#I don’t usually think of jim’s career in terms of best work or best performance | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thisguyatthemovies · 5 years

Text

Why so quirky?

It took more than 14 years to get around to it, but the other night I watched the 2005 Cameron Crowe train wreck “Elizabethtown,” a film that sometimes shows up on Worst Movie Ever lists. It’s bad, but its “worst” status is more about disappointment, given the writer-director’s previous track record {“Say Anything…,” “Almost Famous,” “Jerry Maguire,” “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”). Still, did I mention it’s bad? A ridiculous premise, plot lines that go nowhere, obvious and heavy-handed symbolism, multiple and sickeningly sweet (and annoying) “meet cutes” and quite possibly some of the worst casting in a major motion picture ever all add up to a movie that deserves much criticism.

“Elizabethtown” also is notorious for inspiring the term “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” (or MPDG). The phrase usually is credited to Nathan Rabin, who wrote a piece about the movie, “The Bataan Death March of Whimsy Case File #1: ‘Elizabethtown,’” for AV/Film nearly 15 months after its release. In it, he describes Kirsten Dunst’s character, Claire, the inexplicably bubbly love interest of suicidal-but-handsome protagonist Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom), as the embodiment of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Rabin describes the type as such:

“The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.”

By that definition, applied retroactively, Dunst’s Claire isn’t the first MPDG in movie history (some include Katharine Hepburn’s early roles on MPDG lists), nor is she even the best example of one (think Natalie Portman in “Garden State,” or Zooey Deschanel in “Yes Man” or the TV show “New Girl”). And the term, which Rabin reportedly now regrets coining, has become better defined with attributes that don’t necessarily fit Claire, even though she will forever be considered the epitome of the trope.

In case you have not seen “Elizabethtown” (and you’ll probably be just fine never seeing it), Bloom plays a shoe designer who works for a company not unlike Nike. Somehow, he is saddled with all the blame for a shoe that is so bad that it is recalled and will cost the company (somehow) nearly a billion dollars. Bloom’s Drew Baylor is fired and decides to off himself, but a phone call about the unexpected death of his father interrupts him during his first attempt. Drew, a West Coaster, is enlisted by his family to travel to Elizabethtown, Ky., his father’s hometown and where the elder Baylor has passed away, to bring the body home for cremation. Relatives in Kentucky have other plans for his final resting place.

Drew takes a flight to Kentucky and – wouldn’t you know it? – is the only passenger on the plane. That’s where Claire comes in. She apparently is the lone stewardess, and she is a talkative one at that. She won’t leave Drew alone from the get-go, and she (somehow) senses Drew is troubled and needs help because, for a guy who had a relatively important position with an internationally known shoe maker, he has no idea how to live this thing we call life. She does what any upstanding MPDG would do – she makes the repair of his damaged soul her sole purpose in life.

Claire would seem to vary from the standard trope in that she has a life of her own, at least when she and Drew meet. Her career would afford her at least a modest independent existence. She seems to have a nice place. She even has a boyfriend, though it is not clear if the guy really exists or, if he does, he is all that into her. But Claire quickly becomes a genie let out of the bottle; Drew’s every wish is her command. She just happens to show up wherever Drew is so much that if the roles were reversed, Drew would be accused of stalking. She says all the right things, even as Drew continues to hint at ending his life. She even (somehow) has the availability to, within a brief period of time, piece together a scrapbook (including hand-drawn illustrations) that will help Drew navigate a soul-discovering solo cross-country road trip AND (this being a Cameron Crowe movie) has provided the soundtrack via mix CDs that are (somehow) timed perfectly to coincide with landmarks during Drew’s travels. So omnipresent, so magical is Dunst’s character that some have suggested she was written to be a guardian angel sent to save Drew’s life. That interpretation at least makes some of Claire’s story semi-plausible and almost tolerable.

Claire is selfless to a fault, and she certainly is strange, maybe unstable. But, if anything, Manic Pixie Dream Girls lost even more sense of self and picked up more strangeness as the stock character turned into a full-fledged trope. Think Deschanel as Allison in the 2008 Jim Carrey vehicle “Yes Man.” As is always the case in these things, Carrey is a cynical, disillusioned man looking for meaning in life. He happens upon Allison, who hits a lot of stock MPGD notes. She zips around town on a moped. She wears mismatched clothing from vintage stores. She performs avant garde (and awful) music. Her primary means of supporting herself (?) is by teaching a class that combines jogging and photography. She is everything Carrey’s Carl Allen is not, mostly carefree. They, of course, engage in romance, even though Carl is notably older than Allison (that’s the case in many films, not just MPDG movies).

In 2010’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” two characters combine for the role of MPDG. The titular character, played by Michael Cera, is a slacker musician a few years removed from high school. That doesn’t stop him from dating a high-schooler, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), whose sole purpose is as a superfan for Scott’s band. Then Scott meets the girl of his dreams (literally), Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who is at least older than Knives but still is quirky (she works delivering packages while on roller skates) and impulsive (she often changes her hair color) but is too aloof and serious to be a full-on MPDG. She does, however, end up being a sort-of trophy, to be won if Scott can defeat her seven evil exes. So, her existence still is minimalized.

Some movies have addressed the MPDG thing head-on. Though sometimes cited as a MPDG, Kate Winslet’s Clementine in 2004’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is actually the anti-MPDG. Sure, she wears orange hair and gloves with the fingertips cut off, and she’s impulsive. But she also is flawed, sometimes dark and independent (MPDGs typically don’t get any of those traits). And she says this, which seems like a direct response to the trope, even though the term didn’t yet exist, as written by Charlie Kaufman: “Too many guys think I’m a concept, or I complete them, or I’m gonna make them alive. But I’m just a fu**ed-up girl who’s looking for my own peace of mind. Don’t assign me yours.”

Those are sentiments Claire in “Elizabethtown” never would have expressed, her focus being on a lost, sensitive young man and his happiness, not hers. Nor would she be allowed to even think such, given she and MPDGs like her are the products of writers and filmmakers who want to believe that this idealized version of young women is out there. That will probably be the case as long as men are writing movies, just as the male equivalent of the MPDG – the ridiculously handsome man with washboard abs who manages to accumulate much wealth despite always being around to tend to a woman’s needs and whisk her off to beaches on his private jet – will always exist as long as women are fantasizing about them and flocking to see them in rom-com-drams and reading about them in romance novels.

A little healthy fantasy is fine, but movie tropes and stereotypes are not, if we believe they can shape how we live in real life. Manic Pixie Drew Girls, though not totally a thing of the past (Joi, the A.I. girlfriend in 2017’s “Blade Runner 2049,” comes to mind as an updated version), are becoming outdated as more and more females are having their voices heard in Hollywood. MPDGs are being replaced by independent women who are the focus of the story and don’t have to be bubbly if they don’t feel like it, who aren’t required to be quirky and can chase their own happiness. These characters, unlike Manic Pixie Dream Girls, are multidimensional. They give a movie depth, not just gloss.

Imagine if that’s the kind of character Dunst’s Claire could have been. “Elizabethtown” wouldn’t show up on so many Worst Movie Ever lists. And it wouldn’t have been forever linked to a tired movie trope and the terminology to describe it.

#movies #movie review #movie tropes #manic pixie dream girl #elizabethtown #kirsten dunst #eternal sunshine of a spotless mind #kate winslet #yes man #zooey deschanel #ramona flowers #scott pilgram vs the world

4 notes · View notes

cookiedoughmeagain · 7 years

Text

Haven DVD Commentary: 2.11 - Business As Usual

There are two commentaries for this episode. Here are some notes on the first one:

Shawn Pillar: Executive Producer of Haven and Director for this episode Brian Millikin: Script Co-ordinator and writer (though not for this episode)

Topics covered include:

“The way we talked about this episode in the writer’s room as as part one of a two-part season finale.”

Shawn being delightfully enthusiastic about getting to direct a whole episode.

It’s a big episode because everything changed at the end of the last one with the Rev’s death. “Haven has been flipped upside down. Duke is now on the path to learning about himself.”

The stretch of road by the sea that we see the runners running along is somewhere they have shot at a lot, including for episode 13, the Christmas episode.

Shawn enjoying the aerial shots, because he is terrified of heights and he was in the helicopter shooting them.

Shawn enjoying directing Adam Copeland, “Edge” because he is “a very natural actor who just keeps getting better every episode.” And how it was fun to direct him because he’s a great performer and “comfortable in his own skin” and loved to be directed; he’s a director’s dream because did everything exactly as he was told. “Either you’re a really good actor, or I’’m a fantastic director … hopefully it’s both.”

Brian talks about when they were hiring him and all it really took to make the decision was when they watched his retirement (from wrestling) speech on YouTube.

This being an interesting episode for showing a bit more of how the Troubles (and fear of the Troubles) are affecting the town e.g. the bystanders watching the argument between Stu and Patrick. “The cat is getting out of the bag.” “We wanted to try and escalate the level of tension in the town following the Rev’s death,” and in a way that starts to pull at Audrey and Nathan. And how the episode gives us a better sense of Haven as a town.

Shawn talks about how Brian started with them as an intern after college, and was assistant to his father Michael Pillar. And after “years of toiling with us on our different shows; Greek and Deadzone and Wildfire, Scott Shepherd and Matt McGuiness and Sam and Jim,” took him under their wing and decided he should write an episode this season. He wrote an episode which Shawn directed. But “being the writers assistant in the room gives him an unique perspective on every episode and he becomes the guy who has to co-ordinate the scripts and type in changes and …. Type up all the notes and keep the writers organised. So in some ways, he knows where the bodies are buried more than anyone.” And Brian agrees that he probably does know the show better than anyone else.

Shawn talks about how one of the things he wanted to do in directing the episode was to have the camera moving. “I think it adds a lot of tension, and a lot of mood.” And he says that in this episode “basically every single shot is moving.” In some ways it shoots faster, and looks better than when you don’t move the camera. He adds that it’s “a little tougher to edit sometimes”. Brian says he loves it and that “you can always tell when Shawn Pillar has directed an episode,” from whichever series it is, and adds that it “brings a lot of energy.”

The talk about the importance of picking the right locations for each scene so that they flow together, and trying to anticipate what the DP is going to want to do with the lighting, and what the art department is going to want to do with the background etc.

Shawn refers to directing as “the most fun I’m allowed to have. Normally I’m fixing problems; this time I got to create my own problems and fix them myself.”

As we see Duke on the phone to Evi’s mum, Shawn talks about wanting to feature the whole boat set, and how there was originally much more to this conversation but they had to cut it. But they originally would have shown Duke on the phone in the distance walking back and forth across the set and would have shown more of the set because there’s a lot of it which we never get to see which is a shame, “because the sets are gorgeous”. So “let’s pretend we’re making a feature film” and shoot lots of wide shots rather than just relying on close ups all the time.

As we see Duke read ‘Crocker’ on the lid of his silver box, Brian talks about how they have been waiting all season to get back to this point. “We introduced this box back in episode four” and now seven episodes later they finally got to bring it back. And Shawn talks about how a lot of the set up they laid for the season got paid off in this episode, which spiked the arc of the story telling to the finale, which then itself sets them up for season three.

Shawn talks about the woman who plays Colleen Pierce; her name is Crystal Allen, he describes himself as “a huge fan” and says that she “was almost Evi.” She was one of the final three for that role. And he talks about one of the advantages of his role in relation to this episode is that he didn’t need to do any casting; he was able to use people he already knew and whose work he admired, including for both Colleen and Stu Pierce.

Brian talks about the evolution of ideas from a storytelling standpoint i.e. how the episode evolved in that the original idea was for something where it looks like a Troubled person is killing other Troubled people. And then we find out that it’s someone has framed a Troubled person as a weapon against all Troubled people. Originally there was going to be a group of people that had kidnapped Stu, and a race against time to get to him, but “based on some network notes” that was condensed, and that allowed them to get to some of the other things in the episode they wanted to get to; e.g. the plot line with Duke and Dwight, and Audrey and Lucy, and Audrey and Nathan’s interactions which “came to dominate the episode; in a good way.”

As we see Audrey and Nathan argue in the interview room after Nathan lets Patrick go, Shawn talks about liking this scene as the first time we’ve ever really seen Audrey and Nathan argue. And how it was a pleasure to get to direct that, and to be able to let them play with it, and how he pushed Emily and Lucas to fight and to be more intense, and then pulled them back for another version. And then they cut together the best moments from all of those different versions and that it worked out really well.

They both comment on the “return of the tandem bike” as we see Vince and Dave bringing more copies of the Herald. And Brian comments that he loves the TOWN GRIEVES newspaper headline. As Duke talks to the Teagues, Shawn comments that this is a good example of the value of staying in wide shots and medium shots for longer, because it shows of the town (of Lunenberg) in the background. And that it was nice to be able to do that because although they go to Lunenberg for Duke’s boat “rarely do we get to shoot in downtown Lunenberg”.

And then they comment on the divide that we see between Vince and Dave, and “seeing that they’re on two different sides of something that we don’t totally understand”. And what a great job the actors always do with these characters. “You can tell that they love each other and hate each other”. And about Vince and Dave as being brothers first and foremost, but then also enemies, and you “see that bubble up sometimes, that they have a differing agenda.”

And they agree that “Eric Balfour is always fantastic, and always finds ways to pull it off the page and make it a little bit funny, a little bit quirky.” “I think he makes everything better.”

They talk about how there are a lot of fathers and sons in this episode in terms of Nathan missing his father and living in his shadow, and Duke discovering things about his father, and also Duke and Dwight talking about their fathers. And Shawn continues, “And Vince, we may find in Season Three …” and then Brian interrupts him to compliment the camera work and we never get back to the point about Vince.

They talk about the Duke and Dwight fight sequence, noting that “Eric is a trained fighter” and obvious Adam came to Haven from wrestling, and so him and the fight co-ordinator were able to work with the actors to get their suggestions for it as well. He comments that they shot the scene really fast with a hand held, and mentions that the key that flies out from the box was CGI.

They note this is the first real fight they’ve done in Haven and that fight scenes can be tricky because they take a long time to shoot and there can be safety issues. Adam was injured in his previous career as a wrestler, so they wanted to be very careful not to ask him to do too much “Because a) I love the guy, and b) we definitely need him in work the next day”. Shawn also notes that “there was a stunt man ready to step in for Adam, but he didn’t quite match.” So they staged it in a way that Eric took the brunt of most of the hits.

Adam got smashed in the head with the candy glass, but they only had the budget for two or three of those, and Shawn was worried that Adam might get cut, so they shot everything else until they were happy and then did the glass smashing after. He adds that a lot of the choreography was more between the actors and the cameramen and that worked because the less rehearsed the fight is the more real it feels.

They both agree that they love the scene where Nathan and Audrey talk (argue) in the car, and Shawn adds that it was shot in two separate bits, because the wide shots were shot on location in Lunenberg and the closeups were shot a couple of weeks later in Chester, with fake backdrops outside the windows.

Brian talks about the shooting schedule, how they shot Duke’s phone conversation with Evi’s mother, and Duke and Dwight’s fight, and Duke and Dwights conversation, all in one day; one day in the boat to shoot all the inside boat scenes. They had a day in Lunenberg. A day on the boat outside.

They talk about how visible Duke’s boat is in Lunenberg and how you can just walk about and see it, and how they have both met fans there. And Shawn talks about meeting a couple of fans “I think they were English and they happened to be in town” and he invited them to come to set and they came to the boat and “we gave them headphones and let them listen to us filming”. [I am not jealous at all, oh no :/ Who are you, English Haven fans? I want to hear all about it!]

For the scene where Audrey and Nathan argue while Patrick is tied up on the other side of the room, they shot this in Lunenberg; inside the building that we see Patrick coming out of earlier. For the part where Audrey goes upstairs, they shot part of that ahead of time, because Emily was down at Comic Con, and then part of it (the parts with real fire) were done on the soundstage with a stunt person. So they didn’t have real fire in the actual building; there they shot with Emily and just smoke and CG fire, and then cut in with the stuntperson running through real fire. And the smoke we see coming out of the building from outside is the actual building they were in, with CG smoke. When Audrey kicks down the door to go into the room to find Stu, they “cheated” in that Emily kicked down the door and then actually came back into the same room they were already filming in. So basically when you can’t see Audrey’s face, that’s the stuntperson on the stage running through real fire, and where you can see Emily’s face, that’s her on location with CG fire added after.

As we see Duke and Dwight on Simon’s old boat, Shawn says “We cheated Duke’s actual boat in Lunenberg, as this other boat. Because, a boat’s a boat, you can’t really tell the difference.”

On small spaces like inside the boat where they couldn’t fit dolly track, they shot with handheld cameras to keep the movement and the energy up.

Brian talks about the initial reaction to the idea of Simon hiding stuff on his boat; “a lot of people thought that didn’t make any sense at all” that you could hide something on a boat that well. But Matt McGuinness (who co-wrote this episode) is himself a sailor and insisted on it and threw in all this boat terminology to convince them.

As Sal comes down the ladder, Shawn says, “I love this actor; he looks perfectly Haven. I’ve been saving him for a while to use and I finally selfishly had to put him in my episode.” He was originally brought in for a different part in another episode and it was felt he wasn’t right for that part, but “when we need a pirate, when we need a salty old dog” he would be perfect. He adds that the first time round the actor was playing it “a little too drunken, a little too piratey” so Shawn told him “just be yourself” and he was brilliant. There was a lot more to this scene that was quite funny between him and Eric, but it got cut for time.

They mention for the Stephen King fans that the name of the previous owner of the boat (Ray Fiegler) was a Stephen King reference. Brian adds that it’s his job to get in as many Stephen King references as he can, so when the script gets changed he just quietly puts them back in.

They note that the concept of the meeting of Troubled people was a little controversial among a lot of the writers and producers, the idea of the Troubled getting that organised, and this well known. But he says he thinks they pulled it off and it works. Shawn adds that it’s a natural escalation; if you’re going to keep things realistic, then the town is eventually going to notice at least some of what’s going on, and they’re going to start talking about it.

They add that was one of the challenges in working on Dead Zone; not making Johnny Smith too famous, so there they always kept people skeptics. But in this show they have to walk that same fine line where some people don’t believe in the Troubles, some people believe because they live it day to day, and then some people are scared of the Troubles/Troubled. Which Shawn adds “I think is symbolic of other social issues … and I think that’s one of the great things science fiction can do is take contemporary issues and put them … in a context that allows you to examine them in a different way.”

Brian asks Shawn about the shooting of Nathan and Audrey’s kiss and how they went about it, and Shawn says that his mom was on set for the shooting of this episode and they have this thing where they always show the pilot for a new show to his mom and “if she cries, then we know that it’s good.” So she is their test audience. And his mom was there on set for the blocking of this scene [which Google tells me means “working out the details of an actor's moves in relation to the camera”] and “she started crying during the blocking … and I was like ‘people, my mom is crying, this is a great scene’. And so that was hilarious and awesome and we knew it was going to be a great scene.”

Shawn adds that this is something that the two actors have been wanting to play for a long time “and I was honoured and privileged that I got to direct it, and it was really fun. They did a really good job.” And he remembers the cameramen being really enthusiastic about it as well during filming. And he says it was “really cathartic to finally shoot this scene.” And Brian agrees that “it’s so heartfelt.”

When Nathan starts to say something and then cuts himself off with a “never mind” Shawn says that there was no line there. There was something they had that they didn’t like and they cut it, and not knowing what to put in its place they used the “never mind” as something realistic that people do.

They note that at this point the episode turns, because the case of the week is ended and it becomes all about Audrey going to see Lucy and the fall out with Duke and “it’s a unique episode in that regard”.

They note that the important line in this scene is when Nathan says, “I hope you come back and tell me what they are,” because there is a sense that he could lose her. He knows she has a bigger role to play, though he doesn’t know what it is.

This was a difficult episode to get it to not be too long. A lot of times if something’s long you cut out the not-great stuff and find you’re too short, but with this one there was so much to they really wanted to include that it was difficult; “everything worked, everything was good, all the acting was good, it just looked beautiful, and it was such a fully packed script that it was really difficult” to cut it down to the right length.

As Audrey and Lucy are sat down to talk, they comment that the only issue was this scene was that it started raining, so that as we are looking at Lucy, it’s not raining; when we’re looking at Audrey it is raining in the background, “but hopefully nobody notices that.” That scene was shot in Chester; the production office is in the background. They’re just down the road from where they shot Duke on the phone by his car in the previous episode, and the soundstages are just up the street in the other direction.

They talk about Audrey (or her previous Lucy incarnation) as a living time capsule, a bag of evidence that Audrey left for herself; this warning that she left with Lucy a long time ago.

They talk about loving this episode for the fact that it is really significant in terms of the relationship between Audrey and Nathan, but then when Audrey learns about Simon Crocker being after Lucy, it also becomes really significant for the relationship between Audrey and Duke as well.

They talk about the shot were we look down on the Rouge with Dwight on deck as Duke finds the box, this one:

And then where the camera tracks down closer to them. “This was an incredible shot; one of the best shots we’ve ever done in the history of the series”. It was technically difficult to do because it was actually done on the boat, and with the right equipment it would be easy; but they did not have that type of crane, so it was really complicated (“a ballet dance”) to move down and keep the shot straight. “Our whole camera team really had a tough time pulling that off, but they nailed it and it looked pretty damn smooth. It looked like we had the most expensive equipment in the world and actually we didn’t.”

They talk a little as well about maximising efficiency by shooting multiple things from the same crane angle to save time.

They made two versions of the silver box; one was just a solid wooden thing that didn’t open, for when it was pulled sideways out of the can. They talk about how there was a lot of discussion for a long time about exactly what weapons were going to go in the box “we were emailing photos of weapons from Assassin’s Creed for months”.

The blood on Duke’s hand was CG effects added after; they didn’t have time to “mess around” with blood on the set. As Dwight flies across the Rouge, that was a stunt man and a crane pull that was anchored on a pole that is there that is actually used for fishing nets.

There were a couple of shots in this scene (shot on three cameras) where one of the other cameras was visible in the shot and they had to CG that out.

The scene of the meeting in the Herald at the end; when they were shooting this, Adam Copeland had a 104 degree fever.

There were also various comments throughout this about how everyone did a great job; writers, actors, cameramen, crew; in relation to the sets and the music. I didn’t write all the names down, but; everyone did a great job.

As ever there is always the possibility that I have got their voices muddled up at some point.

#haven syfy #haven dvd commentaries #2.11 - Business as usual #long post

10 notes · View notes

recentnews18-blog · 6 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/why-we-need-the-unrivaled-honesty-of-comic-jim-norton/

Why We Need The Unrivaled Honesty Of Comic Jim Norton

Courtesy of Loshak PRJim Norton

With a looming deal on the horizon after signing a contract extension for his morning radio show, a role in an upcoming Martin Scorsese Netflix film and a standup tour in full swing, you can bet against comedian Jim Norton becoming yesterday’s tomatoes any time soon.

The Bayonne, New Jersey native can be seen performing stand-up comedy live across the country on his Kneeling Room Only tour and can be heard weekday mornings between 7 a.m – 11 a.m. ET on SiriusXM’s Jim Norton and Sam Roberts show.

Norton, along with Roberts, hopes to have a new contract wrapped up by the end of the week after signing another round of extensions to stay on the air while the details get worked out.

“Jim is like undeniably one of, if not the funniest guys in radio,” Sam Roberts, Norton’s morning show co-host said. “It’s such a blessing to be able to do a show with a guy like that because it’s not the type of thing where we have to sit there for hours on end and try to find the humor in something or fake that we like each other, or fake chemistry or anything like that.”

Working out a lucrative long-term deal would not only be in Jim and Sam’s and the fans’ best interest, but SiriusXM’s as well. You’d have to be locked in an asylum to not appreciate the strides the team has made in just two years.

Even with the abundance of audio content from terrestrial and satellite radio, as well as podcasts, Jim and Sam offer unconventional originality and immeasurable levity beyond comparison.

The show’s absurdly long intro – which serves as one of the many delightful running gags – has you eagerly awaiting the co-hosts take on what happened the day before and in today’s early morning hours. The dressing down of staff can be as compelling as Jim and Sam’s unique and unequivocally funny perspectives.

Then there’s Jim’s characters: Chip Chipperson (a dim-witted Norton character who lives with his mother) and Edgar Mellencamp (an elderly man with a dry mouth) to name a couple.

“Chip comes from Jim’s heart,” Roberts said of Chipperson. “And that’s why Chip is the most lovable and people, whether they know it or not, I think are sensing that.”

Chip has also found people’s hearts in becoming a sensation outside of Norton himself. The Chip Chipperson Podacast has a loyal following that sees its live shows sellout a variety of clubs and theaters.

“Norton thinks that Chip will outlive him as a personality,” comic and frequent Chip Chipperson guest Kevin Brennan said. “I actually like Chip more than Norton if you can believe that.”

Brennan has a theory on why the radio and podcast character has taken off.

“Chip’s crazy,” Brennan said. “Chip says whatever. He’s insulting, he’s offensive, he’s ridiculous and I love it. I just think it’s hilarious. He’s so funny because he still has Norton’s mind. He’ll say stuff that’s really funny off the top of his mind that he just came up with. That character is hilarious. I like mean comedy, that might be a reflection of my childhood.”

The success achieved by a character Norton started out doing to annoy an ex-girlfriend and amuse himself when he was alone (still does) has come as a surprise to Jim.

“I’m really happy,” Norton said. “I hope it keeps going. I hope it’s not a temporary thing. Of course I’m shocked. The fact is that we all have Chip in us. We all kind of stink on some level. And Chip embraces that and is that. It’s awful jokes, so it’s really fun. It’s fun to pick the worst jokes you can think of.”

Because Chip and Jim are separate people, there is an art to interacting with Chip for the success of a radio bit or the podcast.

“I’ve learned to just treat his characters like real people,” former co-host of the Opie and Anthony Show, Anthony Cumia said. “Chip Chipperson of course, a very popular character. Whenever I do his show and there’s somebody who’s never done it before, there sitting there and going, ‘What is this like?’ I go, Just imagine you’re doing a talk show that’s hosted by a [very slow] person, because that’s pretty much it.

“Then they’re like, ‘Oh, okay I guess I could go with that.’ I’ve just learned to really treat them like they weren’t Jim, and how would I react to somebody that really acted like that. Opie never really got a line on how to [interact with] Jimmy’s characters.”

Following the Opie and Anthony Show’s departure in July of 2014 after Cumia was fired for using racist language on Twitter, Jim and Gregg “Opie” Hughes tried to pick up the pieces and continue on with a new incarnation of the show.

Comedian Jim Norton participates in the BUILD Speaker Series to discuss the Netflix comedy special, “Mouthful of Shame”, at AOL Studios on Thursday, April 13, 2017, in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

The duo continued for about two years before Jim and Sam paired up and Opie tried a show of his own.

“Look, we worked together for a long time,” Norton said of the partnership he had with Hughes. “The relationship deteriorated. It happens. I feel like I was very loyal for a long time. I’ve been very, very reverential to O and A, what they’ve done for my career. I’ve been very publicly appreciative of him.”

Hughes was fired by SiriusXM in July of 2017 after taking a video of producer Roland Campos going to the bathroom.

There were only a couple dustups while Jim and Opie were on the air together and it’s only recently that Norton has been more vocal about what it was like working with Hughes, especially on Jim and Sam.

“It’s one of those things where he’ll throw a jab, then I throw one,” Norton said. “Or I throw one and then he throws one. I think that’s basically what it is. We both wanted to for a long time, but we weren’t able to. So it’s kind of fun to do when there’s a reason for it.

“He’s doing his show and I’m doing my thing with Sam. There’s really no reason for us to even think about each other. So it’s not like we do it all the time. It’s occasional.”

No matter who he’s been on-air with, stand up comedy has always been a constant in Norton’s life.

Audiences fortunate enough to see Norton perform live in person are seeing the comic do what he’s best at. Despite Norton’s brutally honest, self-deprecating humor, the stand up chops he’s sharpened from almost thirty years of performing give him the confidence to prowl the stage like a panther.

“First of all, I love Jimmy,” comedian Russell Peters said. “He’s very funny, very astute and he’s a big student of the game.”

Comics like Norton are at a premium. Rawness and honesty are desperately needed to sift through vile dishonesty politicians spew out and the fraudulently indignant hypocrisy social media lynch mobs muster up on a daily basis.

“It’s his honesty onstage that keeps him where he is,” Peters said. “And I always try to tell comics, the more honest you are onstage the easier this job is to do. Keith Robinson told me that 20 years ago and I never forgot it. He’s not hiding anything.

“People are coming to see comics for the honesty. That’s what they want. That’s what the world is lacking right now. The news isn’t being honest. You can get two different types of news nowadays. How f***ing weird is that? You remember back in the day [when] news was news? Now you can have pro-Trump news or anti-Trump news. I’m like, Why can’t we just get news news?”

“He’s risky,” Brennan said of Jim’s stand up. “He’s always been risky. I hadn’t seen him in a while, because he’s been working mornings a lot. And he works the earlier shows usually, especially during the week, the weekends [he’s] on the road. But I saw him do a full 20-minute set or 25-minute set probably in July and it was f***ing great.

“I was kind of blown away by how good it was just because I know he’s so busy. He’s got a great work ethic so he does the morning show and he’s always on the road, he does Chip Chipperson. He’s just extremely busy.”

Peters and Brennan aren’t the only comedians regarding Norton as the Toast of the town.

“I love Jim,” Norm Macdonald said. “I love Anthony Cumia too. I think he’s a fantastic broadcaster, and those two together were great, now they have separate shows, but they’re both so good they can each have a show.

“It’s very hard to do radio for two, three hours a day, really hard to be funny I mean. Larry King used to do it all night long, but he didn’t have to be funny. Jim is just one of those unfiltered guys that just says whatever is on his mind, doesn’t second guess himself and he has a lot of passion for his opinions and that’s what makes, I think, for great radio.”

Jim Norton “Kneeling Room Only” tourCourtesy of Loshak PR

Norton examines his own life and career with the same honesty and self-loathing humor you can see in his act or hear on the radio show. When asked if after all the success he’s currently having he’s one good project away from hitting it big, he responded:

“No, I’m one bad project away from killing myself,” Norton joked. “I hope something happens. I never wonder, Where’s my spot? I never expect anything. The more good things that happen the better, but I never expect anything. I really don’t. I hope something good comes of it, but I never expect anything great to come.”

Something great that did come is the Netflix film the Irishman (2019) directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. Norton filmed a scene where he plays one of his idols, the late comedian Don Rickles, performing at a night club.

“I love Rickles,” Norton said. “So it was really, really fun to play him. I tried to do it justice. The lines were written, which was easier.”

While shooting his scene, Jim worked with De Niro a second time (the Comedian), a third if you count De Niro appearing in the intro to his last standup special Mouthful of Shame.

“At one point, because De Niro wanted to hear material he hadn’t heard, they said, ‘Mr. De Niro is requesting that you just do your act.’” Norton said. “Because the camera was on him, so he just wanted to see my regular material just so he could laugh at it, so any shots of De Niro, if there’s any of him laughing, it’s at my regular jokes.

“It’s really weird, I was just talking to him and (Joe) Pesci. I mean there was an audience, but I was just looking over at De Niro and Pesci which was kind of surreal. It was great though because afterwards [Pesci] goes, ‘Hey, you were funny, man.’

“He was really cool and Scorsese is a really relaxed guy. I wasn’t nervous around Scorsese because I had met with him already and we had sat in his office and talked. And I wasn’t nervous around De Niro because I had done something with him, so Pesci was like the only one. It was still so much fun to do it with him. I didn’t let myself panic and get too nervous.”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottking/2018/10/24/why-we-need-the-unrivaled-honesty-of-comic-jim-norton/

0 notes

demitgibbs · 7 years

Text

Gloria Estefan’s Very Gay Year

Why of course global queer icon Gloria Estefan – subject of Broadway musical On Your Feet, and muse to drag queens worldwide – has a daughter who is not straight.

To close out 2017, Gloria’s 23-year-old daughter, Emily, celebrated – for the first time publicly – her one-year anniversary with girlfriend Geremy Hernández via Instagram. Emily’s snap of the couple was captioned, “Happy anniversary to my delicate, bold, intelligent, important, honest, loving, funny (but not funnier than me), brave, compassionate, patient, badass, talented, and the most beautiful… Moon Flower. I love you.”

Considering Gloria’s everlasting love and support for the LGBTQ community, Emily’s refreshingly matter-of-fact coming out, then, must’ve been the sweet, sweet icing on her pop-legend mother’s already-queer year.

Gloria, who left an indelible stamp on ’80s pop music with trailblazing crossover hits like “Conga” and “Rhythm is Gonna Get You,” starred in last year’s seemingly made-for-Trump-voters, empathy-spurring dramedy A Change of Heart, winner of the OUTshine Film Festival Audience Award for Best Feature. The Queen of Latin Pop portrays Dr. Fajardo (her “alter ego,” as she originally studied psychology at the University of Miami and planned to be a doctor), the therapist who advises Jim Belushi’s bigoted, Fox News-watching dad character, Hank, as he comes to terms with the foolish possibility that his new heart from a recent transplant is, as Gloria puts it, “pumping gayness into him.”

Hank’s youngest daughter, Josie (Aimee Teegarden), also just happens to be a lesbian, but neither Estefan nor her husband Emilio (both produced the film, while longtime Gloria-collaborator Kenny Ortega directed) never mentioned Emily’s own queerness when we met up at a red carpet event at the festival in late April in their hometown of Miami to discuss the queer-themed project – the woke Estefans know you let your children make that statement when they’re good and ready. But they did express, as always, their passion for equality, with Gloria acknowledging – because she is officially Global Mother to the Gays now – “I just felt natural in the role.”

“To us we’re allies because we’re human beings,” Gloria simply stated. “That’s the bottom line. Everybody is a human being. We’re all the same. We always see everyone as the same, whatever their preference is for love, sex, religion, culture. That’s always been important to us.”

That creed extends to their roles as equal-opportunity business owners. Regarding Estefan Enterprises, which comprises their entertainment company, restaurants, hotels and a beach resort, Emilio says, “(Whether) you’re Latino or gay – you have to see somebody based on the kind of work they’re gonna do, and I think that’s happening now. I think it’s a lot better – much, much better.”

Gloria’s life, and career-long commitment to stand for racial and economic justice, immigration equality and marriage equality, culminated in October 2017, when Gloria was honored by the National LGBTQ Task Force (Miami) with the National Leadership Award for being a staunch LGBTQ ally and “for her work to support … the issues that affect their lives every day,” the press release noted.

“Her recent work serves as a testament of her humble beginnings as a Cuban immigrant and as an artist who has always held her LGBTQ fan base in her heart,” said Josue Santiago, chair of the Task Force’s Miami Gala.

Gloria’s gay-aligned ventures don’t stop there: Given her 2017, the singer’s contribution to the queer update of Netflix’s endearing reboot of One Day at a Time – the show’s theme song, advising that you “keep doing what you do” – seems right in step with her gay-adjacent career. Her musical roots are, after all, steeped in queer fandom.

“The gay community was one of the first communities that supported us because we were huge in the clubs and in the gay clubs, particularly, because the gay community is usually a little bit ahead of trends and musical trends and fashion trends,” she recalls.

DJ Pablo Flores, remixer of Gloria’s megahits “Dr. Beat” and Conga,” spun songs she produced with Emilio at a Puerto Rican gay club during the onset of her career with the Miami Sound Machine, when she joined in 1977 as the band’s frontwoman (talk about gay – the band was originally called the Miami Latin Boys). Gloria describes Flores and the gay clubs who took them under their wings in the ’80s as “cutting edge and very supportive of us and our music in the beginning.”

Gloria was spurred to action on behalf of the LGBTQ community around that time, when AIDS took the lives of many of her dearest friends and music-business colleagues.

“In the ’80s, when the AIDS epidemic was huge, we were losing a lot of our top people and people were becoming even more scared,” she recalls. “We lost many close friends and coworkers. I just think when someone is under attack, anything I can do to support them is a good thing.”

In a statement to press, Gloria said, “I feel incredibly honored to be receiving the National LGBTQ Task Force’s Leadership Award and feel doubly blessed that it (is) in my beautiful hometown, Miami Beach. I look forward to the day when no task forces are necessary in order to ensure that each individual is considered equal in every respect.” On Dec. 26, 2017, Gloria was recognized yet again for her unwavering support and empathy for every kind, becoming the first Cuban-American to receive the prestigious Kennedy Center Honor Award during the event’s 40th year.

Her now-out daughter, Emily, a fellow musician, attended with her girlfriend and performed Gloria’s inspirational official song for the 1996 Summer Olympics, “Reach,” a dreamer anthem with strong ties to people within the queer community. Two of Gloria’s biggest singles, “Always Tomorrow” and “Coming Out of the Dark,” have also long served as LGBTQ lifelines.

“(Gay people) tell me wonderful things, but not just because they happen to be gay, but because they were going through tough things in their lives and my music inspired them to push forward or to stay positive in a situation,” Gloria reflects, passionately. “My fans – I have a lot of gay fans. I still look out into the audience and I have fans from two years old to 80. I have very young kids on my Twitter – young gay kids who for some reason my music speaks to them. Maybe the empowerment, or they use it to get through tough moments. That’s what music is about. That’s what makes me happy about getting to make music.”

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2018/01/25/gloria-estefans-very-gay-year/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.tumblr.com/post/170122486225

0 notes

cynthiajayusa · 7 years

Text

Gloria Estefan’s Very Gay Year

Why of course global queer icon Gloria Estefan – subject of Broadway musical On Your Feet, and muse to drag queens worldwide – has a daughter who is not straight.

Gloria was spurred to action on behalf of the LGBTQ community around that time, when AIDS took the lives of many of her dearest friends and music-business colleagues.

source https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2018/01/25/gloria-estefans-very-gay-year/ from Hot Spots Magazine http://hotspotsmagazin.blogspot.com/2018/01/gloria-estefans-very-gay-year.html

0 notes

hotspotsmagazine · 7 years

Text

Gloria Estefan’s Very Gay Year

Why of course global queer icon Gloria Estefan – subject of Broadway musical On Your Feet, and muse to drag queens worldwide – has a daughter who is not straight.

Gloria was spurred to action on behalf of the LGBTQ community around that time, when AIDS took the lives of many of her dearest friends and music-business colleagues.

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2018/01/25/gloria-estefans-very-gay-year/

0 notes

footballleague0 · 7 years

Text

Questions about the Lions’ X-factors, Falcons fans and Takk’s possible coming out party

Good morning and welcome to Straight from the ’Beek! We’re just days away from the Falcons-Lions showdown in Motown – and you’ve got questions. Just remember that all opinions you see in this space are mine, unless otherwise noted.

So let’s have at ’em.

Kevin from Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England

Hi. I came over the pond for the Packers game. Loved the stadium and experience but was frustrated as to how many people left early. I’d be there every minute of every game if I could. Why do people leave so early considering how quickly a game can change and that this could have a detrimental effect on the team’s performance on both sides of the ball? If your team is winning, stay and have a party!!

Matt: Thanks for writing, Kevin. Glad you had a great trip and experience at the new stadium – and that your Falcons won, too. When I got here, they told me that Falcons fans tend to arrive “later” to games. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it’s the traffic? Maybe it’s the tailgating? But you could use that excuse for any fan in any city rooting for any team. And to your question, why so many left early on Sunday night during the Packers game? Maybe they left, or maybe they were walking around the concourse. It’s tough to know for sure, but there definitely were more empty seats. Maybe they thought the game was in hand and wanted to get a jump on the traffic, I dunno. It was late Sunday/early Monday morning and most people have to work on Monday morning, but I get your point. They were there and loud when it counted, so there’s that. It was my first regular-season game here, so I’m withholding judgment.

Robert from Los Angeles, CA

Hey Beek! Love the column. Been reading since day 1. First time contributing. I would like to know who your X-factors, or players to watch, are on offense and defense for the game against the Detroit Lions. I personally think the defensive line can get pressure against a Detroit O-line that’s missing their left tackle from last year to injury. On offense, I think the RBs will have a good day in both the run and pass game. Thanks, Beek, keep doing what you’re doing. The app is my way of keeping up with my Falcons news from Los Angeles.

Matt: Appreciate it, Robert. I think we all know Matthew Stafford is pretty good and the Lions helped him out greatly by investing in the offensive line during the offseason. It’s helped the running game some as well as given him more protection, it appears. As far as X-factors go, I think you have to keep your eyes on receiver Golden Tate and defensive end Ziggy Ansah. Tate is a like a running back in the open field – he can extend plays because of he gets the tough yards after catches. If he doesn’t score, he moves the chains. And Ansah changes the complexion of that defense. He had 30 sacks in his first three years. He was hurt last year, but he looks like his old self – he had three sacks against the Giants on Monday night. If those two are quiet or non-factors Sunday, I really like the Falcons’ chances that much more.

Vince from Clarkston, GA

Beek, no question just a Big Thank You for this Q&A! You really hit the nail on the head for a lot of my thoughts and the questions that are sent in answers the ones I have. Also, thank you “Ryan from Lake in the Hills, IL” lol

Matt: Glad you’re enjoying it, Vince. I’m still waiting to hear back from Ryan.

Rutul from Mount Prospect, IL

Hi Beek. I would like to see Julio get his 1st touchdown of the season. Do you think he will be targeted more this week in red zone? This will be game 3 and Julio does not have a touchdown. I would like to see him leading the league in touchdowns for receivers.

Matt: I think you and most Falcons fans feel the same way, Rutul. I’m anticipating another big year from Julio Jones, so I think you’ll see him targeted plenty. I wouldn’t get caught up in the stats (unless you’re playing fantasy football and you have Jones on your team, of course). I think this team is focused on 2017 – and making that deep postseason run. Just my two cents.

Larry from Las Vegas, NV

Hey Beek, I love the column. My question is, why aren’t the tight ends used more in playmaking like they did with Tony Gonzalez? I think using the tight ends in short situations will free up big plays for our fantastic receivers.

Matt: I think Austin Hooper is a terrific tight end and is only going to get better, but to be fair, he’s no Tony Gonzalez. Not yet, anyway. That said, Larry, I think a lot of times offenses take what the defenses give them – and if Hooper is open, I’m pretty sure Matt Ryan will find him. (See Chicago in Week 1.) Thanks for reading!

John from Buies Creek, NC

What name for Sanu at QB? Just watch the video and let him tell y’all. AGENT 12!!

Matt: I think that name is as good as any for that formation and thanks for the video link, John. And in case some of you Falcons fans missed it, coach Dan Quinn is open to suggestions on what to call it. Check it out. Thanks for writing, John.

Brian from Clarkston, GA

What’s up Beek! Rise Up! Quick question, what does CMB stand for in defensive stats? Thank you, sir!

Matt: That would be combined tackles – tackles plus assists.

Kevin from Sierra Madre, CA

You are right about Dwight Freeney being 37 years of age. I would prefer JT Jones or Nordly Capi from the Giants. Fans only remember Freeney from his past. The present is we don’t need to pay Freeney’s salary. Let’s just hope Vic comes back soon. Let Mr. Freeney become a defensive coach for the Falcons instead.

Matt: To be fair, you have to trust the Falcons on this one, Kevin. They work out the players, do their due diligence and they’re the professional talent evaluators. I think it all depends on the extent of Vic Beasley’s injury and how long they anticipate him being out. All we know right now is that he’ll miss this week. If it’s a month, well, they might move to Plan B, whatever that is.

James from Decatur, GA

It’s been 40 years since I put on the pads, but if DQ needs an outside backer willing to suit up, please forward to right people that I have one good game left in me.

Matt: Sure thing, James.

Kit from Canton, GA

Matt, didn’t hear anything about Wes Schweitzer this week, which is a good thing for an offensive lineman. Must have been a huge improvement. Can you comment on him?

Matt: You’re right, Kit. When you’re an offensive lineman and they’re not talking about you after a game, it’s almost always a good sign.

Lisa from Flowery Branch, GA

What’s up Beek. My question is, is there a chance that a podcast could be in the fans’ future? I for one, really enjoyed them. Second, I wish that we could have an option to listen to DQ’s full press conference, instead of just clips. This girl from the Branch like to hear the full story from my favorite team. And my last subject, is this the week we see Takk Attack? I think he will get his first sack in Detroit. Do you agree?

Matt: Lisa, nothing is set in stone regarding a podcast, but it’s on our radar. We’re making a lot of great changes here and whatever we do, we want to do it right. So stay tuned on that front. As far as the full DQ presser goes, you can watch it in a number of places, including Twitter, Periscope and Facebook. Check out the team pages. And to your last question, I think this would be the perfect week for Takkarist McKinley’s coming out party, especially with Vic Beasley sidelined. We shall see.

Jim from Raleigh, NC

Beek, what happened to the injury report? In the past, it’s always been posted on Wed., Thurs., and Fri.

Matt: Check it out here, Jim. We’ve got you covered.

Justin from Waco, GA

Hey Matt, I know it’s early in the season, but do you think the Falcons are the best team in the NFC South? I believe they are even though Tampa Bay looks much improved. I actually believe the Falcons are still the best team in the NFC and until someone proves otherwise we all should believe it.

Matt: I think it’s early, Justin. And I say that because we’re still trying to figure out the identities of all 32 teams – you can only base so much off last year and each week we learn a little more. Obviously, injuries can change all of that in one play, too. That all said, I think the Falcons had one of the most complete rosters coming into the season and Sunday night against the Packers was a good sign to see that offense is clicking again. I do agree with you two games in. They play the 2-0 Lions on the road Sunday and a win in Motown would only reinforce what most analysts, columnists and so-called experts already think about the Falcons.

Joni from Panama City, FL

Hey Beek! My question pertains to Matt Ryan. Is it possible, we fans might see him fake an end-around run and score when close to the goal line? I don’t think defenses would be prepared for that. I’ve wanted to see that many a time throughout his career.

Matt: Joni, I think with this offense – with all of its personnel groups, motion and formations – you should expect to see anything, maybe even a fake end-around run by Matt Ryan. Why not.

Travis from Greenbelt, MD

Who do you HONESTLY think will come out victorious on Sunday? I personally think the Falcons will come out on top but it will be a close one.

Matt: I’m always honest here, Travis. And I think the Falcons will win. I think it’ll be close until the end – and then they’ll pull away.

Kellan from Dayton, OH

Hey Beek, do you believe Freeney is the best available DE and if so, do you see us bringing him back in?

Matt: Really good defensive ends are almost as valuable as quarterbacks in this league, Kellan. If they’re walking the streets, there’s usually a reason. It will all depend on the ling-term prognosis for Vic Beasley. I think the Falcons would like to see some production from the players they have now and if they can get to the bye week (Week 5), my guess is that they’ll make a determination then on what to do. In a perfect world Beasley comes back next week healthy. Stay tuned.

David from Newnan, GA

Hey, Matt. I really like and read this every week. I think you seem to answer the same questions every week and it would be nice if you’d answer some different questions. Like maybe the questions I have asked the last two weeks. Really does not matter because l will continue to read. I promise I will never write to you ever again. Thank you for your time, good luck and goodbye.

Matt: Hey, David. I try to get the best and most interesting questions in every day — but I do not answer every single question submitted. Thanks for the kind words, thanks for reading and keep asking those questions!

HAVE A QUESTION?

The post Questions about the Lions’ X-factors, Falcons fans and Takk’s possible coming out party appeared first on Daily Star Sports.

from http://ift.tt/2ysVBft from http://ift.tt/2hk7ccG

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years

Text

The 2017 Badgers might be the most Wisconsin football team ever

Another 10-win season and Big Ten West title, powered by in-house strength? The goal could be even higher.

[Barry Alvarez] always used to say there's always going to be big people in Wisconsin. ... I'll never forget, I hired a defensive line coach. He came to me and he goes, 'Coach, you're right. There are big people in Wisconsin.' He goes, 'I went to the grocery store last night, and there was a 6-10 kid sacking groceries.'"

— Former Wisconsin head coach Bret Bielema

When Alabama wins, it’s with a suffocating defense and an offense that’s reacted to trends, from Bear Bryant adopting the Wishbone in the 1970s to Nick Saban tinkering with the spread in the 2010s.

When Florida State wins, it’s with the most recent version of the pro-style offense, a prolific quarterback, and a terrifying stable of receivers and defensive backs.

When Wisconsin wins, it’s with big people.

There are two steps in staking out a recruiting strategy:

Figure out if you can land blue-chippers.

If you can’t, figure out who you can get.

When Alvarez was named head coach at Wisconsin nearly 30 years ago, he figured out that blue-chippers were only going to be so much of an option, but that he could land all the strong guys he wanted if he developed relationships in-state. He could go out of state to find workhorse running backs and speed guys on the perimeter, and he could build a style that relied on physical play. It wouldn’t always work, but it usually would.

We are a year away from the 25-year anniversary of Wisconsin’s first Rose Bowl under Alvarez. The 1993 Badgers made it into my 50 Best* College Football Teams of All Time book and capped what had been a four-year overhaul.

Chryst barely missed out at the time. He was a backup UW quarterback and switched to tight end, catching 12 passes in 1988. Alvarez got hired a year after he left. But after coaching stints at UW-Platteville, Illinois State, Oregon State, and the CFL, Chryst assumed a role on Alvarez’s staff in 2002. He was Bielema’s offensive coordinator in 2006, held the Pitt job for three years, and assumed the throne from Bielema’s successor, Gary Andersen, in 2015.

Chryst’s Pitt tenure was disappointing. He brought stability to a program that was seemingly churning through a new coach every year, but went 6-7, 7-6, and 6-6, improving on paper (the Panthers were 34th in S&P+ his final year) but falling victim to bad bounces and iffy close-game execution.

Apparently the problem was that he was trying to Wisconsin somewhere other than Wisconsin. After 19 wins in three years at Pitt, he has 21 in two in Madison. He was 5-10 in one-possession games in the land of Yinzers; he’s 8-5 at UW. His offense hasn’t hit its stride yet, but his defense has been dynamite.

The Badgers run on standard downs, throw 330-pound linemen and 220-pound running backs at you, and play with pride on defense. They defined this style under Alvarez and maintained it through Bielema (9.7 wins per year), Andersen (10), and Chryst (10.5).

The veterans define terms for recruits, the Wisconsin grads on the staff — offensive coordinator Joe Rudolph, defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard, tight ends coach Mickey Turner, strength coach Ross Kolodziej, etc. — serve as proof of concept, and the ship keeps sailing.

Wisconsin is an obvious Big Ten West favorite, though there will be tests. Last year’s top two running backs are gone, as are All-American left tackle Ryan Ramczyk, all-conference defensive backs Leo Musso and Sojourn Shelton, and security-blanket quarterback Bart Houston. The Badgers are on their third defensive coordinator in three years (the price of success), and Chryst promoted Leonhard despite the former UW star having just one year of coaching experience.

A new backfield for a run-heavy team and green leadership for a defense that has had to carry significant weight? That has to make you a little nervous, right?

2016 in review

2016 Wisconsin statistical profile.

In last year’s Wisconsin preview, I noted that the Badgers would improve on paper but almost certainly regress in the win column thanks to a brutal schedule. Whoops.

Indeed, the Badgers faced four of the top eight teams in the country, per S&P+, but the rest of the schedule didn’t shape up as tough as expected — Michigan State and Nebraska weren’t nearly as good as projected — and the Badgers’ ability to play Badgerball against non-elite competition led to yet another huge season.

Wisconsin vs. S&P+ top 10 (1-3): Avg. percentile performance: 76% | Avg. yards per play: Opp 5.6, UW 5.0 (minus-0.6) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 37%

Wisconsin vs. everyone else (10-0): Avg. percentile performance: 85% | Avg. yards per play: UW 5.6, Opp 4.6 (plus-1.0) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 89%

The Badgers proved the benefits of a high floor. Their percentile performance never fell below 60 percent in any game; they were one of only three teams to pull that off, and the other two faced each other in the title game.

A high floor doesn’t necessarily allow you to beat top teams, but it’s good for avoiding upsets. Wisconsin dealt with dreadful turnovers luck against Georgia State and needed longer than expected to get by the Panthers, but they otherwise handled business. That won them the Big Ten West and got them within a touchdown (a 38-31 loss to Penn State) of winning the Big Ten.

If they can replicate that, expect another huge season. The Badgers miss Ohio State and Penn State and don’t play LSU in non-conference, so there’s only one projected top-10 team on the schedule.

Offense

Full advanced stats glossary.

Wisconsin forgot how to run in 2015. Corey Clement, the heir apparent, missed most of the season, and most of the carries went to a former walk-on (Dare Ogunbowale) and a freshman (Taiwan Deal). The Badgers fell to 97th in Rushing S&P+ and leaned far too heavily on Joel Stave’s arm; it worked because the defense was so good, but the Badgers were 83rd in Off. S&P+, only the second time since 2005 (the first year of S&P+ data) they had ranked lower than 34th.

2016 saw a couple of steps in the right direction. The Badgers still had their third-worst offense of the S&P+ era, but they rose to 49th in Off. S&P+ and 48th in Rushing S&P+. Clement returned (though he played inconsistent ball), Ogunbowale took a step, and a freshman, Bradrick Shaw, showed efficiency potential.

Despite serious shuffling at quarterback, Wisconsin improved on passing downs. The duo of receiver Jazz Peavy and tight end Troy Fumagalli kept the chains moving.

Photo by Michael Shroyer/Getty Images

Chris James

There’s little reason to think the improvement will stop. The production from Clement and Ogunbowale (4.6 yards per carry) was replaceable, especially if Shaw can build on the potential he showed last year. He rushed for at least five yards on 43 percent of his carries, more than Ogunbowale (40 percent) or Clement (a paltry 31 percent), and he has a fun new battery mate in Pitt transfer Chris James.

James finished his 2014 freshman campaign under Chryst strong; in his last four games, he rushed 39 times for 233 yards (6 yards per carry), but he fell out of favor under Pat Narduzzi. He had a nice spring, and it appears he and Shaw will split carries. And they’ll be doing so behind a line that returns seven players with 91 career starts between them.

Ramczyk pulled the ultimate Wisconsin move, transferring from UW-Stevens Point for one season, starting all 14 games at left tackle, and earning All-American honors. Losing him will hurt, but there’s a very Wisconsin line in place.

Size? Those seven players average 6’6, 321.

Honors? Guard Beau Benzschawel was all-conference last year.

Locals? Four of the seven are from Wisconsin.

Walk-on stories? See Brett Connors, a utility man and potential starter.

A smattering of star recruits? Redshirt freshman and left tackle of the future Cole Van Lanen was a four-star, as is incoming freshman Kayden Lyles.

By the way, I haven’t mentioned any senior RBs or linemen. Whatever growth happens in 2017, expect even more in 2018.

Wisconsin should be able to do the thing it most wants to do. That’s good, but the Badgers will still have to pass occasionally. They haven’t been particularly good at that since Russell Wilson left.

In the last five years, UW has not produced a team passer rating over 135.9. The good news: they produced that last year. The bad news is that Bart Houston (149.7) was more of a reason than Alex Hornibrook (125.8). Houston struggled early and got benched in favor of the lefty redshirt freshman; Hornibrook held on for a while, but the two began splitting time in November, and Hornibrook suffered a head injury against Minnesota. Then Houston thrived.

In Peavy and Fumagalli, Hornibrook’s got two of the most proven weapons in the Big Ten West, and athletic sophomores like receivers A.J. Taylor and Quintez Cephus and tight end Kyle Penniston (plus freshman receiver Danny Davis) might be ready to handle more of a load. But if Hornibrook struggles or gets hurt, the job will fall to either a redshirt freshman (Karé Lyles) or a true freshman (Jack Coan). That’s scary.

Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

Alex Hornibrook

Defense

Trust me, I know the Leonhard story well. He is the embodiment of Wisconsin football. A walk-on from Tony, Wisc., he was a three-time All-American and Wisconsin hall of fame inductee, and despite his 5’8 stature, he spent a decade in the pros, starting for about four seasons and picking off 14 passes.

Leonhard retired after 2014, spent a year as basically a staff volunteer for UW in 2015, then landed his first official gig — Wisconsin DBs coach — last fall. And now he’s the coordinator for a defense that has ranked in the Def. S&P+ top 10 for back-to-back years. After Aranda left for LSU and replacement Justin Wilcox left for the Cal head coaching job, Chryst stayed in-house.

I’m not going to question Leonhard’s aptitude or potential as a teacher, but ... this is all rather quick, isn’t it?

This feels like the ultimate “Screw it, we’re Wisconsin” move. And because of the experience elsewhere on the coaching staff and the experience littering the two-deep, it might work. But consider this a red flag. If, in six months, we’re looking back at a disappointing 2017, I’m thinking “glitchier-than-expected defense” lands behind “QB injuries” on the list of reasons.

With the experience, though, this unit could almost coordinate itself. Wisconsin returns every lineman, three dynamic, proven linebackers (T.J. Edwards, Jack Cichy, Ryan Connelly), and a wealth of experience in the backfield.

Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images

T.J. Edwards

Wisconsin’s biggest strength in 2016 was big-play prevention. The Badgers swarmed to the ball against the run and only struggled in pass defense a couple of times. Georgia State and Penn State combined to complete 69 percent at 15.5 yards per completion; everybody else: 50 percent completion rate, 11.7 yards per completion.

They did this despite dealing with injury issues. Only one of the four primary linemen (end Chikwe Obasih) played in all 14 games, and only two of the top five linebackers did. But with a different lineup on the field nearly every game, the front seven powered a No. 18 ranking in Rushing S&P+.

There’s a little bit of a hole at outside linebacker, where T.J. Watt and Vince Biegel departed after combining for 21.5 tackles for loss and 15.5 sacks last year. But senior Garret Dooley and sophomore Zack Baun combined for 10 and 3.5, respectively, in reserve duty, and transfer Andrew Van Ginkel went from unrated recruit to nearly four-star prospect after recording 18 TFLs at South Dakota in 2015, then dominating at Iowa Western CC.

Photo by Mike McGinnis/Getty Images

D'Cota Dixon (14)

It’s hard to imagine the front seven regressing much, and despite two key losses, the secondary still boasts more experience than most.

Musso and Shelton are gone after combining for nine interceptions, 13 breakups, and four TFLs, but the senior foursome of safeties D’Cota Dixon and Natrell Jamerson and corners Derrick Tindal and Lubern Figaro returns. They’re joined by Hawaii transfer Nick Nelson (15 breakups in 2015).

Few defenses boast this level of continuity. Maybe that’s enough to overcome inexperience in the coaching booth. Screw it, this is Wisconsin; it’ll probably be fine.

Special Teams

This unit was all over the map. P.J. Rosowski’s kickoffs and their coverage were great, Natrell Jamerson and Ogunbowale were fine in kick returns, and Andrew Endicott, filling in for injured Rafael Gaglianone, was solid in the place-kicking department.

Punts, however, are huge parts of Wisconsin games, and the Badgers lost ground in both punts and returns. Peavy didn’t do much with the latter, and while Anthony Lotti’s punt were rarely returnable, they were also short.

That everybody but Endicott returns is good (and Gaglianone returns to solve that issue), but until punting improves, it will be hard for UW to top last year’s No. 44 Special Teams S&P+ ranking.

2017 outlook

2017 Schedule & Projection Factors

Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 1-Sep Utah State 73 22.8 91% 9-Sep Florida Atlantic 99 30.1 96% 16-Sep at BYU 46 11.3 74% 30-Sep Northwestern 37 14.5 80% 7-Oct at Nebraska 42 10.5 73% 14-Oct Purdue 87 27.7 95% 21-Oct Maryland 72 22.5 90% 28-Oct at Illinois 85 22.1 90% 4-Nov at Indiana 39 9.6 71% 11-Nov Iowa 48 16.7 83% 18-Nov Michigan 10 1.3 53% 25-Nov at Minnesota 47 11.7 75%

Projected S&P+ Rk 11 Proj. Off. / Def. Rk 45 / 6 Projected wins 9.7 Five-Year S&P+ Rk 14.0 (13) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 36 / 34 2016 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 12 / 10.7 2016 TO Luck/Game +0.5 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 67% (66%, 68%) 2016 Second-order wins (difference) 10.3 (0.7)

This should be one of the most Wisconsin Wisconsin teams of all time, and I’m not talking about the fact that UW grads hold the head coaching job and both coordinator positions. Wisconsin has an interesting stable of running backs, a great tight end, a huge offensive line, a seasoned defense (replete with a couple of transfers from smaller schools), and a size advantage in nearly every matchup.

Leonhard’s inexperience does concern me, but that might mean more in 2018, when the defense isn’t loaded with seniors.

For now, it’s easy to assume UW will maintain at least a top-20 defense and improve again on offense.

With a schedule much lighter than last year’s — not only is Michigan the only projected top-10 team on the slate, the Wolverines are the only projected top-35 team — Wisconsin is your easy Big Ten West favorite. Road trips to Nebraska and Minnesota loom, but S&P+ projects the Badgers as the favorite in every single game and gives them a less than 71 percent chance in just one game. That’s a good recipe for a trip to the conference title game.

Team preview stats

All power conference preview data to date.

0 notes

writingsubmissions · 7 years

Text

Fights to Make: Oklahoma City

Kevin Lee (beat Michael Chiesa) vs. Michael Johnson/Justin Gaethje (Jul. 7) winner: Mario Yamasaki’s too-early stoppage may have actually hurt Kevin Lee more than it hurt Michael Chiesa; Chiesa was probably going to either tap out or pass out shortly after the fight got called anyway, and this only serves to overshadow what would’ve been a huge win for Lee - things were going poorly against an excellent submission specialist like Chiesa, but Lee turned things around and wound up beating “The Maverick” at his own game. I still think Lee has a few more fits and starts left in his rise up the ladder - his defense is still sorely lacking, particularly on the feet - but I’d be fine basically giving him whoever at this point. Lee called out Khabib Nurmagomedov after the fight, which is probably a bit crazy, but I’d still be fine with it, if only to give Lee an idea of where he stands and what he needs to work on. But instead I’ll go with the winner of Johnson/Gaethje, which headlines the TUF finale in a few weeks. Either guy would test that porous striking defense, and Lee got in one of the best burns of the year on Johnson at the big pre-UFC 211 press conference, so if Lee/Johnson winds up being the fight, you even have a bit of an angle.

Michael Chiesa (lost to Kevin Lee) vs. Leonardo Santos: As for Chiesa, this fight was sort of a worst-case, even taking out the unlucky stoppage. Chiesa’s pretty much been an automatic sub machine, and this was really the first time someone was able to beat Chiesa at his own game. And Chiesa can’t really strike, so this was pretty much a reminder that Chiesa probably can’t ride his one-dimensional style to a title shot or anything, and will probably wind up sticking as a Jim Miller-esque fun divisional stalwart and quasi-viable TV headliner. There are worse fates. Anyway, as far as a next fight, I like the idea of using Chiesa as sort of a gatekeeper for a guy looking to break into the top fifteen; even though Chiesa would weirdly be more of a prospect in this fight, I’m going with Leonardo Santos, another guy with an elite submission game. In fact, Santos might strangely be a more difficult fight for Chiesa than Lee was, since he might be able to neutralize Chiesa’s grappling and is probably a better striker than Lee.

Tim Boetsch (beat Johny Hendricks) vs. Antonio Carlos Junior: Most of the focus on this fight will rightfully be on Hendricks missing weight and generally looking done as a fighter, but good on Boetsch for getting a win here, as this was another reminder that he’s still a pretty damn dangerous veteran gatekeeper. Boetsch is just a big, tough dude, which often makes for an interesting test against guys who can either be undersized, like Hendricks, or have trouble dealing with tough opponents, like Carlos Junior. “Shoe Face” has pretty much everything you’d want from a prospect on paper, but he tends to just tire out and start to wilt late in fights if he can’t put his opponent away - Carlos Junior could still wind up tapping out Boetsch with his BJJ game, but if he can’t, I like the idea of Boetsch as a guy who can hang in there and see if Carlos can finally survive a gut check.

Felice Herrig (beat Justine Kish) vs. Michelle Waterson: Herrig continues to impress in the cage since taking a year-plus off to essentially get her head right. While she was able to out-strike Alexa Grasso this time around, Herrig went back to relying on her wrestling here against Kish and looked excellent doing so, even against a bigger, more powerful fighter. After the assumed Rose Namajunas fight, Joanna Jedrzejczyk’s fairly open in terms of next opponents, and it suddenly wouldn’t be shocking if Herrig earned her way there. Anyway, as far as a next fight, let’s give Herrig a bout that was apparently given to her before UFC decided to pivot and give it to Paige VanZant, and that’s against Michelle Waterson. Waterson’s the bigger name at this point, but I think they’re about even in terms of fighting ability, and I could see this being a pretty fun back-and-forth fight wherever it takes place, as well a big opportunity for Herrig.

Carla Esparza (beat Maryna Moroz) vs. Jessica Andrade: I get why people hate Carla Esparza, at least when it comes to how she came off on TUF 20 - I don’t really begrudge her over the now-infamous $1,000 sundae - but she’s still a really damn good fighter; I thought she beat Randa Markos, and she was back to her wrestling-heavy form with a one-sided win over Moroz. Esparza should still be in the thick of things near the top of strawweight - even if her style and the shit-kicking Joanna Jedrzejczyk put on her make me doubt she ever gets another title shot - and I like the idea of putting her against Jessica Andrade. Andrade’s sheer power makes for an interesting test for Esparza’s wrestling, and it’s also an opportunity for Andrade to rebound off her own blowout loss to Joanna Champion.

Johny Hendricks (lost to Tim Boetsch) vs. Sam Alvey/Rashad Evans (Aug. 5) loser: So, Johny Hendricks should probably hang it up. I kind of wondered what Hendricks would be able to do against someone who dwarfed him like Boetsch, and the answer was...not much, as Hendricks missed weight, then lost things on the feet before being put away with a head kick and some follow-up strikes. I mean, Hendricks simultaneously can’t make 185 while being way too undersized for the weight class, so I have no idea what you do with him. Alvey and Evans square off in Mexico City, and the loser of that bout is going to be looking for their own answers, particularly if it’s Evans, who’s also trying to revive his career at 185, albeit after dropping down rather than moving up.

Clay Guida (beat Erik Koch) vs. Tony Martin (beat Johnny Case): Both lightweights had impressive performances here, so I like the idea of matching them up. Guida made his return to 155 and pretty much immediately proved how dumb his cut to featherweight was - back at lightweight, Guida’s speed played much better, and he also saw the power for his relentless wrestling game suddenly come back. Meanwhile, in the best fight of the night, Martin deviated from his own usual power-wrestling game and instead flashed some shockingly solid striking, mostly piecing up Case and even doing some trash talk while doing so. I’m kind of curious to see how each guy would handle the other - Guida might have trouble taking down someone as giant as Martin, particularly since Martin has some skill, but Guida’s ridiculous pace and herky-jerky striking style could also give the improved Martin some fits.

Tim Means (beat Alex Garcia) vs. Thiago Alves/Mike Perry (???) winner: Well, at least Means got a win, I guess. Alex Garcia got out to a fast start, but then faded quickly, but it seems like that early burst was still enough to keep Means from going balls-out, as he just coasted to an uncharacteristically cautious decision win. Still, Means is fairly consistent with his violence, so I like the idea of him against either Alves or Perry, though I’m not sure when their fight is taking place. It was supposed to be at the August pay-per-view, but that date just got scrapped, so we’ll see, though I assume UFC is keeping the pairing intact. And if not, just put Means against Perry for a fun brawl.

Dennis Siver (beat B.J. Penn) vs. Guan Wang: Dennis Siver continues to look like Dennis Siver, though that means increasingly less; he was able to mostly outpace whatever this version of B.J. Penn is, but still managed to get caught and knocked down in the second round, which...isn’t great. At 38, I don’t really know what you do with Siver - Chinese prospect Guan Wang is supposed to debut at some point, so what the hell, do that, and maybe UFC can sell it in China as their top prospect against a man who main evented against Conor McGregor or something.

B.J. Penn (lost to Dennis Siver) vs. Gray Maynard/Teruto Ishihara (Jul. 7) loser: The best I can say about Penn is that some fighters on the Bellator MSG card depressed me more, so, there’s that. Penn is strictly in the Gray Maynard zone of me not wanting to see him get hit; we could just get weird and do Penn against Ryan Hall, like UFC did with Maynard, or hey, we can just put him against Maynard himself for maximum depression. And on the off-chance that Japanese prospect Ishihara manages to lose to this form of Maynard, what the hell, give Ishihara a rehab win.

Justine Kish (lost to Felice Herrig) vs. Maryna Moroz (lost to Carla Esparza): Things pretty much went the same for both women, as they were the superior athletes, but just got out-wrestled by their veteran foes. So I like the idea of pitting them against each other; both are more athleticism and aggression than anything else, so just let them charge at each other for an all-offense bout and let things sort themselves out.

Marvin Vettori (beat Vitor Miranda) vs. Andrew Sanchez: This was a solid win for the newly minted “Italian Dream” - it wasn’t super-memorable, as Vettori mostly relied on his wrestling as needed, but Miranda can be a tough out, and the main concern with Vettori has been that he’s too raw to rack up wins in the UFC just yet. He has time to grow, so I wouldn’t mind rushing him into a fight with Sanchez, who I consider a top prospect, but is coming off an upset loss to Anthony Smith; it’s both a solid opportunity at a bounce-back win for Sanchez, and a chance for Vettori to get his biggest win to date.

Dominick Reyes (beat Joachim Christensen) vs. Jeremy Kimball (beat Josh Stansbury): Well, Dominick Reyes is at least somewhat legit - he’s been riding a string of first-round knockouts, and continued that in his UFC debut, becoming the first man to knock out Joachim Christensen, and doing so in just 29 seconds. Reyes’s potential is tantalizing, but he’s still raw, so I’d bring him along slowly and put him against Kimball, who kicked off the card with a quick win over Josh Stansbury. Kimball’s a funky, essentially self-taught fighter who’s probably at his best sparking a weird brawl, so if nothing else, it’d be a fun fight against Reyes, who’s still at the point where pretty much anyone on the roster is a solid test.

Alex Garcia (lost to Tim Means) vs. Vicente Luque: Well, it looked like Garcia had finally turned the corner for...two or three minutes? Garcia had some early success against Means, but then was back to his old, ineffective self by the second round, as Garcia seemed more concerned with conserving his energy rather than hunting for a finish. Let’s put him against Luque, who’s similarly built for early dynamism rather than a strong gas tank - Luque’s had more success, but against inferior competition, while Garcia’s been more middling against a stronger slate.

Erik Koch (lost to Clay Guida) vs. Jason Saggo: Well, that wasn’t great, as Koch pretty much had no answers for Guida’s straight-ahead wrestling game. I’d be fine just putting Koch against grapplers and seeing if he sticks; let’s go with Canadian submission expert Saggo.

Jared Gordon (beat Michel Quinones) vs. Gavin Tucker/Rick Glenn (Sep. 9) winner: This was an impressive debut for New York’s Gordon, as he pretty much just laid a beating on Quinones for two rounds before eventually stopping it with ground and pound. Gavin Tucker had a similarly impressive debut in his native Halifax this past February, and faces Rick Glenn in Edmonton - a Gordon/Tucker fight would be a fun prospect scrap, and hell, even Glenn would make for a fun test for “Flash.”

Darrell Horcher (beat Devin Powell) vs. Jon Tuck: Horcher came off well here - he looked very much like a guy shaking off the rust after a near-fatal motorcycle accident and a year-plus layoff, but he got the win, and gave a pretty great post-fight interview detailing the struggle he had been through. Horcher’s probably going to settle in a fairly fun low-to-mid level fighter, a space Tuck occupies at the moment, so let’s go with that.

Vitor Miranda (lost to Marvin Vettori) vs. Alex Nicholson: This was a bit of a disheartening loss for Miranda, as it appears his fun run at middleweight has hit a clear ceiling. He’s probably close to the cut line, if only due to age, but if he sticks, I’d like putting him against Nicholson in what could turn into a pretty interesting kickboxing match.

Johnny Case (lost to Tony Martin) vs. Alvaro Herrera/Jordan Rinaldi (Aug. 5) winner: Tony Martin looked shockingly good here, and Case has suddenly gone from under-the-radar surging lightweight to two straight losses. I’m hoping UFC keeps Case around and sets him up for a win, since he’s fairly fun and well-rounded, and, at worst, can be a solid gatekeeper. Herrera/Rinaldi is probably the lowest-tier lightweight bout on the books, so to that end, let’s put Case against the winner, since the loser is probably getting cut.

Devin Powell (lost to Darrell Horcher) vs. Alex White: I can see what there is to like about Powell - he’s big, tough as hell, and aggressive - but he really doesn’t seem to be powerful or defensively skilled enough to stick at a UFC level. If Alex White hasn’t gotten the axe, I could see Powell/White as a fun loser-leaves-town bout between two guys who are somewhat similar.

Michel Quinones (lost to Jared Gordon) vs. Zabit Magomedsharipov: Quinones didn’t really show a ton here, as Gordon just sort of overpowered him. Quinones feels like a guy who might quickly go two and out in the UFC, so I’m not really making his matchmaking a priority; let’s put him against top prospect Magomedsharipov, a Russian who has yet to make his UFC debut.

Joachim Christensen (lost to Dominick Reyes) vs. Josh Stansbury (lost to Jeremy Kimball): I kind of hate just putting winner against winner and loser against loser for the two light heavyweight bouts on this card, but both work; I was hopeful Christensen and Stansbury could both hang on as gatekeepers in a division that could use some depth, but it’s looking more and more like both guys are just too slow to really hang at this level. Though, if there’s a last chance fight between the two, it’d at least guarantee one would survive on the roster for a little bit longer.

#ufc #mma #matchmaking #ufcfightnight112 #ufc fight night 112 #ufn112 #ufn 112 #ufcokc #ufc okc #ufcoklahomacity #ufc oklahoma city

0 notes

itsworn · 7 years

Text

Circle Track Magazine – How it all Began

The following are recollections provided by this magazine’s first Editor, C.J. Baker. From them, you will get a sense for how Circle Track came into being and set a course not far removed from where it continues today.

Baker and I have been friends for decades. I have been pleased to work with him and also observe his efforts and dedication to create an initial success with a magazine that largely pursued in-depth technical perspectives in a sport for which he had an intense passion: circle-track racing. Keep in mind that when he did so, there was no Internet, no social media, and very few personal computers or cellphones. Aside from radio and television, automotive enthusiasts and racers obtained their technical information from magazines. In this particular instance, Circle Track (by design) was intended to be that technical voice in the motorsports community. Moreover, with that challenge came the serious responsibility to be technically correct. Typically, if you read something in a magazine, you presumed it was accurate. In and of itself, that was a fairly weighty responsibility.

We want to emphasize that Baker wasn’t just the Editor. He accepted the challenge offered him (in what was then Petersen Publishing Company) that necessitated his dedication and drew from his experience to withstand most all the problems involved in a start-up effort. In this particular case, that included issues pertaining to advertising, magazine circulation, staffing, and costs, all apart from the delicate balance of creating the proper editorial content. He either had to do or oversee all of these elements while under the watchful eye of management. In retrospect, he performed extremely well, as the magazine anchored itself and prospered as noted in the annals of automotive journalism.

We hope you appreciate and enjoy this piece of motorsports history. Given all circumstances that prevailed at the time, it will never happen again.

Jim McFarland: Take us back to that time in the evolution of Petersen Publishing Company when the seeds were planted about the possibility of a “roundy-round” magazine. There were obviously obstacles, but as I recall, it was also a period of internal corporate growth.

C.J. Baker: Actually, PPC (Petersen Publishing Company) was in an expansion mode. ‘Pete’ (Bob Petersen) was looking for new markets for special-interest publications. The Specialty Book Division, being run by Lee Kelley, was a perfect venue to test such new markets. Lee conceived the notion of testing the audience potential for a publication dedicated to roundy round type racing. Such testing was primarily to determine the potential readership, not advertising potential, although advertisers were polled about their potential support, as well. Members of the Specialty Book staff who had automotive or racing familiarity were assigned to create a one-shot publication entitled Circle Track, which hit the newsstand during the first half of 1982. Although the editorial content of that one-shot wasn’t well focused, the magazine sold very well. In fact, it sold so well that the decision was made to immediately launch Circle Track as a monthly magazine.

JM: I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but a decision of that magnitude, given all the elements that necessitated the introduction of an all-new magazine and the coordination of those factors into a successful launch, was of particular significance.

CB: Well, it turned out to be very fortuitous. After people read the one-shot and feedback came in, the reviews couldn’t be accurately defined as glowing. But it was too late. The die had been cast to green-light Circle Track, although prior discussions about frequency had been to begin as a quarterly, progress to a bi-monthly and then, maybe, to a monthly. That all changed. In hindsight and in my opinion and to that point in time, Pete wasn’t too concerned about whether new launches were successful or not, and CT wasn’t the only new launch. I think his thinking was that if a new title succeeded, that was great, and he had a new profit center. But if it did not, he had a tax write-off during those prosperous years for PPC.

JM: OK. So now it was, for the most part, well beyond assembling plans for creating a monthly editorial package that not only including staffing, but in particular, finding an editor who could begin getting the cart back behind the horse.

CB: That brings us back to Lee Kelley. Lee’s concern was how to staff the publication and find an editor to develop an editorial concept and format. The search didn’t take very long. Prior to running the Specialty Book Division, Lee had been the editor of Hot Rod and knew of my love for roundy-round racing. He also knew after 10 years at Hot Rod that I was bored, even though I was functioning as HRM’s executive editor and Detroit’s editorial liaison. He also knew I had been a continual advocate of more roundy-round racing in Hot Rod, even though the magazine’s covering of roundy-round racing had almost always failed to produce any spikes in either newsstand sales or advertising revenue. So Lee and Pete made me a simple proposition: Stay at HRM or here’s your chance to pursue your interest in roundy-round racing as the editor of Circle Track. However, there was one clearly expressed stipulation. Make CT a success, and you’ll be on an upward path at PPC. But, if I failed, I was gone.

JM: Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Plus, having known them both for quite a number of years, I know they meant what they said, either way.

CB: I agree. So, I took the challenge. Lee charged me with the responsibility for determining the editorial direction and hiring writing staff. However, the Specialty Book Division would provide a production staff. So on June l, l982, Circle Track was assigned its own suite of offices in the 8490 Sunset Boulevard PPC building with a deadline to have the first monthly issue on the newsstand for October 1982. And to my everlasting gratitude, Lee provided me some of the best people he had in the Specialty Book Division.

JM: You know C.J., to a lesser degree, I can relate to the pressure you immediately came under. I had similar feelings the day I was informed I was the new editor at HRM. Other than to those who have experienced it, the weight that fell onto you at that point in your career is beyond description.

CB: Well, let me tell you, this was pretty heady stuff for a country boy from rural Illinois, even though I had been well seasoned at Hot Rod. Now Lee had given me a free hand, simply asking that I keep him apprised. So, at that point, CT was literally off to the races.

JM: Were there any related items that played into this launch worth mentioning here?

CB: Yes. I had indicated earlier that Hot Rod had not explored, to any great extent, roundy-round content and its appeal to the readership. But there was one exception. That exception was an occasional tech article contributed by legendary NASCAR and Indy car builder, Smokey Yunick. In truth, it was you, Jim, who arranged for me to meet and interview Smokey while I was at Hot Rod. An incredible professional and personal relationship with Smokey ensued. He was my technical teacher and mentor, my frequent advisor on all things automotive and, most importantly, my very good friend. In fact, I consulted with him before accepting the CT challenge. His response was simple: ‘I think you can do it, and probably be damn good at it. And if you think you can do it, take the job.’ And, of course, I immediately contracted Smokey to do a monthly question-and-answer column in CT.

At first, he didn’t want to do it. He’d previously done a Q&A column for Popular Science magazine, and he didn’t particularly enjoy it because most questions came from novices, seeking advice on daily transportation. Smokey thought of himself as a racer, and everything that term might include. I convinced him to do a racing Q&A column by telling him I didn’t want him to just provide answers to reader’s questions but to explain the logic, science, and physics behind his answers. Essentially, he was teaching CT readers ‘how to fish,’ rather than just ‘giving them a fish.’ That got him. He was on board. I also told him I’d let him be as ‘colorful’ as I possibly could and that I would personally edit his work, not a staffer. So I can truthfully say Smokey’s contributions to CT, and to me personally, greatly boosted CT’s success during the 18 years that I ran it.

JM: That’s not the whole story, C.J. as you and I both know. For that point in time within the monthly magazine publishing business, other factors aside from editorial content and advertising revenue drove the success or failure of the effort. We need to fill in some blanks here. Let’s return to that period right after the magazine launched, and you began to dig your heels into the tasks ahead.

CB: Well, there were some issues I hadn’t fully anticipated. Aside from periodic situations internal to the company with which Circle Track had to deal, there was an attempt by NASCAR to assert some control over the editorial with oversight of content. That, of course, wasn’t an option as far as I was concerned. Editorial objectiveness was essential. That did not please NASCAR.

I also revised the editorial focus and balance shortly after the initial launch. At first, I concluded (while sitting on the pit wall at the Daytona International Speedway for the 1982 Firecracker 400) that CT should appeal to both race fans and racers. I made the decision thinking there were a helluva lot more folks in the stands (this was while watching the pre-race filling of the stands) than there were people in the pits and garage area. So that’s how we launched CT. With personally hand-picked staff and freelance writers that could address racing from a historical perspective, while providing personality features, as well as great technical content that was usually based on first-hand experience and success. That approach worked pretty good in terms of acceptance of CT. In the first year, it became the best-selling racing magazine in America. In terms of audience, that was fine, too. But as a business, CT needed more advertising revenue and that was a challenge. The last thing the readers wanted was more commercials in the middle of the show, so to speak. So I made a change. One that changed everything.

JM: You know, C.J., there’s a side to the publishing business, or at least it manifested itself a bit differently back then than now. You may want to share the thoughts you had about all the various aspects of the magazine regarding the overall scope of your responsibilities and the pressures that came with that load.

CB: Actually, there was a side to the job that may not have been apparent to those outside the staff and PPC management. The magazine wasn’t just about being a service to its readers. When you peel away the great pictures, great articles, and informative teaching, the cold hard fact is a magazine is a business that has to make money to survive. Let me put that more into perspective.

Although launched by Lee Kelley, before the first issue hit the newsstands, Harry Hibler (the publisher of Hot Rod) was also given publisher’s responsibility for CT, and I no longer reported to Lee. In those days at PPC, the publisher was responsible for the financial success of magazines under their control. Harry had a full plate with HRM and within a year, I was named associate publisher for CT. Not long after that, I was named publisher as well as editor. Doing both jobs required long hours, but wearing both hats eliminated a lot of arguments between the editor and publisher. In other words, some of my priorities had to be re-adjusted. No longer was I being judged just by CT’s circulation numbers, but also by the advertising revenue CT generated.

At about the same time all of this was happening politically in PPC, Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines were backing away from technical content in favor of car features, event coverage, and general-interest editorial. They opened the technical content door just a crack, and I decided to kick it open. I announced to the automotive advertising community that CT was going to become the most technically oriented magazine in the PPC automotive stable. Further, that CT wasn’t just going to increase the number of pages devoted to technical articles, but the level of those articles would largely be graduate-level tech instead of the entry-level tech of HRM and Car Craft. I did this without prior approval of higher management, and to my surprise, my announcement was met with no opposition. At least until CT began to be a thorn in HRM’s foot.

It was a great solution. Suddenly, advertisers of racing parts and services, high-performance automotive parts, and others were clamoring to buy space in CT because it was going directly to the racers who bought their products. The ads featured products and services for roundy-round racers. The ads, too, were the stuff the readers wanted to know about, and the more pages of advertising CT carried, the more pages of actual editorial it was allowed to run. The magazine got thicker and circulation didn’t drop. The spectator readership was getting same-day coverage on TV, so they weren’t looking for that in CT, but racers were eager for real technical knowledge, which wasn’t time sensitive.”

JM: Looking back, it appears you did more than succeed, at least in terms of the internal impact of what you were doing on other PPC automotive magazines. From experience, I know for a time HRM was indirectly in competition with Motor Trend (another PPC automotive title), particularly in the area of new-vehicle road tests. But we had different audiences. In your case, the HRM readership included a segment of those looking for solid technical material, so the success you had initiated had to have been bleeding into HRM space.

CB: Actually, it turned out that way. As a direct result, PPC management began to place some constraints on CT, especially in the areas of circulation promotion, and editorial budget. Of course, it wasn’t long after that when Pete sold the company (for the first time), and the company then experienced yet another sell-off. I had simply become a well-compensated senior employee, and the way of the world was embracing the 24 Syndrome by the practice of hiring new employees who were 24 years old, who would work for 24 hours a day, were paid $24K a year and were likely to burn out in 24 months. I departed in 2000.

JM: I know you realize now all these events, culminating when they did, turned out to be pretty much a blessing for you. The emergence of the internet, and along with the arrival of the social-media craze, had a visible impact on the publishing community as you and I had known it to be.

CB: For many magazines, because of these changes, all this signaled the end of the golden age for the publishing landscape as it had evolved. This was especially true in terms of advertising revenue. I was extremely lucky to have had 28 great years in the business. I was also blessed to have had incredibly talented and dedicated people on the staff, in the ad sales department and as freelance contributors to Circle Track. I certainly didn’t do it alone. And if I had the chance to do it all over again, there is almost nothing that I would do differently in terms of editorial direction and focus.

I had incredible support from Bob Petersen and company president Fred Waingrow. But, being wiser today, I would have asked for a commitment to circulation promotion of the new magazine when I accepted the Circle Track challenge. And, of course, my greatest thanks goes to Lee Kelley who had faith in me and gave me the opportunity. To all of the readers and advertisers who supported CT and who helped and encouraged me, I will always be grateful. Man, it was one helluva ride!

The post Circle Track Magazine – How it all Began appeared first on Hot Rod Network.

from Hot Rod Network http://www.hotrod.com/articles/circle-track-magazine-how-it-all-began/ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Hot Rod Network

0 notes

permissionclick · 8 years

Text

#FETC17 Series - Culture and Collaboration: The Winning Combination

How one district administrator combined learnings from the Private and Public sectors to grow an innovative and collaborative technology team.

This post is part two of a four-part Speaker Series focused on sharing learnings from presenters at FETC 2017. If you’re attending FETC, be sure to stop by the Startup Pavilion and say hello to your Permission Click family. Attending in spirit? Send us a message on Twitter @PermissionClick and let us know what you thought of our FETC Speaker Series!

Jim Bennett’s path into education was unique to say the least. Focused entirely on using technology to create operational efficiencies while minimizing expenses, Jim crafted a very successful 40-year career in the private sector.

Quickly discovering retirement didn’t suit him, Jim made the decision (with some helpful prodding from his wife), to apply for an opening with one of the province’s largest school divisions. 10-year detailed strategic plan in hand, it wasn’t long before Jim had officially made the switch from private to public sector.

While the learning curve was steep (at some times, completely vertical!), Jim was able to adopt his private-sector learnings into a new and innovative mindset for Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools (GSCS). His focus on culture and creating the right team first propelled GSCS into the forefront of technology awareness within his province and around North America.

Today we share with you Jim’s challenges, successes, and how he built in a “magic bullet” for his team: a culture of collaboration.

PC: After 40 years in the private technology sector, you were convinced to come out of retirement and join Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools (GSCS). What was the biggest shock moving to the public sector?

It was definitely a vertical learning curve! The education environment has challenges we don’t see in the private sector: many different stakeholders, limited professional technology knowledge outside of the technology team, supporting thousands of users on a very finite budget, it’s very unique. In the public sector, you can’t just ramp up sales to increase revenue if you want to start a new initiative. You have to be creative, Lean, and constantly focused on how to do more with less.

In most school systems, their existing architecture has grown organically - usually an employee with an interest in technology built the base architecture in the 80’s, and the district has added to it as necessary over the years. Often this means that we have to spend more financial and human resources on unwinding the previous architecture before we can start to think about putting in something new.

“You have to be creative, Lean, and constantly focused on how to do more with less.”

Unlike the private sector, where branch offices are smaller, content sharing is minimal - in education, everything is about content sharing. The bandwidth requirements alone are a large expense that is unique to education.

PC: Architecture limitations, financial limitations, human resource limitations - how do you work within these constraints to make sure your students are still getting the best exposure to technology possible?

Our focus always has been, and always will be, 100% on improving learning outcomes and graduation rates for our students. We make sure to use technology intelligently. BYOD or 1:1 might not be in the framework for the next few years, but we ensure technology is accessible to our students. Using my background in Lean Six Sigma, and some creative thinking, we’ve come up with many different options. Some classrooms have “pods” where students work in a team on group projects - which has the benefit of teaching them to share technology and resources, work together, build off each other’s strengths. It’s been a very successful model.

PC: When you started at GSCS, there was no Education Technology (ET) team, and a one-person Information Technology (IT) team. What culture challenges did you come across in this model?

Culture can be a huge challenge in any division. Professionals in IT may not come from an education background, and might not understand what it’s like to be in the classroom. Likewise, educators often don’t have a professional IT background, so there’s a lot of misunderstanding that can happen. Teachers have good and wonderful ideas, but sometimes it’s hard to understand the cost and resource requirements of implementing those ideas. We don’t want teachers to be frustrated because they think we’re always saying no. We want to be able to understand both sides.

“This isn’t going to cost them their job. It’s going to make their job more enjoyable.”

You have to have buy-in from everyone, but especially the team who will be involved. From the highest-level superintendent right down to the part-time office folks. They need to understand: this isn’t going to cost them their job, it’s going to make their job more enjoyable.

PC: How did you bridge that gap?

Building an Education Technology (ET) team is vital. But, it has to be the right team. I’ve witnessed at many districts that the relationship between IT and ET is almost 100% confrontational. Nothing gets accomplished this way. This is why we’re having a session about it!

We took time to find the right people for our ET team. Teachers who understood the classroom, but who also understood IT, with team player personalities. We need to be able to work together, not be adversaries. Once our team was in place, we focused entirely on open dialogue. We have monthly meetings, shared goals, it’s very collaborative. When everyone is working towards the same goal, we’re more able to succeed.

“Teams are stronger when they grow and experience hardships together.”

Our ET team was built out at the same time as our IT team. I came into the position new to Education, and the ET team came into the position with no expectations of working with me. We were all learning together. We went through all the typical team stages: forming, storming, norming, performing. We learned to trust one another because we grew, learned, and fell together. This is one striking similarity between private and public sector - teams are stronger when they grow and experience hardships together. Had we built this team under different circumstances, I don’t know that we’d have been as successful.

PC: A teacher in GSCS has a cool edtech tool they want to try out. What do they do?

Teachers bring the tools they’d like to implement in their classroom to the ET’s, and the ET’s do an excellent job of vetting them. They compare the tool against our 5-year plan, check for security and privacy constraints, make sure it will work with our existing architecture. If the tool passes, the ETs bring it to our monthly meeting, and we go through the same vetting process. This works well because everyone understands our common goals. If we have to say no to a new tool, there’s an excellent reason as to why that is, and everyone understands it. Our constant dialogue allows us to always work together - we’re very team oriented.

“We all face challenges. The key is understanding, learning, and improving because of them.”

PC: Tell us about your 5-year plan. How can you build a 5-year plan for GSCS when the future of EdTech is always changing?

Coming into this position, I was hopeful we would be able to create a long-term plan with structure and vision. In the private sector I lived and died by 5-year plans. This can be tough to do in any sector, as the target is always moving. Doubly so in education. While we do have a 5-year plan, and we do follow it, we are also aware that things change, new technology comes available, priorities shift. We have to adapt, change, and be agile. We review our 5-year plan every year, so it is more of a rolling plan. What did we knock off this year? What are we adding to the end? It is our meter stick with which we evaluate new tools and make decisions, but it is not drawn up in stone.

”Without a vision that you’re constantly rowing towards, how will you know when you’ve reached your goal?”

I am a great believer in agility, being Lean Six Sigma and Scrum Certified. Agility is just as important as planning: but without a vision that you’re constantly rowing towards, how will you know when you’ve reached your goal?

In our presentation on Thursday, we’ll be showing you exactly what our 5-year plan looked like in years 1 through 4. What our ET team looked like, how we worked together then, how we work together now, and what we learned along the way. Lean Six Sigma is not new to the private sector, but it is new to Education. I look forward to sharing this with attendees, as it has helped us alleviate a lot of our pains, and understand the ones we went through together. We all face challenges, the key is understanding, learning, and improving because of them.

PC: Where does a teacher start? They see the adversarial relationship between IT and ET in their district, and they long for a better process. What are the first steps to take?

That’s a tough one because to be perfectly honest, there’s no such thing as a “one size fits all”. Across each school district you’ve got different cultures, different administrative structures. Every district is unique.

The one biggest change we found - the closest to a silver bullet - was ensuring that the ET and IT teams report up to the same Superintendent. In most school divisions they operate on completely different teams, under different managers. How can you work together if you’re not invested with the same interests and goals, from the same management structure? Ensuring that both teams reported to the same manager expedited our team and trust building, encouraged an open dialogue and collaboration.

For teachers who feet that IT and ET are not working together in their district, this is the first thing to look for. If they’re not on the same team, it is unlikely they’ll reach a true level of success.

Jim Bennett shares more details about the culture of his Education Technology and Information Technology team building at #FETC17. You can catch his presentation “Information Technology and Educational Technology: A Collaborative Journey” on Thursday, January 26th 2017 at 2:00 pm ET.

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years

Text

The 2017 Badgers might be the most Wisconsin football team ever

Another 10-win season and Big Ten West title, all powered by in-house strength? If Wisconsin answers a couple questions, the goal could be even higher.

— Former Wisconsin head coach Bret Bielema

When Alabama wins, it’s with a suffocating defense and an offense that has reacted to trends, from Bear Bryant adopting the Wishbone in the 1970s to Nick Saban tinkering with the spread in the 2010s.

When Florida State wins, it’s with the most recent version of the pro-style offense, a prolific quarterback, and a terrifying stable of receivers and defensive backs.

When Wisconsin wins, it’s with big people.

There are two steps in staking out a recruiting strategy:

Figure out if you can land blue-chippers.

If you can’t, figure out who you can get.

When Alvarez was named head coach at Wisconsin nearly 30 years ago, he figured out that blue-chippers were only going to be so much of an option — good luck attracting a kid to that climate when he’s got offers from everywhere else in the country — but that he could land all the strong guys he wanted if he developed the right relationships in-state. He could go out of state to find workhorse running backs and speed guys on the perimeter, and he could build a style that relied on physical play. It wouldn’t always work, but it usually would.

Chryst barely missed out on the run. He was a backup quarterback for the Badgers and switched to tight end, catching 12 passes in 1988. Alvarez got hired a year after he left. But after coaching stints at UW-Platteville, Illinois State, Oregon State, and the CFL, Chryst assumed a role on Alvarez’s staff in 2002. He was Bielema’s offensive coordinator in 2006, held the Pitt job for three years, and assumed the throne from Bielema’s successor, Gary Andersen, in 2015.

Apparently the problem was that he was trying to Wisconsin somewhere other than Wisconsin. After 19 wins in three years at Pitt, he has 21 in two back in Madison. He was 5-10 in one-possession games in the land of Yinzers; he’s 8-5 at UW. His offense hasn’t hit its stride yet, but his defense has been dynamite.

The veterans define the terms for the new recruits, the Wisconsin grads on the staff — offensive coordinator Joe Rudolph, defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard, tight ends coach Mickey Turner, strength coach Ross Kolodziej, etc. — serve as proof of concept, and the ship keeps sailing.

A new backfield for a run-heavy team and green leadership for a defense that has had to carry significant weight? That has to make you a little nervous, right?

2016 in review

2016 Wisconsin statistical profile.

In last year’s Wisconsin preview, I noted that the Badgers would improve on paper but almost certainly regress in the win column thanks to a brutal schedule. Whoops.

Wisconsin vs. S&P+ top 10 (1-3): Avg. percentile performance: 76% | Avg. yards per play: Opp 5.6, UW 5.0 (minus-0.6) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 37%

Wisconsin vs. everyone else (10-0): Avg. percentile performance: 85% | Avg. yards per play: UW 5.6, Opp 4.6 (plus-1.0) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 89%

If they can replicate that, expect another huge season. The Badgers miss Ohio State and Penn State and don’t play LSU in non-conference, so there’s only one projected top-10 team on the schedule.

Offense

Full advanced stats glossary.

Despite serious shuffling at quarterback, Wisconsin improved on passing downs. The duo of receiver Jazz Peavy and tight end Troy Fumagalli kept the chains moving.

Photo by Michael Shroyer/Getty Images

Chris James

Size? Those seven players average 6’6, 321.

Honors? Guard Beau Benzschawel was all-conference last year.

Locals? Four of the seven are from Wisconsin.

Walk-on stories? See Brett Connors, a utility man and potential starter.

A smattering of star recruits? Redshirt freshman and left tackle of the future Cole Van Lanen was a four-star, as is incoming freshman Kayden Lyles.

By the way, I haven’t mentioned any senior RBs or linemen. Whatever growth happens in 2017, expect even more in 2018.

Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

Alex Hornibrook

Defense

I’m not going to question Leonhard’s aptitude or potential as a teacher, but ... this is all rather quick, isn’t it?

Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images

T.J. Edwards

Photo by Mike McGinnis/Getty Images

D'Cota Dixon (14)

It’s hard to imagine the front seven regressing much, and despite two key losses, the secondary still boasts more experience than most.

Few defenses boast this level of continuity. Maybe that’s enough to overcome inexperience in the coaching booth. Screw it, this is Wisconsin; it’ll probably be fine.

Special Teams

This unit was all over the map. P.J. Rosowski’s kickoffs and their coverage were great, Natrell Jamerson and Ogunbowale were fine in kick returns, and Andrew Endicott was solid in the place-kicking department.

That everybody but Endicott returns is good, but until punting improves, it will be hard for UW to top last year’s No. 44 Special Teams S&P+ ranking.

2017 outlook

2017 Schedule & Projection Factors

Leonhard’s inexperience does concern me, but that might mean more in 2018, when the defense isn’t loaded with seniors.

For now, it’s easy to assume UW will maintain at least a top-20 defense and improve again on offense.

Team preview stats

All power conference preview data to date.

0 notes