Right. The standings are the standings. Not much you can do about that.
I also don’t have that big a problem with saying pitch/kit/keeper/dressing room or even nil. Sports here have alternate words as well such as diamond or gridiron. That’s a little different in that those are sort of nicknames but the point still stands that more than one word can be used for the same thing. So a pitch is, in fact, a pitch. And I don’t call it the London subway. But people should be free to use field, jersey, zero etc. in America without ridicule.
However, pronouncing derby as darby is where I draw the line, unless you’re just doing a full on British accent.
But then you’re basically asking for each streaming app or service to provide tv channels as well.
No I'm not. First of all, what I'm really asking for is for the sports to not be on streaming services that aren't TV providers. But even that aside, every feature requested should be possible on all of these services.
Even the "flipping through channels" should be attainable. That just means channel surfing through games. When Peacock is showing 6 EPL games at the same time, I should be able to channel up/down or in some fashion skip from game to game without having to exit the game, navigate to a different game, then click on the game, then confirm to join that game live, and then do that all over again when I want to look at the next game.
Anyone who did the "cord-cutting" many years ago either aren't sports fans or figured out how to watch what they wanted to watch via bootleg streams and VPNs. Also, the OG cord-cutter sports fans went to YTTV which was, like, $20/mo or something when it launched. Obviously that wasn't sustainable for them.
Me personally, I wanted to watch everything, understanding that sports fans (and old people) were the only thing keeping cable companies alive. That's fine, I paid what it cost, ultimately moving to YTTV because it's still slightly cheaper for me.
What has become increasingly annoying over the past several years is that traditional TV channels are no longer the one-stop shop for sports. Even for individual sports you have to go across multiple platforms. Honestly this first started for us with Big Ten hockey. Michigan hockey games were on FSD all the time and then the creation of BTN+ made UM hockey games on real TV a rare treat.
One of the issues I have with sports on Peacock/Apple/Netflix/Prime/Paramount is that the UX sucks very, very bad. Can't flip through channels, can't easily fast forward or rewind, can't always rely on it being available (like a DVR) immediately after it's over or be able to cleanly start from the beginning.
YTTV has this figured out and I don't know why it's so hard for everyone else to follow suit. I haven't used Hulu live TV so I don't know what they're like.
Yeah. These were the arguments we could have had back in October or even early November. You know, discussions about how much does sign stealing even really help, or how CS wasn't buzzing in their ears in 2021 on the sideline, or how OSU knew we had their signs in 2022, or how your favorite video of CS at the Shoe is when we all signaled "pass!" (on a third down, duh) and then it was a pass...for a touchdown, or how everyone is stealing signs and is the illegal version of stealing signs more (or even less) effective than the legal version of stealing signs.
But fortunately, we got to run the experiment where we didn't have anyone's signs for the last 8 games, winning them all (convincingly against the bad teams), which included wins over PSU, OSU, Bama, and Washington.
Let's say we got to keep CS throughout those 8 games. Is your contention that we beat MSU and Purdue 70-0? That we beat PSU 35-3? That we beat OSU 40-17? I guess we'll never know, but it seems like cold comfort for you that either way, Michigan wins because Michigan was better and Michigan beat everyone and became national champions because Michigan was the best team.
Considering your top 3 and your feelings on MSU, you definitely want picks #2 and #3, unless you really, really, really want to go to the Texas game. But your brother may not take Texas with #1 anyway.
IANAL and TL;DR, but this review concludes that Title IX does not preclude unequal pay athletes:
Does this mean that if a college pays its male athletes in revenue producing sports, such as football and men’s basketball, then Title IX mandates equal payments to female athletes in non-revenue-producing sports? This Article concludes that current guidance under Title IX does not require equal payments for male and female athletes. The analysis of this issue is complicated and less clear than desirable, however, because regulators drafted the current guidance at a time when paying college athletes was strictly prohibited and simply not contemplated. As a result, Title IX regulations and other authorities presently available do not expressly address the treatment of non-education-related payments to athletes.
Nevertheless, the stronger argument under existing guidance is that Title IX does not require equal payments to male and female athletes because direct payments would most likely establish an employment relationship. Title IX does not require equal payments for employment-related services, even those in the area of athletics. The payment of college coaches provides a clear illustration. Title IX does not require that the male coach of the men’s basketball team and the female coach of the women’s basketball team receive the same salary. The legal justification for permitting disparate payments to the two coaches is the difference in job responsibilities, including the different expectations for revenue production between men’s and women’s programs. Applying a similar analysis to the payment of athletes, Title IX would not require that men’s and women’s basketball players receive the same salary if their college began to pay its athletes.
I point this out not to disagree with your view, but to illustrate that there are differing views which can only be decided by courts. If pay-for-play (or pay-for-work as Brian prefers) from schools is established, and the pay is unequal among men and women, there will presumably be lawsuits, and no one knows how that will end.
But the fact that there will be lawsuits alleging Title IX violations means that Title IX is not a "red herring" as I've noticed some people are beginning to insist. It is an issue that will need to be considered and addressed at some point, even if the ultimate outcome is that Title IX does not apply.
Further, the linked article above concludes that Title IX should be amended so that it does apply. In other words, even if Title IX is determined to be irrelevant, there will still be a chorus of people who will advocate for equal pay among all student athletes.
I don't think UM dropped the TRO because it became pointless after winning at PSU, although that may have been a factor. The accepted belief around here is that Michigan (and Harbaugh) dropped their respective lawsuits once Chris Partridge became a casualty in the investigation. The Big Ten felt emboldened to threaten even greater punishment and continued investigation into Michigan and Michigan decided it was better to accept a three game suspension than to continue creating a distraction for the team.
When Michigan announced they were dropping the TRO and accepting the suspension, Michigan said that the Big Ten assured them they were ending their own investigation in exchange. When the Big Ten announced the suspension, they did not acknowledge any such agreement.
So to answer the question about what the Big Ten can or can't do in the future, I would point out that the Big Ten can do whatever it wants, considering it disregarded its own bylaws to suspend Harbaugh in the first place. But there would be no precedent or expectation for the conference to further punish Michigan on top of whatever sanctions the NCAA doles out.
I would assume the Big Ten will not further sanction Michigan on this matter. Even if the NCAA uncovers some other new revelation, I imagine the Big Ten will just let the NCAA have the final say at this point.
Are we ever going to get resolution in our lifetimes on who the third party was that gift-wrapped an NCAA investigation? Does Michigan even care anymore since it all worked out for us anyway? Should Michigan care or is it just as well to not put "signgate" back into the news cycle?
Chuck answered this earlier much further up the thread:
I think Stalions' impact may have led to an advantageous outcome on certain plays, but less likely on the outcome of any game. Just as Michigan's opponents are trying to do the same thing; but possibly Stalions was better at it than most.
No, there should not be asterisk on the last 3 UM wins.
I think the only game that I'd like to see a big, fat freakin' asterisk is the final score of the 2020 game.
Are you here to make Buckeye Chuck look good by being the bad troll?
I don't even know who you're trying to reply to. You replied to Timmmmaaaaay but he didn't say anything about old women in a Florida children's hospital knowing or not knowing anything about Stalions. In fact, no one here is claiming that the Stalions story went unreported. The discussion in this subthread--instigated by Chuck--is that only OSU and MSU fans still think it matters despite the insistence from OSU and MSU fans that everyone outside Ann Arbor thinks it matters.
So when you say why don't we own it, that is confusing to me because it is obviously fully owned. Stalions was on staff and did the advanced scouting. To say the cheating "paid off" and that by the time Stalions was caught "it was too late" ranges from most likely wrong to factually wrong. I think that's the part you want us to own, but as is discussed in many other places in this thread and other threads you have surely read, the cheating provided minimal to no advantage. If anything, it hampered the team this year--since Stalions was not caught "too late"--and we had to lose our coach for three critical games and also lost our sign stealing guy (remember sign stealing is legal) and also lost a linebacker coach.
As for why do we care what anyone else thinks, we basically don't. We certainly don't care what OSU and MSU fans think. But for your own benefit, pointless though it might be, we do try to educate you when you come around to our board and throw falsehoods in our face.
What the Patriots, Astros, and Michigan all benefit from is that they had the opportunity to reproduce their same success after the cheating was sussed out. Sadly for Bonds, his steroid use continued uninterrupted and there is a clear delineation between the production for Bonds pre- and post-roids. He was a great, great player before he started doping but in his old age had a string of career bests in home runs and batting average. Had he been caught, stopped, punished, and then continued to hit 45 home runs and .350 at age 39 and 40, then I do believe we would view him differently. Another issue that Bonds faces is that steroids proved to directly improve the output for many, many other players (and in other sports) establishing the great advantage provided by doping. But it's a useless comparison between baseball and football, and an even more useless comparison between a team and an individual.
To answer your other question, I do believe I speak for the vast majority of Michigan fans when I say that the advantage provided by Stalions was minimal at best and that an asterisk for Michigan during the time Stalions allegedly served as Michigan's sign stealer is not appropriate. And just for good measure, I think it's worth noting that Bonds (and New England and Houston) have not been stripped of any of their accomplishments either.
Yes, tongue in cheek. In the real world these are all fine institutions. I am happy to have gone to a “public Ivy” which I believe to be Cal, UM, UCLA, UVA, UNC. Bummer that UCLA is currently ranked higher but realistically we were never going to make fun of their academics.
Do y'all think that people outside of Michigan's fan base think it had LESS impact that those inside Michigan's fan base?
Speaking for myself, I will give you this W for the Internet argument. You’re safe with the literalism of your statement—though it’s still inconclusive—to which you are retreating. Congratulations.
I don’t know your true intent with your original comment, but most reasonable people (I believe) would understand your comment in the context it is usually stated by OSU and MSU fans—that people view Michigan’s wins as tainted due to cheating. That was everyone’s read, and that is how they are responding, as they should.
I don't know what the rules specifically say about it, but just logically I feel like it had to be a minimum 0.1 and watching the video it really looked close to a full second.
That said, I absolutely appreciate using some discretion here and just letting them celebrate it as a walkoff. Video reviews have absolutely ruined sports and getting everyone off the field to force them to do a meaningless face off would be so stupid.
Edit: Apparently not. Wow! Is it even possible to score literally as time expires? It's like hockey where the ball has to actually be in the net. Can that happen with zero seconds? Seems like we needed a faceoff with 0.1 seconds.
If he was there on CMU's request, does that still constitute in-person scouting for Michigan?
Yes.
But aside from that, I agree that there was an opportunity to argue that the vast network was technically within the rules. However, the firing/resignation of Stalions was a clear indication, I think, that we weren't going to go that route. By the way, that further suggests to me that Michigan coaches really did not know about this. I think if they had directed it, they would be more inclined to argue it was within the rules. The other interpretation, of course, is that he's merely a scapegoat but we're still waiting on any evidence connecting this to a coach.
Anyway, for me personally, I'm willing to concede it's a rule violation. Even as you note, it's against the spirit of the rule. I prefer to spend my energy on pointing out that while it's a technical violation, Michigan did not actually gain any unfair advantage, considering that sign stealing is legal and everyone (anonymously) says they are able to successfully steal signs from publicly available tape and also all the teams were sharing their own spreadsheets, which is apparently legal. So, sure, Stalions violated a rule, but for no advantage. And beyond that, when our sign stealing was taken away from us, we still beat everybody.
The MSU-OSU echo chamber has them convinced. I mean, there are still people who will say "Patriots spygate!" or "Auburn bought Cam Newton!" so, yes, there are people who will always reference it. But it's an asterisk in the sense that it's a side note, not that in the sense it explains Michigan's winning.
Had Michigan lost to OSU, or even Alabama, it would be a different story. But that didn't happen, which completely put this to bed for everyone, including the NCAA (Charlie Baker's "They won fair and square").
That does not mean it put to bed the investigation or impending punishment. Obviously that's ongoing. But no one cared about the signs anymore once we beat OSU last year. That OSU and MSU fans refuse to understand that, well, that's what cope is. I mean, Finebaum mocking Tim May with using Stalions as an excuse is evidence of how it's viewed nationally.
I understand this was never going to be a serious conversation between May and Finebaum because Pete/Paul's only objective was to troll Ohio State. But we should absolutely take the time to enjoy Ryan Day going through the ringer. We've seen this all before when it was aimed at Harbaugh.
I'm all in on calling this the National Championship Or Bust year for Ohio State. There's only one outcome that can be called a success. Otherwise they're failures. And even if they win the NC, it will still be a partial failure if they lose to Michigan on the way there.
Even though I will actively root against OSU every week, I do like to see them in limbo where they have these 11-1 seasons with a loss to Michigan and have to decide if that's good enough or not. It's a lot harder than just going 4-8 and having only one obvious answer to the question.
The game did not go like I had hoped or expected. But still, making the tournament at all is still a success. I hope a big step up is coming soon. Playing on Memorial Day weekend would be amazing.
"M Officials" approached the NCAA with a proposed set of penalties to resolve the scouting investigation case and the NCAA supposedly rejected them
No idea, obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this were true. I also don't think it would tell us much of anything. Let's say we proposed time served (fired Stalions and the Harbaugh suspension) plus probation (concurrent with the burgergate probation) and a fine. Let's say the NCAA rejects that. That doesn't mean the NCAA is going to bring a hammer, just that they may want to add another year of probation or increase the fine.
It would tell us that we're willing to concede a violation occurred, but I think we already knew that. Back in the fall, before the conference decided to step in, the reporting indicated that the school was not going to try to use technicalities to absolve Stalions. Personally, I took that as a sign that the coaching staff did not know about or instruct Stalions to procure iPhone footage of opponents. If Stalions had been operating under the direction of Harbaugh or Minter, then presumably they would have been more inclined to plead their case that this was within the rules. That's just my thought on it, anyway.
I think that Smith's comments are actually just an admission that it wasn't a big deal. His use of the word "visceral" reveals this. He's saying people (or rather, OSU fans) are expecting a big punishment because they are having a visceral (i.e., emotional) reaction rather than a rational one. Expecting vacated wins or bowl bans is irrational, is how I read Smith's comment. Saying that the two wins "deserve a little bit of an asterisk" is a far cry from saying they don't count or should be vacated. It's just his way of pandering to his base to say, yeah, they broke a rule so we can put half an asterisk on it if we want to.
You’re right. Sorry. Olympic was in the OP. But the additional info is that he had many Olympians from Michigan as well. And he was on many staffs, not just the 2 mentioned in the OP.
Don't forget that Ryan Day's mentor at OSU had a racist hire. After Iowa had to fire their racist S&C coach, Urban hired him right away to coach in Jacksonville. And then he had to immediately resign because of the backlash.
Recent Comments
Right. The standings are the standings. Not much you can do about that.
I also don’t have that big a problem with saying pitch/kit/keeper/dressing room or even nil. Sports here have alternate words as well such as diamond or gridiron. That’s a little different in that those are sort of nicknames but the point still stands that more than one word can be used for the same thing. So a pitch is, in fact, a pitch. And I don’t call it the London subway. But people should be free to use field, jersey, zero etc. in America without ridicule.
However, pronouncing derby as darby is where I draw the line, unless you’re just doing a full on British accent.
I tried to follow the thread of this conversation but I wasn’t able to.
I'm assuming this in no way resembles actual gameplay.
Dono! Yes, Dono!!!
No I'm not. First of all, what I'm really asking for is for the sports to not be on streaming services that aren't TV providers. But even that aside, every feature requested should be possible on all of these services.
Even the "flipping through channels" should be attainable. That just means channel surfing through games. When Peacock is showing 6 EPL games at the same time, I should be able to channel up/down or in some fashion skip from game to game without having to exit the game, navigate to a different game, then click on the game, then confirm to join that game live, and then do that all over again when I want to look at the next game.
Why is there this belief that Dono doesn’t use Dono as a nickname? He uses Dono. Gus invented The Don.
It's not necessarily the same people complaining.
Anyone who did the "cord-cutting" many years ago either aren't sports fans or figured out how to watch what they wanted to watch via bootleg streams and VPNs. Also, the OG cord-cutter sports fans went to YTTV which was, like, $20/mo or something when it launched. Obviously that wasn't sustainable for them.
Me personally, I wanted to watch everything, understanding that sports fans (and old people) were the only thing keeping cable companies alive. That's fine, I paid what it cost, ultimately moving to YTTV because it's still slightly cheaper for me.
What has become increasingly annoying over the past several years is that traditional TV channels are no longer the one-stop shop for sports. Even for individual sports you have to go across multiple platforms. Honestly this first started for us with Big Ten hockey. Michigan hockey games were on FSD all the time and then the creation of BTN+ made UM hockey games on real TV a rare treat.
I hear you, but do you not already have an Internet provider? I mean, you're posting on the Internet for one thing.
One of the issues I have with sports on Peacock/Apple/Netflix/Prime/Paramount is that the UX sucks very, very bad. Can't flip through channels, can't easily fast forward or rewind, can't always rely on it being available (like a DVR) immediately after it's over or be able to cleanly start from the beginning.
YTTV has this figured out and I don't know why it's so hard for everyone else to follow suit. I haven't used Hulu live TV so I don't know what they're like.
Yeah. These were the arguments we could have had back in October or even early November. You know, discussions about how much does sign stealing even really help, or how CS wasn't buzzing in their ears in 2021 on the sideline, or how OSU knew we had their signs in 2022, or how your favorite video of CS at the Shoe is when we all signaled "pass!" (on a third down, duh) and then it was a pass...for a touchdown, or how everyone is stealing signs and is the illegal version of stealing signs more (or even less) effective than the legal version of stealing signs.
But fortunately, we got to run the experiment where we didn't have anyone's signs for the last 8 games, winning them all (convincingly against the bad teams), which included wins over PSU, OSU, Bama, and Washington.
Let's say we got to keep CS throughout those 8 games. Is your contention that we beat MSU and Purdue 70-0? That we beat PSU 35-3? That we beat OSU 40-17? I guess we'll never know, but it seems like cold comfort for you that either way, Michigan wins because Michigan was better and Michigan beat everyone and became national champions because Michigan was the best team.
Considering your top 3 and your feelings on MSU, you definitely want picks #2 and #3, unless you really, really, really want to go to the Texas game. But your brother may not take Texas with #1 anyway.
IANAL and TL;DR, but this review concludes that Title IX does not preclude unequal pay athletes:
I point this out not to disagree with your view, but to illustrate that there are differing views which can only be decided by courts. If pay-for-play (or pay-for-work as Brian prefers) from schools is established, and the pay is unequal among men and women, there will presumably be lawsuits, and no one knows how that will end.
But the fact that there will be lawsuits alleging Title IX violations means that Title IX is not a "red herring" as I've noticed some people are beginning to insist. It is an issue that will need to be considered and addressed at some point, even if the ultimate outcome is that Title IX does not apply.
Further, the linked article above concludes that Title IX should be amended so that it does apply. In other words, even if Title IX is determined to be irrelevant, there will still be a chorus of people who will advocate for equal pay among all student athletes.
A straw man is a red herring to distract you from Occam's razor and shift the Overton window and it may or may not involve Schrödinger's cat.
I'm impressed you did something that got you forever Bolivia'd but not have your account deleted. That's quite a needle to thread.
I don't think UM dropped the TRO because it became pointless after winning at PSU, although that may have been a factor. The accepted belief around here is that Michigan (and Harbaugh) dropped their respective lawsuits once Chris Partridge became a casualty in the investigation. The Big Ten felt emboldened to threaten even greater punishment and continued investigation into Michigan and Michigan decided it was better to accept a three game suspension than to continue creating a distraction for the team.
When Michigan announced they were dropping the TRO and accepting the suspension, Michigan said that the Big Ten assured them they were ending their own investigation in exchange. When the Big Ten announced the suspension, they did not acknowledge any such agreement.
So to answer the question about what the Big Ten can or can't do in the future, I would point out that the Big Ten can do whatever it wants, considering it disregarded its own bylaws to suspend Harbaugh in the first place. But there would be no precedent or expectation for the conference to further punish Michigan on top of whatever sanctions the NCAA doles out.
I would assume the Big Ten will not further sanction Michigan on this matter. Even if the NCAA uncovers some other new revelation, I imagine the Big Ten will just let the NCAA have the final say at this point.
African or European?
Are we ever going to get resolution in our lifetimes on who the third party was that gift-wrapped an NCAA investigation? Does Michigan even care anymore since it all worked out for us anyway? Should Michigan care or is it just as well to not put "signgate" back into the news cycle?
Trente Jones saved the championship season. Forever grateful.
Yes it was. You just didn’t refresh in a separate window first to see it.
JJ was drafted #10, not #11. BOOM! You've been pwned.
Chuck answered this earlier much further up the thread:
But your point about Tim May is 100% right.
Are you here to make Buckeye Chuck look good by being the bad troll?
I don't even know who you're trying to reply to. You replied to Timmmmaaaaay but he didn't say anything about old women in a Florida children's hospital knowing or not knowing anything about Stalions. In fact, no one here is claiming that the Stalions story went unreported. The discussion in this subthread--instigated by Chuck--is that only OSU and MSU fans still think it matters despite the insistence from OSU and MSU fans that everyone outside Ann Arbor thinks it matters.
So when you say why don't we own it, that is confusing to me because it is obviously fully owned. Stalions was on staff and did the advanced scouting. To say the cheating "paid off" and that by the time Stalions was caught "it was too late" ranges from most likely wrong to factually wrong. I think that's the part you want us to own, but as is discussed in many other places in this thread and other threads you have surely read, the cheating provided minimal to no advantage. If anything, it hampered the team this year--since Stalions was not caught "too late"--and we had to lose our coach for three critical games and also lost our sign stealing guy (remember sign stealing is legal) and also lost a linebacker coach.
As for why do we care what anyone else thinks, we basically don't. We certainly don't care what OSU and MSU fans think. But for your own benefit, pointless though it might be, we do try to educate you when you come around to our board and throw falsehoods in our face.
What the Patriots, Astros, and Michigan all benefit from is that they had the opportunity to reproduce their same success after the cheating was sussed out. Sadly for Bonds, his steroid use continued uninterrupted and there is a clear delineation between the production for Bonds pre- and post-roids. He was a great, great player before he started doping but in his old age had a string of career bests in home runs and batting average. Had he been caught, stopped, punished, and then continued to hit 45 home runs and .350 at age 39 and 40, then I do believe we would view him differently. Another issue that Bonds faces is that steroids proved to directly improve the output for many, many other players (and in other sports) establishing the great advantage provided by doping. But it's a useless comparison between baseball and football, and an even more useless comparison between a team and an individual.
To answer your other question, I do believe I speak for the vast majority of Michigan fans when I say that the advantage provided by Stalions was minimal at best and that an asterisk for Michigan during the time Stalions allegedly served as Michigan's sign stealer is not appropriate. And just for good measure, I think it's worth noting that Bonds (and New England and Houston) have not been stripped of any of their accomplishments either.
Yes, tongue in cheek. In the real world these are all fine institutions. I am happy to have gone to a “public Ivy” which I believe to be Cal, UM, UCLA, UVA, UNC. Bummer that UCLA is currently ranked higher but realistically we were never going to make fun of their academics.
Speaking for myself, I will give you this W for the Internet argument. You’re safe with the literalism of your statement—though it’s still inconclusive—to which you are retreating. Congratulations.
I don’t know your true intent with your original comment, but most reasonable people (I believe) would understand your comment in the context it is usually stated by OSU and MSU fans—that people view Michigan’s wins as tainted due to cheating. That was everyone’s read, and that is how they are responding, as they should.
Sure. Have at it.
I don't know what the rules specifically say about it, but just logically I feel like it had to be a minimum 0.1 and watching the video it really looked close to a full second.
That said, I absolutely appreciate using some discretion here and just letting them celebrate it as a walkoff. Video reviews have absolutely ruined sports and getting everyone off the field to force them to do a meaningless face off would be so stupid.
Does "walk off" mean it was overtime?
Edit: Apparently not. Wow! Is it even possible to score literally as time expires? It's like hockey where the ball has to actually be in the net. Can that happen with zero seconds? Seems like we needed a faceoff with 0.1 seconds.
I know that. That was the point of what I said.
It's not an asterisk how they view it. It's an asterisk in a different way.
Yes.
But aside from that, I agree that there was an opportunity to argue that the vast network was technically within the rules. However, the firing/resignation of Stalions was a clear indication, I think, that we weren't going to go that route. By the way, that further suggests to me that Michigan coaches really did not know about this. I think if they had directed it, they would be more inclined to argue it was within the rules. The other interpretation, of course, is that he's merely a scapegoat but we're still waiting on any evidence connecting this to a coach.
Anyway, for me personally, I'm willing to concede it's a rule violation. Even as you note, it's against the spirit of the rule. I prefer to spend my energy on pointing out that while it's a technical violation, Michigan did not actually gain any unfair advantage, considering that sign stealing is legal and everyone (anonymously) says they are able to successfully steal signs from publicly available tape and also all the teams were sharing their own spreadsheets, which is apparently legal. So, sure, Stalions violated a rule, but for no advantage. And beyond that, when our sign stealing was taken away from us, we still beat everybody.
The MSU-OSU echo chamber has them convinced. I mean, there are still people who will say "Patriots spygate!" or "Auburn bought Cam Newton!" so, yes, there are people who will always reference it. But it's an asterisk in the sense that it's a side note, not that in the sense it explains Michigan's winning.
Had Michigan lost to OSU, or even Alabama, it would be a different story. But that didn't happen, which completely put this to bed for everyone, including the NCAA (Charlie Baker's "They won fair and square").
That does not mean it put to bed the investigation or impending punishment. Obviously that's ongoing. But no one cared about the signs anymore once we beat OSU last year. That OSU and MSU fans refuse to understand that, well, that's what cope is. I mean, Finebaum mocking Tim May with using Stalions as an excuse is evidence of how it's viewed nationally.
For real. There are worse trolls but I see lots of troll posts from him.
I understand this was never going to be a serious conversation between May and Finebaum because Pete/Paul's only objective was to troll Ohio State. But we should absolutely take the time to enjoy Ryan Day going through the ringer. We've seen this all before when it was aimed at Harbaugh.
I'm all in on calling this the National Championship Or Bust year for Ohio State. There's only one outcome that can be called a success. Otherwise they're failures. And even if they win the NC, it will still be a partial failure if they lose to Michigan on the way there.
Even though I will actively root against OSU every week, I do like to see them in limbo where they have these 11-1 seasons with a loss to Michigan and have to decide if that's good enough or not. It's a lot harder than just going 4-8 and having only one obvious answer to the question.
The game did not go like I had hoped or expected. But still, making the tournament at all is still a success. I hope a big step up is coming soon. Playing on Memorial Day weekend would be amazing.
Not quite Strasburg's debut, despite ESPN insisting Skenes was fire.
Kirby Smart is #8 on the list. DeBoer is also up there.
Spurrier was famously an avid golfer.
Any time they want to show their ass and cry about losing I am here to lap up their tears.
That would be quite the comeback story after he pulled that boner.
He's also being sued by Tracy. She's also suing MSU. It's a scene, man.
Assassin's Creed NCAA
Welcome back, Donovan Edwards!
No idea, obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this were true. I also don't think it would tell us much of anything. Let's say we proposed time served (fired Stalions and the Harbaugh suspension) plus probation (concurrent with the burgergate probation) and a fine. Let's say the NCAA rejects that. That doesn't mean the NCAA is going to bring a hammer, just that they may want to add another year of probation or increase the fine.
It would tell us that we're willing to concede a violation occurred, but I think we already knew that. Back in the fall, before the conference decided to step in, the reporting indicated that the school was not going to try to use technicalities to absolve Stalions. Personally, I took that as a sign that the coaching staff did not know about or instruct Stalions to procure iPhone footage of opponents. If Stalions had been operating under the direction of Harbaugh or Minter, then presumably they would have been more inclined to plead their case that this was within the rules. That's just my thought on it, anyway.
I think that Smith's comments are actually just an admission that it wasn't a big deal. His use of the word "visceral" reveals this. He's saying people (or rather, OSU fans) are expecting a big punishment because they are having a visceral (i.e., emotional) reaction rather than a rational one. Expecting vacated wins or bowl bans is irrational, is how I read Smith's comment. Saying that the two wins "deserve a little bit of an asterisk" is a far cry from saying they don't count or should be vacated. It's just his way of pandering to his base to say, yeah, they broke a rule so we can put half an asterisk on it if we want to.
Yes, Dono. This is addressed in a comment above, about halfway through the thread. Look for Dono's twitpic where Dono refers to himself as Dono.
I think Commie High is just having issues with typing. John instead of Jon (understandable typo). Poloki instead of Plocki...I think.
Dono is a 100% certified nickname for Edwards.
You’re right. Sorry. Olympic was in the OP. But the additional info is that he had many Olympians from Michigan as well. And he was on many staffs, not just the 2 mentioned in the OP.
He also was a coach on many USA Olympic teams, which included many of his Michigan swimmers.
Oh yeah, I left out 2022. Oops. Thanks.
Don't forget that Ryan Day's mentor at OSU had a racist hire. After Iowa had to fire their racist S&C coach, Urban hired him right away to coach in Jacksonville. And then he had to immediately resign because of the backlash.
He got booed worse than Kim Kardashian.