Diaries

[ed: bump.]

There is a special fondness for one’s earliest sports memories. They form the backdrop of experience against which all future events are contextualized. 

My earliest datable memory is Kirk Gibson hitting a home run in the bottom of the 8th inning in Game Five of the 1984 World Series; from that day until his retirement he was my favorite baseball player. I learned to cheer for Isiah Thomas and Gary Grant. I cheered for Yzerman, and accepted that the Lions were always bad. And I rooted for Michigan football, with Jamie Morris and Mark Messner.

And Jim Harbaugh.

He won the Fiesta Bowl. He beat Ohio State with clutch play. He guaranteed a victory in ’86, and then beat Ohio State again.* He led Michigan to a Rose Bowl. To a young boy, he was a hero, everything that the winged helmet was supposed to be about. To everyone at Michigan, he was a Michigan Man.

*Someone recently argued on the board that Harbaugh essentially rode the coattails of Jamie Morris to the win, belittling his role in the game. That’s acceptable logic, if you’re willing to assert that Denard rode the coattails of Junior Hemingway to wins over Virginia Tech and Notre Dame last season--any takers?

*  *  *  *  *

Fast Forward to 2007. I was visiting Michigan from California, where I was attending school. I was enjoying one of the things I really missed about Ann Arbor--walking around the Ann Arbor-Saline Road Meijer after midnight. As I ambled past the U-Scan lanes, I happened to glance at the newspaper display. And there it was, front page.

Jim Harbaugh Criticizes Michigan Academics

“Jim,” I muttered to myself. “You fool. What are you doing?”

*  *  *  *  *

Jim Harbaugh was calling out the academic integrity of Michigan Athletics. He was dropping Bo’s name (after Bo died, something that sat poorly with myself and others) and using it as a cudgel against Michigan. And, by all appearances, he was doing so in an arrogant way to burnish his own program’s reputation.

Nobody in the Michigan camp liked it. Now, I suppose there could be discussion about whether or not he had any legitimate points. Many blogs, including this one, vehemently refuted his accusations and sharply criticized him for making them. I believe it can safely be said that the vast majority of the Michigan family disagreed with both the content and the method of his message.

But this is not about what he said in 2007. This is not about whether or not he wanted to “come home” after Rich Rodriguez left.* I want to address a debate that has bounced around the Michigan family for more than five years now:

Is Jim Harbaugh one of us?

IMAGINARY

(Click Here to See Full Size Version)

Yeah, I know... at this point I think I'm starting to get sick of my own jokes on it.  It's hard to believe that only a week has passed since the whole fiasco broke.  And I just couldn't resist an opportunity to archive the Lennay Kekua saga in the full Blockhams series itself... and this whole topic just begged for a good ol' Bump strip.  

Friday Fun continues on Friday.  Any requests?

Some new formatting news for the New Year:

THE BLOCKHAMS™ runs (typically) every Wednesday here at MGoBlog and on its official home page.  Also, don't forget to check out the Friday Fun, my weekly single panel comic based on trending Michigan events, available on Twitter and the home page every Friday.

Follow THE BLOCKHAMS™ on Twitter at @theblockhams, and don't forget to
LIKE THE BLOCKHAMS™ on Facebook at www.facebook.com/theblockhams.

“ATTEMPT AT A BIG TEN HOOPS SCORECARD”

Over this past weekend, I began to frame out the hoops version of the football scorecard that I had advanced last month on the board. Indeed, I have already made some enhancements to that one thanks to the input of board members. This one, however, is indeed another rough attempt at correlating various productivity measures into a relative measure of success.

I took eighteen typical boxscore statistics and gathered the season-to-date totals for each team in the conference. When the season is complete, it might be intriguing to do a “conference vs. overall” sort of analysis with this, but for now, I am presenting merely the overall card to this point. There were a few things that I admittedly waffled on leaving here, but did for purposes of discussion. Most notably, the actual totals of FGs, 3PTs, and FTs both made and attempted are analyzed along with success rate. My thought here was – among other things - that it indicates potentially where teams could be doing a lot of work for very little return and could show inefficiency.

Obviously, it is not by any means an exact science, and although I show that the results are rather highly correlated to actual win percentage, they obviously do not take into account the whole set of variables active in a game, and indeed, in a season, such as strength of schedule. This is merely an attempt to apply a similar scoring approach to basketball as I had done with football. It is fairly similar to the football scorecard in that there are certain statistics where being above the conference mean is decidedly better, and a few where actually being below the mean is preferred.

The larger table is linked below – there is no way to compress the overall scorecard to make it fit easily into the diary setup on the blog, so the link should take you to the relevant images in my Photobucket account.

OVERALL CARD (THUMBNAIL):

SUMMARY CARD:

DISCUSSION:

The idea of "grading" teams on these 18 metrics seems to bear itself out fairly well if we correlate it to current win percentage. One of the noted anomolies here is Ohio State, which falls into the "red" zone, but yet has a fairly decent win percentage. This might be an example of one of the thing which mere productivity does not catch, which is a team with erratic shooting success that plays decent defense, enough so to win a majority of the time. If anyone has some suggestions on ironing such things out, I would love to hear them as I want to make these as accurate as possible.

Comments and suggestions are welcome as always. My intent here is to develop tools which can be used perhaps by the whole community here to gauge relative performance among our fellow conference members.

FOR THOSE WHO MERELY WANT THE CAT PHOTO:

As an amatuer follower of conference re-alignment, I became interested in trying to figure out the true conference value of all the potential schools that seem to come up for discussion and started looking for data to see what kind of value they might drive for the Big Ten (or other conferences).

I recently started reviewing the USA Today's database again and was surprised to find that much of the data that people are looking for - that is, how much value the schools can derive from multimedia markets, is already available here.

In particular, I will be looking at the following two columns in this datbase :

Rights/Licensing: Includes revenue for athletics from radio and television broadcasts, Internet and ecommerce rights received from institution-negotiated contracts, the NCAA and conference revenue sharing arrangements; ; and revenue from corporate sponsorships, licensing, sales of advertisements, trademarks and royalties. Includes the value of in-kind products and services provided as part of the sponsorship (e.g., equipment, apparel, soft drinks, water and isotonic products).

Other revenue: All other sources of revenue including game guarantees, support from third-parties guaranteed by the school such as TV income, housing allowances, camp income, etc.; tournament/bowl game revenues from conferences; endowments and investments; revenue from game programs, novelties, food or other concessions; and parking revenues and other sources.

While the other revenue column isn't completely 'clean' data in that it does add non-media revenue, I felt that it was better to add it to capture the relevant data than to remove it completely.  

The focus on these two data points means that revenue sources that only benefit the school in question - ticket sales, student fees, and donor contributions - are not added to this list, which impacts the overall rankings of the different schools considerably.

While admittedly a simplistic view of the schools that does not take potential synergies into account, I still thought that this was an interesting datapoint when considering potential schools to add.

Here is the data for ACC and Big East schools from 2006-2011 (I did not bother doing this analysis for Big Ten/SEC schools but schools in these conferences average around the $40M mark) :

*Note: Private schools are not listed on the database so I could not gather those numbers

The biggest surprise from looking at these numbers is the high value of UConn - presumeably from its continued success from Men and Women's basketball.  I have seen a lot of angst from UConn fans the past year and it's not hard to see why that is.

The second surprise?  The relative low value of Clemson.  I guess being second fiddle to South Carolina really limits mass market appeal regardless of how strong the product.

Finally, Rutgers.  Yeah - well, like I said, this metric does not account for potential synergies! 

That said, it is fair to say that the only 'no brainer' school additions for any conference are Florida State & UNC...and perhaps UConn if those numbers can be sustained.  All other schools only make sense for conferences with their own TV networks who are confident in their ability to get full coverage throughout the state (i.e. Rutgers)

.
This year, the Michigan football team will play O$U twice - once during the annual regular season finale and the following week in the Big Ten Championship Game
.
this is not a great revelation, because most people expect this to happen
.
yes
.
the good news is that this will be the first and last time Michigan will play O$U twice in a year as the upcoming division realignments will put the teams in the same division
.
the reason for the realignment is part of why THE KNOWLEDGE has referred to ohio state as O$U in this post
.
THE KNOWLEDGE always refrains from such sophomoric behavior (THE KNOWLEDGE always refers to that school as osu), but the circumstances in columbus have changed over the last year, and are poised for even more drastic changes, to warrant the use of the dollar sign
.
yes
.
soon after Meyer took over, he and Gene Smith have been developing the best possible way to cheat the NCAA and not get caught. in their mind, it is: (1) the continuation of their grand tradition of winning without integrity, and (2) a great revenge on the NCAA for daring to take some action against them, even though the punishment was absolutely not commensurate with the extreme magnitude of the original crime (a 10 year postseason ban and 100 scholarships reduction over 10 years would have been a more just punishment)
.
according to this plan, covert payments for recruits has already started, and a yearly stipend for the players has been instituted under great secrecy. the stipend is directly related to on-field performance on a weekly basis. this scheme is so novel that the NFL may jump at it if they understood the details
.
more money is on the way. THE KNOWLEDGE has mentioned earlier on these very pages that tressel will soon be hired in columbus to take care of recruit signing bonuses
.
yes
.
even with these plans, they are still worried that Hoke and co in Ann Arbor may be a formidable ally. hence, the other part of the plan is to influence the B1G to make things easier for O$U - such as not playing Michigan twice a year
.
thus, the great desire on Smith's part for both teams to be in the same division, whereas Brandon is somewhat less enthused
.
while Brandon is more concerned about making money for the AD, Smith is keen on distributing as much money as covertly possible to players, recruits, and some well positioned B1G officials to make winning football games easier for them
.
yes
.
THE KNOWLEDGE will provide reviews of the NCAA basketball tournament shortly, and will be discussing the 2013 Michigan football season results in the summer
.
yes
.

Much to my surprise, there has been some demand to look at the relationship between basketball results and the Coach's Poll, the same way I have looked at B1G football results and the Coach's Poll. Apologies for any errors; copying results off of ESPN.com and lining it up by week was an invitation to mix a few things up (an opportunity I am sure I took).  Also, I know some of the games at tournaments are not accurately labeled--I might have to update.

How to read: The week reflects the week of the results; RESULT #XX reflects the poll ranking following those results.  This is intended to make it easier to follow a potential cause (results) with the effect (ranking).

• Week 1:  Beat Bryant 97-54 (RESULT #1)
• Week 2:  Beat NDSU 87-61, Beat Sam Houston St. 99-45 (RESULT #1)
• Week 3: Won @ Georgia 66-53, Won @ Georgetown 82-72, beat Ball St. 101-53 (P.S. Brady Hoke now hates you, Tom Crean) (RESULT #1) 
• Week 4: Beat UNC 83-59, beat Coppin St. 87-51 (RESULT #1)
• Week 5: Beat Central Conn. St. 100-69  (RESULT #1)
• Week 6: Lost @ Butler, 88-86  (RESULT #6)
• Week 7: Beat Mt. St. Mary's, 93-54, beat Fla. Atl. 88-52  (RESULT #5)
• Week 8: Beat Jacksonville, 93-59  (RESULT #5)
• Week 9: Won @ Iowa 69-65  (RESULT #5)
• Week 10: Won @ Penn St. 74-51, beat Minnesota 88-81 (RESULT #2)

• Week 1: Beat Albany (RESULT: #4)
• Week 2: Won @ URI 69-58, Beat Washington 77-66 (RESULT: #3)
• Week 3: Beat UMKC 91-45 (RESULT: #4)
• Week 4: Lost @ Duke, 73-68, beat NKU 70-43 (RESULT: #7)
• Week 5: Beat Long Beach St. 89-55 (RESULT: #7)
• Week 6: Beat Savannah St., 85-45, beat UNC-Asheville 90-72 (RESULT: #7)
• Week 7: Beat Winthrop 65-55, lost to Kansas 74-66 (RESULT: #10)
• Week 8: Beat Chicago St. 87-44 (RESULT: #8)
• Week 9: Beat Nebraska 70-44, lost @ Illinois 74-55 (RESULT: #14)
• Week 10: Won @ Purdue 74-64, beat Michigan 56-53 (and resolved to break referees' glasses before every home game) (RESULT: #11)

• Week 1: Beat Slippery Rock, 82-60  (RESULT: #5)
• Week 2: Beat IUPUI 91-54, Beat Cleveland St. 77-47 (RESULT: #4)
• Week 3: Beat Pitt at a tournament, 67-62, beat K-State at same tournament 71-57 (RESULT: #3)
• Week 4: Beat NC State 79-72, Won @ Bradley 74-66 (RESULT: #3)
• Week 5: Beat W. Michigan 73-41, Beat Arkansas 80-67 (RESULT: #3)
• Week 6: Beat Binghamton 67-39, beat W. Va. 81-66 (RESULT: #2)
• Week 7: Beat E. Michigan 93-54 (RESULT: #2)
• Week 8: Beat C. Michigan, 88-73 (RESULT: #2)
• Week 9: Won @ Northwestern 94-66, beat Iowa 95-67 (RESULT: #2)
• Week 10: Beat Nebraska 62-47, lost @ Ohio* 56-53 (and purchased glasses for all of the referees) (RESULT: #5)

• Week 1: Lost in Germany to UConn 66-62 (RESULT: #22)
• Week 2: Won @ Kansas 67-64, beat TX Southern 69-41 (RESULT: #19)
• Week 3: Beat Boise St. 74-70 (narrow win over crappy BSU team--Izzo imitating Dantonio...), Beat Oakland 70-52, Beat LA-Lafayette 63-60 (RESULT: #14)
• Week 4: Lost @ Miami (YTM) 67-59, beat Nicholls St. 84-39 (RESULT: #17)
• Week 5: Beat Arkansas-Pine Bluff 76-44, beat Loyola (of Illinois) 73-61 (RESULT: #19)
• Week 6: Beat Tuskegee 92-56 (RESULT: #19)
• Week 7: Won @ Bowling Green 64-53, beat Texas 67-56 (RESULT: #19)
• Week 8: No games (RESULT: #18)
• Week 9: Lost @ Minnesota 76-63, beat Purude 84-61 (RESULT: #18)
• Week 10: Won @ Iowa 62-59, beat Nebraska 66-56 (RESULT: #17)

• Week 1: Beat SE Louisiana 87-47 (RESULT: #20)
• Week 2:  Loss @ Florida 74-56, beat Cornell 73-40 (RESULT: #24)
• Week 3:  Beat Presbyterian 88-43, Lost to Creighton 84-74, Won @ Arkansas 77-70 (take that, Bret Bielema) (RESULT: NR, 7th vote getter)
• Week 4:  Lost to Virginia 60-54, beat California 81-56 (RESULT: NR, no votes)
• Week 5:  Beat Nebraska-Omaha 86-40, lost @ Marquette 60-50 (RESULT: NR, no votes)
• Week 6:  Beat Wisconsin-Green Bay 65-54 (RESULT: NR, no votes)
• Week 7: Beat Wisconsin-Milwaukee 74-53 (RESULT: NR, no votes) 
• Week 8: Beat Samford 87-51 (RESULT: NR, no votes)
• Week 9: (RESULT: NR, no votes) Beat Penn St. 60-51, won @ Nebraska 47-41
• Week 10:  Beat Illinois, 74-51, won @ Indiana 64-59 (RESULT: NR, 4th vote getter--I guess it helps to win @ Indiana. A lot.)

• Week 1:  Beat American, 72-36 (RESULT: NR, 11th vote getter)
• Week 2: Beat Toledo 82-56, beat Tennessee St., 72-43, beat Richmond 72-57 (RESULT: NR, 5th vote getter) 
• Week 3: Lost to Duke, 71-89, beat Memphis 84-75, beat Stanford 66-63 (RESULT: NR, 1st vote getter)
• Week 4:  Won @ Fla. St. 77-68, Beat N. Fla. 87-59 (RESULT: #21)
• Week 5: Beat SDSU 88-64, won @ USC (of California) 71-57 (RESULT: #16)
• Week 6: Beat NDSU 70-57 (RESULT: #16)
• Week 7: Beat Lafayette, 75-50 (RESULT: #14)
• Week 8: No games (RESULT: #13)
• Week 9: Beat MSU 76-63, beat Northwestern 69-51 (RESULT: #10)
• Week 10: Won @ Illinois 84-67, lost @ Indiana 88-81 (RESULT:#12)

1. There seem to be fewer inexplicable jumps when looking solely at a team's results than in football (there is no equivalent to NW's incredible jump after clubbing a floundering Illinois team).  The closest I could find is MSU losing @ YTM and still going up two slots.  But other than that...
2. It appears that if you lose, no matter how good the opponent and how highly ranked you are, the team is going to drop.  This is in contrast with football, where a team who played a very tough road game (like Indiana at Butler, or Michigan at Ohio*) and lost would not slide more than a slot or two.
3. I do not know whether it is that there are more games, the voters play closer attention, or the box score really does tell you more (there is no bball equivalent to a fluke game-changing interception or punt return for touchdown, at least in terms of magnitude), or that the computer ranking system is more respected for basketball (RPI vs BCS), but there appears to be a higher correlation between team results and moves in the rankings despite having significantly more basketball teams.

Thoughts? Comments? Errors?