Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

This is Part I of the Season Score Metric v2.0 diary series. Part II is here.

Last week, I set out to create a "Season Score" metric in an effort to provide meaningful context beyond merely record to compare the last few seasons under Harbaugh to the Michigan glory years. The result was this diary and a scoring metric that was well-received for its novelty, but thoroughly critiqued for its huge limitations. To summarize, here is that scoring metric:

(Wins x Win%) + Quality Wins - Bad Losses + (Wins vs. Opponents with Winning Records x Win% vs. Opponents with Winning Records) + 5 if Beat Ohio + 3 if Beat MSU + 3 if Win Bowl + 5 if B1G Champion

And here are the major caveats:

The relative strength of OSU and MSU in a given year is ignored

A Quality Win vs. the #1 team is treated the same as a win vs. the #25 team

Shared vs. outright B1G Titles are treated the same

All advanced stats are ignored

The responses to the diary also pointed out that the metric was missing the major components of expectations and improvement. It rankled at least one person that Harbaugh's seasons were rated relatively poorly, as there was no credit given to the huge turnaround he managed so quickly.

As a result, the Season Score metric created a couple wonky rankings, and didn't pass the eye test for several seasons. As user Lumpers pointd out:

"...There is no way the 1985 team with that defense (3 straight shutouts during the season), a 10-1-1 record and a victory over Nebraska in the Fiesta bowl is not one of the top 10 seasons in M history over the past 49."

And so, I decided to go back to the drawing board and try to address some of these issues. If you want to get right into the new metric, then feel free to skip ahead or check out the new metric for yourself. However, before I dive in, I justed wanted to quickly touch on the merit of a season score metric in general.

Is a successful season more like a fine wine or an S&P ranking?

~~Chuck says, "The answer is always wine."~~

I was initially surprised by responses claiming that season success is an inherently subjective matter. User ChiBlueBoy summarized:

"I also appreciate trying to put some numbers to something that will always be subjective (in Jr. High I created a mathematical formula to determine if someone was "attractive," so the desire to quantify the subjective resonates with me)."

My first reaction was to scoff at this comparison. Perhaps only because I had spent a decent chunk of time making the scoring metric, but I viewed the idea as more like S&P and trying to make objective measures of a team's offense and defense. Just like it is valid to say that a running play is objectively "successful" if it gets at least 4-5 yards on first down, it is valid to say that objective components of a "successful" season include beating our rivals and winning the Big Ten title.

I think ChiBlueBoy mentioned the key contention:

"In the end, all of this is very subjective, and I imagine that each of us would come up with a different formula."

Very true. In fact, I've done just that and made an entirely new metric. However, I would counter that some formulas are objectively better than others. And, if you continue reading, I think you'll agree that this new metric is objectively better than the previous one. Nevertheless, the point still stands to a very real degree. This new and improved metric doesn't account for everything and changing the metric weights here or there would alter the rankings significantly.

Ultimately, the most powerful utility of this metric is therefore comparing seasons between tiers, rather than within. All else being equal, a season that ends with beating OSU is objectively better than one that ends with losing to OSU. But, was the 1980 Michigan team better than the 1985 squad? Well, Chuck says that exercise is as subjective as comparing fine wines.

I think an apt analogy would be that this metric is like PER for basketball players. It provides meaningful context to make comparisons between players and gives objective evidence to say that LeBron James is better than Reggie Jackson. But PER alone can't answer who is better between, say, Steph Curry and James Harden.

Season Score Metric v2.0

The new metric is computed using the sum of several individual component scores as follows:

Season Score = Expectation & Improvement Score + Wins Score - Loss Score + OSU Score + MSU Score + Bowl Score + B1G Champ Score + National Champ Score

In Part I, I'll go through each component metric individually. Part II will look closer at this season's score and try to project the future based on previous responses to down years in Michigan history.

Expectation & Improvement Score

Had MGoBlog existed all the way back in 1969, this would have been a much easier exercise. Unfortunately, there is no easily accessible database of well-informed predictions for how the Bo, Moeller, and Carr teams would perform going into the season. What we do have is preseason polls. Now, I acknowledge that the preseason AP poll is almost entirely pure conjecture. But it does give some standard measure of how Michigan was expected to perform relative to its peers every season. And we would all agree that it was disappointing when the preseason #5 2007 Michigan team finished #18, and that the 1997 season was especially amazing considering they were ranked #14 going into the season.

So, long story long, the expectation component is derived from the preseason AP ranking. I did this by taking Michigan's final AP ratings over the last 49 years (and used record rank when they were unranked by the AP) and graphed it against the seasons' winning percentage:

I then plugged the Preason AP ranking into the formula from that fit line to get Expected Win%, and then multiplied by the number of games in a season to get Expected Wins. The Expectation Score is thus:

Actual Wins x Actual Win% - Expected Wins x Expected Win%

As an example, Michigan was ranked #7 going into last season, which correlates to 10.4 wins. This season, Michigan was ranked #11 going into the season, which correlates to 8.8 wins (for the regular season). IMO, these pass the eye test.

The Improvement Score was based on a much simpler formula:

Wins x Winning% - Previous Season Wins x Winning%

Finally, the Expectation & Improvement Score are weighted:

(Expectation Score + Improvement Score) / 3

Wins Score

My previous metric looked only at "Quality Wins," which were defined as "wins against opponents that were ranked (in the AP poll) when they played Michigan AND finished with a winning record, OR wins against opponents that finished the season ranked (In the AP poll)."

The problem was that it weighted a win against the #1 team the same as against the #25 team, and gave no boosts for beating the #26 or #27 team.

This new metric scraps the idea of Quality Wins and instead just looks at the winning percentage of defeated opponents with the Michigan game removed from their record:

Wins Score = Wins x Win% x Opponent Win % (Mich game removed)

Losses Score

The previous metric included "Bad Losses," which were defined as "losses against opponents that were not ranked (in the AP poll) when they played Michigan AND were not ranked (in the AP poll) at the end of the season."

This again relied too heavily on AP rankings. The new metric scraps the idea of Bad Losses and instead looks at the loss percentage of opponents that defeated Michigan (again with the Michigan game removed):

Losses Score = Losses x Loss% x Opponent Loss % (Mich game removed)

Rival Score

The previous metric gave 5 points for an OSU victory and 3 points for a MSU victory and 3 for a Bowl Game win.

This totally ignored the fact that a win against a 3-9 Michigan team is not as impressive as winning the Rose Bowl.

The new metric accounts for the rival and bowl opponent winning percentage, and is broken down as follows:

OSU Score: If win, then +3 x OSU Win % (Mich game removed); If loss, then -3 x OSU Loss % (Mich game removed)

MSU Score: If win, then +1.5 x MSU Win % (Mich game removed); If loss, then -1.5 x MSU Loss % (Mich game removed)

Bowl Score: If win, then +1.5 x Bowl Opp Win % (Mich game removed); If loss, then -1.5 x Bowl Opp Loss % (Mich game removed)

B1G Champ Score

Whereas the previous metric awarded 5 points for every Big Ten title, the new metric differentiates between shared and outright titles:

B1G Champ Score: If outright, then 3; If shared by multiple teams, then 3 / # of teams sharing; If Division Champ but lose Conference Championship, then 1.5

National Champ Score

Finally, the last component accounts for winning the national championship, with theoretical playoff wins along the way:

National Champ Score: 5 points for National Championship; 3 x Playoff Opp Win % (Mich game removed) for every Playoff victory

Top Ten Seasons

Year	Coach	Season Score	Record	Final AP	Preseason AP	E&I Score	Wins Score	Loss Score	OSU	MSU	Bowl	B1G	Nat. Champ
1997	Carr	23.03	12-0	1	14	3.39	6.82	0.00	2.50	0.95	1.36	3	5
1980	Bo	12.52	10-2	4	11	1.38	4.11	0.09	2.45	0.45	1.23	3	0
1985	Bo	12.42	10-1-1	2	29	2.66	5.14	0.02	2.45	0.95	1.23	0	0
2011	Hoke	10.78	11-2	12	34	2.97	5.50	0.11	1.50	-0.35	1.27	0	0
1971	Bo	10.40	11-1	6	4	0.85	4.09	0.02	2.00	0.90	-0.41	3	0
1989	Bo	10.23	10-2	7	2	0.00	4.27	0.04	2.18	1.09	-0.27	3	0
2003	Carr	10.13	10-3	6	4	-0.44	4.11	0.17	2.75	1.00	-0.13	3	0
1991	Moeller	10.07	10-2	6	2	0.00	4.47	0.03	2.18	0.45	0.00	3	0
1988	Bo	10.01	9-2-1	4	9	0.41	3.23	0.02	1.20	0.82	1.36	3	0
1986	Bo	9.74	11-2	8	3	0.07	5.01	0.10	2.50	0.90	-0.14	1.5	0

The 2011 Hoke season sticks out like a sore thumb, not only because of the doom that followed, but also because that team wasn't really that great. It is the only one of those seasons that is being propped up by the Expectation and Improvement Score. However, that season certainly did exceed expectations and was a huge improvement over the previous year, and it was certainly an exceptional season (for both positive and negative reasons). Outside of that year, this metric performs much better than the previous one on the eye test.

The 2011 Hoke Season Score does serve as a reminder that this is metric does not measure the true quality of a team. The 2006 Carr team was an all-time quality team, but the team missed out on glory and thus doesn't match up to these seasons in terms of overall success. The 2016 Harbaugh team was certainly better than the 2015 team, but the 2016 team underperformed relative to expectations whereas the 2015 team greatly exceeded expectations and made huge improvements relative to the 2014 Hoke disaster.

Performances by Coach

As I explained earlier, the greatest utility of this metric is to break the seasons into tiers. This is the breakdown of the seasons into quartiles by Season Score, with Final AP rank as the eye ball test:

The biggest oddball is the 1975 Michigan squad, which finished 8-2-2 and ranked #8. The season score however puts it in the lowest quartile. That seems valid to me, given that they came into the season ranked #2, lost to OSU, lost the Orange Bowl, didn't get any share of a Big Ten title, and only beat a bunch of body bags. Sounds pretty bad to me, but I wasn't alive then, so I invite any MGoHistorians to add their perspective.

With those season quality quartiles established, we can look at how each coach has performed:

I hope this provides a little more perspective for people. Even Bo had down years. When you look at Season Scores over time, you get an even better sense that Michigan's success has ebbed and flowed. It looks like a company stock:

And while the stock may seem to be trending down recently, the trend is hardly significant:

I'll end Part I by saying that we should all know that football teams have their ups and downs. In Part II, I'll show that a key to the program's success in the glory days under Bo, Moeller, and Carr was that we were able to roll with the dong punches and snake bitten seasons and respond with great ones. And I'll look back at similar down seasons to project the future.

The Bowl picture is becoming very clear cut in the Big Ten, so I wanted to look at who's in/who's out and most likely destinations.

Going Bowling (8):

Wisconsin (11-0)
Ohio State (9-2)
Penn State (9-2)
Northwestern (8-3)
Michigan State (8-3)
Michigan (8-3)
Iowa (6-5)
Winner of Indiana @ Purdue (both teams enter 5-6).

Probably Not Going Bowling (1):

Minnesota (5-6): After getting shutout by Northwestern 39-0 this weekend, not much hope for the Gophers to upset Top 5 Wisconsin next week.

Not Going Bowling (5):

Loser of Indiana @ Purdue (both teams enter 5-6).
Nebraska (4-7)
Rutgers (4-7)
Maryland (4-7)
Illinois (2-9)

Likely Destinations:

The Big Ten has 8 associated Bowl Games this year (cannot have both TaxSlayer and Music City in the same year, also not likely to get Orange this year); you can scroll to the following link to see: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/5/29/15709664/bowl-tie-ins-conferences-2017-season. There is a general order to these bowls' prominence, but the Big Ten does have contract considerations (must have 5 different teams in each bowl in a 6 year span), so it's not a direct adherence.

With a projected 3 teams in the New Year's Six and only 8 bowl teams overall, the Big Ten will likely leave 3 spots unfilled.

Of the four non-playoff NY6 bowls, three of them are at-large vs. at-large. The fourth is the Orange, which the Big Ten is not likely to be in because Michigan was last year (Orange must balance how often it picks from B1G/SEC). It will be ACC vs SEC/Notre Dame, most likely.

Playoffs
- Winner of Wisconsin vs. Ohio State; it's not guaranteed if the Buckeyes are Big Ten champions (an 11-1 Bama with a close loss is very likely in over 11-2 OSU with two double digit losses), but if Wisconsin defeats Minnesota and OSU defeats Michigan, the winner in Indianapolis likely receives a playoff spot.
New Year's Six (Peach, Fiesta or Cotton Bowls)
- Loser of Wisconsin vs. Ohio State; unless Ohio State loses in Ann Arbor and Indianapolis in back to back weeks, the loser of the B1G Championship is going to a NY6 at large bowl bid. If the Badgers beat Minnesota and lose to Ohio State, they are all but assured a NY6 at large bid with a 12-1 record.
- Penn State; if/when Penn State defeats a floundering Maryland team next weekend, they will receive a NY6 at large bid with a 10-2 record with two close road losses to ranked teams.
Citrus Bowl in Orlando vs. SEC
- Northwestern; the Wildcats are likely to finish 9-3 on a 7 game winning streak with their last game of the season being against Illinois. In addition to a head to head win over MSU to give them the better bowl, Northwestern has already been to the Outback Bowl (the next on the list) in this contract period so the Big Ten won't send them again. If Michigan defeats Ohio State to also finish 9-3, Northwestern would also get this spot anyways given that Michigan has already been to the Citrus Bowl in this contract period (2015).
Outback Bowl in Tampa vs. SEC
- Michigan State; the Spartans are also likely a lock for this bowl after likely winning next weekend to finish 9-3 (@Rutgers). Even if Michigan defeats OSU, MSU still should get this bowl over the Wolverines given their head to head win and the fact that Michigan has been to Florida for bowl games several years in a row (although, the Outback Bowl against South Carolina in 2012 was before the contract period started so they could send us again).
Holiday Bowl in San Diego vs. PAC 12
- Michigan; whether UM wins The Game or not, they seem exceedingly likely to go to the Holiday Bowl. It's the next most prominent bowl after Citrus/Outback, and no teams can catch us from behind record-wise (Iowa will finish either 7-5 or 6-6, the Purdue/IU winner will be 6-6). If Michigan does beat Ohio State, I guess they could theoretically move into the Outback if the Big Ten decides they want to raise MSU to the Citrus and lower NW to the Holiday. But that would go against head to head results, as NW would be in a worse bowl than State. You can imagine the MSU fanbase would make their displeasure known to the conference if Michigan got the Outback over them and they were sent to the Holiday based on their head to head win.
The Messy Final Two Spots
- There are four possible bowls for two teams here: TaxSlayer in Jacksonville, Music City in Nashville, Pinstripe in NYC and Foster Farms in Santa Clara, CA. However, there are numerous contract stipulations:
  - The Big Ten must play in one of TaxSlayer/Music City, but cannot play in both in the same year.
  - Iowa cannot play in the Taxslayer Bowl (attended in the 2014 season).
  - Indiana cannot play in the Pinstripe or Foster Farms Bowls (attended in the 2015 and 2016 seasons, respectively).
- If Indiana beats Purdue:
  - Iowa heads to either the Foster Farms Bowl against the PAC 12 or the Pinstripe Bowl against the ACC. I imagine the conference would let the Hawkeyes take their preference.
  - Indiana heads to either the Music City Bowl or the Taxslayer Bowl, both against the SEC.
- If Iowa beats Nebraska AND Purdue beats Indiana:
  - Iowa heads to the Music City Bowl.
  - Purdue heads to one of Pinstripe/Foster Farms. I imagine the conference would let the Boilermakers take their preference.
- If Iowa loses to Nebraska AND Purdue beats Indiana:
  - Purdue goes to either the Taxslayer or Music City bowl.
  - Iowa goes to either the Foster Farms or Pinstripe bowl.

Unfilled Bowls:

One of Pinstripe/Foster Farms Bowl
Quick Lane Bowl
Armed Forces Bowl

This is going to feel a bit listless of a column. It's just...this was exactly how I expected this game to go. It was a game of football played between two teams, and other than "Michigan is better than the last time they played a ranked team on the road this year", I'm not sure what else can be divined from the outcome.

Best: Road Work

The last time Michigan went on the road to play a top-5 team that had basically not seen a credible challenger all year previously...this happened. Michigan got run over, walloped, taken to the woodshed, curb-stomped, whatever euphemism you prefer for describing what PSU did to Michigan that night. I’m partial to saying Penn State stomped a mud-hole in Michigan and then walked it dry. But regardless, PSU trounced a healthier Michigan, and even the token resistance/hope they generated getting within 1 was a mirage. Penn State exploited every one of Michigan's weaknesses and could have won by even more had James Franklin had a couple more seconds at the end of the game.

So fast forward about a month, and Michigan headed to Madison down to their third-string QB (based on the depth chart at the time; I'm not going to re-litigate the O'Korn-Peters ranking), down maybe the best corner in the conference (Hill), and with a number of injuries that hobbled key performers like Higdon, Onwenu, and Isaac. Wisconsin has not really played anyone this whole year; while FAU is a top-20 team to S&P+ now, that was a club coming off a drubbing by Navy and wasn't close to being the team first-year coach Lane Kiffin turned them into. Beyond that, they share a victory over Purdue with Michigan as their other signature win, which says something considering Purdue is 43rd in the country and that's probably a bit generous. So this was going to be their signature game until the conference championship, their one chance to play a ranked team on national television. Like with PSU, Michigan was walking into the lion's den, a rabid stadium full of all the senior day pageantry and mid-November cheese- and beer-infused vittles that Wisconsin can provide. A similar outcome, perhaps not in amplitude but in severity, would have been reasonable to assume.

And yet, Michigan played with a poise and talent they didn't showcase against Penn State. Like PSU, Wisconsin isn't as good as their ranking suggested, but they are a good team, especially at home. They are a fundamentally sound defense and a competent offense; their record is inflated by playing in probably the worst division in Power 5 football. And yet, Michigan led this game midway through the third quarter and, perhaps more impressively, should have been ahead by more than 10-7. For the first half of the game, Michigan's average starting field position was their 30 yard line; for Wisconsin, it was their own 11. Michigan had converted 4 of their 9 3rd-down opportunities; Wisconsin was 1-6. Michigan had 170 yards of total offense to the Badgers' 99, and were largely holding Jonathan Taylor in check. And Michigan had suffered from some bad turnover luck, as Peters fumbled the ball at the 1 yard line while trying to stretch for a score. On the other side, Wisconsin's lone first-half score was a fluky-ish punt return in which the ball bounced and multiple Wolverines ran past the returner before he picked the ball up.

And yet, Michigan could never really take much advantage of their good fortune. The Badgers are not built for large deficits, and had Michigan been able to score on a couple of these drives they could have pushed Wisconsin out of their comfort zone; despite his solid play in the 2nd half, Alex Hornibrook and the Badgers are not going to throw themselves successfully back into a lot of games. But Michigan could never string drives together consistently, and so Wisconsin never had to deviate from their gameplan much offensively or defensively.

To Wisconsin's credit, they kept coming, and Peters kept getting blown up until he was finally knocked out by yet another unblocked Wisconsin defender. At that point, even though Michigan was only down 14-10, it felt like the game was over. The defense that had been leaned on all season was worn down by a relentless, Novacaine-like Wisconsin rush offense. Down Peters and with a hobbled backfield (Higdon limped off the field the play earlier, while Isaac had left in the first quarter), it was mostly academic after that. Michigan's defense gave up chunk plays to Taylor and the rest of the Wisconsin run game, Hornibrook suddenly couldn't miss, and the offense couldn't do a thing. In the end, Wisconsin won comfortably, the type of performance you'd expect from a top-ranked team at home.

Still, this felt like a good sign for such a young team. They 100% could have taken this game on the road with a couple more bounces, and while I'm sure there are people rushing to the comments to complain about whatever definition of "settling for mediocrity" they ascribe to, I really don't care. Michigan came into a year a flawed team, and due to untimely injuries, bad luck, and poor play, have suffered through an uneven year. But last year Wisconsin came to Michigan looking not unlike the Wolverines this year, with uncertainty and youth at QB and issues along the offensive line. They put up 159 yards of total offense and were thoroughly dominated. This year, Michigan played them even for most of the day, and it didn't feel like the mismatch some assumed coming in. This season is going to end, in all likelihood, with a thump at the hands of Ohio State; whatever optimism you can perceive from this column isn't remotely applicable to the angry buzz saw coming next weekend. Still, this is a talented team taking their lumps this year, and seeing them play well on the road against Wisconsin when a far worse effort would have not be a surprise is encouraging.

Best: The Defense

I know - Wisconsin put up 325 yards of total offense and averaged a healthy 6.1 ypc. That's more yards than Northwestern and (inexplicably) Illinois gave up in their games against the Badgers. They gave up a number of long plays, especially on third down during that decisive 3rd quarter, that snuffed out any hopes of a win. They missed tackles, blew coverages, and weren't world-beaters by any stretch of the imagination.

The safeties in particular had some adventures. Metellus and Kinnel both missed tackles on the larger chunk plays given up, and both got victimized by Hornibrook's random NFL-level throws. Wisconsin was also able to slowly push around the Michigan front 7; when your top 3 tacklers are your two safeties and the Viper, that's usually a sign that your opponent is getting to the second level somewhat consistently. And in the second half, Wisconsin got into a bit of a rhythm, scoring 17 points on 3 of their last 4 meaningful drives.

And yet, I find myself pleased with their performance overall. Michigan picked up 8 TFLs, about double the total Wisconsin usually gives up in a game this year. They picked off one pass, and probably could have snagged another, despite being without their top corner and enlisting true-freshman Kelly-Powell to play meaningful snaps. They were victims of some questionable officiating in terms of pass interference; both Kinnel and Metellus were dinged on throws that were probably uncatchable, while Wisconsin's Tindal basically tackled Michigan players on multiple routes and was only called for a single hold on the first drive of the game. And while Taylor's box score shows a solid performance, he was mostly held in check save for a 52-yard bust late in the game. Credit should go to Hornibrook for making some nice throws (his two throws on their second scoring drive, in particular, were great), but for the game he completed under 50% of his throws.

In these last couple of games, judging the defense may be a bit like judging Michigan's defenses toward the end of the Hoke regime; in a vacuum, somewhat divorced from the offense. That may seem harsh, but we've seen what this offense will probably look like the health of the personnel available. It's going to be a grind for this team to move the ball, and that likely will lead to limited drives that will task the defense with keeping games close. And against OSU, "keeping it close" still isn't probably going to be pretty. So I'm going to look for Michigan's defense to show its growing maturity at the fringes, in limiting breakdowns and generating some pressure on Barrett. It's maybe a sad commentary on this season that I'm not expecting more, but this two-game stretch to end the year was never going to be that pretty.

Meh: The Offense

Yeah, this is going to be a broad-strokes couple of topics, the offense and the defense. I'll be honest, watching this game felt like how I envision most of Wisconsin looks like: repetitive, mushy, cold, and angry, with a couple of interesting spots along the way. Trying to tease out meaningful nuance is left for someone willing to rewatch this game with an eye for it; Godspeed to Brian in the UFR.

In a bit of an inversion from the past couple of games, Michigan was pretty good throwing the ball (Peters was 9/18 for 157 yards a nice 8.7 ypa, and no picks) and could do basically nothing on the ground (2.2 ypc without sacks). But overall, it was sort of what I expected based on this Wisconsin's strengths along the front 7 and Michigan's complete inability to block defenders capable of any form of trickeration. I know Wisconsin only recorded 2 sacks on the day, but they hit Michigan QBs seemingly at will, officially finishing with 5 QB hits and that number probably could have been 2 or 3 more. I know the offensive line has made strides run-blocking this year, and I honestly believe had Higdon and Isaac been fully healthy they probably nudge over 100 yards rushing in this game. But Michigan has lost 3 QBs this year to various "getting run over by marauding 250lb+ defenders", and that's at least partially on the guys in front of them.

DPJ finally broke free for a long ball, and Gentry snuck behind the defense for a long catch. You can see the skeleton of a good offense here, and with another year of seasoning and some maturation by guys like DPJ, Peters, and Gentry, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was a top-20 offense next year. The offensive line will probably hold them back a bit, but at the same time they could get by with 2 competent tackles; at some point, the mass of bodies fighting for one of those 2 spots will return with a winner.

Before his injury, Peters looked solid at the helm; he was directing the offense efficiently and didn't look flustered playing on the road in such an environment. Yes, his throw to McDoom in the endzone probably should have been picked off, and his fumble at the goal line was a by-product of poor ball security, inexperience, and bad luck. At the same time, he was decisive when throwing early and really spread out the ball, and his throw to DPJ in the endzone should have been a TD had anyone in the booth actually been paying attention to the game and not, I don't know, looking forward to a bunch of drunk Wisconsin coeds jumping around on bleachers to a a House of Pain song released between 5 and 8 years before they were fucking born. But I digress. Peters likely being out for the OSU game is perhaps a fitting coda on this year, but it's sad to miss out on him getting a chance to take on OSU and (hopefully) continuing his maturation as a high-quality signal caller.

I'm not optimistic about this team's chances against OSU offensively, as the Buckeyes seems angry again and have stymied similar offenses these past couple of weeks. If O'Korn is under center I assume the running game will see a health dose of 8+ men in the box on most plays, so a repeat of this game's performance in the box score is likely.

Best: Kicking the Ball

Brad Robbins had a Blake O'Neill-type game, in which he pinned Wisconsin within their 20 repeatedly, including one at their own 3 yard line. For the game, he averaged 40 yards per kick and 30 yards next, which is pretty impressive considering he got dinged for a 50-yard return that had nothing to do with the quality of his kick. And Quinn Nordin demonstrably rifled his one attempt through the uprights to give Michigan their sole lead of the game. Hopefully this is a sign going forward that his slump has passed.

Worst: Piping Hot Takes

No fanbase handles losses particularly well, and Michigan is no different. Usually after a loss like this, you'll maybe get some high-profile knuckleheads chiming in with inane comments, a whole slew of naysayers with the pitchforks and the memes (10 years without a road win against a ranked team! was the new one this week) aplenty, and a heavy dose of trollish "fans" who have super-detailed opinions about the quality of the Nike uniforms and how often they've beaten their rivals but couldn't name more than 3 starters on the team. It's the nature of the beast, and Michigan being one of the most prominent programs in country, you'll get a surplus of them.

And I'd love to say it's best to ignore these voices, not because every negative opinion should be treated as invalid, but because they tend to be lazy and without anything meaningful behind them beyond stunted anger. Braylon Edwards questioning why John O'Korn got a scholarship is just him being an asshole; his attempts to walk it back were about as lame as you'd expect from someone claiming "Wtf approved his scholarship and transfer????????" was cogent college football analysis. Of course, he's also one of the few Wolverines I've seen with his own detailed "Legal Issues" entry in his Wikipedia bio, so perhaps none of this should have been a surprise.

What bothers most fans is Michigan hasn't beaten OSU and to a lesser extent, MSU, for a long time. I'd argue that MSU's recent wins have been of the "pull it out of your ass" variety; I said it after this year's MSU game, but these games under Harbaugh feel like those random wins Sparty used to get in decades past. It doesn't feel overly sustainable, as punts usually go unblocked and 5 picks in rainstorms are not meteorologically common. But OSU continues to be better than Michigan, and waiting for the Buckeyes to come back to the pack isn't a viable strategy. So I get the consternation on that front. But there's this pervasive stench emanating from a part of the fanbase that Harbaugh is not meeting expectations and that a change should happen if some (usually somewhat arbitrary) threshold is not met. And to me, that seems insane. For one, Jim Harbaugh has proven to be a great coach literally everywhere else he's landed; it's hard to imagine he suddenly lost that ability when he arrived at Michigan. His first two years were solid showings for a program that hadn't enjoyed any sustained success for nearly a decade. This year, with one of the youngest teams in the country and a rash of injuries, he's taken some lumps but also should finish with 8 or 9 wins; I'm sure Florida and FSU, to name but two recent opponents, would kill to have Michigan's "underperformance" this year. Expectations get raised with the higher profile coaches and positions, and I get that, but in the end you are relying on college students and that can be highly variable; look no further than Iowa blowing out OSU in what is otherwise a down year for the Hawkeyes. And secondly, who is the replacement for Jim Harbaugh? I've said this before, but he's the "in case of emergency" hire; if he can't make Michigan a national power again, you might as well just hibernate for the next decade and check back.

There will need to be changes made to the coaching staff. The offensive line remains a sore point for the umpteenth season; you can explain some of it away with recruiting issues from previous regimes, but at some point having Maryland's depth chart at QB because guys are getting destroyed in the backfield falls on the sidelines. I'm more sanguine about the overall offensive performance this year because of the line issues and also because of the upheaval at QB and the youth at key spots. But every position and coach needs to be evaluated, and I assume some changes will be made.

Worst: These Injuries

This is bleed-over from the last topic, but I thought it was worth discussing a bit on its own. Michigan started the year with something like 5 returning starters total, and that included Cole, who switched out to left tackle from his center spot. Coming into this game, Michigan was without their original starting QB (Speight), starting corner (Hill), top-3 receiver (Black), and as the game progressed, 2 of their 3 leading rushers (Higdon and Isaac) and their current starting QB (Peters). Just think about teams like Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, etc. missing so many top players. They'd be shells of their current selves; remove Lewerke and Scott from MSU and they're probably a 3-win team; put McSorley on the sideline and Franklin is probably back on the hot seat instead of just being a disappointment. Alex Hornibrook leads the conference in picks and (last I saw) was tied for pick-sixes; I'm not sure who is the 3rd-string QB on that team, but he'd be 2 steps below that performance. Michigan has suffered from a rash of injuries that they had (largely) skirted the past couple of years; yes they'd lose a Glasgow or a QB, but Michigan has played guys like Collins and JKP because they have to, not because they feel those guys are ready to constructively add to the team.

This is not making excuses for a loss; other than the inexplicable MSU game, Michigan has lost to better teams and probably would have even with a full squad. But when judging Michigan this year, it shouldn't be overlooked that they are a young team that somehow got even younger and less experienced as the year progressed. The fact they've been some competitive despite that portends a bright future, but the present is certainly less exciting.

Quick Hits

I'm sort of hoping Wisconsin gets into the playoffs because I'd love to see the B1G scoreless streak continue. Depending on the matchup, I could see the Badgers getting some cheap 3 or 7 point score down 28, but if this team is the best the conference can offer, they should just sit the year out. Taylor seems like yet another in a long line of perfectly fine Wisconsin running backs, but he certainly doesn't seem to generate many yards beyond what the line and formation get him. And their passing game seems about as robust as Michigan's this year, even when you factor in the injuries. Hornibrook has his moments, but even in this game a number of his best throws were either on busts or into tough windows; nothing seems to come all that easy or consistently for them. And since I saw this mentioned a couple of times how Paul Chryst has about the same coaching record at Wisconsin as Harbaugh has a Michigan and how underrated Chryst is as a coach, the last 3 coaches since Alvarez at Wisconsin (Beilema, Anderson, and Chryst) have a combined record of 81-98 at every other stop in their career, while 118-37 at Wisconsin. And the two previous coaches ran away screaming from that place despite the success they enjoyed. So it really doesn't seem to matter who's the coach at Wisconsin; they'll feast on a bad division and have an offensive and defensive philosophy that works for available talent. But at times the West almost feels like a really good G5 conference and not a P5 division; the division has had more than 1 team finish the season ranked exactly once (2015) in its existence, and even if NW sneaks in this season you are reminded just how lopsided these divisions are.
Both teams were only flagged for 4 penalties, but it felt like the two big pass interference calls against Michigan were incredibly suspect. Much like grounding, I don't know what is considered the "catch radius" for a receiver in college football. On the DPI assessed to Metellus, the ball seemed to be about 4-5 yards yards behind both players at the time of the flag; contact at that point is irrelevant. Similarly, Kinnel grabbing a guy's hand when the ball is over his head and yards downfield is equally irrelevant. Coupled with the inexplicable DPJ TD review and it was just a day where the couple of times the refs inserted themselves into the game were almost uniformly bad ideas. They didn't change the outcome of the game in all likelihood, but it was still tiring to watch yet another game in which you just sort of assumed the refs were going to screw something up.
In another example of "how did Michigan lose to these guys", MSU won their game against Maryland despite completing 2 of 14 passes for 20 yards. Snow and all that, but maybe pump the breaks on the "Brian Lewerke for Heisman" campaignin 2018.
In a more positive outlook, it was nice to see the WRs, especially DPJ, assert themselves a bit more in the passing game. These guys are all coming back next year, and all of them look to be making strides despite the upheaval at QB. In particular, DPJ has gotten to the point where he's consistently getting open and then getting screwed by bad calls or bad throws, as opposed to earlier in the year whe he couldn't even present a target.

Not in the Face

I want to be optimistic about next week's game. OSU isn't a great team, and teams that can get some pressure on Barrett have had success this season. But I'm not that naive. OSU knows if they win out they'll have a shot at the playoffs; beating the snot out of Michigan is another step in that direction. Michigan will likely be starting O'Korn and have a number of dinged-up running backs, and against this OSU defense that's going to probably go about as well as you expect. It'll be close for a bit, and maybe the turnover gods will look favorably upon Michigan and give them some free possessions, but Wisconsin felt like the big game Michigan could have won, and even at home OSU is just a different beast. I know it's a sour note to end the week, but I'm just looking for a competitive contest going into the 4th quarter, and then we'll see from there.

Hey Coop, wanna stick around for a fourth year, too? (Patrick Barron)

OFFENSE

	Corsi	House	Possession %
First Period	17	7	55%
Second Period	17	4	52%
Third Period	31	11	67%
Overtime	4	1	33%
TOTAL	69	23	57%

Analysis: Michigan has definitely improved their offense this season. Tonight was further evidence of that. There was a spell in the second period where Michigan couldn’t stay out of the penalty box, but aside from that, they pretty much controlled the even-strength play. They created chances all over the ice and scored all four goals at even strength. Cooper Marody has really blossomed to the point that there are whispers in my hockey circle that he might be too good for the collegiate ranks. Tony Calderone has built upon his last couple of years by continuing to snipe and pour in goals. The offense is still only two lines deep, but that top line is starting to turn some heads. No comparisons yet, though, please.

[After THE JUMP: new shot-generating capabilites were present, but so were some bad old habits]

Read more »

Hello,

I’m no expert on football, statistics, or blogging.

That said, here are a few factors that may give Michigan a better chance at knocking off Wisconsin than initially meets the eye:

1. QB Questions

Alex Hornibrook appears to be having a solid season, quarterbacking the 5^th ranked team in the country to a 10-0 start while putting up the following statistics:

G	Cmp.	Att.	Pct.	Yds.	Y/A	TD	Int.	Rate
10	132	206	64.1	1863	9.0	17	12	155.6

That looks like an adequate stat line when you’ve got an elite run game that’s backed up by an elite defense. But, analyzing an athlete’s statistics is like looking at pictures on Tinder; you want to see something recent and you want a view of the full picture so you have the proper perspective of what you’re getting into.

Hornibrook started hot through the first three games of the season, beating up on Mormon cupcakes. In fact, he battered them cupcakes. Here are his stats since that point:

G	Cmp.	Att.	Pct.	Yds.	Y/A	TD	Int.	Rate
7	83	136	61.0	1162	8.5	9	11	138.5

While those numbers aren’t impressive in a traditional sense, or any other sense, it does appear that Paul Chryst won’t lose sleep over whether or not Hornibrook will declare for 2018 NFL Draft, so it’s not all bad.

He’s averaged one interception for every 12.4 pass attempts in conference play, and they haven’t faced a pass defense as good as Michigan’s.

2. Rock Drop

The biggest thorn in Michigan’s side, at least defensively, is freshmen phenom, Heisman hopeful, Jonathan Taylor. He was obviously an unheralded recruit, as no person in history has ever chosen to move to Wisconsin when other options were on the table, but he’s tearing it up this year.

Taylor’s 2017 rushing stats so far:

G	Att.	Yards	Avg.	TD
10	219	1525	7.0	12

His stats may be better than Mike Hart’s freshmen season, but George Orwell never wrote a book about Taylor. While his numbers border on outrageous, there’s still some cause for hope.

First, he’s a true freshman. This may become a factor, it may not.

Next, he’s fumbled five times over the past five weeks—a trend that’s correlated with the volume of his carries. On the season, he’s broken the 20-carry mark in six games; fumbling six times in those games (once each against Purdue, Indiana, Florida Atlantic, and Maryland, twice against Iowa, and none against Nebraska, whose rush defense probably doesn’t crack the top–250 nationally, if high school programs are counted).

Finally, Northwestern is the only top–35 rush defense (in terms of total rush yards allowed) Taylor has faced so far, and he only managed 80 yards on 19 carries in that game. Michigan’s rush defense ranks 9^thin that measurement.

3. Left Out Wideouts

Their top receiver, Quintez Cephus, has been ruled out. So far this year, Cephus had 501 receiving yards—more than twice as many as their next closest wideout—and six touchdowns. Their top receiver from last season was recently booted from the program. While they do have an excellent tight end in Troy Fumagalli, all of the wide receivers they’ll enter the game with have fewer receptions and receiving yards than Grant Perry has this season. That’s probably not ideal if you have the misfortune of being a Badgers fan.

4. Homefield (Dis)Advantage

On the road this year, Wisconsin averages more points per game and fewer points against per game; Taylor averages more yards per game and per attempt; and Hornibrook averages more touchdown passes and fewer interceptions per game, and has a higher completion percentage and passer rating.

5. Chryst isn’t a Savior

Michigan should have a “decided schematic advantage.”

Chryst took over a Pittsburgh program that went a combined 24-15 over the three seasons preceding his tenure and guided them to a 19-19 mark during his three seasons there (while also showing no improvement in W-L record over that time). Chryst may wear khakis on the sidelines, but he certainly doesn’t fill them like Harbaugh. Plus, Jim Leonhard has less than two seasons’ worth of coaching experience; Don Brown has more experience in one fiber of his power-stache.

Conclusion

Living in a region dubbed the “Dairy State” means you’re surrounded by cows and the accompanying stench of manure. Regardless of what happens in the game tomorrow, Wisconsin will still literally smell like shit.

Primary links

Navigation

User login

MGoElsewhere

Michigan Blogs

M On The Net

Big Ten Blogs

Links of Note

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

MGoBoard