WTKA Roundtable 11-3-2016: Takeaways

refereeing OUTRAGES argh!
podcasts
hot sprots takes
wtka roundtable
2016 michigan state

image

[Patrick Barron]

Things discussed:

  • State’s first drive was an evil thing of beauty.
  • Peppers and the beautiful play.
  • There are holds and then there’s HOLDS, and State was getting away with a ton of the latter. Second-straight year this game was officiated by monkeys.
  • How do we fix officiating? Rewrite rulebook to be more clear. Make discretionary decisions reviewable.
  • Challenges have bias: this call’s not wrong, it’s pining for the fields.
  • CFP selection: why is Texas A&M in there?
  • Not worried about defense after MSU. One Dantonio Special drive and then some holding and stuff.
  • Most overrated player in college football history? Hackenberg? Archie Griffin? Ron Dayne? Ron Dayne.
  • Is shine off Tom Herman? Nope. Brian Kelly?
  • You can catch the entire episode on Michigan Insider's podcast stream on Audioboom.

Segment 2 is here. Segment 3 is here.

THE USUAL LINKS

Comments

kevin holt

November 4th, 2016 at 8:09 AM ^

Questions: (1) what about a ref up top who could call holding? would that work? (2) are the Stribling tackling issues the same thing we heard about preseason about how Clark was a better run defender? is that something to worry about? I totally forgot about that when Clark got hurt but if so that is even worse for losing him.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 17447

Needs

November 4th, 2016 at 8:27 AM ^

They should have a ref supervisor/assessor in the box that watches the game and broadcast and can brief the officials during the interminable tv breaks as to what he's seeing, backing up calls they got correct, letting them know calls they missed. It wouldn't fix anything retrospectively, but would have the potential of addressing egregious, repeating patterns of missed calls.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/05/2008

MGoPoints: 11638

Indonacious

November 4th, 2016 at 8:16 AM ^

I feel similarly... It always seems like he is trying to be a contrarian. It's kind of strange that he is on that round table to begin with. Are his rankings validated as legitimate in anyway? I can't seem to remember but did he ever work for this site or did Brian ever reference him in previews- just trying to figure out his connection.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/03/2012

MGoPoints: 16597

Seth

November 4th, 2016 at 8:31 AM ^

His stats are good but geared toward betting. Also they're proprietary so we can look at them to form opinions but not share them directly.

I think Ed works as a foil for Brian--we have two weekly podcatsts to get serious brian, plus all the content here. I like that Ed will rile him up and give him a foil to argue against takes that we hear as fans but Brian has insulated himself from. 

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149631

Gulogulo37

November 4th, 2016 at 8:27 AM ^

He's not that bad. He's wrong more often than Brian but certainly not always. Craig and him noted that Hawaii isn't as bad as Brian thought and they were right. And they were more accurate in predicting this game. It's good having someone with different opinions.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28359

LSA91

November 4th, 2016 at 9:17 AM ^

1) I like having people for Brian to yell at.  It's good radio,

2) At this point, I don't know who would win if you tallied up Ed and Brian's prediction disagreements for the last year or two.

3) As a complete aside, it was weird to hear M Den ads.   I kept expecting Brian to break in with "yes, but did you know that the Collegiate Apparel Industry was born at Moe's?"

Joined: 11/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2707

Gulogulo37

November 4th, 2016 at 8:26 AM ^

Seth! It's pining for the fjords. Not fields.

Also, I don't care if it would help correct more calls, please no reviews of discretionary calls. Sometimes I already wish there wasn't replay at all. Just so I can forego half an hour of reviews. Plus, as Craig and Brian mention, they're much less likely to change discretionary stuff. They almost never change the spot. However, I may be OK with reviews of discretionary calls if it's just that each coach gets 1 per game.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28359

Seth

November 4th, 2016 at 8:33 AM ^

It's pining for the FIELDS! Craig is wrong. I own a copy of Flying Circus and have watched that one to memory. They're talking about a dead parrot. Parrots don't pine for the fjords.

At least it's clearly fields in my copy. I'm not backing down, despite my google search putting me on edge a bit.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149631

CR

November 4th, 2016 at 8:55 AM ^

...I am stunned.

Seth, I concede you are smarter in general, a better writer, a lot younger, have more shelf life,  and know more about football than I do. You are also a better person. But I know more about dead parrots. Fjords. Pining for the Fjords.

Ed's numbers are kicking it this year in the NFL, as an aside. He knows what he is doing.

Craig

 

Joined: 10/23/2009

MGoPoints: 2368

m83econ

November 4th, 2016 at 9:20 AM ^

Implementation of video review should be acknowledged as a major contributor to the decline in officiating quality. Why work hard to be in position for the "right" call when there's a backup system designed to do the same thing?

Joined: 09/13/2008

MGoPoints: 7300

charlie sheen

November 4th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^

the problem is that they ask the same people who (potentially) made the mistakes in the first place to review. review isn't trying to get the right call, but to confirm the call on the field *unless* there is - and some times in spite of - egregious evidence that it's wrong.

Joined: 09/20/2009

MGoPoints: 2916

Hyphen

November 4th, 2016 at 2:29 PM ^

Just wanted to offer a slight correction: I'm guessing that "pining for the fields" is a reference to Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch - in which case, the quote should be "pining for the fijords," because the parrot in question is a "Norwegian Blue."

Love the podcast by the way, keep it up!

Joined: 04/23/2011

MGoPoints: 117