this may be of some local interest
There has been a lot of talk about the sense, or nonsense, of adding Rutgers and Maryland to the B1G in 2014 from a purely athletic point of view (verdict: non-sense), and also from a BTN TV market point of view (verdict: debatable). Whether the strategy will pan out or not, the consensus seems to be that this was all about adding TV dollars and sets, and any future expansion should be viewed through the lens of TV markets and how they may affect BTN revenues. While all this discussion has merit, it misses an important aspect of conference expansion. The impact of expansion on the ability to influence the allocation of federal research dollars to the B1G member schools has monetary implications that dwarf the potential for increased athletic dept. revenues. Whatever the designs of Jim Delaney are as the head of an athletic conference, I think conference expansion decisions are occurring well above his head, and seem to be driven by university presidents with research dollars in mind. When you consider the figures, it’s easy to see why. According to a 2010 NSF report (Link), universities and colleges received $32.5 billion dollars from the federal government in support of science and engineering research, with roughly 60% of that money going to Association of American Universities (AAU) members. That the AAU gets a big slice is not too surprising, as the AAU is a who’s who of research universities, but it also operates a powerful lobbying arm that works to ensure that its members get significantly more money from the federal government than the average school.
The Council for Intercollegiate Cooperation (CIC) is what makes AAU membership so important for B1G expansion targets to possess. B1G membership is synonymous with CIC membership, with all B1G schools plus University of Chicago being members of the CIC. With the exception of Nebraska, all CIC members are AAU members (and Nebraska was an AAU school at the time the B1G voted to add it as a 12thmember, only loosing membership in 2011). CIC members share research resources, but more importantly, they also form a powerful subgroup within the AAU. This is where conference expansion and the AAU come together. Adding established AAU members can increase the CIC’s powerbase within the AAU. With $20 billion dollars in annual research dollars at stake, it only takes a little extra power to put a billion a year in extra research dollars into CIC hands, a figure four times the revenue of the BTN. With this in mind, I wanted to put together a research dollar influence score that could be used to rank the attractiveness of existing AAU members to the CIC via B1G expansion.
In theory, federal agencies use a non-partisan peer review process to allocate research money (think national academy of science). However, the reviewers who serve on agency committees come from the very universities they are tasked with allocating money to. Strong representation on these committees provides one means for the CIC to influence where federal research dollars go, so a stronger CIC from a purely academic research reputation basis means more opportunity to direct dollars back to the CIC. One component of my research dollar influence score is then formed by taking the annual Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankingsscore for each AAU member as a percentage of the sum of all scores. Unlike US News & World Report, the Times ranking is explicitly based on faculty research reputation. This gives each school a measure of relative academic clout within a group of heavyweights. It’s good to think of the research score like a recruiting team score. A school like Harvard is like USC’s class this year, full of five stars but a smaller overall size, while an Ohio State is like Texas A&M, not so loaded at the top end, but it makes up for it in class size. The Ole Miss of the group is Johns Hopkins, because not unlike recruiting, when it comes to federal research dollar allocation, it’s good to have powerful boosters, and Johns Hopkins has some of the best boosters in government.
In practice, pure political favoritism exists, and can significantly influence where research dollars go, over and above what a straight peer review would dictate. In a 1996 study, a university of Illinois professor found that as much as 40% of federal research dollars are allocated on the basis of congressional constituency bias, with appropriation committee membership having disproportionate effect (Link). That senators and congressmen work to make sure their state institutions (both public and private) get a more than fair share of the pie should surprise no one. Therefore, the second component of my research dollar influence score comes from measuring the percentage of total AAU congressional and senate representation a school represents. Unlike a peer reputation score, this second dimension is not purely additive (adding a Pittsburgh does nothing to increase the government influence of the CIC, since Penn State already brings access to Pennsylvania’s representatives and senators).
The average of these two relative power scores is what I’ll use as a research dollar influence score. The max score is 100%, and would represent the entire AAU acting as a whole, and the score for each expansion target represents the value of forming an alliance with that target. Before looking at expansion targets beyond Maryland and Rutgers, let’s apply the research dollar influence score to the AAU to see how power is distributed. Chart?
|AAU Subgroup||Govt Influence||Peer Review Influence||Combined Influence|
|CIC + UMD, RT||37%||22%||29%|
|PAC 12 + CA||23%||23%||23%|
|Ivy + MA||23%||19%||21%|
|ACC + Maryland||22%||9%||16%|
Before adding Maryland and Rutgers, the CIC held a slim edge over the PAC 12 and Ivy League, with that lead narrowed when other CA and MA schools are lumped in with the PAC 12 and Ivy League, respectively. The ACC runs a respectable fourth, though replacing Maryland with Louisville hurts, while the SEC and Big 12 wield little influence. CA, NY and MA are powerful standalone states from a peer review influence score, but fall short on government influence. This is true even of CA, which has 53 congressional reps, but still only 2 senators, while the combined CIC footprint brings in 95 congressmen and 16 senators. When Maryland and Rutgers join in 2014, the CIC adds another 20 congressional districts and 4 senate seats. Also, peer review influence is additive, and while neither Rutgers nor Maryland is at the level of a Michigan, they are solid additions. The combined effect is to create a noticeable power gap between the CIC and its west coast and northeastern rivals. As an added bonus, Rutgers and Maryland both have senators sitting on the appropriations committee, with the senior senator from Maryland being the chair. Even if it doesn’t make you feel any better about it, maybe at least now the real value of adding Rutgers and Maryland becomes clear.
Turning to expansion targets, I’ll stick to existing AAU members, with a few exceptions. I list Nebraska and Syracuse as they are schools that only recently lost AAU membership, and may very well regain it. I also list Florida State since it is a school that has potential to obtain it, and is located in a congressionally rich state. John Hopkins is on the list because there have been rumors that the B1G might add it as an associate member in lacrosse. Just so we’re clear, if Johns Hopkins does become a lacrosse only member, it’ll be because of the CIC, not lacrosse.
|AAU Member||Govt Influence||Peer Review Influence||Combined Influence|
Missouri isn’t leaving the SEC, but this chart shows why the B1G was happy to limit raiding of the Big 12 to Nebraska, which wasn’t that exciting as a CIC addition, but was a legit premium football brand. It also explains why Jim Delaney dropped his unrequited love affair with Notre Dame for one with Texas faster than a teenage girl changing boy bands. After Texas, Florida State and Syracuse would be attractive additions, but they only have AAU potential, not current membership. FSU might have a strong enough football brand to add, but I don’t think it’s a given that the B1G would take them without AAU status. With it, Florida State would be the clear top next choice. This leaves Georgia Tech, Duke/North Carolina, and Virginia as targets, with Syracuse and Florida State in play only if the B1G goes to 20 and can afford to take a gamble.
Finally, the last chart shows how the relative influence of the CIC within the AAU compares after successively adding Rutgers and Maryland, then Georgia Tech, UVA, and Johns Hopkins, and finally UNC and Duke. The power shift is significant with each addition, and it could very likely mean an increase in research dollars to the CIC that exceeds current BTN revenues to the conference; 500 million to a billion dollars wouldn’t be a stretch.
|AAU Subgroup||Govt Influence||Peer Review Influence||Combined Influence|
|CIC + UNC, Duke||44%||29%||36%|
|CIC + GT, UVA, JH||40%||26%||33%|
|CIC + UMD, RT||37%||22%||29%|
|PAC 12 + CA||23%||23%||23%|
|Ivy + MA||23%||19%||21%|
I’ve highlighted the research dollar influence gain by pursuing an expansion strategy that cannibalizes the ACC. Of course, the benefits of expanding the footprint into ACC territory in terms of adding possibly lucrative TV markets and of strengthening connections to fertile football recruiting grounds also must be considered, and when taken together with the research dollar picture, makes it clear why the B1G is set on taking a big bite out of the ACC, and why the ACC is fighting the Maryland defection as hard as it can. Without a massive exit fee, the ACC is as good as dead.
On final parting thought. The question of why it would be necessary for the CIC to use the B1G as a vehicle for expansion, and why it couldn’t just expand without the athletic associations is one that is best answered by the Iran nuclear program. The façade of an athletic motivation for the expansion provides the plausible deniability the CIC needs to increase power without creating any outright rifts in the AAU. It provides the means to strengthen alliances without being overt about it.
(Sorry about the horrible formatting of the tables. This is my first post, and I haven't figured out how to make it look slick yet.)
We have moved into recruiting season--a time when Michigan fans can tell their wives, girlfriends, and whomever else that there will be less to read about with football season over. Of course, the way Hoke and Co. recruit, this is perhaps the most exciting time to be checking MgoBlog, as “Hello” posts are more common during this stretch than any other. So instead of watching and re-watching every snap from games, we'll be ogling recruits and commits on youtube, critiquing the professionals' evaluations of high school football players, and arguing over the deeper meaning of a seventeen-year-old's tweets.
And on that note, I thought it would be interesting to see just how Michigan is doing in building a perennial B1G—and perhaps national—Championship contender. As the saying goes, “It's not the X's and O's but the Jimmies and Joes.” This is, of course, a reference to the fact that talent trumps scheme. And while I certainly believe a better-coached and prepared team can defeat a more talented sloppy team, the field is always tilted to the side with the better athletes.
I have broken this into two parts—both are VERY long. The first (this one) is a look at how the game's unquestionable hegemon built a behemoth program from the ashes of Alabama football. Do NOT mistake this for an endorsement of Saban's methods—as this diary will point out, they are somewhat deplorable. It is, however, a valid reference point for the construction of what we all hope will be our own Juggernaut, and these comparisons will be explored in Part II.
So, on to
satan's Saban's story...
Alabama's championships have come in 2009, 2011, and 2012. There is no doubt that Saban's first three classes formed the core of his 2011 and 2012 championship squads, but they were also HUGE contributors to his 2009 crystal football. This gives us some hope for our own 2013 campaign, but, more importantly offers context for expectations in 2015, when the Hoke recruits will form the entire team.
|Kareem Jackson||DB||5'10"||185||4.5||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Marquis Maze||ATH||5'9"||160||4.4||3 stars||5.6||3|
|Rolando McClain||LB||6'4"||240||4.6||4 stars||6.0||3|
|William Vlachos||OL||6'2"||287||5.1||3 stars||5.6||3|
|Josh Chapman||DT||6'1"||280||4.9||3 stars||5.7||2|
|Luther Davis||DT||6'4"||254||4.8||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Nick Gentry||DT||6'1"||265||4.8||3 stars||5.7||2|
|Darius Hanks||WR||6'0"||168||4.6||3 stars||5.5||2|
|Alfred McCullough||DT||6'3"||297||4.9||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Patrick Crump||OL||6'3"||285||5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Jeremy Elder||DE||6'3"||270||4.9||2 stars||5.4||1|
|Nick Fanuzzi||QB||6'3"||200||4.6||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Tarence Farmer||DB||6'1"||190||4.4||3 stars||5.5||1|
|Brandon Gibson||WR||6'2"||190||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Demetrius Goode||RB||5'11"||200||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Jeramie Griffin||RB||6'0"||230||4.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Jennings Hester||LB||6'3"||228||4.7||2 stars||5.4||1|
|Chris Lett||DB||6'2"||195||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Kerry Murphy||DT||6'5"||315||5.1||4 stars||6.0||1|
|Michael Ricks||DB||6'2"||195||4.4||4 stars||6.0||1|
|Jamar Taylor||RB||5'9"||204||4.7||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Chris Underwood||TE||6'4"||202||2 stars||5.3||1|
|Alex Watkins||DE||6'5"||225||4.7||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Chavis Williams||DE||6'5"||220||4.6||3 stars||5.5||1|
Saban's first class (2007) is his worst, and it's not even close. This is to be expected, since he was hired January 3, 2007. The majority of that class was already in place, and not even Saban's snake oil could yield a single five-star player. The average Rivals rating of that class was 5.70, which is the equivalent of a high three-star recruit.* Compare that with his ridiculous 2013 haul (probably his best class) that has an average rating of 5.87, which is basically a top-150 recruit. Think Joe Mathis. That's their average recruit.
*Rivals ratings were used. For Rivals, a 6.1 is a five-star; 5.8-6.0 is a four-star; 5.5-5.7 is a three-star; 5.0-5.4 is a two-star. Click here for more information.
But alas, 2007 was the recruiting class of a mere mortal, with 24 commits (low for Saban). Ten of those commitments would not finish their career at 'Bama, and five more would flame-out as non-contributors. But even this relatively paltry group produced a few stars: Kareem Jackson, Marquis Maze, Rolando McClain, and William Vlachos all went on to great things with the Tide and now get (legally) paid to play. In fact, four more players from that class have signed with NFL teams, though none of them were stars at 'Bama.
This brings me to the “IMPACT” column on the charts. IMPACT is my very imperfect measurement of a player's on-field contributions to his team. Briefly, a “3” is a solid starter to All-American type; a “2” is a contributor to spot starter; a “1” is bust for whatever reason. As has been pointed out to me, a four-tiered system would be better, giving two “middle” grades and one “all-star” grade. The trouble with that system is that it requires intimate (hmmm...maybe I could have picked a better adjective there) knowledge of a player's performance in order to make an accurate judgment, especially for lineman. For example, Ryan Van Bergen appears to be just a solid starter when you look at his stats, but we know that he was much more important to our team. And it's even harder with the O-line, where there are no real stats. This system results in a low number of “2” players, because the guys that were good enough to be minor contributors and spot starters as sophomores and juniors usually go on to be solid starters by their senior year, the IMPACT rating basically measures their performance in their best year. This is fine for our purposes, as what we are really trying to determine is how many recruits are contributing in a meaningful way to a championship team.
Back to 'Bama. While the '07 class was definitely Saban's weakest, seeing a large percentage of players not finish their careers with the Tide is commonplace. One thing is undeniably clear when you look at the data: a scholarship offer from Nick Saban is actually just an offer to tryout for the Alabama football team. This part of the SEC's infamous “over-signing” practice. Every year, guys that aren't getting it done to Saban's liking are sent packing and their scholarship is offered to a high school kid. If you aren't performing, your spot and your scholarship are going to be handed to someone else. I really want Michigan to be great, but if we ever pull this kind of crap I will be livid.
|Julio Jones||WR||6'4"||215||4.5||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Barrett Jones||OL||6'5"||271||4.9||4 stars||6.0||3|
|Mark Barron||ATH||6'2"||202||4.5||4 stars||6.0||3|
|Courtney Upshaw||LB||6'2"||220||4.7||4 stars||5.9||3|
|Don'ta Hightower||LB||6'3"||248||4.7||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Mark Ingram||ATH||5'10"||195||4.4||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Robert Lester||DB||6'2"||205||4.6||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Marcel Dareus||DT||6'4"||277||3 stars||5.7||3|
|Terrence Cody||DT||6'5"||395||5.5||3 stars||5.6||3|
|Brad Smelley||QB||6'3"||220||4.7||3 stars||5.5||3|
|Jerrell Harris||LB||6'3"||220||4.5||4 stars||6.0||2|
|Michael Williams||DE||6'6"||240||4.7||4 stars||5.9||2|
|John Michael Boswell||OL||6'6"||290||5.2||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Damion Square||DT||6'3"||270||4.8||3 stars||5.7||2|
|Corey Smith||K||6'1"||208||4.7||2 stars||5.4||2|
|Burton Scott||ATH||5'11"||194||4.4||5 stars||6.1||1|
|Tyler Love||OL||6'7"||285||5.1||5 stars||6.1||1|
|Alonzo Lawrence||DB||6'1"||187||4.4||4 stars||6.0||1|
|Kerry Murphy||DT||6'5"||325||5.3||4 stars||6.0||1|
|Melvin Ray||WR||6'2"||185||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Star Jackson||QB||6'3"||182||4.6||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Brandon Lewis||DE||6'3"||260||4.7||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Chris Jordan||ATH||6'2"||201||4.4||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Destin Hood||WR||6'3"||190||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Devonta Bolton||ATH||6'4"||220||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Glenn Harbin||DE||6'6"||250||4.8||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Robby Green||DB||6'0"||175||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Ivan Matchett||RB||5'10"||206||4.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Jermaine Preyear||RB||5'11"||205||4.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Undra Billingsley||DE||6'4"||260||4.7||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Chris Jackson||WR||6'0"||187||4.5||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Wesley Neighbors||DB||6'1"||190||4.5||2 stars||5.4||1|
2008 was Saban's first full cycle. Alabama's '07 was campaign was less than impressive: the Tide finished 7-6 including an upset loss to Louisiana-Monroe. An Independence Bowl win over Colorado was the only thing keeping them from a .500 season. Somehow, Saban parlayed that into a stellar recruiting class with 32 (!) recruits. The crown jewel of that class was 5-star Julio Jones, who absolutely lived-up to his billing and has gone on to NFL stardom. The two other 5-star players in that class—Burton (BJ) Scott and Tyler Love—would both fail to produce at 'Bama. Scott was a bust, and Love was injured. But here's a list of the guys from that class that ended-up with an IMPACT rating of “3”:
- Julio Jones
- Barrett Jones
- Mark Barron
- Courtney Upshaw
- Don'ta Hightower
- Mark Ingram
- Robert Lester
- Marcel Dareus
- Terrence Cody
- Brad Smelley
Brad Smelley was a high school QB who was converted to a bad ass TE. Only two other players from that group—Dareus and Cody—were three-star players. It's interesting to note that this class was a HUGE part of the 2009 championship team, with Julio Jones, Barrett Jones, Mark Barron, Mark Ingram, Marcel Dareus, and Terrence Cody all getting starts and being major contributors to Saban's first crystal football at 'Bama. From the '07 class, only Vlachos, McClain, and Jackson would make comparable contributions to the championship run.
|D.J. Fluker||OL||6'7"||350||4.9||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Nico Johnson||LB||6'3"||226||4.6||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Dre Kirkpatrick||DB||6'2"||180||4.5||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Trent Richardson||RB||5'11"||210||4.5||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Eddie Lacy||RB||5'11"||210||4.4||4 stars||5.9||3|
|AJ McCarron||QB||6'4"||189||4.8||4 stars||5.9||3|
|James Carpenter||OL||6'5"||305||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Ed Stinson||DE||6'4"||227||4.6||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Anthony Steen||OL||6'4"||297||4.9||3 stars||5.7||3|
|Chance Warmack||OL||6'3"||329||5.5||3 stars||5.7||3|
|Kevin Norwood||WR||6'3"||180||4.5||4 stars||5.9||2|
|Kenny Bell||WR||6'1"||160||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Quinton Dial||DT||6'5"||308||5.1||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Tana Patrick||LB||6'3"||215||4.5||4 stars||6.0||1|
|Michael Bowman||WR||6'4"||206||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Kendall Kelly||WR||6'4"||210||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Darrington Sentimore||DT||6'3"||265||4.6||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Rod Woodson||DB||5'11"||200||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|William Ming||DE||6'4"||265||4.8||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Brandon Moore||OL||6'5"||313||5.2||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Kellen Williams||OL||6'3"||295||5.2||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Jonathan Atchison||LB||6'3"||216||4.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Chris Bonds||DT||6'4"||262||4.7||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Anthony Orr||DE||6'4"||260||4.8||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Petey Smith||LB||6'0"||230||4.6||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Darius McKeller||OL||6'6"||280||5.1||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Mike Marrow||RB||6'2"||240||4.7||3 stars||5.5||1|
The 2009 class saw another increase in its average Rivals Rating, this time bumping-up to 5.83. Even more impressive, the four five-star recruits—DJ Fluker, Nico Johnson, Dre Kirkpatrick, and Trent Richardson—all went on to become high-impact players for the Tide. That said, none of the 2009 class would earn starting roles on the 2009 championship team; Richardson was the most significant contributor but was playing back-up to Heisman-winner Mark Ingram. It would take more time for this group to become stars, but this smaller class (27 commitments) still produced 10 players (same number as the 2008 class) who earned a “3” IMPACT rating:
- DJ Fluker
- Nico Johnson
- Dre Kirkpatrick
- Trent Richardson
- Eddie Lacy
- AJ McCarron
- James Carpenter
- Ed Stinson
- Anthony Steen
- Chance Warmack
Only two of that group were 3-star players: O-linemen Steen and Warmack. All of those guys will almost certainly be drafted—Richardson, Kirkpatrick, and Carpenter are already in the league.
It took Saban three years to build a championship team, but the machine wasn't really in full gear until 2011. The 2010 Tide squad lost three regular season match-ups (South Carolina, LSU, and Auburn) before thumping STAEE in the Capital One Bowl. There is no doubt that his first three classes—especially his second and third—were the foundation of the '11 and '12 championship teams. What is interesting is how much those early classes got to contribute compared to his recent, even better classes. Even with a consistent exodus of talent—many of those drafted players left early—'Bama is fielding fewer freshmen now than it did in 2009. That '08 class really had the best opportunity to start early—since then only a handful of freshmen have seen significant playing time.
Below are the charts for 2010-2013. The IMPACT ratings are obviously incomplete, since most of those guys still have a chance to contribute. What you will notice is that the quality of Saban's classes has improved (though I'm not sure it can get much better than a 5.87 average rating). The Alabama Juggernaut has become and unstoppable force, and it's likely that only scandal or Saban's exit will stop it.
|DeMarcus Milliner||DB||6'2"||180||4.5||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Dequan Menzie||DB||5'11"||200||4 stars||5.9||3|
|C.J. Mosley||LB||6'2"||212||4.5||4 stars||5.9||3|
|Deion Belue||DB||6'0"||175||4.5||3 stars||5.6||3|
|John Fulton||DB||6'1"||180||4.4||4 stars||5.9||2|
|Jalston Fowler||RB||6'0"||240||4.8||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Adrian Hubbard||DE||6'7"||227||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Nick Perry||DB||6'2"||195||4.5||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Blake Sims||ATH||6'0"||180||4.5||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Brandon Ivory||DT||6'3"||330||3 stars||5.6||2|
|Cade Foster||K||6'1"||215||3 stars||5.5||2|
|Alfy Hill||DE||6'4"||222||4.6||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Arie Kouandjio||OL||6'6"||314||5.2||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Phillip Sims||QB||6'2"||209||4.8||4 stars||5.9||1|
|DeAndrew White||WR||6'0"||170||4.4||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Jarrick Williams||DB||6'2"||205||4.6||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Corey Grant||RB||5'10"||186||4.4||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Keiwone Malone||WR||6'1"||165||4.4||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Brian Vogler||TE||6'7"||248||4.7||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Ronald Carswell||WR||6'0"||180||4.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Harrison Jones||TE||6'4"||230||4.8||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Brandon Lewis||DT||6'3"||275||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Chad Lindsay||OL||6'3"||307||5.4||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Austin Shepherd||OL||6'5"||316||5.5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Wilson Love||DE||6'4"||235||4.8||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Jay Williams||K||6'4"||220||2 stars||5.3||1|
|Hasean Clinton-Dix||DB||6'2"||190||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Cyrus Kouandjio||OL||6'7"||322||5||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Quinton Dial||DE||6'6"||315||4 stars||5.8||3|
|Vinnie Sunseri||LB||5'11"||193||4.6||3 stars||5.6||3|
|Jeoffrey Pagan||DE||6'4"||272||4.6||4 stars||6||2|
|Jesse Williams||DT||6'4"||330||4 stars||6||2|
|Xzavier Dickson||DE||6'3"||238||4.8||4 stars||5.9||2|
|Trey DePriest||LB||6'2"||231||4.6||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Chris Jones||DB||6'0"||185||4.5||4 stars||5.8||2|
|D.J. Pettway||DE||6'3"||255||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Demetrius Hart||RB||5'8"||190||4.4||5 stars||6.1||1|
|Brent Calloway||LB||6'1"||210||4.6||4 stars||6||1|
|Marvin Shinn||WR||6'3"||177||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Aaron Douglas||OL||6'6"||280||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Malcolm Faciane||TE||6'6"||265||4 stars||5.8||1|
|LaMichael Fanning||DT||6'6"||285||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Bradley Sylve||WR||5'11"||175||4.4||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Danny Woodson||WR||6'2"||200||4.5||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Phillip Ely||QB||6'1"||186||4.6||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Ryan Kelly||OL||6'5"||270||5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Isaac Luatua||OL||6'2"||299||5||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Jabriel Washington||ATH||5'11"||165||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Duron Carter||WR||6'2"||195||3 stars||5.6||1|
|T.J. Yeldon||RB||6'2"||205||4.4||5 stars||6.1||3|
|Amari Cooper||WR||6'1"||175||4 stars||6||3|
|Kenyan Drake||RB||6'1"||195||4.4||4 stars||5.8||2|
|Deion Belue||DB||6'0"||170||3 stars||5.6||2|
|Landon Collins||DB||6'0"||199||4.4||5 stars||6.1||1|
|Eddie Williams||ATH||6'4"||204||5 stars||6.1||1|
|Chris Black||WR||5'11"||170||4 stars||6||1|
|Travell Dixon||DB||6'2"||200||4.5||4 stars||6||1|
|Reggie Ragland||LB||6'4"||245||4 stars||6||1|
|Ryan Anderson||LB||6'3"||250||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Cyrus Jones||ATH||5'11"||183||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Dillon Lee||LB||6'4"||220||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Geno Smith||DB||5'11"||180||4.5||4 stars||5.9||1|
|Denzel Devall||LB||6'2"||236||4.6||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Brandon Greene||OL||6'6"||280||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Tyler Hayes||LB||6'3"||215||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Korren Kirven||DT||6'4"||272||5.2||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Dalvin Tomlinson||DT||6'2"||270||4.9||4 stars||5.8||1|
|Dakota Ball||DT||6'2"||292||5.2||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Kurt Freitag||TE||6'3"||245||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Brandon Hill||OL||6'6"||352||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Alphonse Taylor||DT||6'6"||340||3 stars||5.7||1|
|Caleb Gulledge||OL||6'4"||255||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Darren Lake||DT||6'3"||330||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Alec Morris||QB||6'3"||235||3 stars||5.6||1|
|Adam Griffith||K||5'11"||175||3 stars||5.5||1|
|Jonathan Allen||DE||6'3"||263||4.5||5 stars||6.1|
|Reuben Foster||LB||6'1"||244||5 stars||6.1|
|O.J. Howard||TE||6'6"||235||4.5||5 stars||6.1|
|A'Shawn Robinson||DT||6'4"||320||5.1||5 stars||6.1|
|Robert Foster||WR||6'3"||187||4 stars||6.0|
|Derrick Henry||RB||6'3"||243||4.5||4 stars||6.0|
|Grant Hill||OL||6'6"||301||4 stars||6.0|
|Tyren Jones||RB||5'9"||215||4 stars||6.0|
|Alvin Kamara||RB||5'10"||197||4.5||4 stars||6.0|
|Dee Liner||DE||6'3"||281||4 stars||6.0|
|ArDarius Stewart||ATH||6'1"||190||4 stars||6.0|
|Altee Tenpenny||RB||6'0"||212||4.5||4 stars||6.0|
|Maurice Smith||DB||6'0"||180||4.5||4 stars||5.9|
|Tim Williams||DE||6'3"||235||4 stars||5.9|
|Cooper Bateman||QB||6'3"||215||4.8||4 stars||5.8|
|Raheem Falkins||WR||6'4"||195||4.5||4 stars||5.8|
|Darius Paige||DT||6'4"||314||4 stars||5.8|
|Jonathan Cook||DB||6'0"||185||4.5||3 stars||5.7|
|Brandon Hill||OL||6'7"||390||3 stars||5.7|
|Eddie Jackson||WR||6'0"||175||3 stars||5.7|
|Walker Jones||LB||6'2"||234||4.6||3 stars||5.7|
|Leon Brown||OL||6'6"||300||3 stars||5.6|
|Cole Mazza||OL||6'1"||240||3 stars||5.6|
|Parker McLeod||QB||6'3"||190||3 stars||5.6|
|Anthony Averett||ATH||6'0"||170||4.4||3 stars||5.5|
“CHARTING THE JOURNEY THROUGH CONFERENCE PLAY”
Now that there is some respite from the meat grinder that seems to be the Big Ten basketball schedule (at least until this weekend), I felt it might be an appropriate moment to step back and look at some of the basic numbers and breakdowns for our Wolverines. Much has been said in the postgame threads over the last stretch of games, and indeed, some of it bears itself out in the trends that you will see here. The caveat here is that the conference schedule is not yet complete and these numbers are not final.
I had wanted to do something like this since the Indiana game, but I held off because there simply was not enough data regarding conference play to make much of a determination about where the areas of focus should be at that point. Now, I think you can see some definite trends. I also compiled our statistics in a Michigan win versus Michigan loss format so you can easily see just how stark some of the differences are in some cases.
TABLE 1 – “Michigan Win Vs. Michigan Loss”
The one thing that leapt out immediately, at least to me, is that in conference play, we are shooting about 11% when we win as opposed to when we lose, which is significant considering that our four losses have been at the hands of some of the most defensively efficient teams in Division I basketball, not just the conference. The difference is small for our opponents, who shoot only about 6% better in wins as opposed to losses. It’s a fairly similar story for three-pointers – we are down about 13% in losses compared to wins, whereas our opponents again show a difference of only 6% between the two scenarios.
Here is the shooting data broken out into individual games:
Many of the findings aren’t entirely unexpected – we have fewer assists when we lose, we rebound less, and so on, but there are actually sustained trends that are worth noting at this point. Below are trends for point totals and the running average of points:
In both of these, you can see an overall decline in our own production and a gradual increase in the production of those we have played. Since Indiana, in fact, we are giving up three more points per game on average, which may not seem like much, but when you consider that the fewest we have given up since then is 65, it is noteworthy. Our average in the same period has declined about two points, but our average is bolstered some by some of our early performances in conference play.
Tied somewhat to that would be offensive and defensive efficiency, shown below. This is the running number, cumulative as of each game:
The trends are obviously not favorable, but overall, the efficiency numbers have not slid too much, as you will note. In both case, it is less than a 10% slide. It is enough, however, to say that there are items to address soon on both sides of the ball.
Rebounds and assists have also tailed off somewhat, but turnovers show one notable aberration:
This is here for your perusal. The discussion which hopefully follows will become the conclusion of the board, or at least that is my intention. If there are other statistics that you would like to see charted, let me know and I will insert the data as time permits. I thought I might just get the discussion going with what I did here.
Take three of a look at the remaining schedules:
This is long... if that's not for you you will dislike this...
I may have screwed up the 6-7 order- it is unclear if 2-2 is better than 1-1 given the description- but that is not too important...
Who has the hardest schedule?:
I decided to try something new here and associate 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 MSU and Indiana are “top team” in this ranking). Below is that ranking.
Next I determined that a road game should adjust the rankings. A team’s road score is their regular score +3. I settled on 3 arbitrarily because it seemed like the best fit. Michigan and Wisconsin on the road seem barely harder than Indiana or Michigan State at home, while Minnesota/Illinois/Iowa on the road seem to be about the same strength as Wisconsin or Michigan at home. This is definitely quite subjective choosing three points- but it is simple. Some teams are much stronger at home and you could argue deserve and even bigger bump than three, while some play at relatively similar strength home or away. Perhaps Indiana and Michigan State should be +5 on the road because beating a top-10 team on the road is so difficult, while Penn State still is relatively terrible at home…. Anyway, I settled on three!
Below is each of the top-5 teams remaining schedules. Below each opponent is the regular score and advanced score. The regular score does not adjust for home/away, while the advanced score adds 3 points for each away game. If you don’t like the advanced score- disregard it.
|GAME 14||GAME 15||GAME 16||GAME 17||GAME 18||TOTAL|
|INDIANA||@MICHIGAN ST||@MINNESOTA||IOWA||OHIO ST||@MICHIGAN|
|MICHIGAN ST||INDIANA||@OHIO ST||@MICHIGAN||WISCONSIN||NW|
|OHIO ST||MINNESOTA||MICHIGAN ST||@NW||@INDIANA||ILLINOIS|
To show you a little bit easier I order the schedules from hardest to easiest below:
Those numbers seem about right- Wisconsin has it pretty easy, Michigan not too bad, and the rest have it pretty rough...
Next I looked more traditionally at the remaining schedules- looking at: the number of home games compared to road games, the number of games vs top-5 teams (note: all parenthesis show home games, road games), the number of games vs the middle-5 teams, and finally the games vs Nebraska and Penn State. Perhaps it’s not the best split with 5/5/2- arguments could be made to put the split at several points but that’s what I chose (mostly because the first two versions used those splits).
|Home Games||Road Games||Vs. Top-5||Vs. Mid-5||Vs. Bot-2|
|Indiana||2||3||3 (1,2)||2 (1,1)||0|
|Michigan St||3||2||4 (2,2)||1 (1,0)||0|
|Wisconsin||2||3||1 (0,1)||2 (1,1)||2 (1,1)|
|Michigan||3||2||2 (2,0)||2 (1,1)||1 (0,1)|
|Ohio State||3||2||2 (1,1)||3 (2,1)||0|
Enough data/tables… onto opinion:
Indiana has the hardest schedule left. They play fewer home games than everyone but Wisconsin, and only two of their opponents are not fellow top-5 teams-one team is Iowa, who has been playing very well and has lost several very close games, and the other is at Minnesota. They have no easy games left and each game is “losable” to some degree. If you told me Indiana lost any of those games I would not be shocked- and that is not a good way to end the season. Obviously the most important game is at Michigan State coming up. MSU gets the edge at home- which means Indiana will have to pull an upset to be number 1. At Minnesota will be tough, and Iowa at home could be a sleeper game if they get caught looking ahead. They wrap up at home against OSU which will essentially be a must-win with a road game in Ann Arbor wrapping up the season. It’s hard to imagine the final game not determining the champion in some fashion. If Indiana beats MSU that final game could be sole possession of first- if not it will determine who will be champion in some way with Michigan hopefully having a shot for a co-championship in that game.
The second toughest schedule according to the point systems. Looking at the traditional details it looks just as hard as Indiana however. Only one game is not against a top-5 team and that is the final game at home against Northwestern. That last game could determine the championship as well. It’s hard to imagine them not losing at least one game. Indiana at home coming up next is huge (covered above) and then OSU and Michigan on the road will be daunting. OSU is a little hard to figure out, and they beat down Michigan in EL, so these games may play out to be less challenging than they may appear. If they lose to Indiana they have to win-out at home and at least split those road games to still feel comfortable- if they beat Indiana a split in the road games becomes easier to swallow- but both of those situations assume a win against Wisconsin which will not be easy either.
No matter how you slice it their remaining schedule is incredibly easy. They play the 4 lowest teams in the conference, and while they play NW and PSU on the road neither of those should be games they should lose. They play at home against Nebraska and Purdue- and both of those should be wins. Purdue is probably the only game that will be a serious challenge other than Michigan State. With 4 losses the MSU game is a must-win (as are all their games). On the road they are not favored to win, but if they pull it off they have to hope MSU loses at least one other game, and Indiana also loses 2. If they beat MSU and take care of the games they should it is not too unlikely they have a shot at being co-champs. (Writing that made me throw-up a little…)
As is the case with Wisconsin Michigan needs to win out. Indiana on the road was close, and then we fought out a win against OSU, before the two most frustrating games all year in Madison and EL. Let’s hope more spacing of games and an easier schedule (particularly compared to what we just went through) will allow us to get back to top-form. A lot of questions remain: were we significantly overrated before? Will Morgan be at full strength? Will the freshman be able to step-it-up? Are Indiana, and particularly Michigan State, a clear step-up from us? Is this team on the rebound- or are we still slumping? Have teams played great games against us- or is our defense underperforming and is that just foolish optimism?
The answers to those questions will come in time- that is, unless we lose to Illinois or at Penn State. Both games should be wins- and if we lose either of those games our chance for a championship erode- and our stock will be sliding fast. If we get through those games we still likely need to win out. Last analysis I said I expected a loss at MSU and that we could be said to be favored the rest of the way. Our play at EL changed that outlook significantly. MSU in Ann Arbor will be very intense- and if we win we have a good shot- if we lose it’s all over for co-champ talk most likely. Plus, if we lose, MSU will very possibly go into the last week looking like favorites- a lot will be at stake. Most fans, and presumably the team, will be looking to show that the game in EL was a terrible hiccup; otherwise that game will possibly be a very low point of the season. If we do beat MSU, and took care of business against Illinois and PSU we have a sleeper game at Purdue (who last year cost us an outright title by being the only home loss) before closing against Indiana at home. Worst case, we lost to MSU (and maybe even one of the other three games) and play Indiana with no-chance to win a title- and they show us that they, and MSU, are the class of the conference. Best-case, we took care of business, righted the ship against MSU, and play at home against Indiana for a chance for being co-champs. If that is the case we will have only lost at home once in the last two years, have lots of momentum, and have a good chance to beat Indiana- let’s hope that last scenario plays out!
With five-losses OSU has almost no-chance. It is hard to imagine both Indiana and MSU losing three times, and Wisconsin’s schedule looks like they will be at worst a 5-loss team meaning OSU has essentially no chance at being an outright champ- and almost no chance of a co-championship. Plus, they have to play at Indiana and home against MSU. Although, if you need to make up ground you want to play the teams you need to lose. Minnesota at home, their next game, will be a challenge, and at Northwestern could be a sleeper game. Most likely they end the year a game (or likely more) out- and the last game at Illinois will matter for seeding and if Illinois makes the dance.
I think we are looking at co-champs at 14-4. Who those teams are is very hard to say. Indiana will likely lose at MSU, and hopefully at Michigan as well. At Minnesota, Iowa, and OSU will all be a challenge too- so even if they only lose one of the first games mentioned there is still a good shot they lose one of those.
Michigan State I think has the best chance because they play Indiana at home. I think they are better than OSU and Michigan but will struggle to win both of those games, and may lose both. After that they should beat Wisconsin and NW. I think they have the best chance to go 15-3 and be alone on top of the charts. It really comes down to whether or not we can beat them, in my opinion.
Wisconsin lucked into the easiest schedule to end the year. Luckily for every other fan-base they should lose to MSU- and it’s hard to see 13-5 cutting it. If they pull the upset- they have the four bottom teams left- let’s hope they slip up in one of those- because who wants to see Wisconsin win the championsip….
Michigan has long odds. Granted I projected them losing to MSU and being in good shape last time, the nature of the last few weeks make it tough to be too optimistic at this point. MSU and Indiana at home are very, very tough. But if we want to be champs we need them to lose- so it’s good we play them- and good it is at home for both. Illinois at home could be tough if we play like we have been also. Let’s hope that we can show up and protect the home-court- because we need to!
Ohio State is too far out…
What I said above in nice simple, very subjective number form:
|16 - 2||15 - 3||14 - 4||13 - 5||12 - 6 or Worse|
Hope everyone liked it!
Working on another wallpaper this coming week, but here's another since the last one people were commenting that they didn't like the "artsy" stylings of the recent ones. I like how this turned out, but as always, I'm open to constructive criticism to help me provide more of what the MGoCommunity is looking for.
EDIT: Already nitpicked at my own design. Corrected the alignment of the "the road to march" text area. Not sure why I didn't catch that since I'd originally had it right. Oh well. Carry on.
- Desktop (16:9) -
Mobile version to come!
After the Wisconsin and MSU loses I made comments about the attitude and will of Michigan’s basketball team. Even Dan Dakich (yes, who we all dislike) went on and on about Michigan’s lack of it during the MSU game. Sadly, he was right. Building on Ace’s piece the other day, there are a few pain points from the past four (I’m actually going to include the NW game as well, because 5 is more than 4) games which I thought I would focus on.
FREE THROW ATTEMPTS
One of the best stories I ever heard was from a former NBA star talking about Larry Bird. He said he was one of the very few players who could dominate a game while only taking 10 – 12 shots. He would make 8 or 9 shots with a couple from three. And the rest would come from free throws. I checked it out and indeed Bird averaged 5 free throw attempts per game throughout his career.
Here’s Michigan’s free throw attempts from the past five games. I’m only looking at the five highest players in minutes played due to the smaller rotation with Morgan out.
Keep in mind, that’s attempts, from the 5 primary ball handlers. In the biggest games of the year. Between Hardaway Jr, Stauskas, GRIII, and McGary among 20 opportunities to take at least one free throw in a game they failed to do so in 65% of them. And that includes going up against notoriously aggressive MSU and OSU defenses.
I point this out because free throw attempts are indicative of attitude. Sometimes you just have to make the other team foul you so you get a chance to get two points (or at least one) at the end of a game. Too often Michigan has had late game possessions which end in jump shots (most of them fading away from 18+ feet). Michigan (#6 in field goal percentage) is shooting 49% as a team. Michigan (#133 in free throw percentage) is shooting 70% as a team. I prefer 70% to 49% when I’m scrapping for points at the end of a close game.
Beilein has said in interviews he get’s just as excited about one of his players taking a charge as he does a dunk. In watching this team, you can tell Beilein and the other coaches work with the players on taking charges. i.e. he is using a rule in basketball as part of his strategy. I personally disagree with this because it is a very passive defensive attitude. When a player sets up to take a charge he gives the opposing player the ability to get a vertical advantage. Keep in mind, most charges come within 5-8 feet of the basket. Having a vertical advantage really means something in that close of range. Additionally, there are three things which can happen when a player sets up for a charge: 1) they get the charge call which equates to a turn over (yay) 2) There is no call made and the player either makes or misses the shot (keep in mind this is a closer in shot with no vertical defender because he is planted firmly to the ground) (advantage offense) 3) The ref calls a blocking foul and the player has a chance at making an uncontested shot from close range (boo). So of the three things that could happen, only one of them is actually good for the team. Now rewind to the end of the Wisconsin game. Michigan up 3. Jared Berggren (all 6’10” of him) beats his man and is driving uncontested to the hoop. Burke (all 6’0” of him) sets up just outside the charge circle to take the charge. Berggren dunks and gets the blocking foul on Burke. Berggren makes the free throw. Tie game. No ref will ever call that a charging foul. Instead of going back down court at worst up one (at best up two or three depending on Berggren making both free throws) with the shot clock turned off meaning Wisconsin would have to foul. Michigan goes back down court tied. I would much rather Burke make a hard foul to force Berggren to shoot free throws. Again, it’s about attitude. Be passive and hope the ref makes the call, or proactively make the other team beat you.
MY PERSONAL ANEURYSM OF LEADERSHIP MOMENTS
Against MSU in the first half when it was still a 10-12 point game and all hope was not lost Burke picked up his dribble against the sideline with 15 seconds left on the shot clock. Hardaway Jr. was hanging out about 5 feet behind the three point line on the same side of the court as Burke. What he was going to do from that position I have no idea. The other Michigan players (all freshman, BTW) were properly spaced in the corner and on the other side of the court. The MSU defender immediately jumped Burke as the ref started counting the 5 second call. What happened? Nothing. That’s right nothing. Stauskas did not come to take the ball from Burke. Ok. Freshman. Hardaway (a Junior, not just Jr) was standing 10 feet away and continued standing there instead of helping his teammate out. I lost it. My 15 month old boy stood staring at the TV and his dad bewildered. The dog ran and hid under the table. The wife went to comfort the boy.
In the second half, when it was still a 16-18 point game with 12 minutes left, Valentine of MSU got a long rebound against the sideline. He was losing his balance and looking for someone to pass to. Stauskas was within 5 feet of him. Stauskas turned and ran back down court to play defense. Valentine regained his balance, came down court and Harris made an uncontested 3. The wife had taken the boy for his bath. The dog was still under the table.
This is about attitude. Do you jump at the opportunity to make a play or do you let opposing team dictate?
This is why I have concerns about this team for the tournament. Who will get that one point when you really need it without relying on a jump shot going in? Who will step up and make the other team react to your pressure?
One final point about attitude. I love Coach Beilein. I would want few others representing Michigan. On a whim I went to Google images and typed in Tom Izzo angry, Bill Self angry, Mike Krzyzewski angry, and John Beilein angry. Here’s what I got:
Seriously. Not kidding at all.