I think you will get your wish.
Out of the many fine alumni who have posted or visited this website over the years, I consider myself privileged to have been lucky enough to study a major, clarinet performance, that called for me to spend most of my time on North Campus. Many words have been said about the fine night life, restaurants, and other amenities available on Central Campus. This diary is not about those parts of the city. I'm talking about driving up Division for a little ways, crossing the bridge, and heading further north past Maiden Lane and experiencing the fun times to be had there.
For one thing, North Campus has trees, and snow, and snow and trees. Walking to class is like walking through beautiful parkland. There are many hills and valleys which helps make the walk more physically demanding. There are paths through the woods where frequently groundhogs, deer, squirrels, cats, and other creatures can be seen prowling around. I had a garden senior year and took pride in clearing out brush and improving the property bit by bit, even if only temporarily. One winter the trees on North Campus were completely encapsulated in ice and glittered in the sunlight like living icicles.
In the summer these same trails are great for biking and running, or during the winter if you bundle up well. I and my friends would run through the engineering campus, Northwood III and beyond, and bike up Nixon into farm country. The hills at the Huron Parkway golf course are great for sledding in the winter, and Qdoba is just a little ways further down the road. There is also the North Campus Recreational Building (NCRB) behind Bursley for anyone with an Mcard and a desire to pump iron or play raquetball.
In May the pools open at Huron Towers and Highlands, the two main apartment complexes closest to North Campus. As long as you play it cool and know some of the residents at the respective apartment complexes it is OK to swim in the pools, and the pools are well-maintained and deep. There is also a large athletics complex on Fuller Road where intramural soccer and softball are played.
When not traipsing through the woods, North Campusers love to get together for parties both tame and wild. One great way to meet people was coming together for a game of Mafia and wine before carpooling out to play laser tag and video games. I met some of my friends that way. We also took advantage of whatever DVDs or downloads were available—The Office, Dexter, 30 Rock, Family Guy—and bonded over those shows while serving up soup and sandwiches. My Nintendo 64 skills never got better than they got in college.
Not everyone is an engineer, a musician, or a visual artist. But for those Michigan students lucky enough to spend an extended period of time in North Campus, I consider the experience second to none, and I hope to see some of you “up north” soon.
[Ed-S: Festivus Bump!]
In modern football, there are 2 popular base defensive sets. Most teams run either a 3-4 Base or a 4-3 Base.
The quick explanation of these defenses is that the first number (“3” in a 3-4) is your number of Down Linemen (literally people who line up with their hand on the ground in a 3 or 4 point stance on the line of scrimmage) and the second number (“4” in a 3-4) is your number of linebackers (people who line up in a 2 point stance, behind the down linemen).
This diary will discuss the 4-3 Under, its similarities to a 3-4 set, and make sense of our defensive line recruiting. For the purposes of this diary I’m ignoring the secondary. You need corners and safeties. They’re all similarly sized players, get fast ones. The front 7 is where you need guys over a 100lb range and some more major differences show up.
Here’s a base 4-3:
Here's a base 3-4:
Both of these defensive base sets have advantages and disadvantages, and both lend themselves to different styles of players. When it comes to what Michigan is running as a base defense, the 4-3 Under, recruiting starts to make sense if you look at it as a 3-4 defense.
The 4-3 Under:
First, look at the D Line from the middle out. In a 4-3 Under you have a defensive tackle on the Nose, in a 0 or 1 Technique (NT) (Technique definitions:
You then have 2 players lining up at the 3 tech (DT) and 5 tech (SDE). Then you have 2 players further out on the line, at a 7 tech (WDE) and 9 Tech (SAM). Finally, you have 2 linebackers off the line of scrimmage (MIKE and WILL).
Now, compare these positions to the 3-4 Base. You still have a huge space-eating Nose Tackle (NT) who lines up at the 0 or 1 tech, 2 Defensive Ends over the guards, tackles, or in between (4 tech... hmmm, just a slight shift from the 3 or 5 tech...) and 2 people outside of them near the line of Scrimmage (OLBs). Finally you have 2 linebackers off the line of scrimmage (MIKE and WILL).
If you look at these two defenses, the only main difference is one of your 3-4 OLBs has his hand on the ground. That’s it! There are minor shifts on the line and other intricacies, but big picture the 4-3 under has personnel requirements very similar to a 3-4.
For the 4-3 Under OR the 3-4 in your front 7 personnel you need:
- 3-Tech DT and SDE (5-Tech)
- WDE and SAM
Michigan is recruiting the right numbers for the scheme they run. These are 17-year-old guys we’re discussing with recruits. Some will get bigger, some are maxed out. Some of the WDE/SAM types will be better at coverage and will play SAM. We saw Frank Clark and Beyer make this switch this year, one was a LB, one a DE in High School, and they switched at Michigan. Some will be better pass rushers and will drop into coverage less at the WDE.
The “Glut” at SDE doesn’t exist since the 3-Tech DT is a very similar position in the 4-3 Under, so some of these guys will play there. The coaches know what they need to run the 4-3 under, and hopefully this diary provided some insight into the personnel requirements so we can somewhat understand the method to the madness.
A very observant MGoUser (I can’t remember who it was though) mentioned in a thread about the Sugar Bowl Jerseys that ALL of Michigan’s athletics jerseys now sport a Block M, across all sports. This wasn’t always the case. The Block M just found its way onto the “normal” home and away football jerseys this year (on the neck)
Not just with Football Jerseys, we’ve seen Block Ms appearing all over campus like never before. No longer is the “split M”
Acceptable, at this point, it’s Block M or Bust.
Old Scoreboard front:
Old Yost Scoreboard:
Now this isn’t a rant, and I’m not trying to criticize Michigan for the proliferation of the Block M. In fact, Michigan is just following current marketing and branding trends. All over the corporate world the trend is towards the simple. Get rid of words, use symbols, and use them everywhere. Simplicity is king.
A few examples of the corporate world:
Michigan is just following industry trends at this point with the Block M. One simple symbol. Everywhere. Get used to seeing this, it’s not going anywhere.
“The Game” has come and gone, the good guys prevailed, and our collective mindset has mostly reoriented to the future, as visions of Sugar Bowls dance in our heads. So is there any reason to rehash the already much-debated issue of the Toussaint Touchdown Takeaway?
Of course there is, because such things live on in Michigan lore forever and sometimes, you have to beat a dead horse just for the sheer fun of it. Besides, I had an unsatisfied curiosity combined with some unaccustomed free time, so I set about to try to resolve the controversy once and for all.
This analysis may not appeal to you unless you are almost equal parts Michigan football fanatic and geometry geek, but in the end, I believe there is an important point to be made here. To discover my purpose, you will have to read on (or cheat and jump to the end).
The Evidence Speaks to Us
I start with Exhibit A below, a camera view that seems to suggest that Fitz planted his knee with the ball just short of the goal line. Almost certainly, it was this view that convinced the replay official to reverse the call on the field and overturn the touchdown. The shot appears to have been taken by a crane-mounted camera hovering about 10 feet in the air just beyond the goal line. It is not an ideal angle from which to make a definitive call. The knee may or may not be in contact with the ground and the relative position of the ball is distorted slightly by the angle. (Note: for formatting reasons, I am including scaled down versions of these screen shots; full resolution captures were used for the actual analysis. Click the photos for larger versions).
I use Exhibit A not to attempt to resolve the issue at hand, but to call attention to the item highlighted in magenta. There is a cameraman clearly visible in the shot and it is his footage that will provide the basis for further analysis. We don’t know his name (Abe Zapruder?), but we have a very good idea of the physical position of his camera. The dashed boundary line he is standing very close to runs 12 feet outside the sideline. By analyzing statistical data on the average height of college cheerleaders, we can fairly accurately estimate the center of the lens to be 5’ 4” off the ground. I estimate his standing position to be 11 feet east of the side line and 2.5 feet south of the goal line. These estimates probably place the camera position reliably within an error sphere less than 1 foot in radius. This is important as we move forward with the analysis.
Let us move on to Exhibit B, which was definitively taken before Toussaint’s knee fell to earth, and Exhibit C, a shot in which he is definitely down. The time interval between these two shots is presumably 1/60th of a second, given the parameters of 720p HD video. I will focus my attention on Exhibit C.
The time has come to let mathematics work its wonderful magic. Again, the viewing angle is not perfect, but because we were able to accurately determine the viewing position of the source camera, some surprisingly precise calculations are possible.
The dimensions and positions of the gridiron lines and hash marks are well known and presumably accurate. The only thing I am not quite sure of is the crown of the playing surface, which appears to be about 6-9 inches at midfield.
This allowed me to create a three-dimensional computer model of the playing surface and made it possible to determine the orientation of the camera (azimuth, elevation, zoom, and tilt) by matching the grid lines appearing within the frame with that of the rendered computer model.
Knowing this, we can now focus on the position of the ball within the frame. A more closely-cropped view is presented in Exhibit D. The projection of the ball in the frame spans about 40 pixels. Therefore we can determine its position within the 2 dimensional space of the video frame to an accuracy of about a quarter of an inch.
The real world has the inconvenient habit of being three-dimensional, so there is one additional parameter required to ascertain the position of the ball relative to the plane of the goal line. This would be the distance from the camera to the ball, or alternatively, the perpendicular distance from the near (Zapruder) sideline to the ball. By examining other angles from the game video and observing grid lines, hash marks, and end zone lettering, this can be determined to be about 90 feet, plus or minus 2 feet.
The final calculation will be slightly sensitive to this distance, so I went ahead and determined the corresponding position of the ball over a range of two foot intervals between 88 and 92 foot distant from the sideline. The plot below (Exhibit E) shows a top down projection of the ball’s position relative to the goal line over the range of possible values. Due to the near perpendicular viewing angle from just off the goal line, the error contribution from this uncertainty is quite small (.3 inches per foot of error) and yet this is the largest source of potential error. Any imprecision in establishing camera position is largely cancelled by adjusting angles to precisely overlay grid line positions within the frame. I won’t bury you with an avalanche of error sensitivity equations; suffice it to say that I am confident that the final estimate of ball position relative to the goal line is accurate to within half an inch.
Based on the best estimate of distance from the sideline (center ball), the results sadly report that Toussaint is holding the ball 2.5 inches short of the goal line with his knee clearly down. So, technically, the officials got the call right. Did the replay official have irrefutable evidence to overturn the call? Of course not! The ball was just inches from the goal line and he did not have the resources to make a definitive determination.
The play was so close that it was not humanly possible for an official on the field to make the call with complete certainty. The difference between touchdown and being down short of the goal line was a matter of inches and hundredths of a second. While the determination was ultimately correct, I think we can also safely claim that the replay official overstepped his authority by reversing the call on the field, based on the “irrefutable evidence” criterion and the limited technology available to him.
But my real point in all of this is to call attention to the fact that making an accurate determination is possible and current technology could accomplish this in real time, using techniques very similar to those employed to superimpose the first down line over the playing field, or track pitch trajectories in a baseball game. There is no need to put sensors in the ball or anything like that and accuracy within a fraction of an inch can be achieved. Higher frame rates and faster shutter speeds (super slow motion) improve the accuracy further.Multiple camera angles help as well. Cameras already have sensors to report their positions and orientations. I am calling on companies like SportVision that do enhanced sports graphics to develop the software to provide accurate ball positioning information to the fans and, dare I say, to the replay officials so that in the future, key plays like this can be accurately adjudicated.
THE KNOWLEDGE has soared all season long and basked in glory as every single "prediction" save one came true. it is now time for some of the followers of THE KNOWLEDGE to have their moment in the sun
as the end of year approaches, THE KNOWLEDGE would like to celebrate the holidays by awarding the TOP FRIEND award and the winner of THE QUESTION posed at the beginning of the season
The inaugural TOP FRIEND OF THE KNOWLEDGE is
Jim Harbaugh Scramble
mighty congratulations to JHS, who shall henceforth be referred to as THE TOP FRIEND on these very pages.
he has achieved the highest honor and greatest accolade awarded on this blog
the winner of the QUESTION (# bowl game suspensions for the Columbus Cheaters) is Trebor
congratulations to this person as well
unfortunately, the award of CO-SOARER of THE KNOWLEDGE is not claimed this year, as no one correctly guessed the MNC game participants
THE KNOWLEDGE shall soon make a posting on the review of the Sugar Bowl game (pointer: Michigan will win). In the new year, the first part of THE PROFILE will be revealed, followed by a look into Michigan's future - 2012 and beyond
Readers from last week will recall I was in Curacao. I visited Aruba, as well. If you ever get the chance to visit Aruba, do it. There are two casinos within walking distance of port, including one having a sportsbook, in Oranjestad (Seaport Casino).
For those of you keeping track, MAC teams are 2-0 in bowl games (Temple and Ohio University). Sun Belt teams are 1-0 (Louisiana-Lafayette). WAC teams are 0-1 (Utah State) and Mountain West teams are 0-2 (Wyoming and San Diego State). The Mountain West Conference should get off the schneid this week, with TCU and Boise State playing this week, two of their best teams.
During the regular season, the Upset Watch reviewed picks from the previous week, noted the bad picks, and pointed out a few games to give the underdog some credit in, even if it was only in Vegas. It also looked at one or two sure-fire favorites (two when Michigan wasn’t playing).
Because this is the bowl season (and our last hurrah for the 2011-2012 regular season), we’ll cover each of the bowl games, splitting them up by week.
Be sure to check out my website, Before Visiting the Sportsbook, throughout the week, for more content.
Temple (9-4) -6.0 Wyoming (8-5). Result: Temple 37 Wyoming 15 [Props to Trebor, Maize and Blue in OH, sammylittle for correctly predicting Temple would cover].
Ohio University (10-4) +3.0 Utah State (7-6). Result: Ohio University 24 Utah State 23 [Props to Trebor, jamiemac, sammylittle for correctly predicting Ohio University would cover].
San Diego State (8-5) -4.5 Louisiana-Lafayette (8-5). Result: Louisiana-Lafayette 32 San Diego State 30.
Only three bowl games will take place between now and the next Upset Watch, which will be on December 20th (we’ll have six bowls on the next Watch). Temple earned an at-large selection to the New Mexico Bowl (since the PAC-12 didn’t fill their bowl allotment) to face the #4 selection from the Mountain West #4, Wyoming, on Saturday (2:00 PM EST/ESPN). The Idaho Bowl will pair Ohio University, the #3 selection from the MAC, against Utah State, the #2 selection from the WAC (5:30 PM EST/ESPN). The final game on Saturday is in New Orleans, with San Diego State, an at large selection since Conference USA did not fill their bowl allotment, against Louisiana-Lafayette, the top choice from the Sun Belt (9:00 PM EST/ESPN).
Marshall (6-6) +5.0 Florida International (8-4) (@ St. Petersburg, FL). The Golden Panthers are 80th in total offense (70th rushing, 69th passing); Marshall is 101st (92nd rushing, 74th passing). Florida International is 33rd in total defense (23rd rushing, 64th passing); the Thundering Herd are 86th (61st rushing, 100th passing). These teams have not met before. Marshall is 6-2 all time in bowl games (4-1 SU in last 5; 4-1 ATS in last 5; 3-1 ATS underdog in last 5). Florida International is 1-0 all time in bowl games (0-0 ATS favorite). Marshall Coach Doc Holliday is 11-13 (11-12-1 ATS, 7-7-1 ATS as an underdog); Florida International Coach Mario Cristobal is 24-37 (31-30 ATS, 11-12 ATS as a favorite). Florida International is 3-5 ATS as a favorite this year (6-6 overall ATS); Marshall is 5-3 ATS as an underdog this year (7-5 overall ATS). Florida International’s last bowl game was the 2010 Little Caesars Bowl, a 34-32 win over Toledo; Marshall’s last bowl game was the 2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl, a 21-17 win over Ohio University. Take Marshall with the points.
TCU (10-2) -9.5 Louisiana Tech (8-4) (@ San Diego, CA). The Horned Frogs are 28th in total offense (20th rushing, 60th passing); Louisiana Tech is 50th (70th rushing, 45th passing). TCU is 32nd in total defense (29th rushing, 56th passing); the Bulldogs are 55th (25th rushing, 96th passing). These teams have not met before. TCU is 12-14-1 all time in bowl games (4-1 SU in last 5; 2-3 ATS in last 5; 2-3 ATS as a favorite in last 5). Louisiana Tech is 2-2-1 all time in bowl games (2-1 ATS; 1-1 ATS as an underdog). TCU Coach Gary Patterson is 108-30 (70-58-5 ATS, 51-42-3 ATS favorite); Louisiana Tech Coach Sonny Dykes is 5-7 (5-7 ATS, 3-4 ATS underdog). TCU is 4-6-1 ATS as a favorite this year (5-6-1 overall ATS); Louisiana Tech is 6-0 ATS as an underdog this year (10-2 overall ATS). Louisiana Tech’s last bowl game was the 2008 Independence Bowl, a 17-10 win over Northern Illinois; TCU’s last bowl game was the 2010 Rose Bowl, a 21-19 win over Wisconsin. Take TCU to cover the points.
Boise State (11-1) -13.5 Arizona State (6-6) (@ Las Vegas, NV). The Sun Devils are 26th in total offense (78th rushing, 11th passing); Boise State is 9th (40th rushing, 10th passing). Arizona State is 88th in total defense (59th rushing, 107th passing); the Broncos are 16th (22nd rushing, 25th passing). Arizona State leads the series 1-0, with a 56-7 victory over Boise State in 1996. Boise State is 7-4 all time in bowl games (3-2 SU in last 5; 4-1 ATS in last 5; 1-1 ATS as a favorite in last 5). Arizona State is 12-11-1 all time in bowl games (2-3 SU in last 5; 2-3 ATS in last 5; 2-2 ATS as an underdog in last 5). Arizona State Coach Dennis Erickson is 42-43 (41-37-2 ATS, 19-19-2 ATS underdog) since 2001; Boise State Coach Chris Petersen is 72-6 (43-31 ATS, 36-29 ATS favorite). Boise State is 4-8 ATS as a favorite this year (4-8 overall ATS); Arizona State is 3-7 ATS as an underdog this year (4-8 overall ATS). Arizona State’s last bowl game was the 2007 Holiday Bowl, a 52-34 loss to Texas; Boise State’s last bowl game was the 2010 Las Vegas Bowl, a 26-3 win over Utah. Take Boise State to cover the points.
Southern Miss (11-2) -5.5 Nevada (7-5) (@ Honolulu, HI). The Wolfpack are 5th in total offense (8th rushing, 30th passing); Southern Miss is 13th (23rd rushing, 73rd passing). Nevada is 52nd in total defense (56th rushing, 63rd passing); the Golden Eagles are 31st (20th rushing, 69th passing). Southern Miss leads the series 2-0, with a 55-28 victory over Nevada in 1998 and a 35-19 victory in 1997. Southern Miss is 9-10 all time in bowl games (2-3 SU in last 5; 3-2 ATS in last 5; 1-1 ATS as a favorite in last 5). Nevada is 4-7 all time in bowl games (1-4 SU in last 5; 1-4 ATS in last 5; 1-1 ATS as an underdog in last 5). Nevada Coach Chris Ault is 63-39 (61-48 ATS, 14-19 ATS underdog) since 2004; Southern Miss Coach Larry Fedora is 33-19 (27-23 ATS, 19-16 ATS favorite). Southern Miss 5-5 ATS as a favorite this year (8-5 overall ATS); Nevada is 2-1 ATS as an underdog this year (5-7 overall ATS). Southern Miss’s last bowl game was the 2010 Beef ‘O’ Brady Bowl, a 31-28 loss to Louisville; Nevada’s last bowl game was the 2010 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, a 20-13 win over Boston College. Take Southern Miss to cover the points.
Missouri (7-5) -3.5 North Carolina (7-5) (@ Shreveport, LA). The Tigers are 12th in total offense (11th rushing, 57th passing); North Carolina is 52nd (72nd rushing, 43rd passing). Missouri is 61st in total defense (44th rushing, 91st passing); the Tar Heels are 40th (14th rushing, 90th passing). Missouri leads the series 2-0, with a 24-3 victory over North Carolina in 1976 and a 27-14 victory in 1973. Missouri is 12-16 all time in bowl games (2-3 SU in last 5; 2-3 ATS in last 5; 1-3 ATS as a favorite in last 5). North Carolina is 13-15 all time in bowl games (2-3 SU in last 5; 3-2 ATS in last 5; 1-1 ATS as an underdog in last 5). North Carolina Coach Everett Withers is 7-5 (6-6 ATS, 1-2 ATS underdog); Missouri Coach Gary Pinkel is 84-54 (67-64-1 ATS, 35-35-1 ATS favorite) since 2001. Missouri is 2-4 ATS as a favorite this year (6-6 overall ATS); North Carolina is 1-2 ATS as an underdog this year (6-6 overall ATS). Missouri’s last bowl game was the 2010 Insight Bowl, a 27-24 loss to Iowa; North Carolina’s last bowl game was the 2010 Music City Bowl, a 30-27 2OT win over Tennessee. Take Missouri to cover the points.
Western Michigan (7-5) +2.5 Purdue (6-6) (@ Detroit, MI). The Broncos are 23rd in total offense (87th rushing, 8th passing); Purdue is 79th (39th rushing, 82nd passing). Western Michigan is 100th in total defense (107th rushing, 53rd passing); the Boilermakers are 69th (91st rushing, 38th passing). Purdue leads the series 2-0, with a 28-24 victory over Western Michigan in 2002 and a 28-13 victory in 1993. Purdue is 8-7 all time in bowl games (2-3 SU in last 5; 1-4 ATS in last 5; 0-3 ATS as a favorite in last 5). Western Michigan is 0-4 all time in bowl games (1-1 ATS; 1-1 ATS as an underdog). Western Michigan Coach Bill Cubit is 47-38 (38-40-3 ATS, 19-22-2 ATS underdog); Purdue Coach Danny Hope is 15-21 (15-19-2 ATS, 5-9-1 ATS favorite). Western Michigan is 3-2 ATS as an underdog this year (8-4 overall ATS); Purdue is 2-2-1 ATS as favorite this year (5-6-1 overall ATS). Western Michigan’s last bowl game was the 2008 Texas Bowl, a 38-14 loss to Rice; Purdue’s last bowl game was the 2007 Motor City Bowl, in Detroit, a 51-48 win over Central Michigan. Take Western Michigan to cover the points, and win.
Who ya got?