I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
This diary is fairly straightforward: Denard's 2011 Heisman Video
I've mashed up Denard's quest for the trophy with the trailers from the most recent Star Trek movie (which I loved, and the trailers were quite good). If you're interested in seeing the original source material, you can see the Trailers by clicking the following: Trailer #2 Trailer #3
Without further delay, onto the video:
Now, a few quick points of interest, as people had similar questions/points last time:
- The video is a mash of the first 1+ of Trailer #2, and the last 1:50+ of Trailer #3.
- No particular reason for the HS Denard + Michigan Denard highlight mix at the beginning, I just liked how similar many of the plays were.
- I tried to avoid redundancy with the highlights from the Hype Video, but unfortunately Denard was so much of that video, overlap couldn't be helped. I tried to find some different angled shots though.
- The repetition of the ESPN clips with the jersey and shoes, yeah, I know, but it just worked so well, and it's rare to have such good footage to mash-up.
- If you don't like Star Trek, or like Trek but hate the new movie ... tough
- Every time I hear "enlist in Starfleet" with the trophy ... I get chills
- That's Erin Andrews speaking at the end, in case you were curious
- The Robot? Original trailers were from "Bad Robot" productions. Plus, it's the robot.
- Quick shoutout to my boy mgouser "Chicago Maize and Blue" for his help/feedback.
Thanks for watching and commenting, per usual it's incredibly appreciated. Believe it or not I do take your comments and feedback into account going forward, and I'm open to any suggestions you have for future video ideas. I can put pretty much anything together provided there's video of it on YouTube. Thanks again.
Michigan has picked up more commits, so that means we hit the front page. (Tons of) action since last rankings:
7-21-11 Iowa gais commitment from Ryan Ward.
7-24-11 Illinois gains commitment from Joey Warburg.
7-25-11 Iowa gains commitment from Michael Malloy.
7-26-11 Michigan gains commitment from Sione Houma.Penn State gains commitment from Jake Kiley.
7-27-11 Indiana(!) gains commitment from Gunner Kiel.
7-28-11 Michigan State gains commitments from Aaron Burbridge and Jermaine Edmondson. Indiana gains commitment from Jason Spriggs.
7-29-11 Purdue gains commitment from Andy Garcia.
7-30-11 Minnesota gains commitment from Jonah Pirsig.
7-31-11 Michigan gains commitment from Chris Wormley.
PLUS, Scout updated their rankings, so there's a little bit of movement there.
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||ESPN Avg||24/7 Avg|
*ESPN doesn't rate JUCOs, so Isaac Fruechte is not included in Minnesota's average, Darius Stroud doesn't count against Indiana's average, and Steffon Martin is excluded from Purdue's.
On to the full data, after the jump.
There’s a widespread theory that Lloyd Carr’s career can be split in two phases: a “good” young Carr and a “senile” old Carr. But is it statistically sound?
If you look at straight winning percentage, this seems, well, inconclusive. But, the argument goes, there’s more to success or failure than just winning more than you lose. There’s whom you beat, and who beats you. There’s wins-versus-expectations-of-wins. There’s where you end up ranked. There’s whether you play in a major bowl game, and if you win it. Most importantly, there are those three pesky rivalries, particularly the one with Columbus.
As some have argued, Carr put really competitive teams on the field early on, but later ones tended to disappoint, to flag late in the game, and to underachieve. The four-game stretch between OSU 2006 and Oregon 2007, it has been said, is the worst in recent memory, and this is mentioned as proof that Lloyd Carr had lost it at the end. But did he really?
You could try answering this with winning percentages, bowl appearances and clever argumentation, but mgoblog is a well-known haven for quantification nerds, whose denizens crave robust new measures that capture things the dinostats can’t. After all, aren’t away wins more dramatic than home wins, and home losses more embarrassing than the away ones? Isn’t it more consequential to lose in-conference than outside of it? Doesn’t it feel just that much better to beat Sparty than Purdue? Notre Dame than Illinois? OSU than everyone? My mission was to create new indices of success, measured across the course of a season, that capture more than just wins and losses—also heights soared to, depths plumbed, the intangibles. I created two, which are related to one another, but capture somewhat different aspects of success or failure.
Constructing the Indices
Constructing the indices begin with regular season games. A baseline score is produced for wins and losses, valued at 10 and 0 respectively. To this baseline measure, a series of intangible weights are added for all regular season games. It’s all a little long-winded for here, but I can make it available to anyone who wants to know. The categories are: 1) Who the opponent is; 2) Relative ranking to UM; 3) Home/away; 4) Margin-of-victory; and 5) Performance versus expectations. All scores are ordinal, so it required some subjective decisions on relative worth of these categories, but the same criteria were applied to each case, so it should be reasonably objective.
Let me break down a couple. The best single-game score for the period 1994-2010 was the ecstatic 1996 win at Ohio State, which received a score of 21:
10 (win) + 5 (OSU) + 3 (top 5 opponent) + 1 (away win) + 0 (win by less than 20) + 2 (performed well above expectations) = 21
The worst single-game score (surprise surprise) is The Horror, which received a score of -8. It breaks down like this:
0 (loss) - 0 (non-conference, non-BCS game) -5 (lower league + FCS opponent) -1 (home loss) -0 (loss by less than 20) -2 (performed well below expectations) = -8
Bowl Games and Ranking Bonuses
Bowl games are treated somewhat differently. On the one hand, it’s not right to penalize a team for what’s basically a value-added bonus to the season. On the other, winning is still better than losing. So scoring looks like this:
+5: making any bowl game
+2: making a BCS bowl game
+5: winning the bowl game
+2: winning a BCS bowl game
+/-2: failing to meet/exceeding expectations (broadly defined)
Some examples: 1997 vs. Washington State = 14; 2001 vs. Tennessee = 3; 2004 vs. Texas = 7; and 2007 vs. Florida = 12.
Ranking bonus averages the final BCS and AP rankings, or if prior to the BCS, the Coaches Poll and AP rankings. It works like this:
Which are then granted a bonus or penalty based on preseason expectations. So the 1996 team, with a preseason ranking of 12/11, and which ended up with a final rank of 20, gets a penalty of 1 for ending up below preseason expectations: 2 – 1 = 1. 1997, which ended up with a rank of 1 (we all know the Coaches’ Poll was fixed), began with a preseason rank of 13/14, so that team gets this bonus: 9 + 2 = 11.
EVG and IVG
Total points are added together, and then divided by the number of games played to produce the expected value per game (EVG). The intangible value per game (IVG) index compares subtracts the baseline value for 10 per win with no intangibles, and 0 per loss with no intangibles from total points, and then divides by number of games played (with a 0 value for a missed bowl game). This measures the intangibles solely. Yes, wins produce more positive scores (and losses negative scores), but this measure basically measures elation minus disappointment. As you’ll see, the distributions are similar, but actually more variant than EVG.
Winning PCT, IVG and EVG by Year, 1995-2007
As you can see, EVG and IVG capture more fluctuation from season to season than straight winning percentage does. IVG is something of a counterbalance to Winning PCT, looking solely at the aforementioned intangibles. EVG takes both into account.
A number of things are immediately apparent.
1. EVG and IVG capture more fluctuations than Winning PCT. Carr had an average winning percentage of 0.753. There were 5 seasons when Carr’s teams beat this average, 2 which were basically at the average, and 6 below it.
By contrast, only 4 seasons beat the average EVG of 9.51, while 9 fell below it (while 5 seasons beat the average IVG of 1.99 in terms of IVG, and 8 fell below it). As you can see, there are more discernable peaks and troughs in these indicators than with straight Winning PCT. EVG in particular appears to successfully capture the big picture while taking the significance of individual games into account.
2. Though The Horror was the single-worst game of the Carr era, 2007 as a whole wasn’t Carr’s worst season. It was still on the bottom half of the Carr years, but in terms of EVG it was third worst, after 2001 and 2005. In terms of IVG, it was only fourth worst, after 2001, 2002 and 2005. By EVG, 2005 was Carr’s worst season; by IVG, it’s 2002.
3. Carr’s career does not divide neatly into a “good” early period and a “senile” later period. As the figures show, Carr’s career had four peaks—1997, 1999, 2003 and 2006. By both measures, 1997 was far and away his best season. I had thought that the intangibles might have elevated Tom Brady’s near-NC year in 1999 and/or the Navarre-led 2003 squad that lost to (compliance-dodging) AP national champion USC in the Rose Bowl above the 2006 squad, but they don’t. 2006 scores as Carr’s second best according to Winning PCT and IVG, and third according to EVG. What’s more, when I ran a regression of EVG and IVG by year for 1995-2007, neither produced a statistically significant result, meaning there’s no clear upward or downward trend over time during this period.* Unless we decide to completely ignore the great 2006 team, or some of the disappointing teams from earlier in his career, the good/senile theory looks like a myth we can safely bust.
4. Carr’s teams were most consistent in the middle of his tenure. In terms of EVG, we can say that the years 1995-2000 were more consistent, and less prone to dramatic fluctuations from year to year, than 2001-2007. While not quite good/senile, this does potentially lend itself to critical arguments. With IVG, there’s a sustained trough in the middle (1998-2002), which reflects higher expectations due to the 1997 national championship and too many losses to Michigan State, Notre Dame and marquee non-conference opponents. That makes them the most disappointing stretch of years, when solely considering results versus expectations. That jives with what I remember, especially the 1999 team, my sentimental favorite of the Carr years and one that got so tantalizingly close, but just didn’t make it. 2005 and 2007 also factor in as IVG troughs, but are broken up by 2006, which got a very high IVG score.
So what does this all mean? Some things should already be obvious—Carr had some good years and some bad years, The Horror was horrific, 1997 was awesome, etc. On the other hand, the strongly suggest the “early good/late senile” theory is a myth. Statistically speaking, it didn’t shake out that way. Doesn’t mean we can’t, or shouldn’t, criticize some aspects of Carr’s head coaching career—but let’s look at it dispassionately. The man gave us some great years, and some disappointing ones; they were just more evenly distributed than we remember them.
If enough people want, I’ll do a second round looking at only Big 10 games for Carr. Additionally, I’ve already collected the data for Rodriguez’s 3 years, and thought I could do Moeller’s 4 as well. It’s a lot of work, so I doubt I’ll ever expand to include other teams, though if anyone else finds it interesting enough, I’d be happy to share the methodology.
*True, this violates assumptions of sufficient randomness and sample size, so it’s not conclusive. But it does show that there’s no evident trend among the small number of data points we have.
Perhaps you, like I have wondered which Michigan sports teams have been the most successful over the past couple of decades. We all remember the national championships (well most of them anyhow), but does that success translate to the sort of consistent success needed to be considered the Champions of the Champions of the West?
Starting in the 1993-94 academic year, the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) began its Directors' Cup program. Using Directors' Cup points data, I quantified the performance over the past 18 years for each of Michigan's 27 varsity sports.
The first table shows teams ordered by average NACDA points earned since academic year 1993-94.
- The numerator in average points is the total Directors' Cup points accumulated by a given sport.
- Since NACDA caps the number of mens and womens sports a school can use toward the cup at 10 per each year, there are some years where Michigan teams placed high enough to earn points but no points were awarded. In such cases, I credited those teams with the same number of points awarded to other schools with identical place finishes.
- The denominator in average points is equal to the number of years in which MIchigan competed in the given sport. For most, that's 18 years. For some, it's fewer (e.g., Men's Soccer, 11 years).
- In 1997-98, the maximum points awarded for a championship was increased from 64 to 100. I did not adjust up scores from the earlier era because NACDA's formulas are based on the number of schools participating in NCAA regional and finals championships and those numbers have changed for numerous sports over the years. As such, I decided it was better to keep the points awarded consistent with NACDA data.
- In 1997-98 NACDA awarded Michigan 2nd place points for (then) I-A Football. I adjusted that to 1st place points and awarded them 100 vice 80 points.
With all that in mind, here are the results in tabular form:
|Rank||Team||Avg NACDA Points|
Women's Gymnastics, Men's Swimming, Men's Wrestling, and Men's Ice Hockey lead the pack.
In addition to the average points metric, I looked at performance year-to-year. Here are a few examples of top performing programs and one that has had some struggles.
Note: The 1995-96 Natl Championship team earned 64 points while the 1997-98 Natl Championship team earned 100 points.
Yes, Football earned NACDA points last season.
Brutal. Just brutal.
(Much more after the jump.)
I don't know John Gibson, and I have absolutely no insight at all into what happened. His situation is different than others, mostly because he is already drafted, and high. If I was a betting man, I would guess that his NHL team encouraged this move, but that is simply a guess. They may not have "encouraged" it so much as they made it clear which path they would prefer. And when the people who you hope will be paying you millions of dollars in the near future tell you their preference, it can be a strong incentive.
You guys are going to get even more upset when you read my fictional story, which is actually a hybrid of several true stories I've personally experienced (or close friends have). Don't be mad. The OHL is a business, they make money when they lure good players in and win. That is there job. Don't get upset at them for doing their job.
The NCAA has rules in place that make it impossible to compete for a kid who is even slightly leaning towards the OHL. It's like Tyson in his prime fighting Ali in his prime, except Ali has a gun.
First, let me talk you guys off the ledge. I was upset about him leaving for a few reasons:
1. I knew how upset you guys would be. Your, like, my internet buddies, yo.
2. He wasn't just committed, he signed an LOI. He had a lot of time to make his decision, make the goddamn choice BEFORE!
3. Our goalie recruiting is totally messed up now.
Now the part where you back up.
1. If you read my posts in other threads, you may remember that I am not that high on Gibson. He's good, but I don't find him particularly spectacular. How does he compare to Jack Campbell? He doesn't, and it isn't even close.
2. He would have left before making a huge impact. Obviously, he is dead set on making the show. Even if he had enrolled, he probably would have peaced out immediately upon realizing that he could play professionally in the AHL. This would also allow him to get a signing bonus. Roughly, his bonous would have been something in the 200k range, maybe a bit higher. 200k spread over three years: 67k a year + AHL Salary (about 58k) = $122,000 per year before taxes. The same logic of this argument applies to Jack Campbell, and his money would have been even larger. Don't fret over it.
3. We will get another good goalie. I promise. Michigan is the most prestigious hockey program in the country. Furthermore, goaltenders are far and away the most difficult position to project from level to level. It might be better to get a guy ranked 90/100 who stays for all four seasons then to get a 98/100 if he'll leave the first chance he gets.
The Interesting Part
So what the hell happens when a rock-solid college commit bolts for the OHL? Well, I've seen it unfold many times. Here is how it might go from the perspective of the prospect in chronological order:
- You let people know you're committed to College X, all is well.
- You still get drafted to the O, but you don't care, you're a loyal guy.
- You will get multiple phone calls from owners, GM's, scouts, etc. Sorry fellas, I'm going to School X.
- You will get a phone call from a number you don't recognize. This will be the first of many. You'll answer and they will say "Hey, its ****". And you will become amazingly excited because you're speaking to a current NHL superstar who, as coincidence would have it, played for the exact same OHL team that is courting you! He'll talk up the team, coaches, city, and the OHL path in general. He'll act like you're already best friends, and tell you to call him any time and that he'd love to meet you in person. "Come out for a game", he'll say, "I'll leave tickets and dressing room passes for you and your family at will call".
If it's Windsor, you might get a call from Taylor Hall, for Sarnia, Steven Stamkos will do. Get the picture?
- After this, you're still solid to School X, but man was it cool talking to that famous player. Next time the OHL GM calls, you're a bit less hostile than usual.
- Finally, you agree to go with your family to the OHL city to at least hear the coaches out. Its always smart to weigh out your options, right?
- You will arrive in the city and head straight to the arena. WOW! This place is amazing. I could totally see myself playing here! Oh, whats this? It's a bunch of current and former players hanging out in the player's lounge on the PS3. Sweet, they know my name!
- They invite me to hang out at the mall with them. My parents are talking to the coaches so thats cool. We get in one of their cars.
"Nice car, your parents bought you this?"
"Nah, bought this after I signed in the show, pretty sweet eh?
"Pretty sweet is right"
- We get to the mall. These guys are so cool and hilarious. Always joking around. Man, they have a lot of money, look at all the stuff they're buying! Those NHL bonuses must be huge. Everyone at the mall recognizes them and asks for autographs. Must be nice to be a celebrity.
- My parents call, it's dinner time. The boys drop me off at the coaches house. What a house! I've never been to a house this big before, and on the water.
- After an unbelievable waterside BBQ meal, the boys call me back and say they're taking me out on the town. I can borrow a nice shirt, no problem.
- We get to the bar district, everyone is saying things to us as we pass down the sidewalk.
"Boys, take home the championship!" "Beat Team X!" "Great win last week!"
- We get to a bar with a 50 foot line at the door, and I'm underaged. No big deal, the bouncer shakes everyones hand and lets us in. We settle in a booth and the bottles start flowing.
- I start walking around with my new friends. Since when do hot girls I've never met just start flirting with me? That one must have been 25. People I don't know keep buying me drinks, I haven't spent a dime yet, how'd I get so drunk?
- Closing time, one of the guys pays the thousand dollar tab and i follow them out, joining a group of girls I swear weren't this hot 5 drinks ago. Oh well.
Then it happens, the final straw.
- As we're walking back to the hotel, player X grabs my shoulder and says
"Look man, I totally respect that you want to go to college. I seriously considered it too. But you wanna live like this?...come play with us. I got drafted in the first round and they gave me 300 grand. I'll be a millionaire before you start sophomore year."
- Normally I would find this arrogant and rude, but right now I'm tripping out on drinks and ladies in tight skirts. He's right, this is the only way to live.
- So I'll go on for a few more weeks pretending I'm not going to the OHL.
Finally I'll admit to myself what I want to do.
Then I'll spend a few weeks feeling guilty.
Then I'll spend a few more weeks deciding how to break the news.
But eventually, I'll do it.
And then I'll be one of them
...and life will be good.
The story I just told you is a slight exagerration of several experiences. But that is basically how it goes. The story is not meant to tell exactly what happened, but rather the way the prospect would remember it the day after. Also, I'm not trying to glorify the OHL lifestyle, but thats what they'll make it look like when they're courting you.
The map you see below is a compilation of all the players that have been on the U of M roster starting with Bo and ending with RichRod.
There is a lot of information here...but lets start with the Michigan/Ohio region and work our way out to the rest of the country.
Michigan vs Ohio
There has been a lot of discussion on this board about the Great Wall of Tressel, and how he shut down the border. Lets take a look at how our roster was compiled with Michigan and Ohio kids over the past few decades.
A couple of things stick out here...
- During Bo's era 1 out of 4 kids on the team were from Ohio. From Lloyd's tenure and to the present it was 1 out of 10.
- Our presence in Ohio started to decline long before Tressel got there.
- RichRod always caught a lot of flack for not recruiting Michigan players, but he averaged more Michigan players then previous coaches (Yes, I know we are dealing with sample size, and most of his roster was still Lloyd's players.)
Here is a look at some of the raw data I was working with...
Rich Rod's Midwest:
Regional and National Footprint
The graphs you see below break down our roster by Region....
I was pretty amazed to see that 82% of Bo's roster was compiled of MidWest kids. I'll update this or do a Part 2......but it will be interesting to see how Hoke's first class will break down once it's complete. Right now its leaning torwards Bo's percentages.
** note: All data was pulled from http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/football.htm
[Ed-M: I used basically the same database for this year's HTTV article on recruiting Ohio, and ran into a similar problem: walk-ons. Bentley doesn't say who's a scholarship player and who isn't. Also the nature of a 4- to 5-year turnover cycle makes it hard to see what effect a coach is having except by tracking trends, not total % of players. For example, Bo's Ohio recruiting had been trending down for a long time in his later years, so that when Moeller took over it looks like the story is Mo recruited nationally and Bo was a Midwest guy. In truth, Bo took over a team from Bump that had been capping at 80% people from a mitten- or trash can-shaped state. Bo started by scouring Ohio but once his program was established he went all around the country. To wit:
If you break that into trend-lines...
...the conclusions are radically different than the percentages above suggest. Also RR and Mo weren't really there long enough to make any judgments, except the first chart shows a pretty radical growth in Ohio prospecting by RR replacing in-state success of Carr.]