Diaries

As a true confession, the addition of Nebraska to the conference in 2010 was finally what got me really into college sports, and football in particular; before I was just a casual fan, but the machinations of expansion just got me hooked. Anyway, like many of you, I was fairly disappointed by the recent move to pick up Maryland and Rutgers, and don't really see it ending well. At any rate, after spending way too much time thinking about this, I think expansion has died off for the forseeable future, though not for the reasons I have seen elsewhere (ACC grant of rights, etc.)

It seems to me that every conference has a "utility" that it wants to maximixe, and will add schools accordingly. The SEC wants to maximize football success, so A&M was a good choice, even if they thought it was largely a move to pick up Texas recruiting at the time. The ACC wants to maximize basketball success, which is really the main reason to pick up Pitt and Syracuse. Our precious B1G wants to maximize money, and to a lesser extent power (if it wanted to maximize power purely, it would go the SEC route of picking up football schools, and focus less on academics). Nebraska was to get a historic football brand which was available, and Rutgers and Maryland were demographic cashgrabs, which were likely shortsighted.

So, given all that, why is expansion dead for now, at least for the B1G? Well, in the interest of being provocative, the best way to put my point is that there are actually too many schools left to choose from to make any of them practical. A rule I have seen with expansion so far is that schools central to the existence of a conference do not leave for other conferences (Nebraska was not the be all end all of the Big 12 like UT or OU are, Maryland was expendable to the ACC in a way that UNC and Duke are not, etc.) For the purposes of this comparison, the most comparable conference to the B1G in terms of its goals is probably the PAC-12. If you recall, when the PAC-12 tried to expand last time, it went with the Texas and Oklahoma schools at first, and was willing to take all of them to get UT and OU. That fell through, so it was left with the Rutgers and Maryland-like demographic grabs of Utah and Colorado, which have contributed nothing so far in terms of football, and, tellingly, its options seem to be gone, unless it wants to reach down for a Nevada school.

So, where does that leave us? Well, effectively, the B1G would have to pick up an even number of schools that fit its criteria to make expansion feasible. For the sake of argument, we can throw out any SEC (except maybe Mizzou) or PAC-12 school for obvious reasons. That leaves us with maybe Kansas, maybe Mizzou, a couple ACC schools that fit the criteria of not being central to the conference like Pitt, and the crown jewels of UNC, UVA, UT, OU etc. as pipe dreams. Now, assuming we are probably only looking to add two more schools (no major conference has gone to 16 yet, presumably for the reason that no one wants to be the first to try and fail at it), let's see what the options are.

So, let's talk about the smaller, more doable, options of Mizzou and Kansas. Neither have historic football, and don't add new demographics as the previous moves have. Same with Pitt. Syracuse doesn't either, and isn't in the AAU. The problem is that even if one of those schools seemed OK if the goal was to help get another school, the schools that really bring in the bucks and prestige are all in larger groups. UT and OU go nowhere without each other, and both of them have their own baggage of the other schools in their states that they are likely yoked to. Similar with the ACC schools. UNC and UVA are probably together, and both have schools in their state that are not appealing options for other conferences to pick up, and would be left homeless if the ACC broke up - not to mention the power they lose by going to conferences where they are one of many, not the stars. Similarly, now that the ACC has 15 schools, it becomes an issue of where all those schools go. The upper half (Clemson, FSU, Miami, Duke, etc.) is appealing enough to get picked up by other conferences like the SEC, but the problem is that the SEC only has two spots left as well, so some school is left out, and the Big 12 might be reluctant to spread its geography further. Basically, the stronger members have no incentive to leave, and the weaker members will do anything they can to keep the conference together.

So, if the B1G is looking to add schools that are contiguous, academically acceptable, and bring demographics or money or football, the problem is that some schools that are singly available really don't do it, and the ones that do do it are in groups such that the conference would have to be willing to go over 16 members (which is not impossible, but dangerous). Now, if some other conference is the first to move, and other options are on the table, then all bets are off, but as it stands, there is little incentive to be the first to move, and we may very well have reached a stalemate for the forseeable future.

Yes. I realize that it is still May.

Yes. May is still somewhat far from September.

Yes. I am a bit psychotic for working on wallpapers for the upcoming season so...early.

Yes. I'm expecting my second child in July and will most likely lose all free-time and sleep I currently enjoy.

That being said, I am really excited about this year's Under the Lights game and all the wonderful wallpaper ideas I have for this year's edition.  Because of "Yes" #4, I am trying to get as much work done early as I can.  Naturally, I will have to do some work DURING the season, but I'm hopeful I'll be AT the ND game this year, and thus will not have time for my normal insomniac-like last-minute wallpaper post.  So there you have it - my full justification for posting this wallpaper now.

Actually, this wallpaper was intended as more of a "poster" feel.  You could slide an Adidas logo quite nicely onto it, IMHO, and it could pass for part of their promotional material.  I liked the idea, even if it is predictable, and I think it turned out pretty well.  Let me know what you think.  The next UTL2 wallpaper I work on will most likely feature a chicken.  Just sayin'.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it.  As always, a mobile version will follow within the next few days.

EDIT: Fixed the blocky font.  Man, I really need to proof my work more closely.

EDIT 2: Added two mobile designs.

Light It Up, Again. (Desktop - 16:9)

Light It Up, Again (iPhone 5 - Mobile)

Light It Up, Again [Broken Edition] (iPhone 5 - Mobile)

- JonValk

USING RIVALS’ STAR RATINGS TO LOOK AT BIG TEN RECRUITING: 2002-2013 CLASSES

I decided to take a look at Rivals.com and the star ratings that they give recruits to come up with an approximation of relative recruiting success over twelve classes (2002-2013) in the Big Ten. To see where Nebraska may have fit in (we can’t really know how different it would be if they’d been in the conference for the whole period studied), I included them as well.

So, including Nebraska, Rivals had ratings on 3,160 recruits from the period 2002 to 2013. Here is what the relative distribution looks like:

So, as you will note, 5-stars and to a lesser extent 4-stars are something of a rare commodity in the Big Ten historically, accounting for only about 1/5^thof all recruits by their data. One thing that is interesting, and you can see this in more detail later, is just how far above the conference norm Michigan and Ohio State tend to sit.

The one thing that should jump out here is the percentage of five and four-star recruits that go to the traditional “Big Two”, if you will. In fact, about 44% of all players ranked four and higher end up at either Michigan or Ohio State. You can also see how sparse those same rosters tend to be when it comes to two-star recruits – by Rivals’ system, Big Ten teams not in Ann Arbor or Columbus attract nearly 98% of the two-star talent.

For all 3,160 players whose ratings I dumped from Rivals’ database, the grand mean star rating is 2.93, but individual teams obviously have had varied success. Here are the team means for the period from 2002 to 2013.

Including Nebraska as a point of some comparison, they would have been quite competitive in Big Ten recruiting circles regardless, so it seems. Here, they are in possession of the third-highest average. In fact, four teams have managed to recruit at or above a “three-star” in those twelve classes. Five teams have managed to stay above the grand mean of 2.93 – Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska (had they been part of the Big Ten for the whole period), Penn State and Michigan State. Michigan State’s numbers spike with the Dantonio years, as you might expect, or otherwise this doesn’t happen, I think.

Here is the conference mean for each year as well:

So, the trend is actually upwards, ever so slightly. The net increase in the average star rating over this period is about 7%, which doesn’t seem like much. It would be interesting to compare this to other conferences in a further diary. I suspect some of this – as it is subjective – has to do with perhaps a steady-state perception of the Big Ten.  I really don’t know – that’s speculation on my part.

A more meaningful comparison between each team and the conference mean for a given year will appear shortly, but this now allows us to look at another intriguing phenomenon.

So, here again we see the relative inequities in where the talent tends to go in the Big Ten, with two schools having never experienced a year above the conference mean rating, one school having managed this feat only once and three schools having achieved this only twice. Of course, on-the-field success is a different story from year to year with some of these teams too, but it seems to illustrate that several teams in the conference do indeed get along with less, if these ratings are any indication. Obviously, there is overlooked or underrated talent, so it is ultimately subjective and not 100% accurate by any means.

So, how did each team fare against the conference mean each year? Here’s what that looks like for each team:

Here’s the whole conference on a rather non-descriptive but somewhat telling chart. You can see Michigan and Ohio State flying comfortably above the rest of the conference for the most part:

Here are some comparisons with select teams. Why Indiana? I was inspired somehow:

TL;DR CONCLUSION:

Like many of these diaries that I do, the driver is for the reader to draw their own conclusion about what they see. Rivals’ data was the easiest to categorize, which is why I used it here, but they aren’t the only ranking service, nor are stars the sole measure of who is in fact the better overall player. What was intriguing to me is how these ratings make the Big Ten appear when you dig into them a little, and the trends seem reasonably accurate to me.

OBLIGATORY:

I've twice posted spreadsheets with information on UM and the NFL draft. I decided to do it at least once more this year.

In 2012 I looked at four-year intervals; this year I extended them to five years. My thinking: In any year the team could have players from five classes playing ... true freshmen up through 5th-year seniors. Here are the extremes that are captured in the most recent five-year interval:

* 2004 recruits who played a fifth year, like Morgan Trent ('09 draft)
* 2009 recruits who did not redshirt, like Denard ('13 draft)

So, part of the '04 class, part of the '09 class, and everything between them ...

In the most recent ('09 to '13) five-year interval, UM had twelve picks. That's the lowest number since '83 to '87 (also twelve). No other interval was worse in the modern era.

Taking a closer look at the high (rounds one to three) end, there were three such picks from '09 to '13. This has never happened in the modern era. In all other five-year intervals there were at least _twice_ that many. The '07 and '06 drafts (four apiece) had more high-end picks in single years.

Details: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkEbjH02DNzxdFlsWW4zWEZxSU9...

At least by one measure (a decent one, I think), the "program" has clearly been lacking NFL talent (especially at the upper end). It will be interesting to see what happens in '14 and beyond. Needless to say, a couple of lean recruiting years ('10 and '11) might not bring high numbers. '09 looks a little better.

Etc.:

- Data is from CBS Sportsline.
- Next to the first draftee for each year you'll see four columns: * Total number of picks for that year. * Total number of picks for that year and the five prior years. * Total number of "high" picks for that year. * Total number of "high" picks for that year and the five prior years.
- Because the draft is currently seven rounds, I ignored all picks past that round in old drafts.
- I did not account for expansion (Bucs and Seahawks in the mid-'70s, Panthers and Jags sometime after that), so the numbers from (say) the early '70s, which are already impressive, should be considered in that light. (Being drafted in the first round with fewer teams is a rarer achievement.)
- For obvious reasons, I didn't count Ryan Mallett (a "high" pick), Toney Clemons (7th-rounder), or Mike Cox (ditto) in the recent years.

Michigan men represent excellence academically and athletically. At least that's what they represent if you believe the two statues above the doors to the Union. Milford men, on the other hand, are adept at being neither seen nor heard. Buster Bluth was a Milford man. The 2012-13 Michigan hockey team played like one.

The 2012-13 Michigan Wolverines took the ice in October ranked #3 in the country by USCHO.com and USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine. That preseason poll was the highlight of the season. Things went downhill quickly, and if you've been reading this blog for a while you'll remember that this team didn't do much to endear itself to the Michigan faithful. Now that we've had time to let the healing power of the basketball team's run to the title game and football recruiting goodness to soak in I think it's time to go back and try to figure out what went wrong for the team that broke The Streak™.

For comparison, let's look at the stats of the 2011-12 Wolverines versus those of the 2012-13 squad. This idea was inspired by Ron Utah's excellent post comparing the 2011 and 2012 football teams. The 11-12 hockey team lost in the first round, so we aren't exactly starting with high expectations for success here. Shawn Hunwick, Luke Glendening and David Wohlberg were the most significant departures from the 11-12 team.

2011-12 Michigan Hockey: 24-13-4 overall. 15-9-4 conference

Home: 15-5-1, Away: 4-6-3. Neutral: 5-2-0

2012-13 Michigan Hockey: 18-19-3 overall, 10-15-3 conference

Home: 10-8-1. Away: 5-8-2, Neutral: 3-3-0

What happened?

I highlighted the things that really stood out to me. Everything is open for interpretation, but let's start with the basics. The 11-12 team scored 43 more goals than they allowed, while the 12-13 team scored one fewer goal than they allowed. Ouch. If you're wondering how shot volume impacted things, it doesn't get any prettier. Michigan had very similar offensive output in 11-12 and 12-13; their total shots were about the same and their scoring percentage was an identical 9.6%. The real fluctuation from year-to-year occurs when you look at the opponent's shots; 1242 allowed in 11-12 versus 1126 in 12-13. Even though the 11-12 team allowed more shots opponents only scored on 7.2% of them, compared with 11.5% in 12-13.

Special teams can't be used to explain away the year-to-year differences. Michigan actually scored more power play goals in 12-13 (31) than they did in 11-12 (23). Looking at it from the perspective of the penatly kill, MIchigan allowed fewer power play goals in 12-13 (24) than they did in 11-12 (27). Michigan spent less time on the penalty kill in 12-13, but they also spent almost two minutes less per game on the power play that season. It appears as though Michigan was outmatched at even strength throughout the 12-13 season, so much so that they missed the tournament and won six fewer games. 

What does it mean for next season?

I wish I knew. Steven Racine established himself as the starter going into 2013-14, and that's more than you can say for the 12-13 team. There are some good prospects coming in (highlighted by former US NTDP forward JT Compher), but is that enough to replace the mass exodus of point scoring that Michigan will suffer this offseason? It doesn't seem likely. Michigan loses AJ Treais' 31 points, Jacob Trouba's 29 points, and Kevin Lynch's 27 points. Those were three of Michigan's top six pointgetters in 12-13. On the other hand, Michigan's problem in 12-13 was clearly one of defense and not offense so anything is possible. All it takes are guys who are willing and able to forecheck and backcheck, and as a sport hockey still lacks the sophisticated statistics that are able to capture the more esoteric elements of the game.

Somebody was going to do this sooner or later, right?  UPDATE: Unfortunately I have run out of time to work on this and was not able to prepare a composite chart; maybe when (i.e. if) I get a chance to update it.  Now with composite chart! UPDATE #2: Arkansas added

Composite Chart

Notre Dame (2014, 2015) – 9 commits, overall star average: 3.83

Utah (2014, 2015) – 5 commits, overall star average: 2.85

Arkansas (2018) – 4 commits, overall star average: 3.31

Brigham Young (2015) – 5 commits, overall star average: 2.6

Cincinnati (2017) – 3 commits, overall star average: 2.42

Hawaii (2016) 4 commits, overall star average: 2.19

Ball State (2016) 2 commits, overall star average: 2.13

Oregon State (2015) 1 commit, overall star average: 2.25

UNLV (2015) 1 commit, overall star average: 2.0

Appalachian State (2014)

                No Commits

Colorado (2016)

                No Commits

N.T. Miami (2014)

                No Commits