quarterback (Tate Forcier) again and that's not good ... I guess the kid's a good athlete. Then I think after this year, they'll start to be very competitive.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:30 am**

Van wrote:
you subsequently tried to reframe the discussion using selective criteria for selective arguments.
Nope. I laid out my reasoning, right from the beginning. I never deviated from it, and it's hardly selective. It's basic stuff.

we obviously disagree about what constitutes relevance. when i say you reframed the discussion i mean what i said a few posts back, that our back and forth began with you talking about michigan being in deep trouble. once i laid out reasons that's not really the case you pulled out this relevance thing, a completely different argument. that's standard issue reframe.

T1B

So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...

Re: So, Shoalzie? NFL Draft thread...