I began this diary about 4 years ago when it became clear that there were far fewer seasons ahead for Red Berenson at Michigan than behind. In my early drafts, this is not how the story ends; Red retiring on the heels of his most disappointing season since he first took this job 30+ years ago. The story was supposed to end with Red announcing his plans to retire while his team competed for another conference title. On Senior Night he’d receive a 12 minute standing ovation with legions of grown men weeping bittersweet tears, and nobody thinking less of them for doing so. The season would end with Michigan in the NCAA tournament and maybe making another Frozen Four and perhaps even capturing that elusive 3rd National Title for Coach.

Alas, that is not how this story ended, but if you’re expecting a tribute riddled with qualifiers based on how his career finished out, prepare to be disappointed. This diary will not be that, because Red’s legacy is far more than just the past few years. Red’s legacy is that he was the greatest Michigan coach of our generation. With all due respect to Schembechler, Urbanchek, Carr, and Hutchins; Red didn’t just create a state dynasty, or a conference dynasty. Red built Michigan into a national dynasty. For 25 years, when college hockey pundits talked about the great college hockey powers, the Minnesotas, Boston Colleges, and North Dakotas, Michigan was always in that conversation as well. Michigan was to hockey what Duke is to college basketball, what Alabama is to college football. Red made us that good, that dominant. When we look ahead for the football program, we’re not hoping that Jim Harbaugh duplicates Bo’s success, we are hoping he duplicates Red’s.

But his legacy isn’t just about his tenure as Michigan hockey coach. Red Berenson was a Michigan Man before Bo invented the concept. Red Berenson, as a 19 year old kid, rode a train for days from Regina, Saskatchewan to see if he wanted to play college hockey for Michigan in an era where no Canadian hockey player with any promise would even think of that as path to the NHL. Yet, Red Berenson arrived in Ann Arbor, took a look around, and sent word back to his teammates in Regina with the simple phrase, “This is the place.”¹

Four simple words that should become the unofficial motto for The University. Who among us haven’t strolled through on The Diag in early October with the leaves crunching under our feet and felt similar? Michigan is special and Red recognized that. Why else would a 45 year old coach leave a promising future in the NHL to return to his alma mater to assume control of a program that had cratered into nothing? It’s doubtful that it was the money, because Michigan didn’t pay coaches all that much in 1984. No, my conclusion is that Red came back to Ann Arbor because “This is the place” was still in him, because Michigan gets inside us, and when Michigan needs you, you answer the call.

Of course, the rest is history. Red took over a program in shambles, rolled up his sleeves, and built the greatest program Michigan Athletics has seen since Fielding Yost. When the dust settled we’d collected 11 CCHA regular season and 9 tourney titles, 13 GLI titles, 23 NCAA tourney appearances, 11 Frozen Fours, and 2 National Championships. There’s a lot of laundry hanging from the rafters in Yost Ice Arena, and most of it is due to him. Our helmets will forevermore have wings. Yost will continue to be one of the toughest road games to play for any visiting team. Fuck the Horseshoe. Fuck Cameron. At its peak, NOBODY wanted to play Michigan in Yost Ice Arena. Ask 2003 Colorado College for their feelings on the experience. Or Denver in 2002. Or Michigan State. Or Miami (NTM). Or Notre Dame.

Soon, Michigan will bring on board a new caretaker for this thing that Red created, this tiny hockey miracle born in the middle of a football-crazed fanbase. Red didn’t have the impact on our fan culture to the degree that Bo did, but Red showed us what being an elite program at Michigan looked and felt like. Not just competitive, not just good, not just great, ELITE. For us hockey fans, Red was our Sinatra, performing his version of “My Way” with a hockey team, and bringing down the house night after night. Monday afternoon was not the way this story was supposed to end, but life usually doesn’t provide fairy tale endings. Still we have the memories, so many great memories; along with the swagger, so much swagger, just waiting to emerge for the next guy.

Thank you Gordon “Red” Berenson for choosing Michigan, for seeing that “This is the place”. We will always be grateful.

¹ Blue Ice, John U. Bacon

The record attendance of 60,000 in 2016 (MLive)

So two years ago, I posted a diary called the Cloudy History of the Michigan Spring Game.

For years--for some reason--I've had a strange thing where I've really wanted to know what the history of our spring game was. This started back in 2010 when it had been years since we had played an actual, watchable spring GAME. 

Google wasn't giving me anything back in those days. So I waited and kept digging. I eventually found Google Newspaper Archive which had a decent collection of Michigan Daily articles where past spring games where searchable.

But there wasn't enough to do a complete and 100%, double-checked accurate history. Plus, the Daily stopped publishing after the semester ended in April beginning in the 70s, so sometimes there was no way to view these results.

That's where a subscription to Newspapers.com helped. I had access to the Detroit Free Press history, which was a great and searchable option that helped this project move along tremendously.

But it wasn't until January of 2017 when the long-awaited Michigan Daily Digital Archive went live. An absolute GAME-CHANGER for my research not just for this small portion of what I do, but for the entire Michigan SuperGuide Project Collections. 

What I am very proud to post on here, after 7 years of digging and searching and piecing together information, is a 100% accurate and COMPLETE history of the Michigan Football Spring Game.

Let's take a look-

 

The First Games: Strange colors

The first public Michigan Spring Game was on May 14, 1925 at Ferry Field. 

Already-graduated (apparently graduated seniors could still play in spring practice) Edliff Slaughter's Blues defeated the Reds, by a 13-6 score. The first touchdown in a Michigan Spring Game was scored by Ralph Baer on a 15-yard fumble return TD. 

Marty Garber would score a Red TD to tie the game at 6-6. Enid, Oklahoma native Bus Haskins would score the game-winning TD by rumbling through the entire Red line and plowing into the endzone to give the Blue team the win. Further painting a picture for future Michigan games.

Strange to see Michigan players on a Red team? The next season the Blues would take on the Green team (and lose 3-0). 

In 1928, it got really weird. The spring game became a tournament. The team was divided up into multiple teams during practices and would compete for the title of Spring Grid Champions. The only thing was that the team names were named after other Big Ten schools. 

The 1928 Spring Game on May 13th would feature "Illinois" beating "Ohio State" for the Spring Game Championship, the first and only. 

Two years later in 1930, 3 teams were divided up. Team 1 was captained by Al Bovard, Team 2 by Joe Gembis and Team 3 by Howard Poe. They each played a game against the other, with Team Gembis winning on the day overall.

This was also the first Spring Game at Michigan Stadium. Despite the stadium being built in 1927, the previous two games were played at Ferry Field which still very much was a stadium.

1931: Blue vs Yellow/White/Maize rivalry begins

The modern spring game matchup first took place in 1931. Blue vs Yellow...........yup, Yellow. The great ancestors of today's Maize team that won on a goal line stand last year.

 The first Blue vs Yellow game was on May 9, 1931 and was a 6-0 win by Blue.

The game was played in a driving rain. The winning and only score was a long TD pass from Harry Newman to Herman Everhardus.

After 5 straight Blue wins over Yellow where Blue outscored their counterpart 155-25, Yellow finally broke through with their first win in 1938 after two previous years of coming away with ties.

The following year, Yellow would be renamed the "White team" to reflect the color jerseys the team wore. This actually came a decade before Michigan wore white jerseys for a road game so they must have used special white jerseys just for the Spring Game.

New name, same results. After dropping the 1940 contest, White would hand Blue two more defeats the next two years, going on a 4-1 run against the Blue.
 

Wartime guts college football

All across the country during World War II, teams were losing players at a moments notice in the draft for the war effort. The 1942 spring game was months after the US entered the war, and it would be the last spring game scheduled until the Allies won the war and things went back to normal.

During the war era, players were listed on the roster by their military designation (N for Navy, C for Civilian, M for Marine and R for Reserves) as opposed to their academic standing. There were actually rumors on campus that Michigan would not have a Football team in 1943. Other schools across the country simply didn't have enough men to field a team like Michigan State, who dropped their athletic program during the war.

There was no spring practice during WWII. There were Spring drills instead, and they were basically an open tryout to help fill the roster out in the Fall for depth purposes.

 

1950-1983: Blue dominance

1953 Spring Game

There was a spring game scheduled for 1946, but it was cancelled and instead a closed practice. There would not be a traditional Blue-White game again until 1950, but this time by choice as Bennie Oosterbaan had non-scoring scrimmages at The Big House from 1947-1949. Similar to ones that would unfortunately return 60 years later.

In 1950--the first Blue-White game since 1942--the Blue team smashed the White composed of reserves by a score of 50-0. The Blue run of dominance would continue for 9 years with the closest game being a 6 point win over White in 1957 where a "5th quarter" was played after the upstart White squad had a 25-24 lead over the Blues at the end of regulation. The Daily speculated this was done to help salvage some morale for the starters.

It would be a telling sign as Michigan would have a mediocre 5-3-1 season that Fall.

White finally broke through two years later in 1959, coming back from down 21-8 in the 3rd quarter to win. A TD on a fumbled QB sneak, safety and TD gave the young White team the upset win.

White upset of Blue in 1959 Spring Game

 

1961 Spring Game

 

The Spring Game would feature the Blue team as the starters and the White team as the reserves until Bo took over in 1969. The teams were then split evenly into two squads.

Didn't matter very much, though. The Blue went on a run of dominance, winning 27 of 34 spring games from 1950-1983. Even continuing their run when evenly split. Pretty impressive.

Also, something else to note. The month the game would be played in changed because U-M apparently changed its semester format. The semester ended in May at U-M until 1965, which the Daily publishings reflect because once the semester ended, no papers would be printed. In the old days, the papers printed through late May. 
 

1975 Spring Game

 

The Legend of Mike Walker

Walker signing autographs after the 1983 Spring Game

In the 1983 game, it was a very low-scoring and dull affair by all accounts for most of the game.

White led Blue, 8-3 with just seconds left before halftime. That's before an unknown mystery man wearing #15 entered the game at QB.

With just one second left before halftime and his team down, the unknown Blue QB threw a 69-yard TD pass as the time expired to give Blue the lead at halftime, 10-8. It would prove to be crucial as Blue would go on and win the game, 16-8 after two insurance FGs by Mike Melnyk and Pat Moons. Some freshman QB named Harbaugh scored all of White's points on a TD pass and 2pt pass.

But the QB of the game was the mystery man that had almost everyone in the stadium--including the head coach--asking "who is that guy?"

His name was Mike Walker. He was the backup QB at DePauw in 1982, a Division III school in Greencastle, Indiana. He transferred to Michigan for academic purposes because he wanted to become an architect and DePauw's program wasn't in the same category as Michigan's.

When Bo was asked about who the mystery man was in the postgame press conference, he said this in an AP article from 1983-

"I really don't know," Schembechler said. "Mike Walker is a nice kid. As I understand it, he transferred here from a small school in Indiana for academic reasons. That's all I know about it. That's the first time he's ever scrimmaged. We just stuck him in because a couple of other guys were hurt"

That was Mike Walker's one and only pass in that spring game, and ever in a Michigan uniform.

He doesn't even officially exist since spring game walk ons aren't added to the all-time roster database at Bentley unless they make it on the Fall roster.

Bo would actually offer Mike Walker a walk on tryout in the Fall, but he declined, instead opting to focus on academics that he transferred to Michigan for in the first place.

 

1984: Turning of the tide

White team celebrates in the 1986 game, their 2nd win in 3 years over Blue

 

After years of taking punishment from Blues, the Whites finally got to dish it back. The run that continues to this day started back on April 14, 1984.

And that run was started by none other than a young QB named Jim Harbaugh. Seriously-

Detroit Free Press account

Harbaugh led the White to an 18-15 win and impressed Bo in the process. He would go on to start that 1984 season, but not finish it as he suffered a broken arm which killed the season that ended in a 6-6 record, Bo's worst.

Harbaugh would switch sides the following year in 1985, and lead the Blues to a 27-20 win over the Whites. Bo was angry about the defense in the postgame.

Harbaugh would lose his final game to the resurging White squad in 1986, 18-13.

White would go on to win 4 of 5 from the Blue for their best run since the early 40s.
 

1991-2003: Torn up grass

This period of time would be marred by multiple things that added turbulence to the tradition of the Spring Game.

In 1991, the game was scheduled to be played on April 13th, but was cancelled due to "injuries and renovations". Michigan Stadium would undergo the removal of the artificial All-Pro (astroturf) surface and a lowering of the field during the offseason.

The game returned in 1992, and the White continued their newfound success against the Blue, winning every single game in the 90s. 

1995 was a first for the spring game. It was scored scrimmage with a point system. The White team was the offense and the Blue team was the defense. It wasn't taken very seriously, as Gary Moeller gave the Blue 10 points at halftime to make the "game" closer. White prevailed 45-44.

1996, the game was cancelled again. This time due to poor field conditions on the Michigan Stadium grass field.

4,000 fans braved the weather and saw arguably the best spring game in Michigan history in 1997. White trailed 14-0 before scoring a rushing TD and a TD on 57-yard fumble return to cut the lead to 1, but missed the PAT on the slippery field.

White kicked a FG to take the 16-14 lead and then went up 22-14 when LeAundre Brown picked off Scott Dreisbach and took it back 62 yards for what appeared to be the game-clinching touchdown with 14 seconds remaining. But another missed PAT provided Blue with one small chance left.

Blue marched right down the field in just 16 seconds and Dreisbach hit Tai Streets in the endzone for a TD as time expired. Blue went for the 2-point conversion to tie the game and send it OT, but the pass was no good and White escaped with a wild 22-20 victory.

1997 Spring Game

 

Coming off of a National Championship in 1997, you would think the crowd would be better than ever in 1998. Not a chance. This small crowd of diehards watched White win their 7th straight Spring Game, 20-17.

Only the media coverage on ESPN and the rise of the internet has increased Spring Game attendance and attention.

Photo: UMGoBlue.com

1999 was the first Non-Scoring scrimmage in exactly 50 years. Scrimmages would become the norm, as the 2000 tilt was a scored scrimmage (A 23-22 White win) and 2001 would be the final Spring GAME until the man who turned the tide in the series took over as head coach in 2015.

And to cap things off with the lovely grass field, the 2003 game was yet again cancelled due to poor field conditions. The grass field would be torn out during the summer and replaced with FieldTurf. 
 

2004-2014: Scrimmages & Punt Exhibitions

Under Lloyd, the frequency of traditional spring games significantly decreased. 

Most of them were scrimmages with crazy scoring systems, not much care was put to it. Which meant not very entertaining action.

No more steak for the winners and beans and hotdogs for the losers of the game.

From 2004-2006, all of the Spring Games would be non-scoring scrimmages. In 2007, a weird and complicated scoring system was in place where (who else?) the White team would beat the Blue in a 42-41 final. No one knew the scoring system in the crowd, and by my memory no one explained it.

Stadium renovations were actually taking place during that April. I believe it was replacing bleacher seats. MVictors said it was foundational construction.

Photo: MVictors

The 2008 Spring Game was the last one I personally did not get to go to. It was invitation-only at Saline High School, due to the massive renovations taking place at The Big House.

I'm sure it was a good thing the new offense and the horrors that took place on the field at Saline were hidden only to donors and parents. 

2008 Spring Game at Saline High School

2009 was the first advertised, promoted and ballyhooed Spring Game.

MGoBlue broadcasted it and it smashed any and all previous attendance marks. An estimated 50,000 people showed up on April 11, 2009 on a sun soaked day that felt more like a May Spring Game in the old days rather than early April. 

True freshman Tate Forcier who had been in high school just 4 months earlier carved up the defense in a non-scoring scrimmage. Quite an omen. 

2009 Spring Game (WD)

 

The following year would be another scrimmage, this time a scored one where no one knew the rules. Defense could score points.

The Blue team was the 1st team offense and 2nd team defense and the newly-reanmed MAIZE team was the 2nd team offense and 1st team defense. Denard carved up the 1st team defense and Blue won 49-37.

It was the first win by a Blue team in the Spring Game since 1989 in Bo's last Spring Game, snapping Maize/White's 10 game win streak.

2011 and 2012 under Hoke were also scored scrimmages with the same team concept, but there was no scoring method for the defense for stops, turnovers etc. 

2013 and 2014 were played in freezing conditions and were non-scoring scrimmages. Basically, they were an hour of stretching and punting with an hour scrimmage. Like watching paint dry. Thankfully, change was on the horizon in many ways...

 

2015-present: Return of Harbaugh

2015 Spring Game. Harbaugh.

The biggest blockbuster hire in college football history happened. It Happened.

The man who does not get sick or observe major holidays and has a burning desire for winning competitions, brought back the traditional Michigan Spring Game.

Teams were drafted in a formal Spring Game Draft at the Junge Center, and the game would happen.

On April 4, 2015 before a new Michigan Spring Game record crowd of an estimated 60,000 fans on a beautiful day, the Tim Drevno's Blues defeated DJ Durkin's Maizes in a 7-0 offensive struggle. 

The winning TD was a pass from Shane Morris to Jaron Dukes who caught the ball over 5'7 Dennis Norfleet. 

Last year was the most exciting Spring Game many people can remember.

The Maize team stonewalled the Blue team on the goaline with no time left on the clock as Blue attempted to win the game on a 2-point conversion. Wilton Speight and the Maize defeated John O'Korn and the Blue, 14-13 in a thriller.

 

The 2017 Spring Game is on April 15th at 1pm. 

Will Maize win their second straight and continue their 15 of 21 run over Blue? Will Blue re-establish the dominance it once had over its counterparts before Harbaugh changed it?

Only the future will tell.

 

Here is the result of every Michigan Spring Game in history. 
 

Since the Maize-Blue series began in 1931, Blue holds the all-time edge 39-26-2.

 

Date	Winning Team	Losing Team	Score	Format
5/14/1925	Blue	Red	13-6	Game
5/15/1926	Green	Blue	3-0	Game
5/13/1927	Blue	Red	6-0	Game
5/11/1928	"Illinois"	"Ohio State"	10-0	Game
5/8/1929 5/9/1929	Red Red	Blue Blue	6-0 12-0	Game Game
5/12/1930	Team 2 Team 2 Team 1	Team 1 Team 3 Team 3	6-0 13-2 19-0	Game Game Game
5/9/1931	Blue	Yellow	6-0	Game
5/7/1932	Blue	Yellow	33-7	Game
5/6/1933	Blue	Yellow	54-0	Game
5/5/1934	Blue	Yellow	28-12	Game
5/4/1935	Blue	Yellow	34-6	Game
5/9/1936	Yellow vs Blue: Tie		0-0	Game
5/1/1937	Yellow vs Blue: Tie		6-6	Game
5/14/1938	Yellow	Blue	13-9	Game
5/13/1939	Yellow	Blue	31-26	Game
5/18/1940	Blue	White	6-0	Game
5/10/1941	White	Blue	14-7	Game
5/9/1942	White	Blue	7-0	Game
1943	No Spring Practice (WWII)
1944	No Spring Practice (WWII)
1945	No Spring Practice (WWII)
1946	Cancelled
5/16/1947	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
5/15/1948	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
5/14/1949	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
5/20/1950	Blue	White	50-0	Game
5/19/1951	Blue	White	35-7	Game
5/14/1952	Blue	White	36-0	Game
5/9/1953	Blue	White	54-12	Game
5/15/1954	Blue	White	48-6	Game
5/14/1955	Blue	White	31-7	Game
5/12/1956	Blue	White	34-7	Game
5/11/1957	Blue	White	31-25	Game
5/17/1958	Blue	White	21-6	Game
5/9/1959	White	Blue	22-21	Game
5/7/1960	Blue	White	7-0	Game
5/6/1961	Blue	White	10-8	Game
5/12/1962	White	Blue	28-19	Game
5/4/1963	Blue	White	25-0	Game
5/9/1964	White	Blue	32-29	Game
4/17/1965	Blue	White	34-0	Game
4/16/1966	Blue	White	47-10	Game
4/15/1967	Blue	White	20-7	Game
4/13/1968	Blue	White	42-21	Game
5/6/1969	Blue	White	23-7	Game
4/18/1970	Blue	White	28-13	Game
4/17/1971	Blue	White	24-3	Game
4/22/1972	White	Blue	14-12	Game
4/21/1973	White	Blue	17-7	Game
4/20/1974	Blue	White	41-7	Game
4/19/1975	Blue	White	17-3	Game
4/17/1976	White	Blue	13-0	Game
4/16/1977	Blue	White	35-24	Game
4/15/1978	Blue	White	15-14	Game
4/14/1979	Blue	White	21-0	Game
4/19/1980	Blue	White	35-7	Game
4/18/1981	White	Blue	19-18	Game
4/17/1982	Blue	Maize	10-6	Game
4/16/1983	Blue	White	16-8	Game
4/14/1984	White	Blue	18-15	Game
4/20/1985	Blue	White	27-20	Game
4/19/1986	White	Blue	18-13	Game
4/18/1987	White	Blue	20-17	Game
4/16/1988	White	Blue	20-17	Game
4/15/1989	Blue	White	24-17	Game
4/21/1990	White	Blue	31-6	Game
4/13/1991	Cancelled due to poor field conditions
4/11/1992	White	Blue	14-12	Game
4/10/1993	White	Blue	21-20	Game
4/9/1994	White	Blue	10-6	Game
4/8/1995	White	Blue	45-44	Scrimmage
1996	Cancelled due to poor field conditions
4/12/1997	White	Blue	22-20	Game
4/18/1998	White	Blue	20-17	Game
4/17/1999	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/15/2000	White	Blue	23-22	Scrimmage
4/14/2001	White	Blue	21-7	Game
4/13/2002	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
2003	Cancelled due to poor field conditions
4/10/2004	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/16/2005	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/17/2006	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/14/2007	White	Blue	42-41	Scrimmage
4/12/2008	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/11/2009	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/17/2010	Blue	Maize	49-37	Scrimmage
4/16/2011	Blue	Maize	14-7	Scrimmage
4/14/2012	Blue	Maize	17-0	Scrimmage
4/13/2013	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/5/2014	No Score Kept			Scrimmage
4/4/2015	Blue	Maize	7-0	Game
4/1/2016	Maize	Blue	14-13	Game
4/15/2017	TBD	TBD	TBD	Game

 

It is that painful time of year for Michigan fans where the basketball season has ended and we’re still a long 4+ months away from the start of football season.  During this time we are left scrounging for scraps of information out of spring practice or projecting ahead to the next season of basketball.  It is the latter of those two things that this post will focus on.

 

One annual tradition for just about all of us that follow the basketball team closely is to project the rotation for the following season.  Almost everyone who does so falls into the same trap – predicting that the upcoming season will feature more depth in the rotation than the prior season.  We stare at the roster, we look at the recruits coming in, and we extrapolate the freshmen who barely played into their future roles.  This time of year we end up predicting a rotation of 10+ people depending on the season – and I’m just as guilty as anyone else.  In this post I’m going to try to explain the outlook for next year as we see it today, then throw it to the readers to share their predictions….

 

Based on all of the post-season basketball content on the site this week (mailbag, podcast, WTKA) I have tried to compile a list of what I think would be the minutes predictions for Brian and Ace.  For purposes of this discussion I’m going to assume that we don’t win the Mo Bamba lottery*, that everyone from the rotation with eligibility returns, and that there is no surprise grad transfer.  I’m also going to split up the minutes in chunks of 5 to make the exercise easier to follow.  Here’s how I interpreted the predictions from Ace & Brian for next season:

 

• PG = Simpson (25min), Brooks (10), Rahk (5)
• SG = Rahk (30), Poole (10)
• SF = Matthews (25), Robinson (15)
• PF = Wilson (25), Robinson (5), Livers (10)
• C = Wagner (25), Wilson (5), Davis/Teske (10)

 

We can all agree that we know the six primary rotation players next year – Simpson, Rahk, Matthews, Robinson, Wilson, and Wagner.  Looking at the prediction above, we see that there are four additional players predicted to have about 10 minutes per game – Brooks, Poole, Livers, and the winner of the Teske/Davis battle for back-up center.  (I suppose if you are a member of Ibi Watson’s fan club you could switch his name for Poole’s if you want.)  What you see there sounds like a deep and healthy rotation that has a backup at every position, allows all of the recruits to get a few minutes, and has plenty of versatility with guys like Rahk, Robinson, and Wilson who can play multiple positions.  I’m guessing that you’ll see similar predictions on other Michigan blogs.  Sounds like a great plan, right?  Let’s start writing up the season-preview for next year with that as our baseline!

 

NOT SO FAST….. That prediction is assured to be wrong.  

 

I can promise you right now that there is no way Beilein is going to play 10 guys that many minutes.  I went back and looked at the numbers for all of the years that Beilein has been at Michigan.  On average, the number of players who play 25% of available minutes (i.e. 10mpg) is just eight per season for his teams:

• 2007-2008:  9 players
• 2008-2009:  9 players
• 2009-2010:  7 players (rounding Zak Gibson’s 24.9% to 25%)
• 2010-2011:  7 players
• 2011-2012:  7 players
• 2012-2013:  6 players (though Spike, Caris, and Horford were all in the 18-23% range)
• 2013-2014:  8 players
• 2014-2015:  9 players (Donnal was also at 24%)
• 2015-2016:  8 players
• 2016-2017:  7 players (for reference, Xavier Simpson finished at 22%)

Only three times since he’s been at Michigan has Beilein played more than 8 players at least 10mpg.  Never has he had ten players reach that threshold, which is what we had in our prediction.  So what’s more likely to happen?  Let’s break down those seasons where more than 8 players contributed to see if any of those would support something closer to our prediction of 10 contributing players.

 

2007-2008:

This was the miserable first year of Beilein’s tenure at Michigan.  Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims started all 32 games and three other players (Ekpe Udoh, Kelvin Grady, Ron Coleman) started at least 21 and averaged over 20mpg.  Then there were several bench players that kept bouncing in and out of the rotation and ended up reaching the >10mpg threshold – Zack Gibson, Jevohn Shepherd, and CJ Lee.  I think it is safe to say that we can’t learn much from this season as it was the transition from the Amaker to Beilein era and he was trying to find out what he had while losing a ton of games.

 

2008-2009:

This was the year we got back into the tournament with an unheralded group of players.  Once again Manny and DeShawn played about 80% of available minutes, but there was a ton of rotational depth perhaps unlike any other season in Beilein’s tenure.  Zack Novak, Stu Douglas, Laval Lucas-Perry, Zack Gibson, Kelvin Grady, CJ Lee, and David Merritt all averaged 10-25mpg and even Jevohn Shepherd and Anthony Wright were close behind.  That’s a full 9 man rotation with two more still seeing more than just garbage time.  I suppose this would indicate that Beilein is willing to use a deep bench, but what I see in this roster is that he had a lot of role players and not a lot of guys he felt he could truly count on.  He kept trying to find the right mix of players that season and adjusted from game to game without playing hardly anyone a majority of minutes.

 

2014-2015:

This was the season that started the grumbling about Beilein’s job security because they missed the post-season, in large part to the fact that their two best players were injured.  In fact, because Derrick Walton and Caris LeVert only played in 19 and 18 games respectively, it actually skews the minutes higher for other players.  Do we think that Kam Chatman, Rahk, or Aubrey Dawkins play as many minutes as they did that year if both starting guards are healthy?  Not likely.  But maybe it is possible that this could be a blueprint for next year as Michigan did go deep at every spot:

• PG:  Walton / Spike
• SG:  LeVert / Rahkman
• SF:  Irvin
• PF:  Chatman / Dawkins
• C:  Doyle / Bielfeldt / Donnal

However, if they were healthy that season it seems far more likely that Walton and LeVert eat up a lot of minutes that were going to inconsistent freshmen like Rahk, Dawkins, and Chatman.  We also know entering next year that Wagner is going to play as many minutes as possible at center, which isn’t the same as playing a three-headed monster of mediocrity shown here.

 

So where does this leave us?  While it seems that Michigan has about 10 players who could potentially earn meaningful time next year, we also know that only 8 of them likely will.  I’d like to throw it out to the reader at this point – rank these four players with regard to how likely they are to have a role within the rotation next season:

 

• Eli Brooks (PG) – We need another ball handler and Simpson has yet to prove himself.  Then again, it is very rare for a Beilein point guard to contribute in his first season.
• Jordon Poole (SG) – As the guys said on the podcast, there’s always room for a pure shooter to find minutes for Beilein, especially if Rahk has to moonlight some at PG and/or Matthews isn’t living up to the practice hype.  But if Rahk, Matthews, and Robinson are playing major minutes on the wing, where does he fit in?
• Isaiah Livers (PF) – The most heralded of the incoming recruits and a lock to become DJ Wilson 2.0.  He would help compensate for the loss of Irvin’s ability to defend the PF spot.  Except that Michigan already has three guys who can play the forward spots for major minutes.
• Teske/Davis (C) – Michigan has to have a back-up center to spell Wagner when he gets tired or in foul trouble.  Despite his struggles this year, Donnal was still comfortably above the 25% of minutes played mark.  Then again…..what if those back-up minutes go to Wilson in a small-ball lineup?  Or what if both Teske and Davis split these few available minutes between them?

 

How does everyone see this playing out?  I’ll share my prediction in the comments.

 

*My feeling with Bamba is that Michigan has a chance.  He has a unique personality, not unlike Mitch McGary. I think he’s looking at more than just the typical blue-blood NBA factories and doesn’t see himself as a 1-and-done player.  However, when you start reading into the minutes available I’m not as sure I see more than 10mpg available for him at Michigan and that might be a turnoff for him.  I know UMHoops and others think that Bamba is an instant-impact player on defense who has to play right away, but would he really force Wagner to the bench as a true freshman who is extremely raw on the offensive end? I think he'd be in the rotation, but not in a major way.

We are all excited about finally getting a big time 5 star WR on campus. One of the things we have not had in a while, and a thing that can dynamically change an offense. I have been wondering what kind of impact DPJ might have his freshman year, seeing as true freshman can sometimes have a hard time making a huge impact. I decided to research the freshman years of all the composite 5 star WRs since the start of composite recruiting rankings, which was the year 2000.

First lets look at the composite 5 Star WRs for 2017.

2017

Donovan Peoples-Jones, Michigan - #1 WR, #11 Composite

Tee Higgins, Clemson - #2 WR, #19 Comp

Jerry Jeudy, Alabama - #3 WR, #21 Comp

Joseph Lewis, USC - #4 WR, #31 Comp

 

Below is a chart of the results for the Freshmen years of the players from 2000-2016.

*Comp is their overall composite ranking in the country

*GS stands for Games Started

Random Thoughts at the bottom

Name	School	Rank	Recs	Rec Yds	Rec TDs	Misc	Awards
2016
Demetris Robertson	California	#1 WR, #14 Comp	50	767	7	202 KR Yds	Freshman All American
2015
Calvin Ridley	Alabama	#1 WR, #11 Comp	89	1045	7	11 GS	Freshman All American
George Campbell	Florida State	#2 WR, #18 Comp	3	42	0	0 GS
Deon Cain	Clemson	#3 WR, #19 Comp	34	582	5	0 GS
Christian Kirk	Texas A&M	#4 WR, #25 Comp	80	1009	7	11 GS, 726 Return Yds, 2 TDs	Freshman All American
Tyron Johnson	LSU	#5 WR, #27 Comp	9	150	2	0 GS
2014
Speedy Noil	Texas A&M	#1 WR, #8 Comp	46	583	5	5 GS, 825 Return Yds
Malachai Dupre	LSU	#2 WR, #17 Comp	14	318	5	2 GS
Ermon Lane	FSU	#3 WR, #24 Comp	13	267	1	2 GS
KD Cannon	Baylor	#4 WR, #30 Comp	58	1030	8	7 GS	Freshman All American
2013
Laquon Treadwell	Ole Miss	#1 WR, #14 Comp	72	608	5	12 GS	Freshman All American
Robert Foster	Alabama	#2 WR, #23 Comp				Redshrited
Robbie Rhodes	Baylor	#3 WR, #28 Comp	10	157	0	0 GS
2012
Dorial Green-Beckham	Missouri	#1 WR, #1 Comp	28	395	5	Suspended for 2 Games
Stefon Diggs	Maryland	#2 WR, #8 Comp	54	848	6	934 Return Yds, 2 TDs	Freshman All American
Thomas Johnson	Texas A&M	#3 WR, #33 Comp	30	339	1	Left Program after 10 Games
2011
George Farmer	USC	#1 WR, #8 Comp	4	42	0	3 KR, 59 KR Yds
Jarvis Landry	LSU	#2 WR, #14 Comp	4	42	0	1 KR, 11 KR Yds, 1 PR, 31 PR Yds
Sammy Watkins	Clemson	#3 WR, #19 Comp	82	1219	12	826 KR Yds, 1 TD	Freshman All American
Trey Metoyer	Oklahoma	#4 WR, #21 Comp				Prep School
2010
Kyle Prater	USC	#1 WR, #11 Comp				Redshirted due to Injury
Mike Davis	Texas	#2 WR, #13 Comp	47	478	2	5 GS, 46 KR Yds
Da’Rick Rogers	Tennessee	#3 WR, #16 Comp	11	167	2	16 Carries, 117 Yds, 298 KR Yds
Darius White	Texas	#4 WR, #27 Comp	1	5	0	48 KR Yds
2009
Reuben Randle	LSU	#1 WR, #8 Comp	11	173	2	4 GS
Andre Debose	UF	#2 WR, #15 Comp				Redshirted due to Injury
Marlon Brown	Georgia	#3 WR, #26 Comp	2	15	0
2008
Julio Jones	Alabama	#1 WR, #3 Comp	58	924	4	21 KR Yds	Freshman All American
AJ Green	Georgia	#2 WR, #7 Comp	56	963	8	4 Carries, 61 Yds	Freshman All American
DeAndre Brown	Southern Miss	#3 WR, #12 Comp	67	1117	12		Freshman All American
Jonathan Baldwin	Pitt	#4 WR, #13 Comp	18	404	3	3 GS
Michael Floyd	Notre Dame	#5 WR, #14 Comp	48	719	7
2007
Terrance Toliver	LSU	#1 WR, #8 Comp	10	249	3	2 GS, 3 Carries, 36 Yds
Arrelious Benn	Illinois	#2 WR, #12 Comp	54	676	2	32 Carries, 158 Yds, 280 Kr Yds, 1 TD	Big 10 Freshman of the Year
Deonte Thompson	UF	#3 WR, #21 Comp				Redshirted
2006
Percy Harvin	UF	#1 WR, #2 Comp	41	428	3	34 Carries, 427 Yds, 2 TDs	Freshman All American
Vidal Hazelton	USC	#2 WR, #3 Comp	1	8	0	1 Carry, 7 Yds
2005
Patrick Turner	USC	#1 WR, #2 Comp	12	170	2
Derrick Williams	PSU	#2 WR, #4 Comp	22	289	1	22 Carries, 105 Yds, 3 TDs, 274 KR Yds
Fred Rouse	FSU	#3 WR, #5 Comp	6	114	1	204 Return Yds
DeSean Jackson	California	#4 WR, #22 Comp	38	601	7	8 Carries, 48 Yards, 1 PR for a 49 Yd TD
2004
Early Doucet	LSU	#1 WR, #5 Comp	18	257	2	1 PR, 16 Yds	Freshman All-SEC
Fred Davis	USC	#2 WR, #14 Comp	4	30	0
Cameron Colvin	Oregon	#3 WR, #16 Comp	14	191	2	1 GS, 2 Carries, 7 Yds
Xavier Carter	LSU	#4 WR, #17 Comp	5	118	2	3 Carries, 7 Yds, 203 KR Yds
Calvin Johnson	Georgia Tech	#5 WR, #23 Comp	48	837	7	3 Carries, 10 Yds	Freshman All American
Lance Leggett	Miami	#6 WR, #24 Comp	17	349	4	6 GS
Dwayne Jarrett	USC	#7 WR, #35 Comp	55	849	13	8 GS	Freshman All American
2003
Whitney Lewis	USC	#1 WR, #2 Comp				Redshirted due to Academics
Andre Caldwell	UF	#2 WR, #7 Comp	19	174	0	1 Carry, 3 Yds, 454 KR Yds	Freshman All-SEC
Chad Jackson	UF	#3 WR, #23 Comp	3	38	1	2 KR for 47 Yds
Robert Meachum	Tennessee	#4 WR, #25 Comp				Redshirted due to Injury
2002
Ryan Moore	Miami	#1 WR, #3 Comp	1	29	0	Redshirted after 3 games
DiShon Platt	FSU	#2 WR, #18 Comp				Academic Bust, left school
Marquis Johnson	Texas	#3 WR, #24 Comp				Prep School
Ben Obomanu	Auburn	#4 WR, #31 Comp	17	224	3
2001
Roscoe Crosby	Clemson	#1 WR, #3 Comp	23	296	3
Reggie Williams	Washington	#2 WR, #4 Comp	55	973	3		Freshman All American
Dominic Robinson	FSU	#3 WR, #15 Comp				16 PR, 162 PR Yds
Michael Clayton	LSU	#4 WR, #19 Comp	47	754	6	2 Carries, 35 Yds, 1 TD	Freshman All-SEC
Airese Currie	Clemson	#5 WR, #41 Comp	17	315	1	4 Carries, -4 Yds
2000
Charles Rogers	MSU	#1 WR, #3 Comp				Redshirted due to Academics
BJ Johnson	Texas	#2 WR, #7 Comp	41	698	3	6 Carries, 29 Yds
Roy Wiliams	Texas		40	809	8	2 carries, 75 yds, 2 TDs	Big 12 Freshman of the year
Willie Dixon	Miami	#4 WR, #27 Comp				Academic Bust, left school
Johnnie Morant	Syracuse	#5 WR, #30 Comp				Played in 3 games, no stats
Sloan Thomas	Texas	#6 WR, #35 Comp	9	208	3

 

Including the 2017 class, there has been a total of 71 Composite 5 Star WRs since 2000.

71 Total WRs

Breakdown by School

LSU – 8

USC – 8

Texas – 6

Clemson – 5

FSU – 5

UF – 5

Alabama – 4

Miami – 3

TAMU – 3

Baylor – 2

Cal – 2

Georgia – 2

Tennessee – 2

1 Each - Auburn, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St., Missouri, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Oregon, Pitt, Penn St., Southern Miss, Syracuse, Washington

Breakdown by conference

SEC - 27

ACC - 16

Pac12 - 12

Big12 - 9

Big10 - 5

Other - 2

 

Random Observations

-DPJ will be the first for UM.  

-Insane that LSU has had the most with such anemic passing offenses.

-No BIG 10 School has had more than 1.

-No school north of Tennessee has had more than 1.

-Ohio State has 0.

-14 Freshman All Americans, which is 20% of the total.

-8 players redshirted

-4 players didn’t qualify academically and never attended the school

 

That means 59 players played their freshman years.

21 had over 500 yds Receiving

19 had atleast 5 Receiving Tds

21 did some return duties

[Ed-Ace: As we begin to look to the next year of Michigan basketball, this is very much worth a front-page bump.]

Livers is an impressive passer from the top of the key. [Bryan Fuller]

As we look toward the future of basketball with the departures of Derrick Walton and Zak Irvin, I figured now would be a good time to examine one of our 17 incoming recruits in Isaiah Livers in the context of scouting/analysis as opposed to highlights.

This is similar to what I provide for college coaches in terms of depth, but perhaps not volume (this is a 2 game sample size from state playoffs, would likely provide coaches 4).

I broke this 4:23 clip into 4 segments:

a) Shooting - beginning to 1:14 mark

b) Ballhandling/Passing/Creating in Half Court - 1:15 to 2:58 mark

c) Post Offense - 2:59 to 3:50 mark

d) Transition Offense - 3:51 to end

SHOOTING

3 point shooting numbers

Raw Numbers: 5/10 for 50%

Off the Catch: 2/5 for 40%

Off the Dribble: 3/3 for 100%

Off the Handoff Going Right: 0/1

Off the Jabstep/Isolation: 0/1

Midrange shooting numbers

Raw Numbers: 2/3 for 67%

Off the Dribble: 2/3 for 67%

Comments/Analysis

Mechanics - True jumpshot with good elevation. Good mechanics on shot overall, but displays a slight kick in his legs at times that makes taking a balanced shot difficult.  Good upper body mechanics, but release point is a bit late, causing shot to lack enough arch at times.

Off the catch - good shooter off the catch, difficult to block his shot based on elevation in conjunction with height/length. Will usually take a quality shot off the catch with a good chance of connecting

Off the Dribble - excellent shooter off the dribble going left. His ability to hit a stepback jumpshot off 1-2 dribbles from either midrange or 3 rates among the very best in the country for prospects of his size. Not as fluid as a shooter going right (common to many right hand prospects).

BALLHANDLING/PASSING/CREATING IN HALF COURT

Ballhandling

Average to above average ballhandler for a prospect of his size. His dribble is hard enough to control the ball without threat of losing it when he has space to operate. His head is often down when he dribbles against pressure defense though, mitigating his ability to create for others because he doesn't see the entire floor. Doesn't have good enough first step acceleration to create separation off the dribble against guards/wings in a straight line. Doesn't display ability to change direction with the basketball when his defender beats him to the spot or helpside defense cuts off his initial straight line. Does not get all the way to the rim off the dribble based on lack of accelertaion and change of direction ballhandling. Prefers to go left with much more volume because that is where he is comfortable getting off his shots. Can get off his own shot going left off 1-2 dribbles. Not a real turnover risk when handling because he generally kicks the ball out when defender cuts him off or helpside cuts off drive after 2 dribbles. Not a high volume isolation/pick and roll prospect off the dribble at this point in his development in half court settings.

Passing

Very good passer from the top of the key and the free throw line area when he has space to operate and see the floor for a prospect of his size. Does a great job of leading teammates to open areas and gaps where they are in position to score. Better passer from stagnant position as opposed to off the dribble because his head is up and he can see over the top of the defense based on his size/height. Off the dribble, he is almost strictly a kick-out type prospect as opposed to a creator that will find bigs for easy dumpoffs once the helpside defense commits. Doesn't see the floor as well off the dribble. Would likely thrive as a passer at the FT line area against a 2-3 zone.

[Hit THE JUMP for the rest of the offensive scouting report and a link to its defensive counterpart.]

Expectations

“It was one of those March days when the sun shines hot and the wind blows cold: when it is summer in the light, and winter in the shade.”

- Pip (Great Expectations by Charles Dickens)

The 2017 Pre-season Ratings

With the missed opportunities of the 2016 football season fading into the rear view, hope springs eternal as Spring practice introduces a budding new crop of talented prospects. The first two full-Harbaugh recruiting classes have been elite, and their contributions on the field will soon be felt in full force. Meanwhile, venerated combatants return better, stronger, faster – and eager to seize the mantle of leadership for Team 138. It’s a team that follows consecutive 10-win seasons, a feat not accomplished since the Lloyd Carr era in 2002 and 2003. Can this team make it 3 in a row, something not seen in Ann Arbor since 1999, the year many of the new recruits were born? The departure of the core talent of the Brady Hoke era to the NFL leaves many openings for new stars to emerge and prove themselves on the field. Beloved coach Harbaugh has demonstrated tremendous acumen in his first two seasons in bringing playing talent to fruition, yet much remains to be proven in the struggle to realize a B1G Championship, and more.

So, now seems as appropriate a time as any to have a look at what lies ahead for the 2017 season, from the fancy stats perspective. To that end, this diary analyzes some of the preseason Advanced Stats-based ratings for Michigan and the rest of the Big Ten. Most readers are already familiar with the two principal resources that will feed this analysis: Bill Connelly's S&P+ Ratings (of FB Outsiders and SBNation FB Study Hall fame) and ESPN's Football Power Index (FPI) Ratings. The rub with these initial, preseason ratings, both of which came out in early February, is that they apply a completely different set of metrics than do the in-season ratings. The way they differ is that these preseason metrics are leading indicators conceptually, and do not apply any aspect of in-game performance. To elaborate, the S&P+ preseason ratings are derived from the following three components:

• Returning offensive and defensive production (56% weight)
• Recruiting impact (25% weight, based on the last 2 years of recruiting rankings)
• Recent win-loss history (19% weight, counting 2 to 5 years back, but not including last year)

Similarly, ESPN makes its preseason FPI sausage using three components that are similar to those of S&P+, plus a fourth:

• Returning starters (with special consideration given to a team returning its starting quarterback or gaining a transfer quarterback with experience)
• Recruiting rankings (average rank among 4 systems: ESPN, Scout, Rivals & Phil Steele)
• Prior performance (counting the last 4 seasons)
• Head coaching tenure (is more better?)

Yet, in the end, both S&P+ and FPI provide ratings for all 130 FBS division teams, where the final rating is scaled to expected points better (or worse) than the average FBS division team at a neutral site. Simple enough. So without further ado, following  is quick rundown of the ratings for your 2017 Big Ten football teams.

B1G S&P+ Rating

Rank	Team	Crootin'	Ret. Prod.	5-yr. Record	S&P+ Rating
2	Ohio State	2	3	3	26.0
8	Penn State	18	4	29	21.4
10	Michigan	4	13	17	19.8
11	Wisconsin	36	11	15	18.6
37	Northwestern	48	31	61	6.6
39	Indiana	61	23	75	6.5
42	Nebraska	22	72	32	5.6
44	Michigan State	25	79	12	5.1
47	Minnesota	52	47	55	4.4
48	Iowa	41	60	48	4.4
72	Maryland	32	94	77	-1.5
85	Illinois	57	107	73	-6.0
87	Purdue	72	96	82	-6.6
92	Rutgers	63	109	84	-7.3

B1G FPI Ratings

Rank	Team	Off. Rank	Off. Rating	Def. Rank	Def. Rating	FPI Rating
1	Ohio State	2	12.1	2	14.8	28.9
8	Penn State	6	9.9	17	7.7	18.9
10	Wisconsin	15	7.0	9	9.4	17.4
18	Michigan	26	5.2	19	7.3	13.7
29	Northwestern	48	2.5	26	5.4	8.6
39	Iowa	62	0.0	24	5.4	6.6
57	Nebraska	82	-2.2	38	2.9	1.5
58	Michigan State	66	-0.9	50	1.9	1.4
60	Indiana	79	-1.9	41	2.9	0.8
61	Minnesota	78	-1.7	52	1.8	0.8
69	Maryland	83	-2.3	60	0.1	-1.5
83	Illinois	114	-6.8	63	-0.6	-7.3
88	Rutgers	117	-7.4	64	-0.7	-8.3
98	Purdue	105	-5.6	90	-3.8	-9.8

Just to digest this a little, what is clear is that not only is OSU pretty much the highest rated team in all the land, it also has one of the easier schedules in the conference. What many may have imagined would be the alternate “easier” year for UM - with OSU and MSU at home - is not the boon it once was since now UM goes on the road to PSU and Wisconsin. That said, UM’s schedule challenges are still about average in-conference and toward the stronger side when considering the OOC segment. Alas, poor Maryland and Indiana. They have by both ratings the most difficult conference schedules. As for the B1GW, Wisconsin’s schedule could not be much easier, which is a far cry from the midseason gauntlet it faced last season. At this point you’ve got to like the Badgers chances of blowing through the season unscathed and returning to Indy for the B1GCG. That assumes Wisconsin can get past those sneaky Wildcats, who have also drawn one of the less challenging schedules both in the B1G and overall. More on that later.

Obviously, the win-or-lose nature of divisional standings does not discriminate between contests of evenly-matched opponents and ruthless clubbings of baby seals. A win’s a win. However, just consider for a moment that the top three teams in the B1GW have the 3 easiest overall schedules in the entire conference. Good for them, but it’s the level of competition between opponents - in the form of a point spread - that brings color, subtlety and nuance to the fore, particularly when the College Football Playoff comes into play. A point spread, of course, is just a reflection of the odds, or likely outcome, of a game. So, this is where the rubber really meets the road when digesting equivalent points-based ratings such as S&P+ or ESPN’s FPI. Is Michigan really just an 8 or 9-win team in 2017? That’s a lot of losses, but after dropping 3 games by a combined 5 points as we all witnessed in 2016, it doesn’t take much.

Schedules Matter … Big Time

At this point, a basic approach might be to just pull out the Big Ten teams and look at their respective ratings, as in table 1. Those more foolish than you might jump to the conclusion that the team with the highest rating would be expected to win its division and the conference. However, as Lee Corso might say, “Not so fast, my friend.” We all know by now, in the aftermath of the B1G moving to 9 conference games, that not all schedules are created equal, and that some provide more advantageous paths of glory than others. This is not just because of inter-divisional opponents drawn, but also because half the teams play 5 home conference games while the other half play only 4. That’s a 6-point year-to-year swing based on the scheduling constraint alone. Thus, the next step is to evaluate each team's schedule and respective matchups, and determine the point spreads therein using the S&P+ or FPI ratings, adjusting for whether games are played at home or on the road. Simple enough. So then, let’s just sum up the wins and losses and have look at the final standings. After working out tie-breakers, determining which teams should be meeting in the Big Ten Championship Game straight-forward. As a bonus, since the ratings of each team have already been scraped up, let’s just calculate the average rating of each team’s opponents, and call it something like the Quick-and-Dirty Strength of Schedule (SoS), and rank order them while we’re at it. Hmmm. The tables below don’t paint the prettiest of pictures, at least not compared to last season, but there you have it.

Projected Standings from S&P+ Ratings

B1G East	B1G				Overall
	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk
Ohio State	9	0	5.7	11	12	0	3.5	10
Penn State	8	1	7.6	7	11	1	4.4	6
Michigan	6	3	7.7	6	9	3	5.5	3
Michigan State*	4	5	8.1	4	7	5	4.0	7
Indiana	4	5	9.3	2	6	6	7.1	1
Maryland*	1	8	11.6	1	3	9	4.8	4
Rutgers	1	8	8.1	3	3	9	3.6	9
* winner of tie breaker
B1G West	B1G				Overall
	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk
Wisconsin	9	0	3.4	14	12	0	1.8	12
Northwestern*	6	3	4.7	12	9	3	1.7	13
Minnesota	6	3	4.2	13	9	3	0.7	14
Nebraska	5	4	6.5	9	7	5	3.8	8
Iowa	3	6	8.0	5	5	7	4.8	5
Illinois	1	8	6.1	10	2	10	5.9	2
Purdue	0	9	7.0	8	2	10	2.5	11

Projected Standings from FPI Ratings

B1G East	B1G				Overall
	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk
Ohio State	9	0	3.2	12	12	0	2.5	8
Penn State	8	1	6.1	5	11	1	3.2	5
Michigan	6	3	5.7	7	8	4	3.5	4
Michigan State*	3	6	6.3	4	4	8	2.2	9
Indiana	3	6	7.9	2	5	7	6.8	1
Maryland	2	7	9.5	1	4	8	5.8	2
Rutgers	1	8	5.5	8	3	9	1.9	10
* winner of tie breaker
B1G West	B1G				Overall
	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk	W	L	SoS	SoS Rk
Wisconsin	9	0	1.2	14	12	0	-2.5	14
Northwestern	7	2	2.8	13	10	2	0.1	12
Iowa	5	4	3.2	11	8	4	-0.2	13
Nebraska*	3	6	5.9	6	5	7	3.2	6
Minnesota	3	6	6.4	3	6	6	2.7	7
Illinois	1	8	4.8	10	2	10	5.2	3
Purdue	0	9	5.4	9	3	9	0.5	11

Turning Spreads Into Likelihoods

The next step then is to map the point spread into odds, or better yet, the percent likelihood of each opponent to win, with a 0-point spread being the logical (if not statistically validated), 50/50 boundary condition. Back in 2015, Daniel Griffith, a MiniTab Blog contributor, posted a tidy statistical analysis of the differences between the point spreads and actual results for all NCAA games from 2000 through 2014. Suffice it to say, the distribution of differences was found to be Normal with an essentially zero mean (if it isn't zero-mean, then the bookies aren't doing their jobs, yo!). Knowing a formula or two about the characteristics of a Normal distribution, one can then compute the likelihood that an actual result is greater (or less) than the point spread.

Just as an aside, the most interesting point from the Griffith analysis is the following (which bears repeating if you’ve read this before) in regard to the distribution of differences:

    "The standard deviation ... is 15.5 points. That means that if a game shows a spread for your favorite team of -3 points, the outcome could be with high confidence within plus or minus 2 standard deviations of the point estimate, which is -3 ± 31 points in this case. So your favorite team could win by 34 points, or lose by 28!"

That, dear reader, is why they play the games.

The following two tables of tables show the schedules for each team in the B1G East & West divisions, including the S&P+ ratings-based point spreads and attendant win probability (links to the FPI results are also provided below). A green-yellow-red pseudo-colormap is also applied to quickly give a qualitative indication of where each team faces its greatest challenges, how those challenges stack up, and by comparison, which teams have a more or less difficult row to hoe. Green indicates a favorable point spread; yellow, a competitive matchup; and red, an unfavorable margin. The last table simply shows a rank-ordering of the divisional teams based on their  expected in-conference win totals - it’s not a projection of conference standings based on projected wins, losses and tie-breakers.

B1GE Schedule Likelihoods

Here is a link to the same tabulation based on FPI results for the B1GE.

B1GW Schedule Likelihoods

Here is a link to the same tabulation based on FPI results for the B1GW.

Total Win Probabilities

After computing projected win probabilities for all the games in each team's schedule based on the ratings-based point spreads (including a +3 point rating adjustment for the home team), it's possible to compute the distribution of total expected wins at the end of the season. The one vagary in this analysis is in regard to FCS opponents. Since neither S&P+ nor FPI provide ratings for FCS teams, I've taken the liberty of assigning the lowest available rating of -30 and -24 to FCS teams, respectively. I can already imagine the comments on this nugget in light of NDSU’s upset of Iowa last season.

There are only three B1G vs. FCS games this season. They are as follows:

• Maryland vs. Towson
• Rutgers vs. Morgan State
• Minnesota vs. Indiana State

The B1G East Distributions

In the B1G East, the teams can be grouped into three classes: the Contenders (Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan), the Bubble (Michigan State and Indiana) and the Bottom Feeders (Rutgers and Maryland). The Contenders are those teams that by one rating or the other, are shown to be within 2 total expected wins of the top rated team. The Bubble consists of those teams within 2 total expected wins of being bowl-eligible (or not). The Bottom Feeders are the teams with few prospects of gridiron glory or post-season hijinks.

Below are the charts of the overall and in-conference total win distributions for the B1GE based on the S&P+ ratings (with links to the FPI charts), followed by a brief digest of each team’s results.

Overall

Here is a link to the same set of charts based on 2017 FPI B1GE overall results.

In-Conference

Here is a link to the same set of charts based on 2017 FPI B1GE in-conference results. Warning: this chart is not for the faint-of-heart.

Rutgers

What can be said about Rutgers? OK, how about this: they have newish coach with some OSU heritage who may be able to attract a few recruits with the prospect of early playing time. Otherwise, it's not a pretty picture for the Scarlet Knights. Basically, they're staring at a 7% (S&P+) to 10% (FPI) chance of not having a losing season, including a near freebie from Morgan State. These are worse prospect than last season. Their most likely record is about 4-8, or somewhere shy of 4 wins, and are double-digit dogs in six of their games. It still doesn't look like there's any chance that the '14 win over Michigan is going to be dislodged from the Pantheon of Rutgers Classics anytime soon.

Maryland

Despite D.J. Durkin’s auspicious beginning by qualifying for a bowl game, it appears Terps will be backsliding in 2017. The Terps’ chances of not having a losing season stand at 10% (S&P+) and 17% (FPI), including an FCS freebie from Towson. Like Rutgers, Maryland’s most-likely record is 4-8, but on the high side of 4 wins, and are double-digit dogs in five of their games.  Still, here’s where D.J. Durkin’s motivational skills may effectively put a shine on the Terds and continue to make progress on the recruiting trail.

Indiana

The data says Indiana is still looking like the ultimate Bubble team - and the only one in the B1GE at that. However, the wholesale elimination of its coaching staff may send this team from chaos into the abyss. Still, the Hoosiers preseason numbers have improved over 2016, with most likely records of 6-6 per FPI and 7-5 per S&P+, with no FCS cupcakes on its schedule. With a solid shot at post-season glory, the Hoosiers will need to keep the fire in its belly stoked. The threat of chaos may have left with Kevin Wilson, but it would still be prudent to not take Indiana lightly.

Michigan State

If Indiana is the ultimate Bubble team, then that makes Sparty the penultimate Bubble team. Alas, things might otherwise be looking up in East Lansing if it weren’t sinking into a quagmire of ugliness. Yeesh. On the bright side, S&P+ gives Sparty a 94% chance of improving its regular season win total from last year, while FPI gives them a better than 88% chance. Sparty’s most likely record is looking to jump up to 6-6 (or 5-7) per S&P+ (FPI) with 5 (or 6) spreads less than one score. Sparty is a double-digit dog in 3 (or 4) games.

Michigan

With the exodus of so much talent and experience from Team 137, it appears that the fancy-stats love affair with Michigan under Harbaugh has come to an end. The most likely records stand at 9-3 (or 8-4) per S&P+ (or FPI), but with a strong lean in the FPI distribution toward 9 wins. Michigan is favored by double-digits in 8 games by both S&P+ and FPI, and has margins of less than one score in 4 (or 2) games per S&P+ (or FPI). Wisconsin, Penn State and Ohio State at this point are favored by both S&P+ and FPI. UM is more than a one-score dog to PSU and by double-digits to OSU as per FPI, whereas S&P+ expects significantly closer contests in those games. The opener against Florida looks like the closest matchup on the season, and so will be critical from the standpoint of getting UM off the schneid and setting the tone for the remainder of the season.

Here are some sobering statistical observations:

• Chances of a Michigan losing season: less than 2%.
• Chances of Michigan not improving on last season’s win total (10 or fewer wins): 88-97%.
• Chances of Michigan going undefeated: less than 2%.

Penn State

Stemming largely from its late season push to the B1G Championship and a Rose Bowl berth, Penn State appears to have finagled its way into second banana status in at least the B1GE, if not the entire conference. The Nits are favored by double-digits in all but two of its games, plus they’re favored over UM at home by both ratings, including by more than one score by FPI. PSU is an underdog in only one game, at OSU, in which it is a one score or double-digit dog (S&P+ or FPI). Nevertheless, with a most likely record of 10-2 from both FPI and S&P+, PSU holds a 3% to 6% to win’em all, and should be 6-0 when UM shows up in Happy Valley for the first of its two toughest matchups of the season, which it has scheduled back-to-back. If the Nits can down the Wolverines, they will be flying high into Columbus with the B1GCG and a CFP invitation on the table. Statistically, despite its surprising over-performance last season, PSU still has a 23% to 29% chance of improving its record over last season's mark. This is founded largely on the strength of its returning production (ranked #4 in FBS by S&P+) in the form of 2nd-team All B1G QB Trace McSorley and B1G Offensive POTY RB Saquon Barkley.

Ohio State

Not many teams rank ahead of PSU in returning production, but one of them happens to be Ohio State, at #3. Indeed, this is no surprise since OSU was one of the youngest teams in the country in 2016 - the surprise was their coming off of 2015’s loss of talent to make the CFP. Looking ahead, OSU is poised to separate themselves from PSU and UM, with a most likely record of 11-1 overall. OSU is not only favored in all of its games by both S&P+ and FPI, but by double-digits in 9 and 11 games by those ratings, respectively. Its toughest opponent is Oklahoma in week 2, who is a touchdown underdog. Even so, an early loss to the Sooners would do little to hurt the Buckeyes’ CFP prospects. In conference, OSU shows a mode of 8 wins, which is incrementally greater than the 7-win modes of PSU and UM, making OSU the team to beat. What’s remarkable is the peakedness of the OSU distributions, which means the chances of variation from perfection are not as great as others’ variations from not-so-perfection. There’s not a great deal of solace in the fact that the Buckeyes come to Ann Arbor in 2017. They’re still favored by 3 or 12 points (S&P+ or FPI).

Other sobering statistical observations:

• Chances of tOSU improving on last season (i.e. going undefeated): 15-32%.
• Chances of tOSU losing 3 or more games: 6-19%.
• Chances of tOSU having a losing season: vanishingly small.

The B1G West Distributions

In the B1G West, only one team is classified as a Contender, and that team is Wisconsin. However, the B1GW Bubble is bursting with 4 teams: Northwestern, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa. Meanwhile, the Bottom Feeders (Illinois and Purdue) pick up from where they were left for dead last season and carry on like zombies looking for something to bite.

Below are the charts of the overall and in-conference total win distributions for the B1GW based on the S&P+ ratings (with links to the FPI charts), followed by a brief digest of each team’s results.

Overall

Here is a link to the same set of charts based on 2017 FPI B1GW overall results.

In-Conference

Here is a link to the same set of charts based on 2017 FPI B1GW in-conference results.

Purdue

It's just about the same story for Purdue as with Rutgers, except maybe even more godforsaken. S&P+ and FPI both show a most likely record of 3-8. That’s what not having an FCS team on the schedule does for you if you’re a bottom feeder. They’re chances of a losing season range from 95% to 97%, with the chances of going completely winless registering in the 1%-3% range. Suffice it to say, Purdue’s prospects for 2017 cover the entire gamut of losing.

Illinois

Illinois is a half-step above Purdue with a mostly likely record of 4-8 as per FPI, versus 3-9 forecast by S&P+. To its credit, the Illini have no FCS creampuff this season. That said, the Illini are double-digit dogs in half of its games, with the remainder of its games being within about one score either way. The chances for Illinois to go bowl-ing range from 8% to 12%. In the aggregate, Illinois’ distributions are almost indistinguishable from Purdue’s, and together, they define the bottom of the B1G West, which is about one win less overall than the B1G East.

Iowa

Iowa appears to be right on track for its continued regression from the millennial celestial alignment that took place in 2015. S&P+ estimates a 6-6 record for the Hawkeyes, while FPI puts them at 7-5, making the Hawkeyes one of the cluster of four Bubble teams in the B1GW. Iowa is also favored to hold onto Floyd of Rosedale in its trophy matchup with Minnesota. S&P+ and FPI both give Iowa about a 60% chance of 6 wins or more, but only a 3% chance of 9 more.

Nebraska

Next in the B1GW Bubble are the Cornhuskers, whose best chance to break back into the B1GCG again may have been last season. Both S&P+ and FPI numbers place them at a perfectly mediocre 6-6 record, with S&P+ tilting toward the over, and FPI, the under. As such, S&P+ gives the Huskers a 72% chance of reaching bowl eligibility and FPI, a 52% chance.

Minnesota

Like the Huskers, forecasts for the Gophers in 2017 have receded toward mediocrity with a most likely record of 7-5 from S&P+ and 6-6 from FPI. S&P+ gives the Gophers a 79.3% chance at bowl eligibility and FPI, a 67.1% chance. New Head Coach P.J. Fleck may be just the sort of high-character persona who can assuage the tumult that swept through Minny at the end of last season. Regardless, Fleck steps into a situation that is otherwise not nearly as dire as most of the others B1G teams that have changed coaches in the last year. He will just need to get the team to focus on its oarsmanship.

Northwestern

Meanwhile, the ultimate B1GW bubble-team - that is to say the team most likely to break out of the bubble - would appear to be Northwestern. S&P+ forecasts a most likely record of 7-5 overall, with a strong lean toward 8 wins. FPI kicks it up to the 8-4 mark, with a slight lean toward 9 wins. Either way, the Wildcats have a 89-97% likelihood of becoming bowl-eligible, a 71%-77% likelihood of having a winning season (improving on last season’s mark), and a 5%-15% chance of reaching 10 wins or more. Fitz is dutifully rebuilding this squad, and coupled with the return of 3rd-year starting Jr. QB Clayton Thorson and B1G R-OTY Austin Carr, the Cats will get their share of highlights.

Wisconsin

What a difference a year makes! Of all the teams in the B1G, it would appear that Wisconsin will see the greatest benefit of the swing in both scheduling constraints and interdivisional draws. Not only do the Badgers have five B1G home games, but three of them are Northwestern, Iowa and Michigan - its strongest intra- and inter-divisional opponents. Add to that Maryland and Indiana, plus OOC’s Utah State, FAU and BYU, and it’s no wonder the Badgers’ most likely record is 10-2 (with both leaning toward 11-1). Wisconsin is the only team other than Ohio State (who is not on the Badgers’ schedule this year) that is favored in all of its games. Moreover, the Badgers are double-digit favorites in 11 of its 12 games. The only opponent within one score of them? Your ever-lovin’ Maize’n’Blue. By all accounts, Wisconsin looks to run away with the B1G West and may well have punched its ticket to Indy by the time the Wolverines shows up in Madison on November 18.

Some enviable statistical observations:

• Chances of Bucky going undefeated: 9%-13%.
• Chances of Bucky improving on last season (win 11 or more): 35%-43%.
• Chances of Bucky losing 3 or more games: 26%-33%.
• Chances of Bucky having a losing season: vanishingly small.

Overlay Redux

Just to wrap things up with a quick visual summary, here are the combined overlays of the total wins probabilities broken out by division.

And, here is a link to the same pair of charts based on 2017 FPI B1GE & B1GW results.

Yours in football, and Go Blue!