MichiganCardinal

I think the work stoppage and the nonsensical decision around the same time for the NHL to not ensure the renewal of their contract with ESPN (in addition to the last 15 years of doubling down on this stupidity) all combined to set the sport back. When ESPN stopped caring about hockey (what little they did then), it caused the sport to stagnate. When they said “we want games on Versus instead of ESPN2”, they may as well have been saying they’re not even going to try to expand their fanbase. Back in the late 90s to early 00s, hockey had the opportunity to overtake basketball. Now I think it’s more likely for soccer to overtake hockey. The league may be expanding, but on the whole it’s not adding new viewers (or all that much money), just the same viewers in new areas. Hopefully that changes with the new ESPN contract.

I agree. I think if you asked the board preseason what our record would be if Goff was out for the year and Blough started every game (to emulate having a 25-32 QB rather than the 16-25 QB we expected), most would have probably said around 2-15... Under those conditions, 0-7 shouldn't be a surprise, and honestly that we would be 2-5 if not for two walk off field goals speaks volumes to the team coming ready to play.

Stanford had a few fun short response prompts too. One of them asked to name a historical event you would return to, one asked to describe yourself in five words, one asked what you did last summer, one just asked for favorite books and movies. Their big essay though is "what matters to you and why?"

As long as one isn't going to a school that is for-profit (think the schools whose students were bailed out of their loans by the Biden admin), you will receive a roughly equal quality of education across the board. With rare exception, it's not like the information being taught about subject matter is fundamentally different between a HYPSM and a "lower tier" state school. Depending on what someone is interested in, any number of schools may make sense for any number of reasons. If you want to do research, a HYPSM is going to have money they don't know what to do with to fund whatever your little heart desires. At the same time, if you have specific interests and those interests are to a 't' met by a professor at Eastern Michigan, that may make more sense for you. This is even before financial considerations. Stanford would not be worth a $50,000 price tag if one is offered a full-ride to Michigan. The ratings have more to do with donors and money (the first bucket I mentioned) than anything else. My own story is that I was very middle-of-the-road in high school. Finished with a 3.2 GPA or so. Went to Oakland Community College and figured out how to do life and school. One Biology course I can remember clearly, I got a D on the first exam and said to myself I was going to apply myself, go get it, and see what happened. Got no less than a 93 on a test the rest of that semester. I applied to transfer to Michigan after a few semesters and they rejected me, citing I didn't have enough credits to say I was the near 4.0 CC student and not the near 3.0 HS student. The following year, 40 more credits under the belt, I applied to ten schools with a 3.95 GPA: Michigan, Michigan State, Harvard, Penn, Vanderbilt, NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, and Stanford. All rejected me except Michigan, MSU, and Stanford, and I decided to go west of the Mississippi River for the first time in my life as I drove out for orientation. I was in a cohort of 26 transfers that class. I wouldn't change anything, I had a great time and did pretty well for myself, graduating with a BA and a 3.88 GPA. But I also believe that a lot of the hype around undergraduate education at those top US schools is just lore and toxic comparison of self vs others than anything else. I don't think I'm any smarter (however you choose to define the word) or better prepared than my colleagues who went to Oakland University or Wayne State. Part of that certainly has to do with my field (majored in Psychology and work in child welfare - if I was a Computer Science guy it would be a different story), but overall, if I were speaking to someone who was making a decision on colleges (for undergrad), fit and comfortability is much more important than pretty arbitrary rankings. /soapbox

US News and World rankings are junk. Though I am intrigued by MSU's fall, they were around #50 ten years ago. Have to imagine it's related to the Nassar fallout. UM 16 MSU 14

I would hope they remember that MLB never truly bounced back from the work stoppage in 1994-95. Nor has the NHL from the work stoppage in 2004-2005.

Campbell was competitive in this game by continually making the risky move. I’m not sure what people expect out of this roster but the staff is making the most of it.

It's about two things - eligible receivers and blocking. Since linemen are ineligible receivers, you don't want teams sending their centers five yards down the field to just distract the DBs and LBs from their assignments. It also prevents a team from having linemen streak down the field at the snap to block for a single intended receiver. Otherwise teams could just design plays where they have their #1 wideout run a slant, catching a ball five or ten yards downfield surrounded by a convoy of three offensive linemen who are at that point going against DBs instead of guys their own size. Scoring would go way up if linemen were given free range. These reasons are also why IDF is only a penalty if the pass actually happens, and if the pass crosses the line of scrimmage. On a screen pass behind the LOS, linemen can go downfield.

Is this how St. Louis feels?

I don't see any pathway over the next 8-10 months where the Lions are competitive in 2022. The ceiling for 22 as I see it now is 8-9 or so. Why sell out for 8-9 at the expense of 2023 and beyond? There is a reason MCDC got a six-year deal. Watson is not the answer either. If we were the Broncos, Raiders, or mayybe Steelers, and could legitimately entertain a conversation that we are ONE PIECE - and ONLY that piece - away from contending for a Super Bowl, then and only then might Watson make sense. The amount of draft capital he would take to attain would absolutely force your hand into a win-now mode. If you plugged Watson on this team from week one, we are probably somewhere between 0-6 and 2-4. At that point you can't easily plug the holes you have because you don't have either the capital or the money to do so.

I’m not sure why people are acting like they expected Goff to be good. He is a 16-32 QB depending on the week, Stafford is a 5-16. Neither Goff nor Stafford would be leading this team to the playoffs.

Hope our record will keep teams looking for a head coach next year away.

You would think for as large as the Ford Field Jumbotron is it would have better resolution. Can’t tell for shit here.

I think that putting in the prevent defense has been from Glenn, not Campbell. Though I would agree I would hope Campbell would approach him about not doing this a 3rd time in a similar situation.

I think he has made some mistakes, but they're not at the level of Jim Schwartz costing us a game by not knowing the rules, or Jim Caldwell costing us a game by defending the sideline against Aaron Rodgers as time expired. I also think he's been very humble about his mistakes, and has owned up to them, which is way nicer to see than his predecessor. Play calling is all Glenn and Lynn I'm pretty sure.

I suppose it comes down to foundation > QB or QB > foundation. I think I would argue the former and you the latter. I would rather have Holmes/Campbell (or any two new quality minds hired to start fresh) picking my franchise QB without one already on the roster than have Baalke/Meyer picking Lawrence (as obvious as that was) or Pace/Nagy picking Fields in an attempt to save their job, and those QBs being stuck with someone new in year two as the franchise presses the reset button. I think the latter leads to Ron Rivera being handed Dwayne Haskins and Kliff Kingsbury being handed Josh Rosen more often than it is successful.

I agree that the Lions will need a franchise QB before they'll take the next step into being a true contender. I just think that where things stand right now, the Lions (even with that question mark) are better positioned to be good before the Jaguars/Bears/Giants/etc., when those clubs don't know who their leadership may be for when they are ready to take that next step, and don't have a set three-plus year plan either because of it. If your position is that TLaw is the wildcard such that even without that plan, just having him on your team puts your team in a position to win, I can understand that. I don't think I agree with it, as I think the start he has gotten in Jacksonville is more likely to either waste his generational talent or have him be the next Stafford rather than him lead that team out of the NFL's cellar.

I don't think either the Jaguars or Bears have "bottomed out" and cleaned house though, which is what we are doing right now. As long as the Jags have Urban Meyer, and as long as the Bears have Nagy/Pace, they won't have commenced a successful rebuild towards being successful. Give me two seasons of 2-15 and 7-10 ball before continued 10-win seasons over perpetual 8-9 or 9-8 purgatory.

It was meant to. It was just meant to say despite having what is likely the worst roster in the NFL, I would rather be the Lions than a lot of NFL teams right now. The Jaguars, Texans, Dolphins, Giants, and Bears all come to mind.

The Jaguars are playing for a man who will not be their coach next year, and is 50/50 to even make it 17 games.

The ideal scenario would certainly be to plug a QB in such that he is prepared to lead the team to a championship right as the team's talent is at the point where it can contend in championships. That's not always realistic. It is more important you get the right QB than it is you get them at the right time. Josh Allen for instance held the Bills back for a year or two until he really took off last year. I'm sure that in hindsight though they wouldn't change their pick in exchange for having taken Trubisky or Kizer in 2017 (the first year of McDermott), or Goff, Wentz, or Lynch in 2016 (the year before McDermott).

I'm not annoyed this cost him his job, but I am annoyed that the Raiders are going to get to act like some holier-than-thou organization because of it. If he was actually winning in Vegas, they would have stood behind him and released some joint statement of apology. They wanted him out after he tied himself to Derek Carr and couldn't make the playoffs, or even break .500, after three years. More of the same this year too in a division with three contenders. Mark Davis saw an 'out' to that monstrosity of a contract he stupidly agreed to and capitalized on it. I'm sure there was some back-door dealing going on too and that Gruden is taking home a healthy paycheck in exchange for not dragging this out and making them try to fire him for-cause. One of the most overrated coaches in NFL history.

Campbell tearing up in the postgame press conference, talking about how hard it is to see those guys give it their all and have it come up short like that. It's no wonder these guys never stop fighting. Can't help but root for that man.

About the same amount of time I would expect an expansion team to take to become one.

I liked the call to go for two with this team. I won't like it if he does the same thing with a playoff caliber team in 2 or 3 years.