~
- Thread starter Nittany Ned2
- Start date
Yes, Hannah Nielsen is the new head coach at Michigan.
She has a really nice track record (2x Tewaarton Award winner, 4x National Champ as a player at NW, multiple Australian World Cup teams). As for coaching, she was an assistant for 1 year at PSU after he college playing days ended, then an assistant at Towson for 2 years, then 2 years as an assistant at Colorado U (starting a new program), then 1 year at NW.
Can she turn Michigan's program around? I guess. During her 4 years at NW, where she started every game, her teams went 85-3, so she has been exposed to high levels of success, as well as the nitty gritty of the coaching as an assistant at 4 programs.
On the flip side, this is her first head coaching job. And while I wasn't displeased that Michigan struggled under their 1st coach, Jennifer Ulehla, she had nearly as stellar background as does Nielsen. Ulehla had head coaching experience, was an assistant when Florida started a program from scratch, had significant coaching experience at the US National Team level, and she was a product of Maryland schools so she had connections to one of the hotbeds of WLAX.
It will be interesting to see how she does. Michigan was 1-5 in the conference this past season, with only tOSU having a worse conference record (0-6). Maryland, PSU, NW, and Hopkins are elite programs, and it will take a lot of work for any B1G program to enter into their ranks. Rutgers is located in or near LAX hotbeds, and has had a good program for several years. Michigan and tOSU have been the outliers of late.
I noticed that PSU posted a job opening yesterday for an assistant WLAX coach. Is Altig or Matthews leaving? The posting closes on July 3 (rather than "Until filled"), so maybe Doherty already has a choice lined up.
Matthews is leaving. She's taking an AD job at a high school in Maryland.
Some rumors that a previous PSU WLAX assistant coach is returning ... no idea if that's speculation or fact.
OK, now I am confused. The rules are now ambiguous. Traditionally, if you invoked the name of a gal, you were obligated to provide video evidence or be flagged. You, Tom McAndrew, have tossed several flags in the not too distant past.
Are we entering a new age of non-objectifying women, is it because she is an athlete? What am I missing?
That's funny. I clicked and typed in "fairgambit" and THIS is what appeared:I clicked and typed in "fairgambit". This what appeared.
Y'all know me by now, anything for a laugh.
That's funny. I clicked and typed in "fairgambit" and THIS is what appeared:
Y'all know me by now, anything for a laugh.
That's funny. I clicked and typed in "fairgambit" and THIS is what appeared:
Y'all know me by now, anything for a laugh.
Of course that appeared Jim. That's my new yearling. I hope to race him in the Derby in a couple years.
Your confusion seems to be based on your misunderstanding of the board rule. There is no requirement for providing a pic if a poster simply invokes the name of a female. The pic rule comes into play when a poster invokes the name of a female AND makes any type of comment about their good looks. The only exception to the rule is if the gal is a spouse, family member, or GF.
To be more specific. Look at page 147 of the Board Rules. What Tom has explained is set forth in Board Rule 117, Section D-8, Paragraph 27, Subparagraph 19, modified in part by the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the Case of Nottingham vs. Strutling.
I clicked and typed in "fairgambit". This what appeared.
Who knew fairgambit was a wine?
Good to know.
Who knew fairgambit was a wine?
Good to know.
Not is a wine, does whine, but not often, and not without cause.
I will note, however, that others have described me in wine terms.... better with age, bold, powerful, mature, rich, smooth....but never fruity (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Last edited:
quite enlightening. I was confused by the 2012 case "Paulina Gretzky versus PSU 4 69". In this case, Paulina was pictured on the cover of a a sports magazine and is the wife/daughter of sports dignitaries. She is also the daughter of a playboy playmate. The ruling, was that the very invocation of her name was implicit with the legal term "hottie". As such, any invocation of the term Paulina, Gretzky, "The Great One" or "wholly schikes" necessitates and dictates the posting of a Paulina picture. There was no such ruling on if one had to post the traditional Paulina picture:
Or the post marriage, while pregnant "caught in the wild" photo:
Or if any random photo will do:
That case is still pending.
Not is a wine, does whine, but not often, and not without cause.
Well played.
Descriptors
Full bodied...
Fruity...
Slightly acidic...
Fruity...
Slightly acidic...
need not apply.
Flinty?Well played.
Descriptors
Full bodied...
Fruity...
Slightly acidic...
need not apply.
