Here is a link to the mini-program for the ND game. if anyone is unfamiliar, this is designed to be folded into one of those lanyards for quick reference during games or just to keep with you on your couch.
the one for Central was done, i just didn't get around to posting it. the link is provided if you are a miniprogram completist.
let me know if there are any corrections to be made.
NOTE: Apologies for posting this here, but my posts in the forum no longer show up for some reason.
I am going to have to miss UTL2 and I would like to record it on my computer. I have verizon FIOS and there I can play TV channels on my computers. My plan was to record the whole game using a screen-recording software like Camtasia (triggerred by a windows task based on a timer)but have run into a snag. A 2 minute video is coming out to around 500 MB!
I have tried everything I could think of...reducing screen res to 1280x1020, making the window small and recording only small portion of the screen, using compression settings etc. Not making a big dent. I just don't get it. My files usually from camtasia are of the order of 20-30MB for a 2 minute capture. My guess is the super fast transitions of video (as opposed to me recording a tutorial on how to do something on a computer) bump up the amount of data that needs to be stored.
I still do not understand how people like Thorin do it. Please help!
Michigan basketball standout Tom Harmon [Bentley online library]
When I dropped off copies of HTTV to thank the Bentley Library they offered me a tour of the stacks. Among the unbelievable treasures they've accumulated in there one was several shelves worth of just-donated Tom Harmon memorabilia. Boxed as it was it was hard to get a sense of what was in there—war artifacts, lots of tape of his career as a broadcaster, a fake Michigan helmet somebody made for him, phone numbers for every beautiful starlet of the 1940s…
|Michigan war hero Tom Harmon [Bentley]|
That has now been sorted through and made into an exhibit. Press release? Press release:
Harmon of Michigan
The Bentley Historical Library is pleased to announce the opening of an exhibit, “Harmon of Michigan” focusing on the life and career of University of Michigan football legend Tom Harmon. The exhibition, in conjunction with the "unretiring" of Harmon's famed number 98 jersey this season, highlights Harmon’s college career at Michigan, both as a student and an athlete. Using archival documents, photographs, and artifacts, including material recently acquired through Harmon’s son, Mark Harmon, the exhibit traces Harmon’s career as the University of Michigan’s first Heisman Trophy winner, World War II pilot and war hero, and a pioneering radio and television broadcaster. The exhibit is curated by Greg Kinney.
The exhibit runs from September 3 to December 20, 2013.
Exhibit Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.
If you're wandering around campus on Saturday with not a clue what to do with yourself since the game's not until 8, wander up to North Campus and the Bentley for a special event.
|Michigan broadcaster Tom Harmon [Bentley]|
Special Event: September 7, 2013, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
On September 7, the day of the Note Dame game, at which Tom Harmon will be honored, the Bentley Library will have special exhibit viewing hours. There will also be repeated showings of the 1965 television program “One Saturday Afternoon.” Produced on the 25th anniversary of Harmon’s Heisman Trophy win, the program was hosted by Bing Crosby. “One Saturday Afternoon” includes archival footage of Harmon’s Michigan football exploits, interviews with Michigan coach Fritz Crisler and teammate Forest Evashevski. The program also features some rare footage of Harmon’s early days as a television broadcaster and variety show host.
The Bentley Historical Library is located on the University of Michigan’s North Campus at 1150 Beal Avenue.
Campus Bus - North Commuter, Bonisteel Boulevard and Beal Avenue stop.
For further information contact the Bentley Historical Library by phone at (734) 764-3482 or contact Greg Kinney at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Now go argue about whether they should retire 98. My feeling is if you're going to leave just one alone it should be that one.
Besides starring in multiple other sports, defeating the Nazis, and many years of success in broadcasting, people sometimes forget Harmon was a decent football player too. [Bentley]
Why Bother?: In Brady Hoke's first year, Michigan was +1 in games where TOs were a primary factor. Last year Michigan was –1 in games where TOs were a primary factor. The difference between 10-2 and 8-4 was basically due to turnovers.
Recap of Last Year: Michigan ended 2012 with a Turnover Margin (TOM) of –0.67 per game ranked #101 nationally. Using Expected Points (EP) as the basis, TOs were a primary factor in one win (MSU) and two losses (ND & Ohio). Interceptions were THE problem with M ranked #123 in percentage of interceptions thrown and #75 in percentage of passes intercepted. Fumbles were NOT the problem with the offense ranked #27 in total fumbles and the defense ranked #50 in forced fumbles.
Once Is An Accident?: It's only the first game and, unlike many of the talking heads, I will not pretend any of this is a trend. That said, interceptions thrown percentage for the first game was just terrible, horrible, ugly at 14.3%! (Last year Int% was 6.0% and that was #123 nationally.) Watch this space to see if next week represents a trend and week #3 becomes a problem.
National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).
In the aftermath of the CMU game, I’ve seen a few comments about running backs that go something like this: “If you took out X’s long run, his YPC would have only been Y, so he really wasn't that effective,” or variations thereof. This got me thinking a little about the limitations of using YPC to summarize running back performance, so I've put together a couple ways of looking at running back performance against Central.
First off, sample size concerns are rampant. Statisticians frown on many, many things, but they take particular umbrage when you do anything with a really small sample (read: less than 30). But, like our beloved coaches, we live in the real world where we have to make decisions based on incomplete information; so we continue on despite the limitations of the dataset.
Strength of competition is also suspect. We don't know for sure how good CMU will be this year, but we do know they were outscored by fifty points in the only game they've played this year. They may not be great this year.
Yards per carry is calculated by summing all rushing yards for a player and dividing by number of carries, making it an average (or sample mean). A sample mean is a very useful way of summarizing data with one nagging flaw: it is particularly vulnerable to outliers. The median, on the other hand, as the most central value, can be interpreted as a more typical expectation for a dataset. One extremely high or low value will have virtually no impact on the value of the median. Here's an example: Derrick Green's YPC for the CMU game was 6.1, 2 whole yards higher than Toussaint's 4.1. But Green's median carry of 3 is an entire yard shorter than Toussaint's 4. The YPC might lead you to conclude Derrick Green was a better bet for getting yards than Toussaint, but the median says at least 50% of Toussaint's carries went for 4 or more yards in comparison with Green's 3 or more yards. Since If you needed four yards for a first down, you may want to give it to Toussaint. That's potentially valuable information not contained in the YPC. Then there's the pesky fact that TD runs have a maximum length. If we're two yards out from the end zone, that's the maximum the player can get for that carry. This artificially lowers the YPC of a player who gets the ball over the line; in particular Toussaint's YPC would probably have been higher.
The table below contains a few measures of central tendency for the players who had at least 3 carries (three is still too small, but a line had to be drawn somewhere and Rawls' touchdown seemed to merit his inclusion in this list). Rawls gets no standard deviation because three is a small number.
QB Devin Gardner wins the YPC sweepstakes with a blistering 7.4 YPC bolstered by a median carry of 6 yards. I would advocate getting this man some more carries, but that's a) already happening and b) potentially troublesome for our passing game. Regardless, Gardner does a good job here no matter what metric you use: no negative yardage, a great longest run and two touchdowns on only 7 carries. At least for this game, our shiny "more passing-oriented" quarterback was our most effective running back, which speaks a bit to the value of athleticism at that position.
Among the running backs, Toussaint and Green duke it out for maximal effectiveness depending on which measure you use. Green wins on YPC, longest run, and least negative minimum run. Toussaint had a higher median, most touchdowns, and most carries. Rawls has the highest median of the RB's, but since he only had three carries, sample size tells us to pay no heed.
____ Yards and a Cloud of Dust
Hearkening back to the days of Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust (TYaaCoD), I wanted to know who was more reliable if you need three yards every time you rush. The table below contains the percent of carries the player achieved at least three yards, embodying the spirit of slightly-in-jest Schembechlerian Michigan Football.
Personally, though, I find three yards slightly lacking. If you run three yards every rushing play and you rush every play, you end up facing 4th and 1 every series. Our Fearless Leader would still go for it on fourth down every time (Heil Hoke!), but it's not an optimal situation to find yourself in. What you really want is someone who can pick up 3.5 yards or so every play, so you get a new set of downs after every three. The play-by-play is unhelpful in this regard, however, only listing integer values for yards. So I also calculated the Four Yards and a Cloud of Dust (FYaaCoD) metric, which is how the table below is sorted. If you get four yards every carry, you can go on rushing forever.
I did make a slight modification to the success rates of both metrics: I counted a touchdown as a success regardless of how many yards the play was because there is no further to go.
|Row Labels||Total Yds||Carries||TYaaCoD||FYaaCoD|
For TYaaCoD, you would want the following players rushing in order: 1. Green 2. Gardner 3. Rawls 4. Toussaint 5. Smith 6. Johnson. All players are between 50% and 75% successful at getting 3 yards against CMU, which is heartening. Moving to FYaaCoD, you would want 1. Gardner. 2. Rawls 3. Toussaint 4. Green, 5. Johnson 6. Smith.
There's some shuffling when you move to FYaaCoD: Derrick Green drops from first to fourth, and Smith falls to sixth at a slightly disappointing 29% success rate. Rawls still has only three carries, but two of them pass the FYaaCoD test, so he has a terrific success rate of 67%. Almost as good as Devin Gardner, who had over twice as many carries. Devin's ability to scramble is probably for real. Toussaint's actual strength as a running back comes through a bit more on the FYaaCoD metric. On his 14 carries, he hit 4+ yards 57% of the time, and he often surpassed four. That increases the chance of success for future plays, as the distance to the first down marker is smaller.
I thought about running the same analysis with passing yards, but it didn't feel right since yards per catch vary widely based on the play. Your wideout running the deep route will end up with more yards per target than the slot ninja you toss the bubble screens to. That is more schematic than based on individual skill. It is true that running plays are also not all created equal. But every running play starts behind the line of scrimmage and heads as far as possible into enemy space, making comparison a reasonable exercise.
Any statistical summary is just that: a summary. We lose information when we look at average, median, min, max, total yds, TYaaCoD, FYaaCoD, etc. that is available to us in the actual dataset. Our lizard brains just can't process significant amounts of data in numerical form in any reasonably quick fashion. But there is one thing we are great at: reading charts. So I've assembled the information from each rushing effort for everyone with 3+ rushes in order from least yards gained to most. I've colored the touchdowns Highlighter Yellow™ so you can include/exclude them from your mental calculations as needed.
For recent time's sake, Drake Johnson. Fare thee well, 2013 Drake. We hardly knew ye.
A. We were completely misguided to push for Devin-Gardner-to-wide-receiver last year when his natural position is clearly running back. The fact that QB's get an extra blocker has no bearing on this.
B. At this exact moment in time, the staff's decision to go 1. Toussaint 2. Green 3. The Field. is pretty justified. We saw flashes of brilliance from both of them—maybe even more from Green—but Toussaint overall had a better day. If Green sheds a few pounds and picks up just a hair more speed in the process, though—and I think we all expect that to happen— he could become the clear #1 even by mid-October. De'Veon Smith is not yet ready for world-beating, but he did display that vaunted balance. Hold off on judgment on him at this point.
C. Charts are indeed fun to look at.
D. Norfleet had one rushing effort for 38 yds, which I didn't include in this analysis because dividing by zero is difficult and because his YPC would make Brian cry.
I thought that it might be appropriate to give a brief statistical summary of the ups and downs of the Big Ten in its inaugural weekend for 2013, and there were some interesting extremes. Granted, the averages for 12 games aren’t terribly meaningful, but they are interesting to look at all the same.
THE CONFERENCE ON OFFENSE:
The average performance in the Big Ten on offense was a fairly balanced attack – 214 passing yards and 228 rushing yards over an average of 71 plays. That’s good for 6.23 yards per offensive snap.
The most prolific rushing attack in the first week belonged to Wisconsin, which put 393 yards rushing up against Massachusetts, followed closely by Nebraska’s 375 yards rushing against Wyoming. The more paltry rushing numbers belong to Penn State and Purdue at 57 and 65 yards respectively. Teams carried it an average of 42 times and did so at a clip of 4.8 YPC as well for about 2 rushing TDs.
Through the air, the 228 yards came about as the result of a typical performance being 17-28 with 13.4 yards per completion and 8.1 yards per attempt being the conference average. Further, the Big Ten averaged 2 interceptions and 2 passing TDs in its games. The average completion percentage of a Big Ten team this past weekend was 61.43%. Illinois gained the most yards in the air – 415 on a conference-best 29 completions (37 attempts). The least successful passing attack belonged to Minnesota – 10-23 for 99 yards.
Big Ten teams scored an average of 39.5 points, including a typical performance of 2 FGs and 5 TDs. Indiana scored the most points far and away with 73 of them on Thursday, and then at the other end of the spectrum, there was Purdue and their 7 against Cincinnati.
There was a wide variation when it came to the number of first downs earned as well. Against the conference average of 21, Indiana managed 29 first downs against Indiana State, and at the other end, Purdue managed 12 first downs in their game. On third down, the average performance was 7-15 – Michigan converted the most with 10, but Wisconsin had the highest percentage at 72.7% (8-11).
THE CONFERENCE ON DEFENSE:
On the other side of the ball, the Big Ten gave up an average of 357 yards, broken down into about 240 yards passing and 117 yards rushing in a typical game. They defended an average of 73 plays, yielding 4.8 yards per play.
Although this could be blamed on a host of things, Michigan State yielded only 11 yards rushing to Western Michigan on 27 attempts, or an average of 0.4 YPC, far and away the best performance statistically over the weekend. Purdue owns the worst performance in rush defense, yielding 221 yards to Cincinnati across 47 attempts, or 4.7 YPC. It is important to note, however, that UNLV was getting nearly 6 yards per carry against Minnesota. The conference average was 3.4 YPC on defense in the first week.
Wisconsin owns the best overall performance in pass defense this weekend, giving up only 112 yards in the air, followed by Michigan at 144 yards. By a considerable margin, Northwestern’s 455 yards given up in the air to Cal rates as the worst performance on pass defense, although Purdue, Illinois and Nebraska were giving up longer passes on average.
The conference allowed an average of 18 first downs to teams, with the most being the 35 that Nebraska handed to Wyoming, and the fewest being 11, or the number allowed by Penn State against Syracuse. Third downs were difficult to convert if you played the Big Ten in general – the average success rate was 5-16, but Northwestern allowed Cal to convert 10 times, and Nebraska allowed Wyoming to convert just once. That being said, Wyoming didn’t need to get to third down very much.
THE CONFERENCE WHEN KICKING / PUNTING:
Big Ten teams average 4 punts for 177 yards over the weekend, or a shade over 40 yards per punt. Michigan State did an awful lot of punting – 11 of them for 423 yards, whereas Michigan and Wisconsin only have one each. Interestingly, Michigan State turned it around to have one of the best punt return performances, returning 5 of them for 52 yards, but Indiana returned 4 punts for 90 yards.
When it comes to kickoff coverage, Indiana and Michigan got quite a bit of practice in, being in this situation 12 and 10 times respectively. Indiana managed 777 yards of it for an average of 64.8 yards per kick with 6 touchbacks. That’s against the typical performance of 8 for 479 yards and 3 touchbacks. As for kick returns, Minnesota and Illinois both took one to the house and racked up 148 and 135 yards of return yardage respectively. Despite scoring the most points, Indiana owns Week 1’s least impressive performance on returns – 3 for 31 yards.
As the programmers at Infocom would say, "The point of the game is to discover the point of the game."