Something tells me if there was real money on the line that some of those predictions would look a little different. I think most of the predictions further below look more realistic by comparison.
Fido - you'd better throw in a score prediction for the championship game because you and I have the exact same picks for every game in the tournament. Either we both share a similar level of brilliance or we simply have no faith in MSU or OSU making a run this year. I'm in the latter camp, especially with respect to MSU. They're a disaster at the moment, and I still can't figure out why. One of the 2 biggest disappointments in college basketball this year (Kentucky being the other).
8 Indiana vs #9 Illinois - Illinois
#5 Ohio State vs #12 Purdue - Ohio State
#7 Minnesota vs #10 Penn State - Minnesota
#6 Iowa vs #11 Northwestern - Iowa
#1 Michigan vs #9 Illinois - Michigan
#4 Nebraska vs #5 Ohio State - Ohio State
#2 Wisconsin vs #7 Minnesota - Wisconsin
#3 Michigan State vs #6 Iowa - Iowa
#1 Michigan vs #5 Ohio State - Michigan
#6 Iowa vs #2 Wisconsin - Wisconsin
#1 Michigan vs #2 Wisconsin - Wisconsin (final score: Wisc 68 - Mich 61)
Can I ask a stupid question here? There is nothing on the record regarding Lewan's alleged statement, yet you are readily accepting it as fact. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't. But you wouldn't know that any more than MMan would, so why are you breaking his balls over this point? I'll be the first to admit that if he legitimately did say it then yes, he's a complete douchebag. But since it's still in question exactly what (if anything) was said by Lewan, why would you continually chastise someone for not automatically agreeing with your point?
It's a valid question and I'm kind of curious about the ultimate answers to this myself.
One Michigan fan's guess who is not nearly as intellectually invested in this matter as MMan: The one thing you need to understand culturally about the University of Michigan and its Administration is that they are always working to convey an image that they're the "good guys" who always comply with rules and laws. This influences their behavior to a point where they come across at times as being complete idiots, most notably in the way that they handled the response to the Detroit Free Press's "Practice-Gate" accusations against RichRod and the subsequent NCAA investigation in 2009/2010.
My guess is that in this instance, even though Gibbons was cleared from a law enforcement perspective, because the issue kept lingering, because a new complaint was filed and because more media sources were picking up the story, the University said "F it, we're not taking any chances - we're going to show that we at least did something here, even if it was 4 years after the fact." That's one of the reasons I don't think this is a coverup. I honestly don't believe that anybody was hiding anything, I just think that the Administration officials got antsy about the issue and got rid of Gibbons as a CYA which has only served to make them look stupid. The would have been better off not doing anything from a PR perspective, because doing something so many years after the original incident took place only raises questions and eyebrows.
Nice. I'm sure that's winning you a lot of brownie points over there. Does your avatar include a bow tie?
Totally sucks. It's like that old saying - if it wasn't for bad luck, Michigan's football team wouldn't have any luck at all right now.
What's going on with the program right now is starting to remind me a little bit of RR's final year. Increasing negative publicity around the program, more internal bickering among the fans as to whether the right guy is the HC of the program and before we have a chance to let the season unfold a serious injury bug hits. In 2010, the entire secondary was pretty much wiped out before the season even started (either due to injuries or transfers).
Heading into 2014, there are still key injuries healing from last year (Pipkins ACL, Darboh foot, Gardner "turf toe") and now this injury to Butt. The reason this one is so significant isn't just because of Butt's skills (heh heh, I said "butt skills") but because of the fact that Funchess is a liability to the team when he's line up at TE. He's great as a receiver, but atrocious as a blocker.
The emergence of Butt last year as an all-around TE allowed Michigan to split Funchess wide to compensate for the lack of depth at WR after Darboh got hurt. But more importantly, it also kept opponents from immediately knowing whether Michigan would be throwing or passing based on its TE alignment. Previously, if Funchess was in at TE, everyone was thinking "pass" because he couldn't block for shit. Conversely, if AJ Williams was in, everyone was thinking "run" because Williams couldn't catch for shit (unfrotunately he couldn't block for shit either - he just wasn't quite as bad at it as Funchess). This issue went away once Butt got more playing time because he was a reasonable blocker (for a true freshman) and a very legitimate receiving threat.
The answer to your last question is pretty simple. Entice a bad shooting team to settle for long jump shots by leaving them wide open while the 6'1 PG sags back near the free throw line. Watch ball riccochet way off the rim for a long rebound, send speedy 6'1 PG from free throw line to random spot in the corner where the ball has bounced to and secure rebound.
If OSU had played to its strengths offensively and kept forcing the issue inside, there's no way Walton would have pulled down 10 boards.
Michigan is also very inconsistent when it comes to playing effectively on defense in transition. They started off the game very passively which allowed OSU to get the running game going. Against Iowa, it was a similar story but Michigan never recovered because when they did try to protect the interior, Iowa was left wide open for a number of 3's that went down. I think Michigan's strategy in this one was, "we don't think OSU can shoot the 3, so let's just collapse our interior defense and see what happens." What happened was an ugly assortment of bricks and a pretty stagnant offense.
As I was watching the game develop, I kept thinking how unafraid I was as a fan of OSU taking long jump shots - there's just nobody on the team this year that scares me as a jump shooter. I got much more concerned when OSU started to run a little bit more and got inside midway through the 2nd half to cut the lead down to 51-50. But OSU couldn't really sustain the pressure and that was that. This Michigan team definitely has its flaws, but OSU doesn't seem to have the roster necessary to properly exploit those flaws over a full 40 minutes.
What gets me is how he holds his shooting pose the whole way a la MJ. I'm pretty sure he must have known about halfway into the trajectory of that shot that it had no chance, so why go for the "frozen in time" pose? He would have been better off doing what I do when I play pickup basketball - assume the shot is NOT going in, and immediately take off running towards the basket in hopes of getting the rebound.
Throwing terms of affection like that out so close to Valentine's Day is a sure fire way to take this forbidden UM-OSU bro-mance to a Paulie D-Vinnie level.
Good - I hated having to vote anyway. It was really exhausting trying to figure out which of your posts were not quite asinine enough to warrant a downvote.
So I haven't been on the site in over a week. I knew that change was coming but holy shit. I'm probably not the right person to get commentary on as to whether the changes have improved things because our work computers still are stuck on IE 7 which can barely load a webpage. Really seems to be struggling with loading the new design so I may need to check it out on my iPad to get a better flavor. One obvious question is what happened to the buttons to click for upvoting and downvoting?
What makes this a little more complicated is that Gibbons was cleared in a police investigation 2 years before Hoke got to UM. I can definitely see where Gibbons should have been suspended in 2009 until the legal investigation played out. But once it did and he was cleared, what would the basis have been at that point for suspending him/kicking him off the team after the fact?
This is where some more transparency from the UM administration would help, as it would be good to know what specifically prompted them to review the case in 2013 as opposed to say, 2011 or 2012. Because if you're the head coach in this situation, what kind of message are you sending to your players if you boot Gibbons off the team in 2011 when he's:
a. already been cleared of any legal wrongdoing
b. Not under any other investigation or review by the university administration
At that point, you would literally have no cause for taking action.
The analogy to this for OSU would be if Carlos Hyde had eligibility for next year, yet Meyer suspended him or kicked him off the team next summer for the bar incident from last year. What basis would Meyer have for doing so in 2014, since Hyde was already cleared from a legal perspective and has no other investigations/reviews are pending?
If anything, then wouldn't your beef be with RichRod and/or Bill Martin? They were the coach and AD in place at the time the accusation and police investigation went down. Maybe if Hoke had been coach at the time he would have suspended Gibbons until the police investigation was completed - who knows? But to compare the Fitz vs. Gibbons treatment as an inconsistency doesn't make sense.
Hoke was the coach when Fitz ran afoul of the law but not when the Gibbons investigation took place. By the time Hoke arrived, the police investigation had already concluded. What else would you expect a head coach to do at that point? It's not like JoePa, who was aware of some critical piece of information about a crime and didn't take stronger action about it.
The only people who really know what happened are Gibbons and his accuser. Hoke wasn't there in 2009 so you can't blame him for Gibbons not being suspended during the police investigation. You can blame him for the stupid comments to the media in 2013 for sure, but not for the lack of suspension in 2009.
I get/agree with most of your points except the Brady Hoke lying thing. Other than his BS excuses to the media for why Gibbons didn't play in the OSU game and the bowl game, what was Hoke lying about? It was public information that there had been a police investigation into the Gibbons matter during 2009 that was resolved prior to Hoke's arrival. Is your point that regardless of the results of the police investigation, Hoke should have suspended Gibbons at some point after he took over just for being involved (a la Carlos Hyde earlier this year)?
Not looking to argue with you, just trying to get better clarity on your view as to my knowledge, there were two investigations/reviews that took place - one by the police in 2009 and one late in the season through the UM Administration in 2013. There wasn't anything else that occurred in between, so what would Hoke have been lying about?
This is my mental state every time I read one of his posts on the subject:
Reading comprehension might not be your strongest suit. You make it sound like there was this ongoing 4 year investigation, when in fact there was no such thing. There was a police investigation in 2009, and then a re-review under a lower burden of proof through a different review body in 2013. Each investigation/review took a matter of weeks or months. There wasn't anything else happening in between the two reviews.
If you want me to say that I think he's guilty then fine, he probably is guilty of something based on the University's recent decision. Just stop with the stupid cover up angle because there isn't one. The people most likely to have the incentive to cover something up (head coach, AD) weren't even employed in these positions in 2009 when the police investigation originally occurred. So whose tracks would they even be trying to cover up in the first place?
I'd say the whole Ron Artest-Malice at the Palace brawl in 2005 was way worse than anything you're talking about, as was the Todd Bertuzzi hit on Steve Moore in 2004. Those were actual assault-like activities. The stuff you're talking about is child's play by comparison.
'em if you got 'em?
Arguments are generally more plausible when you read them in their entirety, rather than just the first sentence.
I have no idea whether Gibbons is guilty (he very well might be) but even if he is, how would you draw the conclusion that there was a cover up? A cover up would mean that Michigan personnel deliberately withheld information from or impeded the police investigation. There have been no accusations of that from anyone. A full police investigation was conducted following the report of the incident in 2009; ultimately the policed deemed there wasn't enough evidence to press charges.
That this issue is now being revisited by the UM Administration under a different standard than the police/court of law isn't indicative of a cover up. It may well be indicative of Gibbons' guilt, but not of a cover up. I think the real failure here (other than the big picture issue of a Michigan football player potentially committing sexual assault/rape) is the lack of transparency by UM Administration officials around why they chose to revisit the issue now - what prompted it and what they discovered that made them think it was worth expelling Gibbons.