Mike Lantry, 1972
Quickly! One of these thing expires: Maize 'n' Brew has a brief Minnesota preview. A must win for the tournament.
Also, if "onepeat.com and its assorted detractors" was a message board thread, The MZone just locked it: dresspeat.com. Perfect.
Matt Glaude has all your CURLING ACTION covered, and I'm not linking this in an ironic fashion. I thoroughly enjoy curling. Yes, you're permitted to stone me because I'm a witch, but only if you scream "sweep" while doing so.
I'm late on this, but we officially have coaches: the aforementioned Steve Szabo is the linebackers coach and former UW secondary coach Ron Lee* has been brought in to coach cornerbacks. Szabo was discussed yesterday; Lee is an interesting choice. Brett Bielema decided not to retain him after the overmatched Wisconsin secondary distintegrated last year, but before that he directed a couple of good units featuring Scott Starks and super-walkon Jim Leonhard. He was a candidate for the Virginia DBs job:
Groh has spoken to a handful of candidates for both openings, including former Wisconsin assistant Ron Lee.
The former Washington State star was in charge of the secondary at Wisconsin for the past three years, but was not retained by the program after legendary Badger coach Barry Alvarez announced his retirement.
Bert Bielema, who will officially replace Alvarez on Feb. 1 when a five-year contract starts, awarded the secondary position to his close friend, former Minnesota assistant Kerry Cooks.
In addition to coaching at Wisconsin, Lee spent two years as the defensive coordinator and defensive backs coach at San Jose State (2001-2002) and eight years prior at Colorado State (1993-2000). While at San Jose State, the team was third in the nation in interceptions.
I was kind of sorry to see him go, but I wouldn't call him a huge loss.
The DBs may have been out of position, but that's what happens when your best CB tears up his ACL 6 mos before the season starts and isn't 100% and your #2 and #3 CBs are freshmen. Even the best of secondary coaches would have a difficult time with that. I thought that he did a pretty good job, all things considered. Not sure that I like that idea of him coaching at Michigan.
Everyone I knew connected with the program thought highly of his skills as a coach.
Wisconsin's DBs were not out of position at all this year. Bell couldn 't run and the other guys are freshmen and their technique just needs work.
I was a little surprised he wasn't asked back. I think he is solid.
By all accounts, he was a good coach. Coordinated a fine seondary two seasons ago. You have to give him some credit with the Auburn game. The Badgers were pretty green in the secondary, and the best returning player was hurt (Bell). However, after the game "slowed" down for them, and they got a break before Hawaii, and before Auburn, I thought the secondary played well.
I think it's a good move.
He is a very nice guy, very personable. Very positive comments about him from his players. I was sorry to see him go.
I thought he was above average as a position coach. My guess is he didn't bring as much to recruiting as BB would want. He recruited new new territories to the Badgers, but never really got many kids to visit/sign.
damm good coach. as the coach of the DB's on the maniac. i spend a lot of time watching his group.
his kids got better. that's the bottom line.
There are a couple of "meh" assessments as well. I know little about either coach, but the fact that we got rid of a special teams coordinator (Mike DeBord, who went to OC) and a defensive backs coach (English, who's DC) and hired a linebackers coach and a cornerbacks coach is interesting. Clearly English is going to retain responsibility for the safeties and some coked-up mad scientist grad assistant who wants to lose us the Iowa game with crazy punt formations is going to deal with the special teams--or, more likely, a combination of coaches already on the staff. (Maybe we could block some damned gunners this year? No? Just asking.)
Overall, I'm pleased. We retained Loeffler, got rid of Herrmann, and found a young, charistmatic defensive coordinator who was pursued by three NFL teams and hired by Lovie Smith. Neither new coach has any connection to the Michigan program--thus they are likely to be the best candidates available. We have a linebackers coach with eons of experience.
The downsides: a retread at OC who has impressed nowhere and uncertainty in special teams. I'll take it. So will Vijay, who has an excellent assessment of the changes for your perusal.
(*Not related to Ang Lee, presumably**.)
(**I assume that some wag somewhere has done a clever who's-on-first with Ang Lee's name, right?
Abbot: Hey, stranger, what's going on? What's your name?
Lee: Ang Lee.
Abbot: Why? All I did is ask your name.
Lee: Well now I'm Ang Lee because you're racist.
Yesterday I muttered about math and explained some stuff. Today I try to convince you this is interesting.
The Strange Case of Florida State
Florida State was a team with a bear of a defense and an intoxicated duck of an offense, right? Well... not on third down. Check the Castor and Pollux act:
That's a significant amount of green in each graph--unsurprising from the defense, palpitation-causing from the offense. Despite the doublemint action directly above, I do not mean to suggest that the Florida State defense (generally regarded to kick seven kinds of ass) is hardly distinguishable from the Florida State offense (a unit that actually could have used the services of Wyatt Sexton this year). No sir, I object. What we're missing here is the second component of third-down efficiency: your tendency to get in manageable distances. It's here that two additional graphs bring the difference between the two Seminole units into stark relief:
Yow! Jeff Bowden's criminal misuse of Booker and Washington is illuminated for all to see: so many passes clunked uselessly to the ground on early downs that that approximately 20% of the Florida State offense's third downs were full third-and-tens, more than double the national average. They only got in third and one half as much as a Hypothetical Totally Average Team (HTAT).
Conversely, the Florida State defense's pedestrian performance on third down is okay in the overall scheme of things, since there is evidently a significant amount (seven kinds, even) of ass-kicking going on on first and second down. Look at all that red on third and five or less. Look at all that green from third and ten to fifteen.
My thinking has suddenly become very clear on this case, man.
Conventional Wisdom Isn't Always Unwise
These days, it's hard to tell whether the spread is more popular in college football or the San Fernando Valley. As a result, much is adone about it from the dredges of the blogsphere to the vulcanized-rubber towers of the people who actually get paid to write. Invariably much is made of the spread's strengths and weaknesses. Continually cited is the spread's difficulty in short yardage and goal-line situations, but one would figure this goes hand in hand with increased efficiency in the middle distances the classic dink-and-dunk spread offense is designed to get on every play. So a hypothetical spread team's efficiency graph would look considerably flatter than the nationwide average, starting out subpar from 1-3 yards but then beating the average in the middle distance.
What's the quintessential spread team? Hyyyaaaarrr!!! Texas Tech, matey! Well, check it out:
Avast! The conventional wisdom... is right on? There's a first time for everything, I guess. Similar results can be seen in the offenses of Illinois, Northwestern, Hawaii (sort of), Michigan State (sort of... the MSU offense is too good to be held down much but has a big ugly red spot right at third and one), Oregon, Miami (Ohio), and Purdue. Indiana and their spankin' new spread offense defies this trend, as do a few other teams recognized as spread specialists, but in general it appears that they are the exception rather than the rule.
Quantified Later, But...
I'll try to put a number on this in the near future, but I'd be surprised if any team in the country has a better pair of
Stergers efficiency graphs than Ohio State:
That is a lot of green. No doubt OSU was helped on offense by the candy-soft defenses it opposed, but that OSU defense faced a wide array of the country's most powerful offenses and still came out on the good side of things no matter what situation you put them in. Hallelujah: nine of those guys are gone. Un, er, -halleluja: the green field of the offense returns mostly intact.
First... Yuck: "NASCAR Night Slated for Feb. 21 Contest vs. Illinois." Double yuck:
The RCMB finds this too easy to mock.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh...... Mike Davis certainly sounds like a man on his way out of Indiana:
Indiana head coach Mike Davis said Monday that a segment of Hoosiers fans want someone with closer ties to the school to be the program's coach.
"Indiana needs to have one of their own," Davis said during a Big Ten weekly media conference call. "They need to have somebody that's played here so they can embrace him. They need that.
"I'm not upset about it, not disappointed about it," said Davis, who graduated from Alabama and replaced Bob Knight in 2000. "I think they need that. I really do, because these players deserve better."
there's a 99.9 percent certainty the Hoosiers will soon be looking for a new head coach.
This is doubly relevant for Michigan as Indiana is one of Michigan's most logical contenders for 2006 SG Patrick Beverly, who has stated he wants to remain close to home and expressed a preference for the Big Ten. Beverly's final four: Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, and St. John's. Davis's highly uncertain situation--unlikely to be resolved until the season's end--probably removes the Hoosiers from the running.
I ain't talking about Purdue... I FFed the second half. This makes me a bad fan, I know, but sometimes you just have to think of the blood vessels. Dear God, won't someone think of the blood vessels? Anyway: Jim Carty does his usual Drew Sharp impression; more highly recommended is Johnny's take.
Wise, that's the ticket. Michigan has to hire two coaches to replace Terry Malone and Jim Herrmann. Speculation on the boards is that Herrmann's replacement is going to be Steve Szabo, who was dumped by the Bills after a year coaching their DBs. Before that he was a volunteer assistant with the Patriots and spent nine years in Jacksonville coaching linebackers. The previous 25(!) years he was busy coaching various colleges. Of note:
- He's old: 63. Probably not going to interact much with recruits since he doesn't understand their hippin' and their hoppin' and would just like to relax with some jello pudding and berate his son THEEOOOOOO. Also a sign that perhaps he's a short-term hire and a coaching change is on the horizon.
- He's got vast experience--part of the old thing--coaching both linebackers and defensive backs. I'd expect he'd do some of both.
- Hey, he's got an instructional video: "Man Coverage Schemes." Much better than "Six Deep Zone Techniques."
What little I could find on Szabo on the Internets was positive for a team that went in the tank last year:
He's done a good job with Bills youngsters Terrence McGee, Eric King, Jabari Greer and Rashad Baker. Nate Clements, Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy have all struggled this year but I wouldn't blame that on Szabo. Clements is a "me" player who has underachieved, Vincent has gotten old, and Milloy's age has caught up with him as well. I'd like to see what Szabo can do with a better group of defensive backs in the future. Final verdict: Szabo should stay next season.
There's also an extensive article here with confirmation of the old:
ronically, the rigors of playing for Mendel Catholic were tougher than playing for the U.S. Naval Academy (one of his teammates was quarterback Roger Staubach), from which Szabo graduated in 1965.
An interesting hire that sounds like a good one on the surface.
Etc.: Weird: a fairly huge article from ESPN.com on Michigan... hockey? Yup.
You may remember a previous post wherein I showed off some shmancy graphs of third down conversions, though they lacked context and a suitable smoothing method that didn't make Baby Jesus get pissed off about data distortion. Well, more bit hammering has produced something I think is worth showing people. Without further adieu...
Third Down And What-What
A third down conversion rate is a conflation of two pieces of data: the distance you have to go and how frequently you make that distance. The varying distributions of said distance impact the end result so heavily that the stat often presented on televison broadcasts may as well be called "third and second and first down conversion rate." It's not totally useless, but it can be improved upon in a logical and fairly simple way. And perhaps you can learn something about the team you follow or football in general by taking a deeper look into the situation. If this sounds terribly dull to you, I invite you to forget all about this and check out these creepy drawings of NBA players by bizarre little Japanese girls.
Anyone left is undoubtedly hardcore like Quickdraw McGraw, so here we go. When we last left our blogging superhero, he was casting about for a logical way to smooth the wonky data points in individual team's third down rates. The problem: out towards the third-and-long boonies the disproportionate amount of third-and-tens caused an unnatural flattening effect where any smoothing would drag surrounding distances towards the third-and-ten-percentage.
The solution: take the average yardage of each set of data and place the percentage at that mark. So if you had 10 third and tens and 5 third and elevens, whatever conversion percentage you got from that would be placed at 10.33 yards out. Assuming the conversion rates are linear--a good assumption that far out--this provides non-distorting data smoothing.
So, viola(!), the Michigan defense's third down efficiency:
How To Read This Graph: the thick line in the center is the NCAA average, which is not smoothed. Jutting out from the average are the various icebergs that compose an individual team's deviation from the norm. In general you want your defense to be below the line and your offense above it. Red is bad. Green is good. I checked data out to third and 25, but it gets very thin and useless out there. 15 is about the sanity limit.
This is extremely similar to the graph produced by the first iteration of this process, but I feel much better about it with the theoretically non-distorting smoothing. It stands as clear evidence that last year's Michigan defense was in fact subpar when put in third and long situations. Message board yahoos (and cantakerous bloggers), revel in your victory. Perhaps more disturbing, however, was Michigan's far below average performance on third and short despite employing one Gabe Watson.
The second useful piece of information is the average distance faced on third down. Look nyah:
How To Read This Graph: It's the same thing. Thick line == NCAA average. Red and green == individual team's deviation. There's not really a good way to determine what's "good" or "bad" without taking the actual distance into consideration, so the green and red do not flip. Green == above. Red == below.
Note that no attempt has been made to smooth this data, since there's no line to fit it to. You gets what you gets.
Tomorrow I'll highlight some of the more interesting graphs produced by this method; Thursday you'll get a teeny app that you can use to see this data for any team in D-I. (Caveat: due to some member schools not reporting data to the NCAA, the database I've cobbled together is incomplete. This includes four games USC played, including something of minor importance called "The Rose Bowl." Shame on USC. Some negligent person in the athletic department should be fired for ignoring this task... probably updating his blog.)
Anyway, I'll leave you with the offensive graphs:
I actually thought they'd be considerably uglier.
Also: I'm taking requests. I have a database of most plays/drives that happened in D-I last year. If you've got any ideas as to how to use it, I'm listening. If you know SQL and would like to try something out yourself (Bueller? Bueller?), I can give you a public login.
Respect my authorita! And my implausible cup!
Warning: Annoying tic alert. Um... apparently my "blog ethics" post caused Kyle King to dub me "The Lawgiver," which is cool because Judge Dredd is my second favorite obviously terrible Sylvester Stallone movie* and I've always wanted a flimsy pretext to scream "I AM THE LAW" at fellow bloggers, commenters, and innocent passers-by who pick up the wrong cantelope when THE LAW is shopping. This is by way of explanation for future bizarre behavior.
I just want to try it out...
I AM THE LAW!
(* #1 == Demolition Man.)
Fleebin' Christ, man. One thing operating the BlogPoll did was teach a valuable lesson about knocking poll voters when the end result of their poll is seemingly nonsensical: don't. Because the week after you make an impassioned plea to the voters at large about Team X and their undeniable superiority, team X goes out full of vim and vinegar and goes all French Army on you. The business of polling is an exercise in learning just how uncertain college football is. So commentary like this from CFR--most notable for contributing hilariously bad photoshop banners to the CFB blogosphere--is silly:
This was the problem I had with the well intentioned but ultimately flawed BlogPoll. It had the potential to deliver weekly outcomes that differed from the highly predictable AP poll. Instead, within a few weeks it was lock-step with the AP poll, offering little deviation.
... especially when you consider that the BlogPoll's ranking methodology was like so:
They were soon thinking like and using the same logic of AP voters, mostly slotting teams by record and perceived conference and schedule worth.
It's unfortunate that voters couldn't look past those "record" and "schedule strength" red herrings. Lord knows that we criminally underrated so many teams with flashy new wave offenses because they did things like lose by thirty. We did have an advocate of Gang-of-Six football on board in He Is... Manpundit(!), but the results of the first week were so thoroughly embarrassing that instead of submitting a saner ballot with Boise State conspiciously omitted from the top ten he stopped voting altogether.
I don't really know that this was a good year to deviate from the AP poll. Texas and USC went wire-to-wire as #1 and #2--though they flipped spots in the final poll. As you progressed further down the poll during the year you found a ton of teams that were mediocre or unpredictable week to week or both. And how, exactly, is a poll with somewhere from 35-50 voters--depending on how motivated people were week-to-week--supposed to reflect the wingnut flyer picks that are by definition against the conventional wisdom? It's not like voters all decided to put Alabama #8 in the middle of the season. A snapshot of the proceedings shows disagreement that averages out to... about #8.
For the record, I had hoped that the BlogPoll would be radically different and clearly superior to the stupid MSM StupidPoll [/childish blogger snark] and was disappointed in midseason when this turned out to be wrong. I got over it, though, because it occurred to me that the thing was working as it was because of its structure, and that any selection of a goodly number of people who paid close attention to college football (and--this is important--realized teams play defense too) would spit out an end result pretty close to the AP poll. The BlogPoll followed the structure of the aforementioned exactly: once a week list the top 25 teams in the nation, in order, even though you really have no idea whatsoever if Georgia Tech is #17 or #18. Then let the average iron out the noise.
Where the BlogPoll differed was in its philosophy--talk amongst yourselves and try to understand the POV of others--and its openness--do something dumb and yes, we will find you. This had some effect--witness Wisconsin's final placement after I asked voters to slot them in front of an Auburn team they had just spanked--but in the end, a top 25 poll is a top 25 poll is a top 25 poll. Maybe in a few years a culture of payin' attention and doing something different will grow mossy from the rock shaped by the 1, 2, 3... 25 order that polls are historically locked into, but that takes time. Hopefully not as much time as the Seneca Falls Declaration.
In that vein, however, let it be known that I'm dissatisfied with the current structure of the poll and should a majority of pollsters support or at least tolerate a change to something more flexible, I am all for it. Ideas I have kicked around:
- Dropping the straight ranking thing in favor of assignment of points. You get er... (25 + 1) * 25 /2 = 325 points to distribute to anywhere from 20 to 30 teams. Max points per team: 25. One team must be denoted a nominal number one even if you give the teams at the top an identical point total. If you want to do straight up 1-25, that's available. If you'd rather not vote for five crappy teams at the end of a poll, that's doable. Etc.
- Allowing voters to have portions of their vote count extra. Hell, at the beginning of the year I didn't know what Howard's Rock was, let alone where Clemson should rank, but I knew what I thought of most of the Big Ten early. I may have been wrong, but at least I had an opinion. Maybe a team or two each week could be selected and your vote for that team would count double or triple.
I'll revisit this closer to the season's start to get a feel for everyone's opinion on the matter, but if you A) hate the idea of changing the poll format or B) have ideas for the change, please comment/email.
You may have seen an embryonic copy of the 2007 recruiting board when I inadvertently hit "publish" instead of "save draft," but please put it out of your mind. Shoddy work unfit for human eyes... until a week or two from now when it'll make its debut.
Of note: Michigan's always been a school that fires upon any and all targets of opportunity, no matter where they may be. In 2004 Michigan pulled the top three recruits out of Kentucky. Last year they got top 100 kids from California(Jonas Mouton), Florida(Greg Mathews), and South Carolina (Adam Patterson--and we're recruiting two more kids from Patterson's hood--Richland Northeast high school--in '07). The interesting thing about 2007 is that this scouring for horizon-minded kids may take a back seat next year due to the unprecedented level of talent within Michigan. Three kids are on the initial Rivals 100 list (up from one last year, though one has already committed to MSU) but the guys who keep an eye on these things think that will be at least five once the evaluations are done and no fewer than 30 players will end up at BCS schools. Michigan will probably end up with close to ten instate kids if all goes well. And the last time that happened? I dunno. Readers?