Well, yesterday went about as well as could possibly be hoped.
Washington looks to be horrible, maybe beyond horrible (Go, Ty!), and Michigan's defense is nearly as putrid as ours was last year. I can't decide which loss makes me happier. On top of that Pitt looked awful in their loss to Bowling Green, while BC only scored 21 points against Kent State. Navy beat up Towson State, which, apparently, exists. I didn't know that. San Diego State lost to 1 AA Cal Poly (A gimme game just got gimmier.), while North Carolina nearly lost to a 1 AA opponent of their own. Syracuse got flattened by Northwestern. Ouch. I didn't see Michigan State play, but they seemed to give Cal a pretty good game. How good is Cal though? USC, of course, was transcendent. I should probably add that Stanford looked pretty good Friday night against Oregon State, who seem to have a horrible defense. There that's everyone, since Purdue was idle also.
Ordinarily I'd be rooting for all opponents (except Michigan) so that we would have as strong a schedule as possible. This year is different. Charlie Weis has recruited one good class followed by two exceptional ones. A winning record nearly guarantees a third exceptional class and near parity with USC, hence the joy at yesterday's events.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Someone Is Going to Pizza Hut . . .
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Informative
In that not informative kind of way. Was there any point to that video? Any pertinent information as to how Notre Dame would fare this year? Sheesh.
Also, Mike Ragone is out for the year with a partially torn ACL. Good thing freshman Kyle Rudolph has been practicing so well. Still, not a good thing for a freshman to be the second string tight end by default, for a coach who likes to use two tight ends so much. Yeatman looks to be solid though not spectacular, so the only tight end who's going to make significant plays this year is probably going to be Rudolph.
It's a Trap!
So from what I can tell from his article, Linker thinks it desperately unfair for those diabolical conservatives to pass laws highlighting the contradictions of supporting abortion. If only they wouldn't be so uppity.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
What About Football?
Notre Dame started practice on Friday, much to my (and I assume Rico's) delight, since that means we're only four weeks away from the first game.
Since practice now enters its third day (still without pads, I might add), the only real news is the depth chart. No real surprises, save the formal acknowledgment that Harrison Smith is our new strong side linebacker. Since he only weighs 212 lbs. (when 250 are needed for a 3-4 outside linebacker), this may pose a problem. However, knowledgeable posters on Irish Eyes have said that our 3-4 defense has been tweaked so that one outside LB (Kerry Neal or John Ryan) will play with his hand down. How this modified 3-4 differs from a 4-3 is not clear.
Another bit of news is that Steve Filer is practicing as the third string strong side LB. Since he's already 235 lbs., the hope is that he'll be advanced enough to take over the starting position next year, which would bump Harrison back to safety and bring us back to a tradition 3-4.
Right now the 2009 linebacking corps looks like:
Will: Kerry Neal, John Ryan, Kallen Wade, Darius Fleming (I wouldn't be surprised if Fleming shoots up to second string and Ryan moves to defensive end)
Mike: Brian Smith, Toryan Smith, Anthony MacDonald
Jack: Anthony MacDonald or Dave Posluzney
Sam: Steve Filer, ?
Dan Fox is the only outside LB committed to Notre Dame right now for the incoming class of 2009. Carlo Calabrese, also committed, will be an inside LB. This is more evidence that the Notre Dame defense is two years away. A team shouldn't have to rely on sophomores to start. We just don't have the numbers right now.
Since practice now enters its third day (still without pads, I might add), the only real news is the depth chart. No real surprises, save the formal acknowledgment that Harrison Smith is our new strong side linebacker. Since he only weighs 212 lbs. (when 250 are needed for a 3-4 outside linebacker), this may pose a problem. However, knowledgeable posters on Irish Eyes have said that our 3-4 defense has been tweaked so that one outside LB (Kerry Neal or John Ryan) will play with his hand down. How this modified 3-4 differs from a 4-3 is not clear.
Another bit of news is that Steve Filer is practicing as the third string strong side LB. Since he's already 235 lbs., the hope is that he'll be advanced enough to take over the starting position next year, which would bump Harrison back to safety and bring us back to a tradition 3-4.
Right now the 2009 linebacking corps looks like:
Will: Kerry Neal, John Ryan, Kallen Wade, Darius Fleming (I wouldn't be surprised if Fleming shoots up to second string and Ryan moves to defensive end)
Mike: Brian Smith, Toryan Smith, Anthony MacDonald
Jack: Anthony MacDonald or Dave Posluzney
Sam: Steve Filer, ?
Dan Fox is the only outside LB committed to Notre Dame right now for the incoming class of 2009. Carlo Calabrese, also committed, will be an inside LB. This is more evidence that the Notre Dame defense is two years away. A team shouldn't have to rely on sophomores to start. We just don't have the numbers right now.
Friday, August 8, 2008
USA! USA!
Ah, the Olympics. A time when Americans of all creeds and colors can unite behind the principle that a lot of foreigners are weird looking and talk really funny. But perhaps more importantly, it's a time when Americans care about the results of sports like swimming, gymnastics, and the shotput. For two weeks, we're all fans of Kerri Strug, Rulon Gardner, and Michael Phelps.
I freely admit that I'll watch almost any sport when Team USA is involved. The sheer joy I get from watching an American dunk a 5'4" South Korean's head in the pool during a water polo match is nearly incomprehensible.
I freely admit that I'll watch almost any sport when Team USA is involved. The sheer joy I get from watching an American dunk a 5'4" South Korean's head in the pool during a water polo match is nearly incomprehensible.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
I don't know how to put this,
but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
Once again, my insght and striking observatory powers get me a spot in ESPN's live blog of a major golf championship.
Once again, my insght and striking observatory powers get me a spot in ESPN's live blog of a major golf championship.
9:56 a.m.: Great e-mail from Ryan in Milwaukee:Based on my success, you might think it's easy to get yourself mentioned in one of these blogs. You'd be wrong.
Doesn't Kenny Perry's scratched cornea improve his chances of winning? After all, this is the year of the injured victor.
Excellent point. OK, I'm sticking with him to make it 4-for-4 for recently/currently injured/ill players this year.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Matthew 7:7
(Minor spoilers ahead, if you're one of the few people who haven't seen The Dark Knight yet. Seriously, $400 million in 18 days?)
I've got nothing better to do than respond to anonymous critics. In short, The Dark Knight was quite good.
The script was generally well written. My view is fairly unique, but my favorite element was the Harvey Dent-Batman subplot. The way they established the two "heroes" as foils was really well done. Plus, it set up a very good ending.
As many people have said, the movie was quite dark; it really forces the audience to confront some awful situations and doesn't find easy ways out. It's refreshing, because it really stands the recent superhero movies, even the good ones, on their head. As much as I've enjoyed the Spiderman, X-Men, and Iron Man movies, this brought a whole other element that those didn't have.
The acting was almost uniformly superb. Just as in Batman Begins, when your minor characters are portrayed by Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman, you're in good hands. Maggie Gyllenhaal was an improvement over Katie Holmes, though I didn't detest Holmes as much as Big Jim did. Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent was passable if a little cliched, though that was more a function of the character than the acting. And Christian Bale plays a rich, charming, possibly crazy badass as well as anyone (see also American Psycho). I think that about covers it.
That about covers it, right?
What's that you say?
Ah yes, the gay cowboy! Heath Ledger was very good portraying the Joker, but I don't think he was quite as unbelievable as many have claimed. What people generally have not acknowledged is this: the character was extremely well written. The Joker, especially as envisioned by the writers, is a compelling, intriguing, disarming figure. His completely amoral, psychotic provided a rich landscape for Ledger to use. Granted, ledger used it well, but I'm pretty sure that other actors could have done nearly as well with it.
I've got nothing better to do than respond to anonymous critics. In short, The Dark Knight was quite good.
The script was generally well written. My view is fairly unique, but my favorite element was the Harvey Dent-Batman subplot. The way they established the two "heroes" as foils was really well done. Plus, it set up a very good ending.
As many people have said, the movie was quite dark; it really forces the audience to confront some awful situations and doesn't find easy ways out. It's refreshing, because it really stands the recent superhero movies, even the good ones, on their head. As much as I've enjoyed the Spiderman, X-Men, and Iron Man movies, this brought a whole other element that those didn't have.
The acting was almost uniformly superb. Just as in Batman Begins, when your minor characters are portrayed by Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman, you're in good hands. Maggie Gyllenhaal was an improvement over Katie Holmes, though I didn't detest Holmes as much as Big Jim did. Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent was passable if a little cliched, though that was more a function of the character than the acting. And Christian Bale plays a rich, charming, possibly crazy badass as well as anyone (see also American Psycho). I think that about covers it.
That about covers it, right?
What's that you say?
Ah yes, the gay cowboy! Heath Ledger was very good portraying the Joker, but I don't think he was quite as unbelievable as many have claimed. What people generally have not acknowledged is this: the character was extremely well written. The Joker, especially as envisioned by the writers, is a compelling, intriguing, disarming figure. His completely amoral, psychotic provided a rich landscape for Ledger to use. Granted, ledger used it well, but I'm pretty sure that other actors could have done nearly as well with it.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Si! Si! Si! Si!
CC Sabathia has now had four starts. His numbers: 33IP, 5 ER, 31 K, 3 CG, 1.36 ERA.
Of course, the most important number of all: 4-0.
Of course, the most important number of all: 4-0.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
August 5, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Moving on up in the blogging world
At the risk of shedding part of my anonymity once again, I'd like to note that a question of mine made it into ESPN's Live Blog of the British Open:
4:56 p.m.: E-mail from Ryan in Milwaukee:I'm going to have to avert my eyes when I see the "What have you done to increase the share price today?" sign this afternoon.
There's a good chance none of the "Big Four" will play on Saturday and Sunday. When was the last major with no Tiger, Phil, Ernie, or Vijay on the weekend?
Believe it or not, that's actually a pretty easy one to look up. It was the 1992 U.S. Open, when Tom Kite won at Pebble Beach. (Mickelson missed the cut; Woods, Singh and Els failed to qualify.) That's 64 straight majors in which at least one of those four made the cut.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Am I part of the conservative press?
Senator Obama on the perceived shabby treatment of his wife:
"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.
"Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her."
Other people have already tackled this, but I'd like to address one specific point. The "most quintessentially American woman (you) know" probably shouldn't have been ashamed of America for her entire adult life prior to her husband's presidential campaign. I'm no expert on the Beav (ha!), but I'm pretty sure June Cleaver had some pride in her country.
Secondly, if Michelle Obama gives high-profile speeches where she discusses her policy views, we absolutely unequivocally should debate her. She's pushing her own views as a reason to elect her husband. We who oppose those views have a responsibility to take her to task.
"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.
"Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her."
Other people have already tackled this, but I'd like to address one specific point. The "most quintessentially American woman (you) know" probably shouldn't have been ashamed of America for her entire adult life prior to her husband's presidential campaign. I'm no expert on the Beav (ha!), but I'm pretty sure June Cleaver had some pride in her country.
Secondly, if Michelle Obama gives high-profile speeches where she discusses her policy views, we absolutely unequivocally should debate her. She's pushing her own views as a reason to elect her husband. We who oppose those views have a responsibility to take her to task.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Defensive Numbers
Contrary to most Notre Dame fans' expectations, the Irish are going to be hurting more at linebacker than defensive line these next few years.
Because Notre Dame is going to be running a 3-4, numbers are far less of a problem at d-line. This will be the last year that Notre Dame will need to rely on a freshman to help out there. Starting in 2009, we ought to have more than enough players to pitch in and provide a solid, if not good, defensive line.
NT: Ian Williams (true junior), Brandon Newman (true sophomore), Hafis Williams (redshirt freshman), also Paddy Mullen (redshirt junior) + Tyler Stockton
DE: Morrice Richardson (true senior), John Ryan (true senior), Emeka Newankwo (redshirt sophomore), Ethan Johnson (true sophomore), Sean Cwynar (true sophomore), and Kapron Lewis-Moore (redshirted) + any new recruits (Anthonly Lalota, Pat Muldoon and Davon Custis are the most likely)
In 2009 we'll have a line young but having the appropriate weight and body types, so that we should be solid against the run. In 2010, it will be very hard for Notre Dame not to have a good-to-very good defensive line.
Linebacker is more troubling. 2009 numbers:
ILB: Toryan Smith (true senior), Steve Filer (true sophomore), Anthony MacDonald (true sophomore), and David Posluzney (redshirt freshman) + Carlo Calabrese and any other recruits
OLB: Kallen Wade (redshirt junior), Brian Smith (true junior), Kerry Neal (true junior), Darius Fleming (true sophomore) + Dan Fox and someone else
While the numbers are ok (I've read that you want a 3 deep +1 at each position), the ages are not. Notre dame will be required to start a sophomore at ILB, never a good position to be in and, unless Kallen Wade comes on, we'll need a freshman on the 2 deep at OLB.
What we can take away from this post, then, is that 2010 will be the first year that Notre Dame will be able to field a defense composed entirely of upperclassmen. That's scary.
Because Notre Dame is going to be running a 3-4, numbers are far less of a problem at d-line. This will be the last year that Notre Dame will need to rely on a freshman to help out there. Starting in 2009, we ought to have more than enough players to pitch in and provide a solid, if not good, defensive line.
NT: Ian Williams (true junior), Brandon Newman (true sophomore), Hafis Williams (redshirt freshman), also Paddy Mullen (redshirt junior) + Tyler Stockton
DE: Morrice Richardson (true senior), John Ryan (true senior), Emeka Newankwo (redshirt sophomore), Ethan Johnson (true sophomore), Sean Cwynar (true sophomore), and Kapron Lewis-Moore (redshirted) + any new recruits (Anthonly Lalota, Pat Muldoon and Davon Custis are the most likely)
In 2009 we'll have a line young but having the appropriate weight and body types, so that we should be solid against the run. In 2010, it will be very hard for Notre Dame not to have a good-to-very good defensive line.
Linebacker is more troubling. 2009 numbers:
ILB: Toryan Smith (true senior), Steve Filer (true sophomore), Anthony MacDonald (true sophomore), and David Posluzney (redshirt freshman) + Carlo Calabrese and any other recruits
OLB: Kallen Wade (redshirt junior), Brian Smith (true junior), Kerry Neal (true junior), Darius Fleming (true sophomore) + Dan Fox and someone else
While the numbers are ok (I've read that you want a 3 deep +1 at each position), the ages are not. Notre dame will be required to start a sophomore at ILB, never a good position to be in and, unless Kallen Wade comes on, we'll need a freshman on the 2 deep at OLB.
What we can take away from this post, then, is that 2010 will be the first year that Notre Dame will be able to field a defense composed entirely of upperclassmen. That's scary.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Jim Geraghty is a National Treasure
The man is tireless in his efforts to draw attention to Obama's various gaffes, contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright lies. He also relentlessly goes after an even more deserving target: Michelle Obama.
See his latest here:
If it's possible, I may dislike her more than I dislike Theresa Heinz Kerry.
See his latest here:
Michelle Obama: Americans Spending $600 Stimulus Checks on Earrings
Amanda Carpenter notes:Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, complained the government’s $600 economic stimulus check was only enough to buy “a pair of earrings” while stumping for her husband.
“You're getting $600 - what can you do with that?” Mrs. Obama said in Pontiac, Michigan last week. “Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."
She made these remarks at a “working women’s roundtable discussion.”
Well, it's not like Michelle Obama makes comments like this all the time.not everyone can afford to keep it all together, especially here in Muskingum County, where, according to the census, the median household income in 2004 was $37,192, below both the Ohio and national average. Out of that, there’s the mortgage. And child care. Health care. Education. Lessons. “I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,” Mrs. Obama tells the women. “And summer programs. That’s the other huge cost. Barack is saying, ‘Whyyyyyy are we spending that?’ And I’m saying, ‘Do you know what summer camp costs?’”
One wonders whether that $600 budgeted for earrings could be spent on, say, fruit:"Now we’re keeping, like, a bowl of fresh fruit in the house. But you have to go to the fruit stand a couple of times a week to keep that fruit fresh enough that a six-year-old—she’s not gonna eat the pruney grape, you know. At that point it’s, like, ‘Eww!’ She’s not gonna eat the brown banana or the shrivelledy-up things. It’s got to be fresh for them to want it. Who’s got time to go to the fruit stand? Who can afford it, first of all?”
Eh, nevermind the fruit. It's probably not worth it, what with all the nefarious labeling of products:"And the notion of trying to think about a lunch every day! . . . So you grab the Lunchables, right? And the fruit-juice-box thing, and we think—we think—that’s juice. And you start reading the labels and you realize there’s high-fructose corn syrup in everything we’re eating. Every jelly, every juice. Everything that’s in a bottle or a package is like poison in a way that most people don’t even know. . "
What with the $600 earrings, the $10,000 summer camps, unaffordable fruit and hidden poisons on the store shelves, daily life in America seems particularly tough on women:"I wake up every morning wondering how on earth I am going to pull off that next minor miracle to get through the day. I know that everybody in this room is going through this. That is the dilemma women face today. Every woman that I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, political affiliation, is struggling to keep her head above water." (This presumably includes her friend Oprah.)
(COUGHoprahCOUGH) So who's to blame?"What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first."
Dear Obama campaign, please make sure this is the theme of her prime-time address at the convention.
If it's possible, I may dislike her more than I dislike Theresa Heinz Kerry.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Timewasters!
Got some time to kill? These tests will keep you busy for a half hour!
Presidents: I got 42/43.
Simpsons Characters: I got 60/63.
BCS Conference Colleges: I got 72/73.
In the comments, I'll tell you which ones I missed for each test. No cheating!
Presidents: I got 42/43.
Simpsons Characters: I got 60/63.
BCS Conference Colleges: I got 72/73.
In the comments, I'll tell you which ones I missed for each test. No cheating!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
