Diaries

Here's another update on Demetrius Hart, since there have been quite a few questions about him recently. I last posted that he will be announcing his decision sometime next week. I spoke with Dee's mom and she told me that he will be making his final decision Tuesday of next week, or Wednesday at the latest. 

Remember that Demetrius and his family are going up to Alabama for an official visit this weekend. They will also be joined by teammates Ha'Sean Clinton-Dix (Current Alabama commit) and Chris Gallon, along with Demetrius' running back coach, who happens to be an Alabama fan. 

I also spoke with Ha'Sean Clinton-Dix yesterday about a recent comment he made about the weather being a factor at Michigan. He had said that it was too cold, and he didn't think he would like that. It now seems that he is taking a different stance.

I would have to get used to the weather eventually anyway, so it's not a big deal anymore. Dee and I are going to be coming back up there for an unofficial, I'm just not sure when yet. 

2012 Nick Patti will also be coming back up to Michigan for the Wisconsin game, and I also gave an update the other day about another Dr. Phillips teammate in Roderick Ryles, who has started to hear from the Michigan coaches. 

For this week's installment of opponents' press conferences, we have Bill Lynch, head coach of the Indiana Hoosiers. I personally think they make a better vacuum than a football team (I have a Hoosier Wind Tunnel which sees basement duty), but the Big Ten being what it is, our boys in blue take to the field against these guys Saturday, so here we go with Other People's Pressers!

(P.S. a friend of mine sold Kirby vacs in college for a week, but got sick of it when he kept getting lost on his way to prospective buyers' homes - oh, if only we had GPS back in the mid-late 90's.)

http://iuhoosiers.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092710aac.html

On Michigan's Offense:

• "Denard Robinson is scary good. Then the way the other two kids came in and played it shows the depth that they have. "
• Credit to RR and how the team has really bought into his offensive philosophy with the success UM is having.  Says we have a great scheme with the right players, execute well, good depth (esp. at QB), and are well-coached.
• On Denard, every team (on film) has tried to do something different to stop him and none of them have succeeded.  IU has to stay within their system (on D) and try to stop M's offense.
• On whether having had Kellen Lewis helps gameplan against Denard: "One of the unique things with Denard is that in so many situations, he's the lead runner. The tailback or the other back is really the blocking back. And that is what makes it difficult because the quarterback in many cases is the unaccounted for guy. And now you have to account for him as well as everybody else... That's why it is very difficult to defend their offense."
• Have to play the gaps well in order to have a chance at defending Michigan's offense: "The biggest thing is that you have to be very gap-sound. If you get a guy out of a gap they will gash you. "
• On Michigan having outscored its opponents 56-10 in the first quarter - "They're explosive. "  Talks about being confident and matching UM's speed/intensity early.

On Michigan's Defense:

• Mentions that 3-3-stack or 3-5-stack is similar to the D employed when RR was at WVU.  Key is that LBs show a lot of movement and attack from different positions/angles.  Need to be aware of where the LBs are lining up.
• Michigan's defense will have to decide how to stop IU's offense, just as IU has to gameplan for M's offense.  In-game adjustments also important.
• UM has "good pass rushers and they have a blitzing type scheme where they can bring people from a lot of different directions."

On individual players:

• Tandon Doss: Didn't put up big numbers last week, but great job blocking downfield.  Also very versatile, able to play any position.
• Ben Chappell: Needs to keep up his level of play and execution.  Preparation is key and feels like Chappell is well-prepared.

On team execution:

• "...it is very important that we go back and work on fundamentals. So often, history tells me that when you get into creating new schemes in a week, and you play poorly because you are thinking too much instead of just playing. That's why you must trust the system, and it goes back to great fundamental play."
• Mentions that they need to block and tackle better, and spending a lot of time on this.
• On tackling, says players sometimes too focused on making the big hits rather than wrapping up - again going back to stressing fundamentals.
• On turnovers, can have a huge impact.  Sounds like he is stressing ball protection on offense, as he cites the Colts winning 26 straight games (really?) without a turnover (really really??)
• Special teams did a good job, especially on kick returns.  Did a good job fielding kicks (us too, please!)

On the gameplan against Michigan:

• On defense, gap discipline, if they don't maintain gap discipline, will get gashed by RB or QB.
• On offense, need to have good run-pass balance in order to take pressure off Chappell.  
• Can't try to change up what they do on offense as a reaction to Michigan's offense (I guess I'm assuming he thinks UM will score some points), but must stick to their playbook and execute to be successful.
• On defense, need to create turnovers, which they haven't done the last 2 weeks.  
• "We're a little different than we were a year ago. We were a sellout blitz team, where we played zero-coverage behind it, where there was no help. We were sending as many as we could and still have each receiver accounted for, so it was a little more of a high-risk blitz than we're running right now."

Other game-related notes:

• Health - says team is healthy, shouldn't be a problem there. No mention of any specific injuries.
• "It's the first conference game and they're all important. The one we have in front of us is always the most important and that will be the approach we're going to be taking. I'm sure our players expect that when they come in here this afternoon."
• Confident in this team. "This team has been an easy team to coach, in that they come to work every day."
• The level of play and intensity has to go up now that they're in conference play. His players understand that.  

*note: this is a reproduction of post on my blog: productivesweatpants.com

Indiana fans are pumped up about their 3-0 start to the season. And well why not? It's exciting to win. But more importantly they have revenge on their minds after last year's game in which Tate Forcier did Tate-like things: thing 1 and thing 2.

With a very similar start to the 2010 season as in 2009, we need to know things will be different this year, right? Well let's take a look at these two team so far.

I came across a couple of interesting statistics that I think will help give us a picture of the two teams. Instead of looking at the total and scoring offense numbers, or total and scoring defense numbers, we are going to look at how efficient the offenses and defenses are. We will also look at strength of schedule and Sagarin rank of each team to get an idea of what we can expect.

Offensive Efficiency

To find out how efficient an offense is we are going to take the total yards and divide it by points scored. It gives us a yards per point score. This will give us an indication of how efficiently an offense scores. It's good indicator of total team success.

Michigan - 13.64 yds/point good for 55th in the nation

Indiana - 10.09 yds/point good for 6th in the nation

That might be a little surprising for some given the performance of the Michigan's offense to date. But when we look at Time of Possession we see that Michigan is holding the ball longer at 31:37 TOP/game vs IU's 28:44. Also, consider that Michigan is averaging 25.8 first downs per game to IU's 22. And Michigan is averaging two more third down attempts per game than Indiana. It makes me believe that Indiana, being a passing team, is scoring on longer plays where Michigan, being a running team, is going on long drives.

Defensive Efficiency

Similar to the offensive efficiency number, we take the total yards given up and divide that by the number of points surrendered to give us a Yard per point given up, or a defensive efficiency number. In the converse to the offensive number the larger the number here means that offenses have to work a lot harder to score against that team. This is a great way for teams that play a bend-but-don't-break style (like Michigan) to measure up to other teams. For example: Alabama is ranked first with a 30.28 yds/point (they are number one by almost 4 yards. They're good). Let's look at UM and IU.

Michigan - 17.39 yds/point for 41st in the nation

Indiana - 17.5 yds/point for 39th in the nation

Virtually the same. I was shocked to see that Michigan although 93rd in total defense, fared so well by this metric. This my friends, gives me hope.

Looking at the efficiency numbers alone, it would seem that Indiana should be primed to take down the Wolverines. But, "Not So Fast My Friend!"

Let's take a look at the strength of schedule for each team.

Michigan - 66th ranked schedule

Indiana - 120th ranked schedule

That's right dead last. Indiana's schedule is ranked the worst in the FBS. "It's early, everybody schedules cupcakes." Sure I can give you that. But let's look at the particular flavor of cupcake Indiana has been munching on:

Towson - 1-3

OEff - 15.71 - 90*

DEff - 9.25 - 120*

SOS - NA

Sagarin - 195

Western Kentucky - 0-4

OEff - 16.69 - 99

DEff - 10.15 - 119

SOS - 93

Sagarin - 144

Akron - 0-4

OEff - 15.17 - 84

DEff - 12.02 - 106

SOS - 96

Sagarin - 175

Holy Schnikies that is awful. The only victory any IU opponent has was over Coastal Carolina in five OTs (for the record Coastal Carolina's Sagarin ranking is 185). Look at those DEff numbers. These teams are revolving doors. It's no wonder IU ranks 6th in OEff. Now, I will say IU pasted Towson, but they only beat the other two by 15 and 16 respectively.

By comparison let's look at Michigan's foes:

UConn - 2-2

OEff - 11.82 - 27

DEff - 16.26 - 51

SOS - 51

Sagarin - 69

ND - 1-3

OEff - 18.53 - 110

DEff - 15.63 - 58

SOS - 22

Sagarin - 64

UMass - 3-1

OEff - 15.23 - 84*

DEff - 15.17 - 67*

SOS - NA

Sagarin - 84

Bowling Green - 1-3

OEff - 11.67 - 94

DEff - 13.5 - 85

SOS - 77

Sagarin - 94

Of the cupcake variety? Maybe, although it is good for the 66th ranked schedule. UConn and Bowling Green have pretty efficient offenses. BG is ahead of Nebraska and Nevada. And, hell, at least all the teams have a win. Even our FCS snackcake is ranked higher by Sagarin than Indiana (85). The only team that is not ranked lower than any team on IU's schedule is Bowling Green and you saw that outcome.

So what has this little exercise taught us? A few things I think:

1) None of Indiana's statistical rankings stand up. I'm not sure you can take any of them seriously given the competition.

2) Michigan's defense efficiency is better than any of us expected. And they've been tested by some decent, offensively efficient teams.

3) Indiana's defensive efficiency is basically the same as Michigan's but against offensively efficient teams ranked near dead last in the nation.

4) I'm not nearly as nervous as I was before I did this little exercise.

Go Blue!

*this is where they would rank among FBS teams although I didn't include all FCS teams.

Last week (in UV?) Brian mentioned the fact that 40 years of continued beatdowns and general success is why there are so many Walmart Wolverines.  Little Brother's fans are just jealous that people who attended neither school seem to be more willing to pick a much more successful program for their rooting interests.

So I thought I'd go further into the numbers.  It's pretty staggering.  Let's look at it in a thinly veiled hypothetical.

Suppose there are two schools, A and B.

A and B are both large, long established, public universities roughly 70 miles apart in the same state.

A and B have played each other in football 41 times since 1969.  During that period:

• A has won 30 games in that series, B has won 11 games.
• A's winning percentage over B is .732.
• A has outscored B 1100-659.  That's an average game of 29-16.
• A has shutout B five times, and has allowed only three points in two additional games.
• A has never failed to score at least a touchdown against B.
• A has won 1 national championship. B has won none.
• A has won 21 conference championships. B has won 3.
• A has appeared in 35 bowl games, including a streak of 33 straight, with 15 wins.
• B has appeared in 16 bowl games, with 5 wins.
• A has appeared in 16 Rose Bowls, 2 Orange Bowls, 1 Sugar Bowl, and 1 Fiesta Bowl.
• B has appeared in 1 Rose Bowl.
• A's players have won 2 Heisman trophies. B's have won none.
• A's winning percentage against all opponents is .756.
• B's winning percentage against all opponents is .509.

Since 1898, A and B have played each other in football 102 times.

• A has won 67 games in that series, B has won 30 games, with 5 ties.
• A's winning percentage over B is .681.
• The all-time series between the schools includes a score of 119-0 in favor of A.

National Statistics:

• A is the NCAA FBS leader in all-time football wins with 881, 33 wins better than second place.
• B has 621 all-time wins, good for 32nd place among all FBS schools.
• A is the NCAA FBS leader in all-time football winning percentage at .737, .005 (roughly 3 whole games) better than second place.
• B's all-time winning percentage is .592, also good for 32nd place among all FBS schools.

National Championships:

• A has earned 11 consensus national championsips.
• A has been selected as national champions in 5 additional years by various recognized selectors on the idiot fringe of college football opinion.
• A claims only its 11 consensus national championships.
• B has earned 3 consensus national championships.
• B has been selected as national champions in 3 additional years by various recognized selectors on the idiot fringe of college football opinon.
• B still claims a total of 6 national championships.

Conference Championships:

• A has won 41 conference championships.
• B has won 6 conference championships.

Which team's football program would YOU root for?

A is the University of Michigan.  B is Michigan State University.

Is it any wonder that there are so few Walmart Spartans?  Little Brother indeed.

Okay, so there's also that basketball thing.  A few years ago ESPN ranked the top all-time basketball programs.  Michigan was ranked 13.  Sparty was ranked 16.  Yes, MSU fans: basketball actually existed as a sport separate from the exploits of Magic Johnson and Tom Izzo.  U-M men's basketball actually owns a 91-74 record over MSU (84-71 adjusted for vacated games).

Hockey?  Let's not even bother to share the stats. MSU has a good hockey program historically, but U-M is far and away the most celebrated hockey program in history, with its record 9 national championships and current record streak of 20 straight years in the NCAA tournament.  There's acutally a guy in my hometown who claims that Sparty has won more championships and has had more tournament success than U-M.  So okay, let's go to the stats anyways since thinking about that guy has pissed me off:

• National Championships: U-M 9, Sparty 3.
• NCAA Frozen Fours: U-M 23, Sparty 9.
• NCAA Tournaments:  U-M 33, Sparty 23.
• CCHA Regular Season Championships: U-M 10, Sparty 7.
• CCHA Tournament Championships: U-M 9, Sparty 11.  WOO-HOO! GO SPARTY!

Last year I wrote a couple pieces on trying to measure team performance vs. expectations.  I came up with a system, and used 1999-2008 data to develop a benchmark for comparison.  After the end of the 2009 season, I meant to evaluate the year’s performance, but could not bring myself to revisit the season without weeping uncontrollably.  Now that 2009 is becoming a distant memory, I can finally face my fears.

To briefly summarize my logic: I am using each game’s spread as a means to measure team performance.  Not the team’s performance against the spread, rather whether they win or lose compared to what the spread predicts.  For each team, I am averaging the spreads for each game that had an upset.  For example, if this year Michigan pulls off upsets with spreads of 4 and 6, and loses one where they were favored by 8, in 12 games, the average is -.17.  Note that we are only including games with a line, i.e. no baby seals.  This is important because Michigan’s 2007 numbers do not include the HORROR, which would obviously make a huge difference. 

Using data from 1999-2008, I found that this average follows a pretty good linear trend when plotted vs. the predicted win % for each team.  Comparing variance from the trend line then tells one a little bit about how the teams are performing; teams above the line are beating expectations, below are not matching up:

So for 2009, I compared results versus this same trendline.  We will start with the Big 10:

Purdue, who has historically the worst numbers in the Big 10, took a giant step into the middle of the pack … however it looks like they are already getting back to true form this year.  OSU is strong as always, and once again Northwestern is at the top by a long shot.  Every year, Northwestern seems to beat expectations, and nobody notices.  I blame it on all that purple; how can anyone take them seriously?

Here is how the rest of the league compares.  Starting with the bottom:

Vanderbilt just edges Tulsa to take the prize.  Vanderbilt was only expected to win 3 games, and managed to only get 1 (take that, Rice).  It was upset by Miss State and Army.  It’s interesting to see Oklahoma and USC so low in a section usually dominated by bottom feeders.

And here are the over-performers:

Southern Methodist handedly takes the crown by winning 3 upsets with spreads over 10 points.  Boise State, who usually is at the top, still isn’t far behind.  Say what you want about them, they always manage to take care of business.  And finally, somehow Bama manages to beat the already lofty expectations for them.

How do these results look over time?  Here is a plot of Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State:

Again, recall that this does not include the HORROR.  If it did, one would see that Michigan has pretty much spent the past 5 years not getting it done.  State is very spastic; no one is ever sure when Sparty will Sparty itself.  And OSU has been pretty consistently outperforming since Tressel arrived on the scene.

So what does it all mean?  I don’t know, I was hoping you all could tell me.  It certainly doesn’t help Michigan to have these strong starts followed by a weak Big Ten performance.  That’s what’s hurting MSU in several of these years shown: great start leading up to a loss to Michigan, and implosion afterwards.  For the most part, these numbers confirm what I thought about some of these teams, but there are a few surprises.  Also, Southern Methodist and Northwestern would like your respect.  Please.

I started a research project earlier this week and haven't had a chance to finish it yet, partially because it is a ton of work.  However - I am 90% certain of this conclusion despite not chasing down every data point: over the last 24 days, you have witnessed the most prolific 4-game stretch of yardage output in at least 42 seasons, since Bo's takeover as head coach. In fact, if you remove the BGSU game and the 721 yards in that one, I am pretty certain that the first 3 weeks of the season resulted in the most prolific 3 games in the same time span.