Diaries

Sitting at my desk and waiting for the next “Hello” post to arrive, I have been studying the recruiting success we've had since Hoke & Co's arrival and trying to figure out how excited I should be about 2013 and beyond. The goal, obviously, is to build a program that is competing for B1G and National Championships every year. But how good does our recruiting have to be in order to accomplish that?

In Part I, I took a look at how the dark lord himself managed to put together one of the most dominant runs in college football history.  Nick Saban's Alabama teams are loaded with blue chip recruits, but he also oversigns every year. To him, a scholarship is really just an offer to try out for the Crimson Tide, and kids that aren't cutting it are sent packing for whatever reason Saban can use to justify booting them (his favorite is “violating team rules”). I hope Michigan never uses the oversigning methods of the SEC, but we will have to find players that make a similar impact if we're going to compete with those programs.

So what does it mean to have a roster that can compete with Alabama? CHART!

These charts represent Saban's '07-'09 classes, with the bars representing the IMPACT rating. Like Hoke, Saban's first class was composed almost entirely of his predecessor's recruits. And, like Hoke, Saban's next two classes were relatively large and represented a significant improvement over his first class.

For the time period, the average Saban recruit was a 5.78 Rivals Rating. This is roughly equivalent to a low four-star recruit. And as the chart shows, the rankings do matter. Referring back to Part I, this chart compares the impact of recruits with their Rivals Rating. Briefly, a high impact is better; a “1” is a player that did not contribute during his career at 'Bama, a “2” is a minor contirbutor or role player, and a “3” is a solid starter or better. Perhaps the most important thing about the rankings is that there is a clear trend that the higher you are ranked, the less likely it is that you will end-up a non-factor (IMPACT of 1). On a percentage basis, the 5.8 players actually out-performed the 5.9 and 6.0 players, but the general trend is that the more highly-rated players are more likely to contribute.

It helps Saban that the sample size of 5.6 or lower recruits is very small. His roster is composed, almost exclusively, of very highly-rated three-star or better recruits (5.7 or better). His reputation for finding diamonds in the rough—as far as I can tell—is complete myth. His highly-rated prospects produce; his lower-rated prospects (the few that even stay in Tuscaloosa) generally do not contribute.

So how does this compare to Michigan? Chart? Chart!

Michigan's 2011 class numbered 20 recruits. I would expect that classes will average 20-24 recruits under Hoke (mean of 22). This accounts for attrition, and basically divides the team into five classes: RS Freshmen, Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors. Saban, working with the same number of scholarships, averaged 27.7 recruits in his first three classes, and has averaged exactly 25 commitments per class since then. That means he's getting three extra chances at a good player every year. This is a big difference, but not insurmountable.

The 2011 Michigan class was damaged by transfers, but nothing like Saban's 2007 group. Ten (!) players from Saban's first class did not finish their careers at 'Bama. Hoke, so far, has lost six of his first class to transfers, and it appears unlikely he'll lose any more: of the remaining 14 players, 11 have played and two are front-runners for starting positions on the 2013 O-line (Jack Miller and Chris Bryant). That leaves only Antonio Poole, who was a 5.7 (highest 3-star) on Rivals and a 4-star on Scout. With Michigan loaded at LB, Poole may end-up transferring due to a lack of playing time—there's about a 50-50 chance of him contributing in some way during his career.

The 2011 Michigan class' average Rivals Rating was 5.62. Take out the kicker (Wile) and the average jumps to 5.64 ('Bama did not recruit a kicker in '07). This is a clear disadvantage compared to 'Bama's 5.70 average.

But the real bottom line is production. Saban turned 9 members of that class into contributing players, and four of those were all-stars. Will Michigan find similar success? I actually think we'll do better on average, if not at the top. Here are the guys and their projected IMPACT at the end of their careers:

• Blake Countess - 3
• Ramon Taylor - 3
• Desmond Morgan - 3
• Keith Heitzman - 3
• Brennen Beyer - 2
• Frank Clark - 2
• Thomas Rawls - 2
• Justice Hayes - 2
• Chris Bryant - 2
• Jack Miller - 2
• Delonte Hollowell - 1
• Antonio Poole - 1
• Russell Bellomy - 1
• Matt Wile - 3

That's 10 productive players (11 counting the kicker), four of whom I believe have a good chance of being drafted. I also believe my grading has been pretty harsh—several of those 2's could be 3's, and only one of the 3's (Heitzman) is a guy who hasn't fully proven himself. Bryant, Miller, and Beyer seem the most likely to become 3's, but Rawls, Hayes, and Clark all have game experience and are certainly not out of the running. That said, RB's usually show something early in their career if they will have an impact later in their career. 2013 is likely their last chance.

The final verdict is that this class appears poised to produce a lighter top than 'Bama's 2007 group, but a thicker middle. The group will probably be more productive on paper, but lacks the All-American types. On to class #2...

Saban's second class was epic in terms of quality and quantity—like the extended version of Return of the King—loading-up 32 recruits with an average Rivals Rating of 5.81. Hoke's second class follows the trend of his first, with 25 commitments averaging 5.75—the same difference in average rating as their first classes. 15 'Bama players from the 2008 class were contributors, and ten earned an IMPACT value of 3. All ten of those guys are in the NFL or headed there. Seven more players from Saban's group busted at 'Bama, and the rest were sent out to pasture. Will Hoke's first full class produce ten NFL-bound starters and five role players? This group requires a bit more explaining:

• Joe Bolden - 3 – Already demonstrated ability to play at high level
• Dennis Norfleet - 3 – Value in return game will skyrocket, but will he play much otherwise?
• James Ross - 3 – Either Ross or Bolden will probably be a 3-year starter...maybe both
• Devin Funchess - 3 – Best receiving TE talent at UM in recent memory
• Mario Ojemudia - 3 – Showed flashes in 2012, IMO will pass Beyer and Clark on depth chart
• Ondre Pipkins - 3 – Highly-touted recruit has controlled his weight and should start in 2013
• Kyle Kalis - 3 – Beast projected to be a four-year starter
• Erik Magnuson - 3 – Giving the highest-rated lineman the best chance to end-up a multi-year starter
• Amara Darboh - 3 – Burned redshirt because of physical talent; either he or Chesson will likely start multiple seasons
• Jarrod Wilson - 3 – Starting in 2013? Maybe, but almost certainly starting in 2014 and beyond
• Blake Bars - 2 – One more lineman from this class will have to contribute
• Royce Jenkins-Stone - 2 – RJS is a solid four-star whose biggest challenge is the loaded LB depth chart
• Terry Richardson - 2 – 50/50 on whether or not this 5.8 recruit pans out
• Tom Strobel - 2 – The 2012 class will need at least one more contributor on the D-line; Strobel and Wormley seem like the best candidantes
• AJ Williams - 2 – Will probably spend career as a blocker
• Ben Braden - 2 – Which BB will contribute? Ben Braden or Blake Bars?
• Sione Houma - 2 – Likely a blocking FB who now must compete with Shallman.
• Christopher Wormley - 2 – Massive recruit who may have helped this year if not for injury
• Jehu Chesson - 2 – System change gives Chesson and Darboh the opportunity to play early
• Jeremy Clark - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's
• Matthew Godin - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's
• Allen Gant - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's
• Willie Henry - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's
• Drake Johnson - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's
• Kaleb Ringer - 1 – Not all recruits will pan out; lowest-rated guys being given 1's

That's ten 3's—the same number as 'Bama—and I believe all could be successful playing on Sundays. As for the 2's, AJ Williams and Terry Richardson seem like locks to be multi-year contributors if not starters, and the rest will probably end-up splitting 50/50. That means four or five will wind-up helping the team and the rest—along with the 1's—will probably not offer much.

It's VERY important to me that no one takes this the wrong way. I am not, in any way, predicting that specific kids will end-up as busts. I use the names only because it makes the numbers real, but the truth is that my predictions are based on limited evidence and my statistical analysis. I sincerely apologize to any player or person who is offended by these projections; again, it is not personal, just my best attempt to predict recruiting success at Michigan.

The bottom line for this class is, IMO, very good. I believe that, compared to 'Bama's '08 class, we'll get similar numbers in terms of quality contributors and role players, despite having seven fewer recruits. But will this group have star power to compare with the likes of Julio Jones, Mark Barron, and Mark Ingram? I don't see a Heisman winner on this list, but Ross, Bolden, Funchess, Kalis, and Pipkins all have a very good chance at being All-B1G and first-half NFL draft choices, IMO. Time will tell if they compare to 'Bama, but the numbers are kind. The average Rivals Rating of 'Bama's ten players who earned a 3 is 5.82; Michigan's average of the players I have projected to be 3's is 5.85. Hoke's first haul lacks stars at the skill positions like Julio Jones and Mark Ingram, but it may be just as productive and yield early draft choices on the lines and at LB.

The 2013 class is, by far, the most difficult to project. Obvious is obvious—these guys have not yet seen the field as college players and all of my predictions will be based on pure speculation. But how does Hoke's third effort compare to Saban's 2009 class?

To review, Saban's '09 class was another big one—27 recruits following the 33 from '08—and was chock full of talent, producing an average Rivals Rating of 5.83 with four 5-star (6.1) players. The class delivered in a big way, with all of those 5-star players earning 3's, and three of them becoming absolute studs. Six more players from Saban's third class earned 3's (for a total of ten) and the class had all-stars Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacy, AJ McCarron, DJ Fluker, Dre Kirkpatrick, and Chance Warmack. Three more players earned 2's, giving the class 13 total contributors. Those 13 players had an average Rivals Rating of 5.9—a top 150 recruit.

Michigan's 2013 class also had 27 recruits. The average Rivals Rating for Team 134 commitments is 5.79—just .04 below 'Bama's third class. Take out of long-snapper ('Bama had no specialists in its '09 class) and the average jumps to 5.81—a ridiculously good average that is basically equivalent to a low 4-star recruit. Will Michigan's class produce ten players who earn 3 IMPACT ratings and a handful more of 2's? I believe so. Will Michigan's class produce star power similar 'Bama's '09 group? I doubt it. Saban reeled-in four 5-star (6.1) recruits, one 6.0, and seven 5.9's. Michigan had just one 6.1, but did have three 6.0's to go with six 5.9's. That means Saban's class had two more blue chip recruits, which is a significant statistical advantage in that it probably means one more all-star or high impact player. But from a total team perspective, the difference is smaller. Michigan's group should still produce a similar number of 2's and 3's on the IMPACT scale. Here is my ridiculously uninformed, way-too-early, obnoxiously long, and somewhat offensive projection for each Michigan recruit:

• Derrick Green - 3 – Seems like a perfect fit for the system and the depth chart is shallow at RB
• Henry Poggi - 3 – Worst-case scenario (if healthy), Poggi is Ryan Van Bergen
• Patrick Kugler - 3 – Son-of-a-coach at a position where 2013's projected starter is a converted D-lineman
• Shane Morris - 3 – Shane or Wilton Speight is likely to be a multi-year starter; could be #2 in 2013
• Dymonte Thomas - 3 – If it's possible to a sleeper as a 5.9 recruit, he is; already enrolled
• Mike McCray - 3 – Could follow Jake Ryan as the next great Michigan SAM
• Kyle Bosch - 3 – Nasty man with college size and an early enrollee
• Chris Fox - 3 – We are still a bit short OT's after 2013; likely multi-year starter
• Jake Butt - 3 – Early enrollee will almost ceratinly play significant minutes in 2013
• Taco Charlton - 3 – Will Taco be the best pure pass-rusher on the 2013 team? Already enrolled.
• Jourdan Lewis - 2 – Not tall; great athlete but IMO a 50/50 shot at becoming starter
• Ross Douglas - 2 – Another 50/50 player; he or Lewis probably pans out; already enrolled
• Delano Hill - 2 – Safety is actually becoming a pretty loaded position; Hill has a 50/50 shot
• Ben Gedeon - 2 – Like this kid's character, so he's a 3 in my heart, but LB is loaded
• David Dawson - 2 – Great prospect, but our O-line is suddenly loaded on the interior
• Logan Tuley-Tillman - 2 – Massive man who will benefit from his early enrollment
• Wyatt Shallman - 2 – Probably destined for FB or DT; will probably be a great role player
• Maurice Hurst Jr. - 2 – I believe this kid is a sleeper
• Deveon Smith - 2 – More suited to Michigan's style than current backs
• Jaron Dukes - 2 – Conspicuously good production in HS against good DB's
• Khalid Hill - 2 – TE is still a thin position for Michigan; Hill will have a chance to contribute
• Da'Mario Jones - 2 – Only the recruiting services thought this kid was a 3-star
• Scott Sypniewski - 1 – Long snappers are long snappers
• Csont'e York - 1 – They can't all work out; just trying to make the numbers accurate
• Reon Dawson - 1 – They can't all work out; just trying to make the numbers accurate
• Dan Samuelson - 1 – They can't all work out; just trying to make the numbers accurate
• Channing Stribling - 1 – They can't all work out; just trying to make the numbers accurate

Of the twelve players that were projected as 2's, it's likely that about half will end-up as non-factors. The other half will be some combination of 2's and 3's, and a couple of the projected 3's will end-up as 2's or busts. That leaves this class with about ten 3's, five 2's, and twelve 1's. This is roughly equivalent to what 'Bama produced from their third class in terms of IMPACT.

Conclusions

Hoke's recruits from these first three classes will probably be more productive than Saban's because the Michigan roster was in much worse shape for two reasons: 'Bama's '06 class was loaded with talent while Michigan's 2010 group was a 3-star party; and Saban inherited a roster much more suited to his style than did Hoke. So while it may seem like my projections have been generous, I do believe Michigan will crank out 3's and 2's at a high rate from these first three classes, partly out of necessity. But the numbers indicate that these players will be highly productive, but not quite the all-stars that the Tide crank out year after year.

Michigan has some important statistical disadvantages. The first is pure numbers: Saban brought in 11 more commitments than Hoke did in his first three years. I believe this comparative weakness will be mostly—if not completely—overcome by the character of the Michigan commits. Not only does Saban dump players who are less talented, he also loses more guys to crime and grades than does Hoke, and my guess is that Hoke will probably have fewer pure busts. I do believe Hoke can overcome the roughly three player per class disadvantage. Overall, just looking at limited numbers, I would guess that the actual advantage is only about one extra player per recruiting cycle due to the Tide's willingness to take kids that are good at football but not so good at life.

The second difference is the talent of the recruits. Saban's first three classes hold a .05 average Rivals Rating advantage over Hoke's, and the chart above tells the story: Saban got more top level recruits in his first three classes. Notice the big differences in 5.9, 6.0, and 6.1 recruits. Saban had 29 commits fall into those categories—more than a third (35%) of his '07-'09 commitments. Hoke has had just 14, representing less than 1/5 (19%) of Michigan's signees. In fact, the only ratings in which Michigan picked-up more recruits than 'Bama are the 5.5 and 5.6 levels, which are low-to-mid 3-star types.

Michigan also has underwhelming talent and/or depth at a couple of positions where the Tide is loaded: RB and WR. Treadwell chose the Ole Miss snake oil, leaving Michigan with only 3-star recruits at WR (though I believe two of those prospects were underrated) and 'Bama grabs 4-star WR's on a consistent basis. At RB, Michigan's 2013 class is excellent, but it will take another year or two of classes like that to have comparable talent to 'Bama.

D-Line is another spot where Michigan is still thin; the Heininger Certainty Principle helps here, but we'll still need pass-rushers. Saban recruits DE's to play OLB in his 3-4 scheme, so he uses different bodies in different ways, but he recruits DE/LB types very heavily, and 2-3 DT's every year as well. I expect Michigan to be recruiting 3-5 D-line prospects every year going forward

Saban tends to take lots of lower-rated OL recruits and still turns them into stars. His strategy seems to be to simply get five or six OL commits every year and turn a couple into All-SEC types while the rest land on the trash heap. Positionally, that seems to be the only real difference among Hoke and Saban's targets—Michigan's focus on the best possible O-line players and 'Bama's relative ignorance of that position in terms of Rivals Ratings.

The bottom line is that Saban signed more players and got better talent in his first three tries than did Hoke. That said, Hoke's focus on character mitigates those disadvantages by having fewer misses and getting more out of his players. But in order to build a juggernaut, we will probably need classes that are consistently as strong as our 2013 haul. And while Hoke's latest effort is on par with Saban's early classes, 'Bama has continued to improve the quality of their recruits: 2013 is Saban's best class yet.

The talent gap is still there, but it seems to be closing. Can character and coaching help build a national champion in Ann Arbor? Time will tell.

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE RUSHING OFFENSE IN THE BIG TEN: 2000-PRESENT

I would like to mention first that I am going for a slightly more conversational diary this week because even I grow weary of charts and graphs from time to time. That, and I have to make far too many for work this week as it is, so for fear of mixing managing and MGoBlogging, I’ll try to present my wanderings of the past week in my normal strange prose.

I started thinking a few days ago about what some of the best rushing offenses were in the Big Ten since 2000. Admittedly, I chose this as the cutoff because I’ve been to the NCAA site enough that I know this is where the convenient tables end and the screens which read more like old printouts begin. In any case, it’s enough data to come up with a few good cases of teams that had very menacing rushing offenses. It is important to note that I used only the 11 teams which have been in the Big Ten through the entire studied period because of another diary that you might see in the coming weeks (no offense to Nebraska).

So, I dumped 13 seasons of rushing data into Excel. In all that time, the Big Ten has amassed enough yards to actually make a round trip from the Earth to the Moon twice (using average orbital distance), with a little yardage to spare. (EDIT: I flubbed the math and unit conversion here - my fail). In numerical terms, that would be 299,397 yards. In those yards, the ball was handed to someone 69,988 times and that someone managed to get an average of 4.28 yards per carry. The many teams in this stretch averaged 169.63 yards per game (2,093 net yards on average) and generally sat towards the middle of the national rankings of rushing offenses. Those teams also averaged 21 rushing TDs per year.

Fun facts for the dinner table there, right? Well, next, I created another table of the teams that were above the grand mean in all of the following – net yards, yards per carry, yards per game and touchdowns – as I thought these would provide some insight just how much more productive some of the better rushing offenses were in that stretch.

As it turns out, 41 teams in that group qualify. They account for 113,193 yards (an average of 2,760 net yards), or 37% of the total for the 13 seasons, and 32% of the carries in that same stretch. These 41 teams actually averaged 5.00 yards per carry and 218.94 yards per game as well as 30 rushing TDs. Also interesting is this – the cumulative win percentage of the Big Ten in this period is 0.562, but among these 41 teams, it is 0.669. It could be said that being what would basically be the first quartile of rushing offenses, at least in the Big Ten, accounts for possibly 1-2 more wins in a season. It may even be the case that, if we drew out a football event tree, you might find that rushing performance cascades through the offensive performance in general.

At this point, I performed the same analysis with these 41 teams, taking only teams whose statistics were above the averages in all four categories. This pares the list down to 12 teams. These twelve teams account for 12.5% of the rushing yards amassed in this space, as well as nearly 10% of the carries. They average 5.4 yards per carry and 249.50 yards per game, as well as 3,118 net yards. The average TD number also jumped to 38 here, which is, well, 2-3 rushing TDs per game basically (again, average – we love averages here). Not surprisingly, most of them ranked in the top ten rushing offenses for their respective years.

Which twelve were at the top, you ask? They are, in no particular order, 2012 Ohio State, 2011 and 2010 Michigan, 2010-2012 Wisconsin, 2002 Penn State, 2000 Northwestern, 2003 and 2005 Minnesota and 2000 and 2001 Indiana. Something that I found interesting about this list, almost more than the numbers, was that only seven teams from the conferences are represented, and of those, three of them appeared more than once. If we look at the combined winning percentage of those teams, it actually falls to 0.680 compared to the previous grouping, but there are definitely apparent personnel-based explanations, if you will, now that you can see the years.

TL;DR CONCLUSION:

This was merely a short mental / statistical exercise in discovering the sorts of numbers that the most effective rushing offenses have put up over the last decade or so in the conference, as well as to explore – at a high level – the differences in being merely average in this capacity and very effective over that stretch. In a word, the differences seem to be substantial and the numbers definitely bear that out.

Take four of a look at the remaining schedules:

This is long... if that's not for you you will dislike this...

Past Versions:

#1:http://mgoblog.com/diaries/look-big-ten-remaining-schedules

#2: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/look-big-ten-remaining-schedules-2

#3: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/look-big-ten-remaining-schedules-3

Current Standings:

Who has the hardest schedule?:

Below are the remaining schedules:

(Note: Below the game are my predicted odds of a victory)

Last time I started something new by associating a score with each team. The higher the score the harder the opponent is. Since there are 12 teams in the Big Ten the top team gets 12 points, and the lowest team gets 1 point. Any tie ranking all teams get the highest possible rank (both Michigan and Wisconsin are the 3^rdhardest team). Below is that ranking.

Teams get a bonus three points for playing on the road- so Michigan’s score for an opponent rises by three if the game is in Ann Arbor.  Below are the point rankings for each teams remaining schedule- included is an average ranking since two teams have three games left, and three have four:

Wisconsin has the easiest schedule left- but they play at MSU- so I do believe they are very likely to still lose a game.  The rest of the schedules are pretty similar.  And even though Michigan's schedule is tough- that is a good thing since we need to beat the top teams to have a good shot at a championship- and the games are at home- so that is good.

Below is a more traditional look at the remaining schedules:

Northwestern has joined Nebraska and Penn St as bottom teams- it's hard not to feel bad for Northwestern...

Thoughts on remaining teams:

Indiana: Huge win against MSU- now they are very much in the drivers seat.  If they escape in Minnesota they have two home games- which should be wins despite being tough.  If they don't lose before Michigan they win the conference- if they have one loss before Michigan that game become enormous.  If they lose twice before Michigan that game becomes incredibly enormous.  I think they should win all the games before Michigan- but tbeing a favorite in all three games doesn't mean that it is very likely.  I think Minnesota and OSU have a 1/4 chance of winning, and Iowa is a long shot.  Let's hope they lose at least one.

Michigan State: Thank god for that OSU game!  MSU is tied with us in the loss column and play us at home.  If they finish ahead of us they really earned it- but they quickly went from co-favorites to being in a very tough position.  Northwestern should be an easy win, but Wisconsin could also give them trouble.  I may be optomistic giving them 50% chance of winning in AA given their beat-down of us before- but it looks like they will come in on the slide as we are coming in after sorting some issues out.

Michigan: Glad other teams have their tough stretches to end the year.  The two road games, PSU and Purdue are must wins (as are all games) and road must-wins are never easy... The big game is obviously MSU.  Let's hope the game in EL was a low-point, because MSU losses have made it so that we have a great chance to leap-frog our in-state rival coming up.

Wisconsin: Their schedule is very easy compared to the other 4 teams.  Home games against Nebraska and Purdue should be wins (although Purdue could be tough), and at PSU shouldn't be an issue.  The game at MSU is huge.  If they win they should have a decent chance at a co-champ situation, if they lose all hope is likely lost.

Ohio State: Thanks for MSU!  With 5-losses they need a lot of luck, so they have very little chance of getting a co-championship.  Essentially they have to hope Wiscy loses to MSU, and then MSU loses to Michigan, while Michigan beats Indiana, while Indiana also loses two other games.  Seem unlikely?  Well so are their title hopes...

Championship Odds:

    ff

afdsafds  Mi

Michigan still needs some luck!  It is Indiana's title to lose.  At least we have Indiana and MSU at home- if we win both all we need is for Indiana to lose another game (which may not be probable- but is certainly not crazy).  Given our huge loss to MSU they still have an edge over us- so lets hope we protect Crisler!  Wisconsin is in similar shape to us- except playing at MSU they have harder odds despite easier other games.  OSU needs to much luck...

I decided to take a look at coaches of the nation’s top teams.  I looked at the six BCS conferences and a hand full of mid-major teams that are top-25ish type teams.

I decided to look at how successful coaches were.  I made a system to rank them:

Wins = 1 point each

Conference Championship (or division championship) = 20 points each

Tournament = 20 points

Sweet 16 = 20 points

Elite 8 = 25 points

Final Four = 50 points

Runner-Up = 100 points

Champion = 200 points

Notes:

Every NCAA tournament selection equals 20 points, after that a coach only gets point for the highest level they reached (a championship team would get 220 points- 200 for winning, 20 for making the tournament)

The logic behind the point system- I figured start with 1 point per win.  Conference championships and tournament bids seem to be a benchmark accomplishment- both of which seem to be a similar level of accomplishment (thus worth equal points).  No points are given for winning just one game- since no one talks about how many rounds of 32 to they made.  The jump from Sweet 16 to Elite 8 is not too high because most casual fans do not remember Elite 8 runs as much.  Points double from Elite 8 to being champion- since fans do remember final fours very well, and who played in the championship game.  I imagine many people will dislike my methodology for points- and if you do use my tables and make yourself your own system if you feel so inclined…

 I got the info from Wikipedia- some of the info changed as I was making the tables on Friday-Saturday (so some coaches were screwed out of a win, but I am not too worried about that…).  This season is counted as a complete seasons (since it seemed silly using fractions for all coached number of seasons), with the exception of first year coaches who I say as having <1 season since their win totals would looked skewed otherwise.  Also, if applicable, coaches with wins that were later vacated are still counted for this data.  Also I counted non-DI wins for coaches- but they did not get any points for titles or non-DI NCAA tournaments.  I included Beilein rankings only counting his D1 figures under the non-BCS coaches if you would like to see his score adjusted (since counting non-DI adds to total points but lowers the point/year average).  I included Jim Calhoun since he is an elite coach who just retired, and included Wooden since his success is unparalleled- and I was curious to see where the two would rank- both are included in the others section.  Also, NIT’s are counted for nothing, because I have never heard boasts about NIT’s… Lastly, I did not account for conference tournament championships because- A- too much data, and B- if you win you go to the tournament and get those points…

Also- I am sure there are some errors (there is a lot of data...)

Super long chart? Super long chart:

(Note- to the right of win, sweet 16, NCAA's, etc are the number of points earned from that total)

Hopefully you made it this far!

Here's a look at the 6 BCS conferences:

To me it seems like the ACC and Big East are clearly the top 2 conferences for coaches. What is clear is that the presence of elite coaches like Coach K and Roy Williams makes a huge impact. 

I was also surprised that the Big 12 by these measurements seemed clearly better than the Big Ten, and very close to the Big East with regards to avg. pts/yr for coaches. 

The PAC 12 was essentially the weakest however you look at it- but I was surprised by the Big Ten's relatively weak showing.  I was surprised the SEC looked competive comparatively- but I think most of that is Calipari and Donovan having such great success.

More charts?  More charts:

FINAL NOTES:

Sorry this post was so long... but I hope it is appreciated (mostly because it took forever to do).  There are a lot of take-aways:

1- Wooden was a very good coach- and it doesn't look like anyone will ever reach that level.

2- Elite coaches are much better than any other coach.  The top ten coaches (pts/yr) are well above any other coaches.  The difference between coach #5- Izzo, and coach #12 Pitino is more than 17 points a year- which is pretty huge- and Pitino is obviously a well above average coach.

3- Thad Matta is pretty highly rankled- and outside of Izzo, Smith (who is pretty far removed from being an elite coach success-wise), and Matta the Big Ten is not very impressive.  Painter has had a surprisingly successful career so far according to these metrics, and Beilein and Ryan get hurt from non-DI success for around a decade each- but the Big Ten doesn't hold up at this point against the other conferences like I thought it would.

4- Coaching at elite programs makes a huge difference- This is also a chicken/egg debate- are coaches elite from being an elite program- or do elite programs just attract elite coaches and allow them the tools to separate from their peers?  What it also points out is how impressive coaches are who aren't at typical elite programs.  Calhoun built a UConn program from nothing to elite, Mark Few has had a tremendous career, and Brad Stevens looks like he is on the fast-track to super-stardom.  I suppose it is not surprising- but for the most part the traditional elite powers have the top coaches.  It is interesting seeing how many coaches started at mid-majors- and it is pretty clear if you do well in the NCAA's or dominate mid-major programs you do get noticed and get a good shot at some decent programs.

Hope you all enjoyed this- it is pretty interesting looking at all the coaches past records. I think the data answers pretty much any question you could have about coaches- and I hope you all enjoy data as much as I do. If you notice any clear errors let me know- if you disagree/agree with my ranking systems or anything else let me know in the comments- it could produce some good discussion!

Hey there, MGoCommunity!  Thought I'd put out a little bonus content because, honestly, the Oscars bore me most of the time. I know we're all kind of split on the "WE ON" phrase, but it's presented me a great theme with which to work.  This one is based upon the theme that every game means something and it's all a "march" toward the ultimate goal of a B1G championship and a Final Four run.  Hope you like it.  As always, constructive criticism and/or ideas for future work is appreciated.

Desktop (16:9)

- JonValk

Goal by goal analysis (GBGA) is something I've been doing on my Red Wings blog for a little over a year. I've been meaning to do another Michigan one since I did my first one back in November, but between grad school and getting terrible acid reflux from watching this team I haven't been able to find the time/patience to do so. 

A couple of notes about the images below:

• Dashed lines indicate something that did not happen but could have. The first screencap from the first goal is a good example of this with a pass that could have been made but wasn't. 
• Solid lines indicate the action of the play. Shots, passes, or a player's movement can all be indicated with solid arrows.
• Circles indicate a player integral to the developing play. Also, circles are awesome and fun to use because I don't have to hand draw them.

1st Period

07:58 UM 0 OSU 1: PP Tanner Fritz (9) from Craig Dalrymple (9) & Ryan Dzingel (18)

DeBlois makes a nice read and moves in to intercept a puck that OSU was trying to rim around the boards.

DeBlois carries the puck up the boards but holds on too long. If he moves the puck to his man in the faceoff circle a split second earlier then this play never unfolds, but instead he holds and OSU closes the gap quickly. The passing lane is taken away and DeBlois turns the puck over.

The puck is deflected and goes directly to the OSU player who was in the faceoff circle in the above screen cap. He carries the puck into the slot and creates a holy trifecta of hell for the netfront Michigan defender (I think it's Bennett but the video's so grainy it's hard to tell). The OSU player can attempt to pass it low if probably-Bennett steps up on him, shoot if probably-Bennett stays where he is, or pass to the man at the side of the net if....well, if he feels like it. He chooses to shoot and beats Racine glove side. 

08:19 UM 1 OSU 1: Andrew Copp (7) from Alex Guptill (12)

The OSU netminder stops the puck behind the net and reverses it up the boards to his teammate. Guptill is in on the forechek and gets in the passing lane. The puck hits Guptill's stick and trickles out to the high slot, where Guptill picks it up.

Guptill carries the puck for a second or two before backhanding a shot on net. See that big blue box in the screencap above? So does Copp, who goes hard to the net for a rebound. Lo and behold the OSU netminder makes the save on Guptill's backhand and gives up a rebound to Copp, who taps the puck past the outstretched OSU goalie.

"THIS IS A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THE CAGE BUT YOU GUYS GET THE IDEA."

12:05 UM 2 OSU 1: Justin Selman (3) unassisted

Hyman picks up the puck behind the net and carries it into the faceoff circle. He doesn't have a pass option thanks to the carbon fiber drawbridge taking away the far side winger, so he instead shoots. His shot is stopped, but a rebound ends up in the slot. 

OSU lucks out and gathers the puck in front of the net. The OSU defender has two options here; skate it left and then either go behind the net or turn it up the boards, or skate into traffic to the right. 

The defender chooses option 3 and decides to pass into traffic. Selman is right there and must have listened to his coach when he was little because he's got his stick on the ice. It pays off, as Selman just has to snap the puck into the open net. How does the OSU defender feel in the above screencap?

HAGERUP FACE

15:48 UM 2 OSU 2: Tanner Fritz (10) from Max McCormick (13) & Clark Cristofoli (2)

This goal's hard to stomach as it seems like a pretty standard and unspectacular play. There's a wide open shooting lane with only one OSU player in front of the net. The problem here is that OSU's netfront player is screening the h-e-double-hockey-sticks (hockey puns, groan) out of Racine. The crease should be cleared by Michigan's defender but isn't, and the byproduct is Racine not being able to track the shot. It hits him and he falls backwards as the puck trickles past the goal line.

2nd Period

02:59 UM 3 OSU 2: Phil Di Giuseppe (7) from Boo Nieves (17) & Jon Merrill (4)

PDG looks like he's going to carry towards the blueline when he cuts hard and turns it back down ice. He absorbs a hard hit along the boards and starts to carry behind the net. It looks like PDG is going to try and thread a pass through the crease....

Which he sorta does. Is it a shot? Was it supposed to be a pass? It doesn't matter because the puck deflects off of something (the goalie's skate? a stick? Tacopants?) and ends up in the net.

05:16 UM 3 OSU 3: Max McCormick (11) from Tanner Fritz (22)

Bennett tries to feather a puck at the blueline and turns the puck over. OSU ends up with a 3-on-1, and if there's one thing that this year's Michigan hockey team has taught us it's that a situation like that probably won't end well.

Hey look, it doesn't end well! The pass goes to the right winger, who emphatically wrists is past Racine. Trouba does just about everything he can here. It's just a terrible overall situation.

3rd Period

05:25 UM 4 OSU 3: Alex Guptill (11) from A.J. Treais (13) & Jon Merrill (5)

Guptill attempts his best Pavel Datsyuk impression here and in the process creates what the play-by-play man called the best goal he's seen all year. He starts by dangling outside the defender.

Guptill then pulls the puck inside and skates through the faceoff circle, then again pulls the puck outside his body.

He then pulls the puck back inside and backhands a shot past the assuredly confused goaltender.

11:20 UM 5 OSU 3: Andrew Sinelli (2) from Justin Selman (5) & Jon Merrill (6)

This goal is so straightforward I'm going to write about it in passive voice to make things interesting (or more frustrating, whichever). The puck is carried through center by Sinelli. The puck is carried towards the faceoff circle by Sinelli. The puck is shot by Sinelli. The net is hit by the puck that was shot by Sinelli. The goal is scored by Sinelli.

15:56 UM 6 OSU 3: EN Phil Di Giuseppe (8) from Kevin Lynch (13) & Bool Nieves (3)

PDG actually does a really good job of protecting the puck here, carrying it past two defenders and dumping it into the empty net to put the nail in Ohio State's coffin.

NEXT UP:

Friday and Saturday tilts against Ferris State at Yost. Ferris State is currently tied for fourth in the CCHA with Ohio State, while this past weekend's sweep of OSU moved Michigan up to ninth. Of note is that both Friday and Saturday's game will be televised; Friday's on CBS College Sports Network and Saturday's on Fox Sports Detroit.