No team movement this week as there was very little in the way of commitments across the board. That will obviously change in the couple weeks leading up to signing day, but for now the standings remain the same. Action since last rankings:

1-9-12: Indiana picks up Tevin Coleman.
1-12-12: Iowa picks up Eric Simmons. Indiana picks up Cameron Coffman.
1-14-12: Darrius Stroud decommits from Indiana.
1-15-12: Cody Quinn switches commitment from Illinois to Kentucky. Minnesota picks up Duke Anyanwu.

Chart? Chart:

*ESPN doesn't rate JuCos, so they are counted as unranked recruits for the sake of consistency (trust me, it makes sense when you look at the spreadsheet).
^The average of the average rankings of the four recruiting services (aka the previous four columns). The figure is calculated based on the raw numbers and then rounded, so the numbers above may not average out exactly.

On to the full data, after the jump.

[Ed: Bump]

So, my friends, it's a brand new year and less than a month until National Signing Day... plenty of time to update your Michigan wardrobe.  Plenty of time to get rid of all those neon yellow "All In" RR tees and replace them with something timeless, something brand new, and something awesome.  Let's take a look at the latest designs in the MGoStore...

bigmc6000 got me thinking, with this board post earlier, exactly how teams fare in the Big Ten in terms of bringing in money to the conference.

Michigan stacks up fairly well against the conference, not surprisingly, in contributing value to the Big Ten. (Sorted by average amount brought in by a school, per season):

(Individual bowl game amounts were compiled using figures provided by collegefootballpoll.com).

First, a couple notes . . .

• For the 2005-2006 bowl season, Ohio State's bowl payout was listed at $14-17 million. They defeated Notre Dame, so we will use the $17 million figure.
• For the 2005-2006 bowl season, Penn State's bowl payout was listed at $14-17 million. They defeated Florida State, so we will use the $17 million figure.
• For the 2006-2007 bowl season, Ohio State's bowl payout was listed at $14-17 million. They lost to Florida, so we will use the $14 million figure.
• For the 2009-2010 bowl season, Ohio State was the automatic bid; Iowa was an at large. As such, Iowa is listed as having $6 million, the proper amount for a second team from the same conference.
• For the 2010-2011 bowl season, Wisconsin was the automatic bid; Ohio State was an at large. As such, Ohio State is listed as having $6 million, the proper amount for a second team from the same conference.
• For the 2011-2012 bowl season, Wisconsin was the automatic bid; Michigan was an at large. As such, Michigan is listed as having $6 million, the proper amount for a second team from the same conference.

Note that Big Ten teams brought in the most money this season in recent memory (probably wouldn’t be the case if Nebraska wasn’t included). With that said, this year’s bowl season actually brought in, on average, less money per school, the lowest since the 2006-2007 year, excluding the 2009-2010 season.

Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan, not surprisingly, have brought in the most bowl money to the Big Ten, since the 1999-2000 season. Even if Michigan makes a BCS bowl game next year, they cannot surpass Ohio for the highest dollar amount brought in for a bowl game.

Nebraska has only been in the conference for one year, so I only included the bowl payout from this season.

Another thread somewhat addresses this point, but boy are Minnesota and Indiana dead wood. Combined, they have been to only ten bowl games in 13 seasons. Ohio, alone, has been to 12 and Michigan has been to 11.

Michigan State could have just as easily been grouped in with Minnesota and Indiana, if not for the hire of Dantonio. Say what you want about the guy, but he’s taken the Spartans to five straight bowl games.

Something to think about, next season Ohio is ineligible for a bowl game, due to NCAA sanctions. Penn State will likely take a step back, so may Wisconsin. Will teams like Iowa and Michigan State make up for the top teams not being in major bowls?

I'll likely be putting together stuff like this for the other conferences, which I'll post over at my website. Should be interesting to see how Michigan stacks up to other BCS conference teams.

EDIT: I re-ran the numbers using the $6 million figure for a multi-bid conference (that became the rule with the 2009-2010 season). Big Ten and SEC are getting $22.2 million per year for their first team. The remaining AQ conferences get $17.7 million each.

Over the past few days a lot of people have posted ideas for the playoff system.  They've come up with a variety of systems to ensure balance and fairness and clearly a lot of thought has gone in to this.  I want to attack the problem from a different angle though:

What is the minimum number of games we need to crown a national championship?  

To determine this I'm going to review the BCS's history and determine who else had a valid to claim to play for the Dr. Pepper Crystal Ball (and then have to display it at Wal-Mart).  In part I'll use what we knew at the end of the regular season for that year and in part I'll look at what we found out after all the dust from the bowl games settled.  

I'm going to break this into three or four diaries, as these things get long.  With that said, lets get going:

1998/99 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Tenn defeats #2 Florida State

Other Possible Claimants*: Kansas State, Ohio State, UCLA, Texas A&M.

Are their claims legit?

First off Tennessee's claim is untouchable.  They came out of the SEC defeated and beat 4 ranked teams before besting Florida State.  For Florida State though the claim is hazier.  They came out the gate strong, beating Texas A&M (A&M was #14 at the time, the Aggies finished the season ranked  #11).  The next week the Seminoles lost by three scores to North Carolina State.  NC State finished the season 7-5.  FSU though did go on to beat 4 more ranked teams, giving them a total of 5 victories over ranked teams.  

So in 1998 we're looking to see if we can argue that anyone else can claim they should have finished #2 instead of FSU.  First off KSU.  They finished the regular season undefeated and beat three ranked teams.  They ended up going to the B12 Championship game ranked #1 but lost to Texas A&M in triple overtime.  In my view, if you can't win your conference, you can't win the title so KSU is out.  

The Buckeyes lost to the Spartans (well really we all lost when a meteor failed to strike the stadium, but I digress) by 4 points (28-24).  Otherwise the Buckeyes were undefeated and beat 4 ranked teams during their season.  Michigan State finished 6-6.  The Buckeyes went on to defeat Texas A&M in their bowl, making Texas A&M the Kevin Spacey of 1998.  When compared to Florida State, Ohio State is close.  Ohio State lost to an inferior team by a lesser margin (4 points vs 3 scores) but Florida State beat one more ranked team than Ohio State did.  This one of those decisions you can argue about.

UCLA spends most of the season as the bridesmaid but never the bride.  They finish out their conference play undefeated, but on 5 December lose to Miami (YTM) by 4 points.  Miami finishes the season 9-3 and ranked (although Miami was unranked at the time UCLA lost to them).  UCLA's major problem was they only had three wins over ranked teams.

Texas A&M has been covered about by virtue of their losses to FSU and OSU.  Coming out of regular season play, FSU could claim superiority over A&M.  OSU also went on to prove it was a better team in bowl season.  A&M also lost to Texas and finishes the regular season with two losses.  So Texas A&M is out due to my desire to avoid rematches and the fact they have two losses.

1998 Season Summary:

#1 Tenn cannot be disputed.  

For #2 we have three teams that all lost to one team and have between 3 and 5 victories over ranked teams each.  I'd say 1998 leaves us with a pretty clear argument for a +1 system.  Tenn, FSU, OSU, and UCLA as division winners fight it out for the greater glory of their local Walmart (or Super Walmart).  The Big 12 division winner is removed due to a lose to FSU 

*I'm using claimants in the sense they had a claim to play in the title game, not claim a share of the title.  

1999/2000 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Florida State defeats #2 Virginia Tech

Other Possible Claimants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Alabama

Are their claims Legit?

First off Florida State has an touchable claim on #1 this year.  They finish undefeated and with 4 wins over ranked teams.  Virginia Tech is also untouchable, finishing out the season undefeated and with wins over 4 ranked teams.  Although I really do want to penalize Virginia Tech for their out of conference scheduling (namely: James Madison and UAB).

I'm going to handle Alabama (and thus the SEC first).  Alabama finishes the season with losses to Tennessee and Louisiana Tech (We choked on a cupcake PAWWWWLLL).  They lose to Michigan by one point in overtime at the Orange Bowl.  The other option from the SEC is Florida (they lose to Alabama twice and once to Florida State).  No rematches, so sorry Florida.

Wisconsin suffers from an early season loss to Cincinnati (the Alvarez Strategy of Scheduling Crap Teams suffers a rare backfire).  Then the next week they lose to Michigan.  Michigan finished off the season with an Orange Bowl Win and as #2 in the B10, so that's a terrible lose.  Each loss was by 5 points.  Wisconsin does beat 4 ranked teams.  

Nebraska finishes off the season 12-1.  Their only loss is a 4 point loss to to a ranked Texas squad.  They beat two ranked teams (A&M and KSU) and then avenge their loss to Texas in the B12 championship game.  So that leaves them with three wins over ranked squads and one loss to a ranked squad.  Nebraska also beats a ranked Tenn squad in the Fiesta Bowl, the good old days of the Fiesta Bowl, back before we as a society had the computing power to make a bag of chips say dumb stuff.

1999 Season Summary:

This is one that the BCS gets right, although considering they had exactly two teams finish undefeated it isn't hard to get right.  If either FSU or VT finishes with one loss then Nebraska has a legit claim on the #2 spot.  At that point we'd have a clear #1 (the undefeated team) and a tie for #2 (the one loss teams).  Had this happened I'd assume we'd once again need a +1 game, with Wisconsin getting pulled in to round it out to four teams.  Wisconsin has the weakest resume of the bunch, but had Wisconsin won out they'd have had 6 wins over ranked teams and only one loss to an unranked team.  So it wouldn't be a travesty.  

2000/2001 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Oklahoma defeats #2 Florida State

Other Possible Claimants: Miami, Washington

Are their claims Legit?

First off Oklahoma is undefeated, so they get the immunity idol.  Florida State drops to Miami early in the season.  FSU does defeat two ranked teams in the course of their regular season.

Miami wins the Big East and defeats Florida State, but losses to Washington.  Washington is Miami's only loss.  

Washington meanwhile beats Miami, who beat Florida State, but loses to #20 Oregon.  Beside beating a ranked Miami team, Washington also beats a ranked Oregon State team.  

As a side note, the B10 and SEC both experience down years and fail to produce a team with fewer than 3 losses.  

2000 Season Summary:

Florida State has the claim of beating two ranked teams, as does Washington.  FSU has the claim that their one loss was to a higher ranked team.  Washington though has the claim that they beat the team that beat Florida State.  It's a mess of quality of opponent versus the transitive property of wins.  

Solution:  The plus one system.  Washington gets a chance for a direct win over FSU and Miami gets a chance to avenge a regular season defeat.  All four of these teams are conference winners, so our worst case with a +1 is a potential out of conference rematch (Miami vs FSU).  Since it was out of conference play that loss occurred early in the season and wouldn't be a terrible, plus both teams would have had to beat some other good teams to earn that rematch.  

2001/2002 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Miami (YTM) defeats #2 Nebraska

Other Possible Claimants:  Colorado, Colorado, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, Maryland

Oh boy, this whole season is a mess.  With that said:

Miami is undefeated, so the immunity idol is theirs.

Now Nebraska and why I listed Colorado twice.  Nebraska is the favored team in the polls, with wins over a ranked Notre Dame and Oklahoma (The Sooners are #2 when Oklahoma played them).  The last game of the regular season though they are blown out by Colorado.  Colorado 62, Nebraska 36.  In the title game Miami takes care of business and wins 37-14.  

Colorado meanwhile ends the season with losses to Fresno State (24-22) and Texas (41-7).  Colorado avenges their loss to Texas in the B12 Championship Game though and wins (39-37).  Their reward is to get the Fiesta Bowl, while Nebraska gets a shot at glory despite failing to win their division or their conference.  

Oregon has a strong season with wins over 3 ranked teams in the regular season and then beats Colorado in bowl season.  Oregon's one flaw is losing to Stanford by a touchdown.  This is a Ty Willingham coached Stanford, but somehow one that finishes the season 9-3.  

Tennessee has a fairly strong resume, but suffers from the fatal flaw of losing to LSU in the SEC Title Game.  LSU has three losses at the time.  If you can't win your division, no crystal football for you.  So Tennessee is out.

Illinois finishes out the second with wins over three ranked teams.  They do suffer a 45-20 defeat at the hands of Michigan, but finish the regular season 11-1.  

Maryland gets mentioned here since they also finish the season with one loss.  However they need overtime for their sole victory over a ranked team (Georgia Tech) and they lose to a ranked Florida State squad.  Maryland is out of the picture due to their weak resume.  

2001 Season Summary:

Colorado got screwed.  They finish the season with two losses (one of them avenged).  Oregon also gets screwed here considering they have three ranked wins and only one seven point loss.  

I'd say you have four teams with legit claims when this season ends.  Miami, Colorado, Oregon, and Illinois.  They're all conference winners.  Colorado does have two losses, but they did avenge one of them and they bombed Nebraska, so I'd say let them play.  

So The Mininum?

What is interesting is in this era you can't really argue about the #1 team.  In these games the #1 team was undefeated and took care of business.  The argument mostly comes down to who deserved the honor of having a shot at the #1 team.  Perhaps this argues for #1 getting a first round bye in a larger format playoff system.  

Anyway in terms of structuring a playoff where no one can complain they were screwed out of the #2 ranking between 1998 and 2001, by my count we're at:

1998: 4 teams, 1999: 2 teams, 2000: 4 teams, 2001: 4 teams

This of course is subjective and I'll freely admit I engaged in some resume voting with the above.   What I did find interesting here was we're at a point with six strong BCS conference (Miami and VT are in the Big East at this point and FSU is enjoying the glory of a pre senility Bobby Bowden).  1998 is the year we come the closest to having five teams in play (if KSU beats A&M).  It seems like most years you end up with two conference winners who can be fairly easily discarded.  In 1998 for example A&M is out due to their two loses (in 1998 the winner of the Big East, Syracuse, had 3 losses and is eliminated).  

When the fifth team threat emerges so far it has come from a team that did not win their conference (KSU in 1998 and Nebraska in 2001).  In those cases you can simply invoke the "Win your conference if you want to win the title rule" and remove them (and in Neb's case: "Win your division").

As a side note, the BCS was good at picking #1s during this period.  

So working solely off these four years of data, I'd argue in the direction of a +1 system.  It seems in most cases you have four strong teams and anyone who comes the champion in a +1 playoff is going to have a resume that makes them the clear champion.  This could change those if more 1998 scenarios happen (where KSU wins their conference and thus you end up with 5 BCS conference winners who have resumes worthy of letting them into a 4 team playoff).  Keep in mind those, in the future we'll not only have 6 BCS conferences, but some possibly legit teams coming out of the MWC.  So will 4 be enough?

So The 4 Team Playoffs:

1998: Tenn, FSU, UCLA, Ohio State

1999: FSU, VT, Neb, Wisconsin

2000: OU, FSU, Miami, Washington

2001: Miami, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon

The only two real objections here would be in 1999 if a two loss Wisconsin team runs the table (so a two loss Wisky gets the title over FSU and VT who would both be one loss) and the whole FSU-Miami rematch in 2000.  FSU-Miami is an out of conference game during this time period though (Miami is Big East, FSU is ACC) and I don't want to penalize scheduling like a big boy for your out of conference schedule, so I say let it happen.  In terms of Wisconsin winning it all, that's the downside of a playoff.  The pro of the playoff is that it elimates arguments over if #3 or #4 deserved a shot at #1.  The con is sometimes a weak #4 could get lucky and win out.  We just have to hope the latter doesn't happen often.

I also can't see any fifth team that would have room to complain about getting the door slammed in their face for any of these games (include my standard: If KSU won in 1998 we'd have a problem disclaimer, but they didn't so I do what the results say I should do).  

Quick Note: Please don't get too hung up on the #4.  I'm not trying to set a standard playoff size from just these points.  My goal is at the end of all of this to look back and say:  "The median number needed since 1998 is X, and with X we'd have still had controversy in the following years...".  For example with an X of 4, you likely have some controversy in 1999 when a two loss team got a shot at an undefeated team.   

Up Next: To 2002 and Beyond!

(If I screwed up a fact in all this please call me out.  I was multitabbing like a madman on College Football Warehouse so I may have messed up a score or record here or there.  Hopefully not too frequently).  

Michigan Hockey: Ohio State Preview

#13 Michigan (12-8-4) at #2 Ohio State (14-4-3)

1-13-12 7:35pm (BTN)

1-15-12 5:05pm (Fox Sports Plus)

Forward Overview:

We come into this series in the exact opposite positions than the last time. OSU is ranked high but coming off a series sweep in favor of Bowling green and Michigan climbing back into the rankings hot. Like I predicted in the last preview this is the once in a decade Buckeye team, only much better then we have seen before.

Led by Crane and Dries the Buckeyes come into the series with a respectable 3.14 GPG which is good for 19^th in the country and a not so good powerplay unit. This is not a team who is going to wow you with their offensive ability and the production drop is huge when the first line is off, but they're the kind of physical grind it out unit that we have had trouble with all season long.

The key matchup will be who plays harder in front of the net. At times this our defensive pairs have been so soft, screeners have stood in front of Hunwick and nothing happens to them. It's as simple as this, if we let them push us around they will score.

Defensive Overview:

Although the offensive numbers are not so great the defense has been outstanding for Ohio this season. They come into the series with the 4^th best GAA in the league at 2.05 GPG and .10 of a goal is the only thing separating them from being #1.

The matchup will be taking advantage of the weaker pairs Ohio puts in the ice, specifically Gallacher or DaSalvia. It's hard to see strengths and weaknesses without video but by the numbers you can assume that Krough and McLean play great defense, and even with the supreme awesomeness of Cal Heeter in goal Gallacher and DaSalvia do not.

Goalie:

It's Cal Heeter, everyone knows who he is. He's the above average goalie who turns into Brodeur when he plays us. His kryptonite was discovered in the last series but Michigan was not able to take advantage of it, that is why the key matchup will be shooting high. Heeter's tendency for whatever reason is to drop early, so we need to try and get some lift on the puck. It sounds easy but if it was we would have scored more than 1 in our first game with them.

Michigan Overview:

Forward Overview:

It looks like the offense may have finally turned a corner. After going the entire season without being able to score on Fridays or on the road they took Alaska and MSU at home, Boston College at a neutral site and notched two more Friday night wins. We are red hot right now and Ohio State is as cold as a team with four losses can be, it only helps that one game is in Columbus and the second is in Cleveland; an Outdoor game at Progressive field I'm sure everyone forgot about.

Some minor notes: Kevin Lynch has quietly posted a 4-4-8 scoring line after not recording any points for much of the season. It has been the opposite for Lindsay Sparks, after starting the season hot he has cooled off to the point where he isn't going to see the ice. After posting thirteen points in ten games Sparks has not recorded a point since November 5th, and with his sub-par defensive ability if he isn't scoring he isn't going to play. The Lindsay Sparks show is officially over.

Defensive Overview:

The defense had started to play better after the break, but what a difference it makes having Merrill back. I really saw a different unit out there during the GLI holding Boston College to two goals, it's a major improvement over the same group who got embarrassed by Northeastern on our own ice.

We knew Serville was going to have growing pains this season but we didn't expect it to be anything like this, his neutral zone turnovers are awful, which makes Merrill's return even more important. I've been down on this group the entire season but I really feel like they are trending upwards, this weekend will give us a good indication of how much things have really changed.

Goalie

Like the defense he had his shaky moments during the first half, but has picked up his play lately. Like I said before the defense didn't help him very much so he shouldn't be shouldering any blame.

Predection

I really think this team is turning the corner. I think a sweep is definitely possible, I would imagine Saturdays game not having very many Buckeye fans so this can almost be like a home and home series. Michigan speed on a bigger sheet like the Big Chill is a major advantage for the good guys.

[Ed-S: Bumped from boards]

Which team/conference should a high school recruit choose given the a desire to reach the NFL. Here are the tables that I abstracted from databaseFootball.com.  They are only through 2010 so they would not include this years rookies.  Starred teams have moved conferences recently.  ( I gave up trying to star all the past and future moves the Big East is making.)  This was a bit of a project with lots of cut and paste into a set of spread sheets.  It would appear that one might want to play college football in the BIG 10 if you want to maximize the likelihood that you will play in the NFL although it will still be a long shot that you will play very long even if drafted.

As you look at the databaseFootball.com tables it's obvious just how short the careers of NFL players really are.  By the eyeball it is about 4 years on average over the history of the NFL but here is the official NFL line from NFL Communications:

"One fan on the conference call said she has read many times that the average career length of an NFL player is about three years, adding it seemed so many played much longer than that. She asked Commissioner Goodell about his knowledge of NFL career length.

“There is a little bit of a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding on that.  Frequently, it is said that the average career is about 3.5 years.  In fact, if a player makes an opening day roster, his career is very close to six years,” Commissioner Goodell said. “If you are a first-round draft choice, the average career is close to nine years.  That 3.5-year average is really a misrepresentation.  What it adds is a lot of players who don’t make an NFL roster and it brings down the average.”

According to a recent NFL Management Council analysis of players who entered the NFL between 1993 and 2002, the average career length for a player who is on his club’s opening-day roster as a rookie is 6.0 years.

That 6.0 average is 88 percent higher than NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith’s recent claim.

“The fundamental principle of our business model necessarily includes that every player only plays for an average of 3.2 years,” Smith said in a March 31 forum with MBA students at the University of Virginia .

Following are the facts from the career-length analysis (using regular-season and postseason rosters):

• The average career length for a player who makes a club’s opening-day roster (active/inactive roster or injured reserve) in his rookie season is 6.0 years.
• The average career length for a player with at least three pension-credited seasons* is 7.1 years (*a player receives a pension credit for each season in which he spends at least three games on an active/inactive roster and/or injured reserve).
• The average career length for a first-round draft pick is 9.3 years.
• The average career length for a player who is selected for or plays in at least one Pro Bowl is 11.7 years.  Of the 318 players who began careers between 1993 and 2002 and made the Pro Bowl at least once, 113 of those players – 36 percent – were on a club’s roster in 2010."

As usual there is a disagreement between management and labor on the facts.  Charts? Charts....

PS for laughs I looked up the MAC teams too.  Temple got most of their player into the NFL while they were in the Big East.