archemedes

Michigan is struggling this season, it happens. I watch them becasue I'm a fan of the team and school.If you only watch when they are winning your not a fan (I also watch the lions and have most of my life, I know they are not that great, but I still root for them)

still crying over spilled milk. If Michigan State had a kicker whom could kick....say....a 23 yard field goal, you would be crying over that game too. ITS OVER....DEAL WITH IT!!! yep if's don't win.If the lions had great players tehy might win too

it's the way he said he had no idea what it was about

even in Atlanta the Braves aren't expected to do much in the playoffs (at least in the past when I lived there)

I knew it was comming after I saw the report yeasterday that Tram had a meeting today, that's usually a get out of dodge type meeting.I think they should have given him another year, and a couple of pitchers first

double post

if they play it like they are capable they have a shot,I'd say about a 30% chance (I'd love if they beat tehm though)

they are a million times better than when I started really watching (about '79)

michigan state still has a better overall record than michigan...hence why michigan state is higher than michigan. Pollsters love notre dame..thats why they are always high when they are no different than a lot of other teams. that's the problem with college football no playoffs so everything is subjective (I still find the strength of schedule thing laughable since when they do that part noone has played yet) all the other college sports have a playoff series

sorry I made an error, my point is the team much better now than they were.You want the first guy with size, there are guys who may be available (a good gm can find them)so when they get someone what will be your complaint (you seem to be the type I have worked around my whole life who have to complain about the wings for some reason)

even teh tv announcers said it wasn't conclusive.The question is and has been what constitutes possesion, evidently in that case it meant having the ball tucked (so does that eliminate the diving touchdown since the ball isn't tucked?)

I'm saying don't add a guy to do nothing but fight that is not hockey that's what children want.you add a multi dimensional player (Like what Howe was) The keep saying they are going to start calling the rules (they haven't, but shouldn't the coaches prepare as if they will?)There aren't many players who fit the role, but to add a detriment to the lineup to fill a role that really isn't that important (you'd think everyone currently on the roster was made of glass the way you guys talk)you guys keep talking like Holland doesn't know what he's doing, but he's built one of the top franchises in the league from garbage (the team was worse than Washington is before Ilitch bought them)I wonder if you guys will ever be happy with team management

Another ignoramous... Getting toughness does not mean getting a guy who'll put us on the penalty kill night in and night out. Every other team in the league has one or two toughguys, look at NJ, they have 3 tough guys, their GM has won more cups then Kenny Boy (I know, hard to believe). Bowman is on record as saying we need at least one enforcer, even Holland has said it, so your argument is tired and old. I do agree, there are quite a few guys who would hurt us by collecting penalties and acting like an idiot, but there are so many more...guys like Oliwa, Simon, Laraque etc...who would help immensely, they can play a fourth line grinder role, and give our team some confidence....the last SC Finals matchup had 2 teams with toughguys playing on 1st thru the 4th lines....Lastly, Sean Avery is an enforcer in your mind only it seems sorry I believe a hockey player should play hockey not fight only (if he can't score, or defend he's a figure skating boxer and deserves to be out of the league) I hate people saying a team has to have a fighter, if I want to see a fight I watch boxing.Keep in mind there are rules that limit fighting (they haven't been enforced, but they are there)such as the wording of instigator (you chase a guy to fight him it's supposed to be an instigator penalty)I used Avery as an example since he is known to take alot of penalties.It seems if it was up to you there would be one skilled player and a bunch of goons on each team. The wings will get someone who can fill both roles well enough they don't need a guy who appears mediocre at best.We really didn't have an enforcer the last season but did pretty well (until playoffs, which may be taken care of with coaching)

you want a tough guy go sign a boxer.I want a guy who plays hockey not drop the gloves every chance he gets and keep the team on the penalty kill.(he has 540 some pims too in 245 games. Avery who is supposed to take a ton of stupid penalties has 482 in163 games (see the resemblance?)

Smith is going to be like Cooper at Ohio State: I say if he doesn't beat UM next year he gets canned.... No way JLS gets canned just for not beating UofM. He's done a great job of recruiting and coaching, and the school won't neglect what he's done. I know there used to be a requirement for MSU coaches have a winning record against UM, it shows you can't win the big games (supposedly)

I think I'd pass on him, a total of 4 goals and 30 assists in his career, a -43, and 9 of his assists are on the pp.I don't think he'd help much

maybe it'll be another 35 years before MSU is favored(the last time they were favored was 1968)

if MI had some conditioning I don't think it would have gone to OT, they looked tired after halftime

the officiating was bad for both teams (my favorite was the interception thatw as originally ruled incomplete, like they didn't see the MI player?)

it's a good game

Michigan scores on first drive

Michigan has not lost to anyone but themselves this season, tehy had the Wisconsin game won and gave it away.

5-5 Bowl record doesn't bother me, considering we're often playing top 5 teams (ie USC, Texas, etc) 3-4 vs the Irish is very sub-par, considering they haven't been very good for much of this stretch, but it is a rivalry series 1-2 in Rose Bowl: not great, but UM has never played well on the West coast - it was worse under Bo 5-5 vs OSU: probably as expected considering the heated rivalry and talent of both teams 3-4 vs Pac-ten; so-so; most of those games were on the West coast though - those pansies rarely want to fly up to the midwest to play. As a Spartan fan, wouldn't you take most of Carr's statistics over the course of his coaching? I have nothing personal against Lloyd Carr - I have liked him as the Wolverine's coach since he arrived (better than Bo if you ask me). I also respect that UM tends to keep coaches around for awhile and rewards loyalty (although I thought Mo was terrible). How many coaches has MSU gone through during this time? Sabin, Williams (?), Smith?? I'm still not sold on Smith - he's just "OK" - I certainly don't see him as being better than Carr. Point is though, that I think it is OK to question the coaching tenure of Carr - and if it turns that the University thinks it's time for a change, then so be it. But I'm not calling for him to be "fired" in the heat of the moment. until Carr took the reigns there was a huge difference in the OSU series (very biased in Michigans favor) Carr led teams have a problem with conditioning typically (they always do well in the first half and struggle second half, and do better late in teh season once they get the conditioning up)Do I think he needs to go, not neccessarily, but they need someone to point out the obvious and not be afraid to do it (noone wants to tell teh UM football coach he's doing anything wrong)

I doubt it would happen because of his age, teams are all looking like they want the young guys.I also doubt the wings could afford him without moving a couple players few people want moved (I don't know what his salary is, but I doubt it's under a million)