coaches say you can't, so don't sign a loi
I have been holding off on this one since I don’t know Dave personally, but having worked with large Leveraged Buyout Firms who have competed with or partnered with Bain Capital in addition to advising their portfolio firms, I figured it was worthwhile to paint a snapshot of what it is like being the CEO of a company (Dominos) held by a large LBO firm like Bain since I am sure it would have influence the way Dave operates. Not sure if the board is interested by this type of stuff.
First, when a LBO firm buys a company, they typically change the CEO, CFO or both. The reason is to bring in “their” management that will be unencumbered by previous operating norms who can hit aggressive targets. This was how Brandon jumped from Valassis to Dominos, with a considerable amount of diligence completed regarding his ability.
Second, Brandon would be offered a less than industry pay package that would be skewed towards large incentive bonuses to be realized at exit (sale or IPO) and an average career length that is shorter than a NFL running back’s. Since LBO firms typically hold portfolio companies for a 4-6 year window to monetize the exit to increase the return of their fund, an underperforming CEO is often replaced at the 2-3 year mark. Also, tying compensation to performance ensures strict alignment of goals unlike CEOs of public companies that can be paid very, very well while their company falters. It is an incredible amount of pressure that pays off handsomely in the end for those that make to exit.
Third, unlike a public company, he would have been evaluated on a monthly basis by ownership. The first task after acquisition is the distribution of the new financial reporting package. I have seen some finance groups take over two weeks just to prepare the monthly reports. Progress is closely monitored, part of this is due to the need to ready the company for exit and partly to stay within any debt covenants since it was a leveraged buyout. Surprises are not suggested during reviews with ownership.
Last, as the new CEO, you would be given very aggressive profitability targets to meet. This would be achieved via cost cutting and revenue expansion. Forming your “go-to” team of individuals is crucial for success since you may need to deploy some very unpopular strategies in a short amount of time. Being a great communicator and consensus builder is paramount to moving the company with new, aggressive targets.
What does this all mean? It means Brandon spent 1999 through 2004 (IPO) under the management of Bain Capital. He survived the gauntlet and remained the CEO post-IPO for another 6 years. He would be a person that believes in:
- Pay for performance
- Strict monitoring of progress
- Taking chances by changing the status quo in order to achieve results
- No surprises
Take all of the above for what it is worth, just a thumbnail based on my previous experience. I will let you read into it what you may, if anything at all. I only wanted to give you window into the man who is calling the shots.
Time to summarize what I think I've learned from watching (almost) all of MSU's games this year. I'm not gonna do a season recap, instead I'm going to lay out where I think we can get some advantages or what we should prepare for.
Sorry that this is thrown together at the last moment. I'll probably do something a bit more in-depth for the game wrap. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I fantasize that the coaches or players actually read my spewings and can get something useful out of it.
But it's probably just helping the Mgocitizens waste a few minutes of work or ignore their families during the holiday ^^. Either way, I hope people get some use out of my posts.
WHEN MSU HAS THE BALL
Starter: Relf (#14 but will wear #36 for the bowl game).
He's a big guy, tall, 240ish. Doesn't have breakaway speed but can chew up yardage quickly. He is most dangerous on QB traps and draws.
He has average arm strength. He's fairly accurate within 30 yards, but loses accuracy the further he throws. He can put good touch on intermediate slants and posts over the middle. But he has lower percentage on deep outs and corner routes. He can throw the flare. He can make a shovel pass, and he can option pitch going in either direction. He can throw the screen. He is not as good of a passer when rolling to his left.
As a runner, he has good vision and decent cuts and moves. Tends to fall forward on contact and can run over smaller defenders. It's imperative that we get to him before he can build up momentum.
He will probably carry the ball close to 20 times and have between 10 and 20 passing attempts. (unless we get a big lead early)
He has big hands, but is sometimes careless in his ballhandling. All defenders should be trying to punch the ball out on east-west plays.
When he gets pressured, he sometimes throws the ball up for grabs. If he throws off his backfoot, the ball will hang in the air. He rarely throws the ball out of bounds. It's either going to an intended receiver or he'll pull it down to run with it.
He's not great at reading coverages, so he'll hold the ball longer than he should. The coaches call safe passes for him. If we can get them to third and long, be prepared for screens and draws.
An athletic pocket passer. But a redshirt freshmen. He got a lot of playing time early in the year, but practically disappeared in the second half of the season as Relf established himself as 'da man'. He's a gunslinger with a little too much confidence in his arm and not enough game experience. He can run the zone read, but is not nearly as a big of a threat to run as relf.
Starter: #28 Ballard. Juco transfer. Bigger guy with a good burst.
This is your classic pounder, ala wisconsin or MSU (YTMSU). He has good speed, but not great change of direction. His instincts are to cut back to the inside instead of bouncing it to the outside, unless he's within 5 yards of the goal-line.
He will get the ball between 10-20 times.
He isn't great at maintaining proper pitch relationship on the option, so MSU has gone him having him be the mesh guy and having someone else take the pitch, or simply letting Relf keep it.
Has not shown himself to be a threat in the passing game.
He is most dangerous on inside iso's, dives, and counters.
Backup: #27 Perkins. speed guy.
Freshman (maybe redshirt, don't remember). But he came on strong as the season wore on. Had a break-out game against Ole miss in the last game of the season. Expect him to be a large part of the offense for the bowl.
With Bumphis out, he becomes their fastest skill player.
He's extrememly dangerous on edge running plays. Especially the sweep. Expect him to cary the ball 5-10 times. But they'll probably have another 5-10 plays designed to go to him on either screens, wheel routes, or some other trickery.
With the extra practices, expect him to line up in the slot and then motion around, possibly to the backfield or to get the ball on a jet sweep.
3rd string: #2. Meh. will carry the ball 2-4 times.
FB: #35. Not the biggest player, but he has the heart of fullback. He really sells out on blocks and is an excellent lead blocker. Soft enough hands to catch the ball in the flat, but not much of a threat with the ball in his hands. Also not much of a running threat, even in short yardage. (Relf and Ballard are more likely to get the ball in short yardage.)
It's hard to talk about this group due to the lack of passing, but here's some notes:
Starter: #1 Bumphis, Injured. WOOOHOOO!
When he was in the game, the OC designed many plays specifically to get the ball to him. He would line up in the slot but then move all over the place. Relf had a tendecy to lock in on him. Most of their creativity on offense revolved around his skills.
Now that he is out of the lineup, expect #27 Perkins to take on most of his roles. If Perkins is in the backfield, then #86 becomes the next fastest guy. But #86 lacks experience.
Backups: #9 and #8 were both tall recievers with decent speed and hands. One of them is injured, whichever one is named Berry. So #3 becomes the next in the lineup. He showed a little bit of skill on the bubble screen
#19 caught a few balls but was basically meh.
TE: One of the TE's remains injured, the other has decent size and soft hands. But he wasn't targeted much this year.
A veteran group with a lot of starts. LT #79 is a senior with a lot of NFL hype. The center is also a senior. These guys do a lot of pulling in all directions, and have enough agility to get in front of plays. Most of them have severe guts, so passblocking in the 4th quarter might be an issue when fatigue starts to set in.
The only weak spot is #62. He is a good run blocker, but has made several mistakes in pass protection. I suggest running a lot of two man stunts or blitzes on his side making him choose who to block and who to let go.
There seems to be a significant talent/experience dropoff when the backups come in. In the one game where they had to shuffle linemen around because of injuries, Ballard was held in check and things were not pretty.
If any backups come in, such as #61, we should attack them like crazy until they run back home to momma with tears in their eyes.
This is a run first team. They don't throw very often on first down. If they do, it'll be short stuff like bubble screens or quick slants or hooks. Their most effective play action is quicker because the long developing playaction is practically usesless with Relf's poor deep ball accuracy. If they run playaction on early downs, the targets will be 15-30 yards downfield against the zone.
They try to spread out the defense so that they can run right up the middle. Running plays will usually involve a lead blocker or an option mesh handoff.
The offense relies heavily on misdirection. They use a lot of motion and counter plays. They like to capitalize on the defense lining up wrong, or not adjustion to the motion. Over the course of the year they've used tons of formations, but in spurts. About 80% of it will be shotgun with a RB or two. But they've run some I-form, some wildcat, and even some single wing in a couple of games.
Their running plays are generally slow developing with pulling linemen or lead blockers from the backfield. The running backs, especially Ballard, have shown great patience in picking the hole and then accelerating through it.
They want to control the clock. The strength of the team lies with their veteran offensive line. They may not be the biggest and strongest, but they don't make many mistakes. Because they run the ball so much, they don't show as many plays per game.
It has been interesting to see that they will use certain formations or series of plays for one game, and then you won't see it again at all for many weeks, if ever. But if they do show a play or have a series of plays installed for the week, expect them to go back to it if it works the first time. They may use that series 3-5 more times the rest of the game if you don't adjust to it.
With the extra practice time, expect to see at least two brand new formations that they haven't shown all year up until now.
The OC will not hesitate to design plays just to get the ball in the hands of Perkins or some other speed guy in space.
Their main threats are on inside runs.
They are not afraid to go for it from about their 40 and beyond. They will likely have 1 or 2 trick plays ready.
BLITZ! Blitz! BUH-LI-TZZZZZ!!! Is what I'd be saying if we had better/more experienced DB's. But we gotta go with the personnel that we have. I'd also prefer if we used more 4 down linemen this week, but the previous caveat applies.
Even so, this is not a game for us to be sitting back in an 8 man zone all day long. With their deficiencies in the passing game, we should have 8 in the box on early downs.
Ideally, I would suggest that we blitz heavily on early downs. About a 30-60% mix of outside blitzes and inside blitzes. If we can get penalties against them or TFL's, we can kill their drives.
The key to stopping their offense is to disrupt their backfield. Well timed outside blitzes will destroy their sweeps and bubble screens. Inside blitzes that outman their blockers will make Ballard and Relf stop their feet. We need to slow them down before they build up momentum, otherwise they'll just keep leaning forward for first downs. If they can run downhill against us like the sParties did, it'll be a long afternoon.
Once we get them into passing downs, blitz and stunt and twist up the middle like there's no tomorrow (which there might not be for certain defensive coaches). Relf is much more dangerous when he pulls down the ball to run, so we need to keep him inside. The outside rushers should back off to maintain contain or string out the corner and try to bat down balls.
The best way to get Relf to throw bad interceptions is to put pressure right up in his face, not from the side. Don't let him step into throws with good body mechanics. His arm isn't strong enough to just wing it without his legs. (Unlike Denard who can whip a fastball with a flick of his wrist).
I know all about our DB's. But this is a favorable matchup for us. Our DB's should play inside leverage most of the game and deny a straight path for the ball. Make Relf throw over people and at odd angles. We'll take the percentages.
WHEN WE HAVE THE BALL
Against our running spread, expect them to be in a 4-2-5 of some variety for most of the game. They use a lot of substitutions among the front seven and so sometimes it looks like a 4-3 or even a 3-3-5, but this defense revolves around the MLB #50 White, outside pressure, and a bend but don't break philosophy in the redzone.
In our territory, they will blitz and use high risk, highly variable defenses with a very deep safety. Once we get closer to the redzone, they will mix it up more with 8 man drops.
In the 2 minute drill, with a lead, they will do the opposite. They will play a soft zone to eat up the clock and then start to bring pressure as we get closer to the redzone. With our kicking situtation, this will be a problem.
These guys are space eaters and gap controllers. Their main job is to keep people off of the middle linebackers. And since I haven't really talked about them much in the game notes and the LB's have been darn good, that must mean they've been doing their job well.
The only standout is #90 Mcphee. He'll need to be doubled or rolled away from on passing downs.
#50 White, sideline to sideline player with a great motor. Smart. Not huge. We must get a body on him if we expect to run the ball. He's good with his arms and shedding blocks. He doesn't seem to get tired, and will be a thorn in our side ALL DAY. He doesn't have elite speed, (he's no Junior Seau from back in the day) comparing him to the only other MLB i've scouted in depth this year, he's a lot smarter and more experienced, but quite a bit slower than Manti T'eo (but who isn't?) so Denard should be able to get to the corner against him. And the bubble screens will be available, although they like to roll up coverage to take that away sometimes.
#34 Wright, taller, more athletic than #50. He's a hybrid OLB/DE playing weakside middle linebacker, (if you can figure that out). He loves to jump up to bat the ball down. Would have about 6 interceptions this year if he didn't have hands of stone. We need to block him with a shoulder pad in his gut to keep his arms down. He's also very good at shedding blocks. (reminds me a little bit of shawn crable, sorta)
#48 OLB. Had a quiet season. He spent most of his time blitzing and getting blocked. But he seems to fit his role in the defense well. He'll be the first LB off the field for extra DBs
#10 OLB/SS hybrid. Didn't play much in the last couple of games. But he spent a lot of time covering slot receivers or as a flexed out OLB.
Cornerbacks #25 and #13 will play most of the game. Of the two, #25 is the more aggressive and therefore more susceptible to double moves or playaction. #15 has been moving back and forth between offense and defense, so we might be able to take advantage of him. Depending on the coverage, #13 will give a big cushion, opening up the the comeback routes.
Safeties #4 and #5 are hard hitters. #4 has been slightly better in run support. #5 can be too agressive at times and is not as good in coverage.
#5 has been battling for his position with #7, a younger player. But #7 has made many mistakes in the few opportunities he's had, so expect to see more of #5.
Oh, who am I kidding? Despite what we saw against TuoOSU, this offense doesn't need any recommendations from anyone. If Denard can bust an 80 yarder against ND, he can do it against these guys, just like the kid from Alcorn St. did.
If we can pass with impunity against illinois, our WR should be able to get open and get yards tomorrow.
I suspect that our running backs won't be able to shake loose much, but how will that be different from what we've seen from the 2nd half of this year?
If we take care of the ball, no turnovers and no drops, we'll be fine.
The only thing they seemed especially vulnerable to were tunnel screens (where the outside receiver is heading back towards the linemen) and plays were a really fast guy managed to get outside and run away from them.
If the safeties start cheating towards the sidelines, there'll be plenty of room against the zone in the middle of the field, as Mallet and Arkansas showed.
This game will rest on Denard. The pressure will be coming, and he can't throw bad picks to guys he doesn't expect to be dropping off into coverage. Hot reads have to be deeper, otherwise the LB's or DE's will be right in the passing lanes.
So once again, how will that be different from anything we've seen from the 2nd half of the season?
On paper, this looks like a game that could go either way. Either MSU will dominate us on the LOS and grind the clock to a 28-14 win that isn't really that close, or we'll be able to get some stops and make a shootout of it.
This game rests firmly in the hands of Denard on offense (well, duh) and Jonas Mouton on defense. If Denard can pop some big plays and connect with his receivers, we should be able to trade scores with them. If Mouton can shadow Relf and not get fooled by ball fakes, we have a shot to outscore them.
Some years ago there was a picture of Tressel with some writing on the board in the background. It appeared to be his gameplan against us. I can't find it right now, but it basically had 4 bullet points that said something like:
- Stop #20 (mike hart)
- Pressure #7 (henne)
Well, maybe those last two were different, but it didn't matter. Based on the results, you'd have to say that Tressel has been a master when it comes to The Game.
If RR were going to make one of those for the gator bowl, it should read something like this:
- Stop #28
- Stop Relf with run blitzes
- Pressure Relf up the middle on passing downs
- Don't let Relf pull the ball down on a scramble and head up the middle
- Yes, this means designed draws too! Especially on the designed draws!!
- For god's sake, if you have to choose between going after Relf or someone else, go after Relf!!!!
- Seriously, RELF!
On a personal note, I really want us to win this game. No, I mean I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, want us to win this game.
First of all, I'm a fan and alum, so OF COURSE I want us to win every game. But in addition to that, a win would make Dave Brandon's job so much easier.
I don't want to get into a whole CC debate, but in every possible universe, winning this game is better for everyone. At 8-5, there is zero chance that RR will be fired and replaced with anyone other than Harbaugh.
At 8-5, if he keeps RR, he's keeping a guy that's improved the team by a significant amount every year and we're looking at a 10 win season in 2011.
At 8-5, if he brings in Harbaugh, he's doing it because we want him as an upgrade over a guy with a decent record. It's like buying a new car. If you're buying a car because your old one broke down, you're kind of forced into it. But if you're buying a new car because it's just that much more awesome than the one you've already got that is still working fine, well that gives a different kind of impression.
At 7-6 we're going to have to suffer the idiotic posts of the Brady Hoke following and their ilk.
I hate making predictions, especially when the two teams are close. So instead I'll just put what I hope happens.
28-26 Michigan. Denard breaks a 40+ yard run and we get long TD's from our WR's. MSU kicks 4 field goals but misses a ridiculously long 5th attempt as time expires.
As a CC alum who has followed their hockey team closely for nearly the last 10 years, I thought that I'd pass along a preview/scouting report to enhance the viewing experience for those of you who will be watching the game tonight.
CC Hockey 2010-2011 First-Half Team Overview: CC is 12-8-1 on the season (8-6 in WCHA, good for 5th place) with the nation’s 7th toughest strength of schedule. They are 13th in RPI, 11th in the KRACH, and tied for 12th in the very preliminary Pairwise comparisons. All of this suggests they’ll be a solid bubble team come tournament time. After a slow start in first month of the season, the Tigers went on a tear, which was kick-started by a 9-2 thumping of Denver. Beginning with that game, they’ve gone 9-3, including a split against a very good Nebraska-Omaha team. They’ve been without team scoring leader Jaden Schwartz (11-15-26, the nation’s 4th leading scorer) the last four games, going 3-1, while he’s been with the Canadian national junior team. CC plays an up-tempo style that put an emphasis on team speed over size. They are very strong on special teams with 22% success rate on the power play, and 87.4% on the PK. CC is also very young, with 16 underclassmen compared with only 10 upperclassmen (4 seniors, one of whom is the walk-on goalie).
The Forwards: With Jaden Schwartz joining the Canadian team, Scott Winkler (the only other NHL draft pick on the team besides J. Schwartz) out since Oct. 22nd with a wrist-injury, and William Rapuzzi injured with a concussion last night against MSU, the forwards will be young, with the veterans double-shifting at times. Watch out for seniors Stephen Schultz (10-13-23) and Tyler Johnson (13-8-21, who leads the nation in PPG with 8), as well as sophomore Rylan Schwartz (5-19-24), Jaden’s older brother. Keep an eye on junior Nick Dineen (7-6-13) for greasy-goals and on the PK. After that, a variety of freshman and sophomores round out the lineup, with an assortment of jitterbug slot-ninja types in Archie Skalbeck (5-7-12), Dakota Eveland (1-6-7), as well as Alex Krushelnyski (2-6-8, yes, that Krushelnyski, son of Mike, former Red Wings player/coach).
The Defenseman: CC’s defenseman are solid, if unspectacular, headlined by senior and captain Ryan Lowery (1-10-11) and junior Gabe Guentzel (3-10-13). Lowery is usually paired with freshman Eamonn McDermott (1-3-4) and Guentzel with sophomore Joe Marciano (0-5-5). Those four will eat a lot of minutes, especially in PP and PK situations, as CC’s third pairing has been inconsistent, with a constant rotation through the season.
Goalies: Joe Howe has been the top goalie for CC this year, posting decent numbers (10-7-1, 2.64 GAA, .911 SV%, with 3 shutouts) following his freshman campaign last year that saw him earn freshman-All America honors. He’ll occasionally make the spectacular save, but is more well known for being a durable, reliable between-the-pipes guy. When he’s on, though, he can steal a game. Backup Josh Thorimbert has only played in 4 games this year (2-1, 3.06, .909, 1 shutout), and will likely only play in the event of a blowout or injury.
Key Matchup: Michigan’s key to the game is to play a physical style in order to keep CC’s speed at bay, while not taking penalties, because CC will make them pay. Also, it would be to Michigan’s advantage to turn this into a game of attrition, tiring CC and force them to play their inexperienced 3rd and 4th lines and 3rd defensive pairing. This would be a very good win for either team, especially in terms of Pairwise comparisons at the end of the year.
Meaningless fearless prediction: Michgan's talent, even sans Merrill and Brown, will overwhelm the short bench and inexperience of CC, and but Tigers will keep it close until an empty-netter ices the cake.
Regardless of What We Have Been Told Or What We May Want To Believe, Here's The Bottom Line: For Over 80% Of All College Football Games, Turnover Margin Is NOT A Significant Factor In Determining Which Team Wins!
(BTW, Since turnover margin does impact which team wins in 20% of all football games, it is important ---- it's just not nearly as important as we have been lead to believe.)
Truthiness: "Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support." (Stephen Colbert, October 17, 2005 – The Colbert Report). "The quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006).
No Way!: Uh yeah, we have all been wrong (myself included). I started looking at turnovers (TOs) in detail after the 2008 season when Michigan went 3-9 with a turnover margin (TOM) of –10. I wrote a series of diaries that concluded double digit TOs were caused primarily by the skill & experience of a team and not primarily by luck. Thus, good teams tend to have positive TOMs and poor teams tend to have negative TOMs. This is basically the opposite of believing that TOs are a primary factor in determining whether a team is good (i.e. winning record) or poor (i.e. losing record) – sorry, Phil Steele.
I also concluded that any analysis using the total TOs for an entire season was misleading, irrational, and just plain lazy (sorry again, Phil Steele). TOs must be analyzed on a game-by-game basis ONLY. After a game-by-game analysis is completed, it is valid to summarize the results for an entire season.
Then, a few weeks ago when I wrote the diary "Turnovers - The Year In Review", I started to see a trend in the turnover data that seemed pretty weird. Although M had a TOM of –9 for the year, the game-by-game situational review indicated that: "In reality, positive TOMs helped Michigan win as many games this year as negative TOMs contributed to M losing games!"
Several comments on that blog post did not agree with my conclusions (surprise!?) with psychomatt providing a table showing the relationship between "End-of-year TOM" for 40 teams and "Win/Loss Record" (this sample represents 33% of all FBS teams!). Based on this data, it sure looks like TOs could account for an average of a 5 win difference with an average TOM/Year difference of 23. A simple calculation (5 wins/23 TOM) yields the result that every TO gained is worth 0.217 games! (BTW, a similar approach has been used to determine the average value of a TO in the NFL is 0.207 games.)
Therefore, if Michigan had ended the year with a +13 TOM rather than a –9 TOM, the difference of 22 in TOM would result in 4.78 more wins and Michigan would have been expected to have a 12-0 (or at least an 11-1) season this year (woooo, hooooo!). But, is this really true or just truthiness?
Since this is a slow time of year, I decided to bite the bullet and take a more detailed look at the relationship between TOM and which team wins a football game.
In reality, the average value of a TO is 0.094 additional games won. Thus, the average difference between a team with one of the best TOMs and one of the worst TOMs is 2.4 additional games won during the season. (This is less than half of the impact that is usually attributed to TOs.) So, Michigan would have been expected to have a 9-3 or 10-2 season if the TOM had been +13 rather than –9.
The Methodology: One of the most difficult aspects of analyzing the impact of TOs is establishing how much each TO is worth. Luckily the folks at Football Outsiders have done an in-depth analysis to determine an average TO is worth approximately 4 points. [EDIT: This is a "swing" of 4 points. As explained in the comments below, the proper way to look at this is that the team committing the TO loses 2 points and the team getting the takeaway gains 2 points.]
So, that is what I used. Only if the winning team had a positive TOM and the margin of victory was within the value of TOM (4 X TOM), was the game counted in "turnover margin was a significant factor in determining which team wins". If the winning team had a positive TOM but the margin of victory was outside the value of TOM, then the game was NOT counted since TOs may have impacted the margin of victory (making it larger) but were not a significant factor in determining which team wins. For example, Michigan beat ND 28-24 with a TOM of +3 (value = 12 points). Since the margin of victory was within the value of TOM (12 points), this game was counted as TOs being a significant factor in determining the winning team. However, Michigan beat UConn 30-10 with a TOM of +1 (value = 4 points). Since the margin of victory was outside the value of TOM (4 points), this game was NOT counted as TOs being a significant factor in determining the winning team.
I looked at every game for the following three categories of teams: (1) Top 10% (12 teams) of End-of-Year TOM; (2) Bottom 10% (12 teams) of End-of-Year TOM; (3) Middle 10% (12 teams) of End-of-Year TOM. This is a total of 30% of all FBS teams and comprises 438 total games played.
The Results: As the table indicates: (Column 2) 21% of all games end with a TOM of –0-; (Column 3) 17% of all games are won by the team with a negative TOM; (Column 4) 44% of all games are won by the team with a positive TOM but the TOs were not a significant factor in determining the winning team; and (Column 5) this totals to an average of 82% of all football games where TOM is not a significant factor in determining the winning team.
What About, "80% of the time the team that wins the TO battle, wins the football game"?: Some version of this statement is repeated hundreds of times during every football season. This statement is technically true. But, this statement is also worded very carefully and is a classic example of a contextual lie (stating part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression). We expect such shenanigans in politics but it is quite annoying in sports.
This table shows how the statement is true but let's dissect the statement to see how it is misleading. First, there is no mention of how many football games are excluded (i.e. all games that end with a TOM of –0-). As shown above, about 21% of all games end with neither team winning the TO battle. Second, there is no mention of the fact that many games are so non-competitive that TOs could not possibly have impacted which team wins. Thus, many folks who hear this statement are left with the false impression that TOs determine which team wins 80% of all football games! As shown above, this is overstated by a factor or 4 (TOs determine which team wins in only 18% of all football games).
Also note that if the basis is total games played (rather than just games that end up without TOM = 0), only 62% of games are won by the team that wins the TO battle.
Other Interesting Results: Some other results from the analysis.
Of the 12 teams with the largest positive TOM:
Average net wins per team was just 1.5
2 teams received an advantage of 5 net wins due to TOM: Oklahoma (11-2) and Toledo (8-4)
1 team received an advantage of 3 net wins: Maryland (8-4)
1 team received an advantage of 2 net wins: Army (6-6)
5 teams received an advantage of 1 net win: Virginia Tech (11-2), Hawaii (10-3), osu (11-1), Oregon (12-0), and Tulsa (9-3)
3 teams received no net wins: Stanford (11-1), Wisconsin (11-1), and Iowa (7-5)
4 teams actually lost a game due to negative TOM for that particular game: Virginia Tech, Army, Iowa, and Tulsa
Of the 12 teams with the largest negative TOM:
Average net losses per team was just 0.92
2 teams received a disadvantage of 3 net losses: Texas (5-7) and Duke (3-9)
2 teams received a disadvantage of 2 net losses: Eastern Mich (2-10) and Central Mich (3-9)
2 teams received a disadvantage of 1 net loss: Cincinnati (4-8) and Fresno State (8-5)
5 teams received no net losses: Middle Tenn (6-6), Memphis (1-11), New Mexico (1-11), UCLA (4-8), and Michigan (7-5)
1 team received an advantage of 1 net win with no net losses and 1 net win due to positive TOM for that particular game: Fla. Atlantic (4-8)
3 teams actually won 2 games due to positive TOM for those games: Middle Tenn, Duke, and Central Mich
4 teams actually won 1 game due to positive TOM for that game: Memphis, New Mexico, Michigan, and Fla. Atlantic
Sample Data: Finally, here are 4 detailed samples of the data. IMP = Impact (Yes, No, Opposite) Opp indicates the team that won the TO battle, lost the game!
So this has been a long time coming but it's my first serious piece of writing on the blog so bear with me please. This being my second year in the University of Michigan Paintball Club I figured it was about time I post something on the blog about my sport and basically give a rundown as to how our year has been going.
Yes I did pick the picture where we were all making our hard ass faces
I've been playing Paintball since about 2004 so I've got a few years into the sport. I played some competitive tournaments during High school and when I came to Michigan I didn't want to stop playing and joined the Paintball Club here. We play tournaments in the National Collegiate Paintball Association which has 2 divisions and allows for schools from across the country to compete against each other.
We play in the AA division which is for schools without large amounts of funding and we play in the Midwestern Great Lakes league. The NCPA has a fairly large number of teams in it, mainly in the Midwest, South and East Coast areas, and they hold a national championship every year in Florida. The format of play in the NCPA is 5 man xball, this means that there are 5 players from each team on the field.
Points are scored both by eliminating the opposing team and by grabbing a flag situated in the middle of the field and taking it to the opposing teams "dead" box (this can essentially only be done after the other team is eliminated). The simplified rules are if you're hit you're out, and if you continue playing with a hit you and a teammate of yours will be pulled from the field during play. Also the rate of fire is capped at 12.5 balls per second; there are also numerous other penalties enforced by four referees on the field.
Here is a picture of a fairly standard xball field.
We started this year off strong by winning our first tournament which was held at Chaos Paintball in Charlotte, Mich., on Oct. 16. Six teams entered the tournament: Michigan (2 teams), Michigan State, Central Michigan, Miami (Ohio) and Northern Michigan. We had played poorly in the preliminaries, but in typical Michigan Paintball fashion squeaked into finals and then dominated.
We were surprised at our success and pretty excited and if I'm being honest we got a little cocky, which didn't bode well for our second tournament. We lost handily at Paintball Plex in Laotto Indiana on Nov. 21, coming in last place out of seven teams, but in our defense we were playing more new guys than our secondary this year. We played poorly all day and couldn't seem to shake the funk that only a hangover can cause.
Our next tournament is Feb. 5 at Warzone Paintgames in Toledo, Ohio. We are planning practices for after school starts to get back into the groove and will hopefully be bringing back a new trophy.
We are also in the early stages of planning a trip to the Superbowl of Paintball, Huntington Beach. It's a huge national level tournament where players of all skill levels compete on the beach in California. This will be our first major trip since going to the NCPA National Championships two years ago and we will be competing in division 4 x-ball, which basically means we will be playing against teams that haven't competed in anything bigger than a local tournament before. Hopefully we will be able get everything planned out, find enough money for the flights and tournament (entry is $1,200 for a team and all told it could be near $900 per person) and also do well in the tournament. We've had a good year so far and I'm hoping everything goes well and this will be an even better year.
We're in the middle of a recruiting dead period, and about a month away from signing day. I thought I would give an update on who's left on the board, time frames for when specific recruits will make their decisions, and who will be visiting in the near future.
|Demetrius Hart||RB||FL||4 Star|
|Justice Hayes||RB||MI||4 Star|
|Brennen Beyer||DE||MI||4 Star|
|Blake Countess||CB||MD||4 Star|
|Dallas Crawford||CB||FL||3 Star|
|Jake Fisher||OL||MI||3 Star|
|Delonte Hollowell||CB||MI||3 Star|
|Kellen Jones||LB||TX||3 Star|
|Chris Rock||DE/DT||OH||3 Star|
|Greg Brown||DB||OH||3 Star|
|Jack Miller||OL||OH||3 Star|
|Desmond Morgan||LB||MI||3 Star|
|Tony Posada||OL||FL||3 Star|
|Matt Goudis||K||CA||2 Star|
That's 14 current commitments, and for argument sake we'll just assume that Michigan will take 20 in this class. Rich Rodriguez has recently said they will take anywhere from 18-20 commits, so we'll go with 20. Here's a look at the most likely recruits left at each position, up to this point. There could be some new names pop up, but this list seems pretty solid for now.
|Name||State||Decision Date||Rivals Ranking|
|Kris Frost||NC||Army All American Game (Jan 8th)||4 Star|
|Hakeem Flowers||SC||Either January or Signing Day. May still take visits.||3 Star|
|Devin Lucien||CA||Signing Day. Visiting Michigan January 7th||4 Star|
|Prince Holloway||FL||January 15th. Recently said he will commit to Michigan on his January 15th visit.||3 Star|
Frost is in this category because he will most likely get his chance to try wide receiver before potentially moving to linebacker. The situation for Michigan here is that they may just lead for all four of these receivers.
|Name||State||Decision Date||Rivals Ranking|
|Wayne Lyons (S)||FL||Army All American Game||4 Star|
|Raymon Taylor (ATH)||MI||Visiting January 7th. Decision after that.||4 Star|
|Sheldon Royster (S)||NJ||Visiting January 7th.||4 Star|
|James Richardson (CB)||TX||Deciding in January||3 Star|
|Roderick Ryles (S)||FL||Planning a visit, decision date unsure.||3 Star|
Again Michigan is in great position for most of these recruits.
|Name||State||Decision Date||Rivals Ranking|
|Jack Tabb||NJ||January||3 Star|
|Frank Clark||OH||Visiting January 7th, decision date unsure.||3 Star|
|Tanner McEvoy||NJ||Visiting January 7th, decision date unsure.||3 Star|
Tabb is thinking over his decision, and will be announcing sometime in early or mid January. The coaching situation had been factoring into his decision, and he was also hoping for an offer from Miami. He's not getting the Miami offer, so it will be between Michigan, North Carolina, and Arkansas.
|Name||State||Decision Date||Rivals Ranking|
|Chris Bryant||IL||January, or Signing Day||4 Star|
Bryant isn't sure if he wants to wait until signing day to make his decision, or just get it over with. He is waiting to see what happens with the coaches, but Michigan is likely to land Chris.
|Name||State||Decision Date||Rivals Ranking|
|Anthony Zettel (DE)||MI||Likely to decide in January.||4 Star|
|Darian Cooper (DT||MD||Visiting January 7th, likely to decide signing day.||4 Star|
|Max Issaka (DE)||NJ||May visit Michigan||3 Star|
|Deion Barnes (DE)||PA||Visiting January 7th, decision in mid-late January or signing day||4 Star|
As you can see, there are a lot of recruits left for only roughly 6 spots left. The good news is that there is a lot of quality left on the board. The recruits that are left and still have Michigan in the race are ranked highly, and more importantly could help Michigan in key areas.
The next visit weekend will be January 7th, and will be host to a good amount of prospects. Here's the list so far, and as usual will be updated as we get closer. These visits aren't set in stone, so they could change from now until the 7th.
- S Sheldon Royster - Michigan is in Royster's top four with North Carolina, Rutgers, and South Carolina
- DE Deion Barnes - Michigan is in Barne's top group with Penn State, South Carolina, and Georgia.
- WR Devin Lucien - Michigan is in a very favorable spot for Lucien. This visit could determine where he ends up.
- DT Darian Cooper - Cooper still lists Michigan in his top group, but definitely has concerns about the coaching situation. He should have some answers by this time.
- ATH Raymon Taylor - Recently offered by Michigan, and recently decommitted from Indiana I suspect that Michigan leads.
- TE Tanner McEvoy
- TE/LB Frank Clark - The Glenville prospect always speaks highly of Michigan, and is excited about the visit.