Diaries

Was Michigan lucky or unlucky last year? Who were the luckiest teams in the Big 10 last year? What teams were the unluckiest nationally?

To try and answer these questions, I took my team PPG values for the full 2009 season and then “re-played” the regular season schedule to see how the season would play out if the teams played at that consistent level and the fluky plays were eliminated.  All first half plays and any in the second half with the game within 2 touchdowns were included.  Interceptions are included, fumbles are not.  Standard special teams plays are included, punt blocks, on-sides kicks etc. are not.

The results were based on the actual schedule (excluding conference championship games or Bowls) and home-field advantage was worth about 3 points per game, based on the actual results. 

So what did I find…

Michigan 2009

Michigan was a fairly unlucky team last year.  Based on how their play was over the course of the season, on an average year, they would have won 6.3 games (most likely 6 with an outside shot at 7).  Michigan’s results were about 1.3 wins below the expectation based on their schedule and their average performance over the full year. 

On average, they should have won about 5.1 of their 8 home games.  In reality, they won 5 of 8.  Notre Dame was a game with a 40% win likelihood based on the full season for both teams.  Indiana was a 73% chance.  The pickup from those two games was offset by failing to pick up victories over long shots Penn St (34%) or Ohio State (13%) but mostly due to failing to defeat Purdue which Michigan should have won about 58% of the time.

Michigan was only favored to win one (Illinois, 56%) of its four road games and on average, would have won 1.2.  Michigan failed to pick up any of the wins, falling to Michigan St (29%), Iowa (13%) and Wisconsin (22%).

For the season as a whole, Michigan went 1-2 in relative toss-up games.  They didn’t lose any games they should clearly won but didn’t win any they clearly shouldn’t have.  Michigan was the 20th most unlucky team in the nation last year.

Michigan 2008

Very similar to 2009 in terms of luckiness of the results.  Michigan finished the year a game and a half unlucky.  This team was still not a good team by any stretch, but thanks largely to fumbled punts and 100 yard interception returns, the record indicated a season even worse than it should have been.

The biggest chunk of the unluckiness came against Toledo, where an 81% win probability turned into one ugly loss.  Beyond Toledo, Michigan went 2-3 in toss-up (40-60% win odds) games (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan St, NW) and 0-2 in longer shot games against ND and Purdue.

Before two data points become an indictment on coaching, the scatter plot of 2008 vs 2009 in terms of “luckiness” does not show any correlation between the two.  That doesn’t mean that Rich Rodriquez couldn’t be unlucky or that Pat Fitzgerald should be out buying lottery tickets, but it isn’t saying that with any certainty.  Two points may make a line, but not much of a trend. 

It is interesting, however, that the Big 10 as a whole exhibited a lot more consistency of luck in 2008-09 than the rest of the nation.

The Big Ten

The luckiest team in the nation resided in the Big 10 this year. 

Team	Luck Variance
Northwestern	2.4
Iowa	0.9
Minnesota	0.8
Wisconsin	0.4
Penn State	0.4
Ohio State	-0.7
Purdue	-0.9
Indiana	-1.0
Illinois	-1.2
Michigan	-1.3
Michigan State	-1.5
Notre Dame	-1.7

Northwestern did not perform like a team that would win 8 games against their schedule.  In fact, it was a stretch for them to be bowl eligible.  Iowa and Minnesota both came in with about an extra game with Ohio St, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois all managed a game or so of underachievement.  Michigan St and Notre Dame proved to be the unluckiest teams in the greater Big 10.

The Nation

Top 10 Lucky Teams in 2009

Team	Luck Variance
Northwestern	2.4
Bowling Green	2.3
Wyoming	2.3
Rutgers	2.1
California	2.0
UCF	2.0
Ohio	1.8
UNLV	1.8
Georgia Tech	1.7
Oklahoma State	1.5

Bottom 10 Unlucky Teams in 2009

Team	Luck Variance
Oklahoma	-3.0
Western Kentucky	-2.5
North Texas	-2.5
Louisiana Tech	-2.4
Ball State	-2.2
Arizona State	-2.1
Tulsa	-2.0
Maryland	-2.0
Colorado	-1.8
Colorado State	-1.8

Oklahoma’s season turned out to be unlucky in more ways than one.  Despite getting only a handful of snaps from returning Heisman Trophy winner Sam Bradford and losing one of the top tight ends in the country before the season, Oklahoma managed to have the breaks go against them in win column as well.  Throughout the season, the Sooners played like a 10 win team, but only managed 7.  This is what happens when you have four of your five losses by a total of 12 points and your average margin of victory in your six FBS wins is over 31 points.

Beyond

I think there is a lot of true “luck” that can come into play in these numbers.  I do think that with a more substantive history, this will also be a good measure of one of the strengths of coaching.  A team/coach that consistently shows overwins, or overlosses, throughout the course of several years would be a good testament to the classic “little things” that is often luck but possibly true for a select group.  As I get more years in my database, I plan on returning to this topic and seeing how various coaches stack up on this metric over time.

Duke Basketball is a hated, elitist school that earned that reputation by being ridiculously good for decades on end all while running a squeaky clean program.  They also have an intelligent, rabid fan base and bitter rivalry considered the best in their sport and arguably the best in all of college sports.  Sound familiar?  There is one other striking similarity that should provide some hope to Michigan Football fans.  Mike Krzyzewski.

Krzyzewski attended West Point where he played basketball under a legendary coach (Bob Knight) later returning to be the head coach himself.  After a few very solid years he was offered a dream job at Duke University in 1980, taking over for Bill Foster.  Foster was somewhat of a legend (He was no Vic Bubas) at Duke having just gone 73-24 his last 3 seasons including the ACC Coach of the Year in 1978 after reaching the NCAA Championship game. After an up and down season in 1979-80 that saw his star foward injured (Kenny Dennard), Foster retired from Duke and moved to Seattle.

Krzyzewski's first season did not go well.  After making the NCAA tournament the past 3 years, and winning at least 1 game each time, Duke stumbled to a ACC 5th place finish with a 17-13 record and a first round NIT loss.  Year number 2 was even worse finishing 6th in the ACC with a 10-17 overall record.  The natives started to become restless and talk of firing Krzyzewski started swirling.  Year 3 was definitely a do or die scenario for many alumni.  How did Krzyzewski respond?  11-17 with a 7th place ACC finish (they only had 8 teams in the ACC at the time).

University supporters were furious and calling for Krzyzewski's head.  There was no progress being made, 2 sub-.500 seasons, they were going backwards in the conference standings, what an embarrassment!  Tom Butters (Duke AD at the time) was under fire from every angle to get rid of Coach K and bring in someone that knew what they were doing.  Butters resisted though.  He would not be dissuaded from Krzyzewski's first 3 years of limited success, he knew it would turn around if people would just be patient.

The very next year (83-84), Duke found itself in the NCAA 2nd round.  Same thing in 1984-1985.  the next 7 out of 9 years found Duke in the Final Four winning 2 championships (1991 and 1992) and being the runner-up 3 other times (1986, 1990, 1994). 

Mike Krzyzewski fought through poor performance and alumni scorn for 3 sub-par seasons before becoming one of the most successful programs in all of college sports.  I can't help but see Michigan Football taking the same arc and because of that, I say "Go Duke". 
  

I'll post the rankings weekly in the diaries, and frontpage it occasionally (i.e. when Michigan gets commitments). The team rankings are very rough estimates until the services have released more full individual grades.

Action since last rankings:

3-21-10 Indiana gains commitment from Kirk Harris.
4-3-10 Ohio State gains commitment from Tommy Brown.

Big Ten Recruiting Class Rankings
Rank	School	# of Commits	Rivals 250	Scout Average	ESPN 150
1	Ohio State	8	1	1.75	2
2	Michigan State	3	1	2.33	1
3	Michigan	3	1	1.67	1
4	Minnesota	2	1	2.00	1
5	Indiana	2	0	1.00	0
6	Wisconsin	1	0	3.00	0
7	Notre Dame	1	0	3.00	0
t-8	Illinois	1	0	1.00	0
t-8	Northwestern	1	0	1.00	0
10	Iowa	0	0	0	0
11	Penn State	0	0	0	0
12	Purdue	0	0	0	0

I'll only make charts for the teams that currently have commits. Rivals 250 means that a given prospect is on the Rivals 250 to Watch, and ESPN 150 means that a prospect is on the Watch List for the ESPNU 150. Scout ratings are on the 5-star scale.

#1 Ohio State - 7 Commits
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Steve Miller	DE	250	4	150*
Kenny Hayes	DE	250	4	46
Brian Bobek	OL	NR	1	150*
Antonio Underwood	OL	NR	1	46
Chris Carter	OL	NR	1	45
DerJuan Gambrell	CB	NR	1	45
Chase Farris	DE	NR	1	45
Tommy Brown	OL	NR	1	45

The Buckeyes grab in-state offensive lineman Tommy Brown, already their 4th OL in the class.

#2 Michigan State - 3 Commits
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Lawrence Thomas	LB	250	5	150*
Onaje Miller	RB/Ath	NR	1	45
Taiwan Jones	Ath/LB	NR	1	45

Spartans get the advantage over Michigan because of Thomas's ratings.

#3 Michigan - 3 Commits
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Delonte Hollowell	CB	250	3	150*
Greg Brown	CB	NR	1	46
Shawn Conway	WR	NR	1	45

Wolverines haven't had any new commits since Conway.

#4 Minnesota - 2 Commits
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Tommy Olson	OL	250	3	150*
James Farrow	CB	NR	1	46

Still just two for the Gophers, who dropped Calvin Phillips last week.

#5 Indiana - 2 Commits
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Mike Replogle	LB	NR	1	45
Kirk Harris	OL	NR	1	45

Indiana has had a commitment from Kirk Harris for a while, but the recruiting sites just picked up on it. Don't expect the Hoosiers to be in the top half of the conference for long.

#6 Wisconsin - 1 Commit
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Jake Keefer	LB	NR	3	46

Instate linebacker Jake Keefer picks the Badgers.

#7 Notre Dame - 1 Commit
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Brad Carrico	OL	NR	3	45

Carrico is the only commit for the Irish. They might have another coming very soon.

#8 Illinois - 1 Commit
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Hunter Wells	OL	NR	1	45

Zook has got to be recruiting for his life this year.

#8 Northwestern - 1 Commit
Name	Position	Rivals	Scout	ESPN
Jarrell Williams	CB	NR	1	45

Northwestern holds steady with one prospect.

LaMarre back on the field, picture by Aaron Ferguson, IU Athletics

Michigan went into Bloomington this weekend for a three game set to open conference play. The first two games were high intensity with plenty of drama, the last game was a huge let down. Despite that let down, Michigan currently sits tied for first place with 4 other Big Ten teams as we emerge 2-1 on the weekend.  That's more important than how badly the team face planted on Sunday.

So for full recap, take the jump. My thoughts on the series come after the individual game recaps.

#8 Michigan 4 beats #4 Northwestern 4-3

The Michigan women’s tennis team finally ended an incredibly long losing streak on Saturday.  After 13 years (and probably more than 20 straight losses) they beat Northwestern.  Now, that might not sound very impressive but the Northwestern women’s tennis team has been one of the best teams in the nation for several years and has absolutely dominated the Big Ten.

Northwestern has won the Big Ten tournament 11 years in a row, been the regular season champion 9 of those 11 years including the last 6 and won the Indoor National Championship the last 2 years.  Perhaps the most impressive statistic of all is that Northwestern had won 81 straight Big Ten duals, dating all the way back to April 2004.  This is all a way of saying that it was a huge win for Michigan.

Just like Butler is not a true Cinderella story, this is far from a David vs. Goliath situation.  In 1997, the last year the Wolverines beat the Wildcats, UM won the Big Ten.  Right after that, they hit a bit of a rough patch until about the mid 2000s and were one of the worst teams in the conference.  They steadily improved and the past 4 or 5 years have easily been the number 2 team in the conference.  In fact, the past 5 championship games in the Big Ten Tournament have been Michigan losing to Northwestern.

Having witnessed something this historic I decided to write up a recap.  I know a lot more about Northwestern's tennis program than Michigan's so if anyone has input please share.

Doubles
NCAA tennis matches consist of 1 doubles point decided by the best of 3 doubles matches (one “pro-set” to 8) and 6 singles matches (best of 3 normal sets) worth 1 point each.

Michigan started off strong by winning the #3 doubles 8-4 in a quick set.  The other two doubles matches were much closer.  The #1 match was still on serve 5-4 when the 3s finished.  From that point, Michigan managed to win a lot of close games with multiple deuces and finished 8-5 in order to clinch the point.  For good measure the #2 women won in a tiebreak 9-8 (7-5) to get the doubles sweep.

As an indicator of how close the #1 and #2 matches were, the doubles took about an hour and a half instead of the usual 50 to 60 minutes.

Singles
Winning the doubles point put the pressure on Northwestern because they had to win 4 out of the 6 singles matches to beat Michigan.  UM only had to manage a split.

At #1 singles Michigan’s Denise Muresan, ranked #25 in the nation, faced Maria Mosolova, the #13 player in the nation.  Mosolova has an unfortunate tendency of imploding if she gets behind in a match and it happened again here.  After losing the first set 3-6, Mosolova couldn’t manage to win another game and Michigan won 6-3, 6-0.

The #3 singles finished second with Northwestern dominating from start to finish. After that was the #6 singles.  Northwestern’s Stacey Lee was losing 2-5 in the first set when she went on a 12 game winning streak to win her match at 7-5 6-0.  This tied the overall score up at 2-2.

At this point the #4 singles still hadn’t finished the first set (read on for more) while Michigan’s #5 had won the first set in a tiebreak.  In the #2 singles match Michigan won the first set handily 6-3 but Northwestern came back and won the second set just as dominantly.  As this match was heading into the third set, the #5 singles finished with Michigan winning to make the score 3-2.  If Michigan won either of the 2 remaining matches they would take down the juggernaut.

Back to #4 singles a matchup of both team’s freshmen stars, it was almost an opposite of the #6 match on the court right next to it.  Northwestern’s Kate Turvy was winning 5-2 in the first set and it seemed like Michigan’s Mimi Nguyen had no hope.  In the next 5 incredibly close games, Nguyen won them all after going to multiple deuces each.  She did not go on a 12 game streak but she did win the second set 6-3 knowing the whole time that she could clinch the victory with her play.  If she has a good match tomorrow (against Wisconsin) look for her to be the Big Ten player of the week.  Otherwise it will probably be Muresan from the #1 singles.

The #2 singles had become dead rubber, but Northwestern finished it out 3-6 6-3 6-3.  Northwestern’s #2 player has what is probably one of the best serves in the NCAA so it is no shame that Michigan couldn’t close out that match.  One side note about this match is that Michigan’s player has a very odd service motion and seemed to foot fault on every serve.


What it all means

It was a day of great tennis which is what you hope for when the #8 team faces the #4 team in the nation.  It lasted over 4 hours and had suspense and excitement throughout.  By winning today, Michigan has probably claimed the Regular Season title.  They will almost certainly see Northwestern in the finals of the Big Ten Tournament.  Anyone in the Iowa City area on May 2 should try to make it and watch the rematch.

For possibly more readable and accurate recaps you can visit
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/040310aaa.html or
http://nusports.cstv.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/040310aab.html

UFR Ohio State offense

Now for the offense.  I hate to say "If they hadn't fumbled in the endzone for a TD on the first drive, and if Minor had played, they could have won," but I'm going to anyway.  There were some throws were Tate just didn't look right, underthrowing receivers.  And, I think he was feeling even more pressure than usual, causing some freshman mistakes (see previously mentioned fumble in the endzone).  So without further ado, let's get to it.

Drive Chart:

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M7	1	10	I-form	2	1	2	4-3	Run	Fake end-around dive	Shaw	-2
Shaw hit at the handoff, no chance.  Ortmann?
M5	2	12	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	4-3	Run	Inside handoff	Shaw	5
Shaw bounced out for a couple.
M10	3	7	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	Yakkity-sax	Forcier	-11
Tate scrambles, fumbles, OSU recovers for TD.
Drive result:  TD OSU 10:44 1st Q 0-7

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M38	1	10	Offset 2-back shotgun	2	1	2	3-4	Run	handoff right	Shaw	1
Good return by Stonum.  Shaw cuts back, not much.
M39	2	9	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	Quick stop	Webb	6
Quick slot to Webb. CA 1
M44	3	3	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3?	Pass
ABC stays on Webb until the play starts.  Tate scrambles, misses Matthews on the run. IN
Drive result:  short punt by Zoltan.  9:35 1st Q 0-7

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M40	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4+	Pass	Out	Hemingway	5
Defense overloading 2 LBs left.  Not really an out, just a stop route. CA, 1 Protection +1
M45	2	5	Empty backfield, 2 TE	0	2	2	4-3	Run	off-tackle	Robinson	7
Denard in.  Good hole, good gain. Did you know he doesn't tie his shoes?
OSU48	1	10	Shotgun 4 wide	0	1	4	3-4?	Run	everywhere	Robinson	5
Denard scrambles for 5.
OSU43	2	5	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	1	3	4-3	Run	dive	Robinson	0
Straight ahead for 1
OSU43	3	5	Shotgun 5 wide	0	0	5	3-3-5?	Pass	swing	Roundtree	21
Nice YAC by Roundtree.  Good block by Webb. CA, 1
OSU22	1	10	Offset 2-back shotgun	2	1	2	4-3	Run	left	Shaw	0
Fumbled OOB
OSU22	2	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Pass	roll-out stop	Roundtree	10
Good throw to Roundtree for the 1st.  CA, 1
OSU11	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	Nickel	Run	off-tackle	Smith	5
I'm not seeing any of these plays as reads, but I could be wrong.  Trying to keep Tate healthy?
OSU6	2	5	Shotgun 4 wide	0	1	4	Nickel	Pass	roll-out out	Smith	0
OSU showing blitz. Decent pass, knocked down BA, 1
OSU6	3	5	Shotgun 4 wide	0	1	4	Nickel	Pass	bubble screen	Matthews	0
Thrown to wrong shoulder, nice catch by Matthews.  MA, 2
Drive result:  Olesnavage misssed FG, good drive nonetheless. 4:27 1st Q. 0-7

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M18	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Run	handoff/option?	Smith	6
Tate looks to the receivers before handing off to Smith.
M24	2	4	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Pass	RB screen?	Forcier	0
Same formation, Tate lines up one yard shorter. LB blitz, line releases like it's a screen.  Thrown near Smith. TA, protection -1
M24	3	4	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Pass	Rollout	Matthews	23
Tate rolls almost to the sideline, catched the DBs facing the wrong way.  Wobbly throw.  Great block by Smith? CA, 1
M47	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Run	Zone sweep?	Shaw	3
Calling a zone sweep, since Tate look at the DE, but hands of to Shaw around the end.
M50	2	7	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	flare	Smith	0
Knocked down at the line.  BA, 0
M50	3	7	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	3	3-4	Pass	out	Stonum	10
All day in the pocket, protection +1, hits Stonum in the numbers.  DO, 1
OSU40	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	out	Roundtree	0
Tate rolls out, a little late with the throw, tipped.  BA, 0  protection +1
OSU40	2	10	Shotgun 5 wide	0	0	5	4-3	Pass	flare	Roundtree	0
Pass a little behind Roundtree, Webb misses a block (-1).  Good call, missed throw.  MA, 1  End of 1st Q
OSU40	3	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	go	Matthews	0
Another weird D by OSU. They only have 2 down linemen, but 4 on the line.  Another one that Tate's shoulder probably bothered.  Underthrown, BA, 0
Drive result:  punt, downed inside the 5.

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M22	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	stop	Matthews	11
Tate drops back (protection +1), wobbly throw CA, good catch by Matthews 0/1
M33	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	3-4	Run	ZR	Smith	4
Smith cuts back inside, decent gain.  Good blocking
M37	2	6	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	0	4	3-4				-5
False start
M32	2	11	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	0	4	3-4	Pass	out	Roundtree	12
Tate rolls out, hits Roundtree falling out of bounds.  Nice.  DO, 1
M44	1	10	Shotgun 2-back offsetf	2	1	2	3-4	Run	sweep	Shaw	-4
RPS -1, missed LB blitz, Grady -1?
M40	2	14	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	In	Roundtree	22
Good protection, Tate throws high, MA/CA, Roundtree goes and gets it 0/1
OSU39	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	3-4	Pass	PA Go	Matthews	13
RPS +1 Good call.  Fake handoff quick go to Matthews.
OSU26	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-2-5?	Run	Keep	Forcier	3
Fake go route, fake handoff keep.
OSU23	2	7	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	3-4	Pass	Roll out	Roundtree	0
ABC showing replay of Schilling's shoe.  Tate overthrows MA, 0, PR
OSU23	3	7	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	flat	Brown	-2
Short swing to Brown in the flat, tackled immediately
Drive result:  Olesnavage FG.  7:59 2nd Q, 3-7

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M19	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	Go	Robinson	INT
Denard lined up at WR, good protection (+1), Tate throws deep to Denard, underthrown, picked.  IN
Drive result:  picked off.  Would a different receiver have made the catch, or knocked it down?  Would a healthy Tate hit Denard in stride?  5:12 2nd Q 3-14

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M19	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	Go	Robinson	INT
Denard lined up at WR, good protection (+1), Tate throws deep to Denard, underthrown, picked.  IN
Drive result:  picked off.  Would a different receiver have made the catch, or knocked it down?  Would a healthy Tate hit Denard in stride?  5:12 2nd Q 3-14
Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M23	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	Nickel	Run	Zone  handoff	Smith	10
Zone read-look sweep to Smith.  Good blocking, good gain.
M33	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	4-3	Run	Zone read	Forcier	1
Zone read keep, Tate gets a couple.  ZR -1
M34	2	9	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	Scramble	Grady	5
Grady misses his block (-1), Tate scrambles and shovels it to him (MA, PR, 1), Grady get a couple.
M39	3	4	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	scramble	Forcier	0
Pocket collapses quickly (protection -1), Tate gets back the line.
Drive result:  punt, 3 and out.  2:38 2nd Q 3-14

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M46	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	Nickel	Pass	dump	Grady	2
Funny offset TE, Tate under pressure protection -1, PR, MA 1, pitches to Grady.
M48	2	8	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	Nickel	Pass	dump	Webb	0
Tate scrambles, throws through Webb's hands.  CA, 0
M48	3	8	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	scramble	Forcier	0
Tate scrambles, throws it away.  Pocket collapsed pretty quick, protection -1
Drive result:  punt, OSU kneels down, EOH.  3-14

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M16	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	4-3	Run	Zone read	Smith	7
Michigan ball to start the 2nd half.  Zone read to Smith.
M23	2	3	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	3-4	Pass	flat	Smith	-3
Swing pass to Smith, hit and brought down.
M20	3	6	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	wheel	Roundtree	0
Tate staring down Roundtree, MA, 0
Drive result:  3 and out, punt, 13:51 3rd Q 3-14

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
OSU49	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	4-2-5	Run	Zone read	Smith	0
McAvoy, Omameh -1 get blown back, clogs up the play.  Smith has nowhere to go.
OSU49	2	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-3	Pass	scramble	Forcier	11
Protection +1, Tate takes off.
OSU38	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	3-3-5	Run	Zone read	Smith	3
Zone read handoff again, Smith gets 3.
OSU35	2	7	Empty backfield	0	2	3	3-4	Run	ISQD	Robinson	0
Hmm, Denard in, empty backfield, what do you think is going to happen?  Roundtree may have missed a block.
OSU35	3	7	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	slant	Matthews	12
Protection +1, Tate guns one to Matthews in stride.  DO, 1
OSU23	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	4-2-5	Pass	screen	Roundtree	5
Zone read fake screen to Roundtree.  CA, 1
OSU18	2	5	Shotgun 2-back	2	1	2	3-4	Pass	PA in	Matthews	0
Tate zings another one, wrong side for Matthews, MA, 0
OSU18	3	5	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	Scramble	Smith	18
Aaah, this play.  Webb loses his block, Tate has to scramble, throws a duck to Smith who jukes the D and scored.  MA, 1  100 MGoPoints for everyone.
Drive result:  TD, points off TO, 10:05 3rd Q, 10-14  +1 to Moundros for pursuit on the KO

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M20	1	10	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	0	4	3-4	Run	Zone read	Smith	-3
Omameh get knocked back into the play -1.  These look like sweeps, rather than the usual off-tackle.  Tackle for loss.
M17	2	13	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	0	4	4-2-5	Pass	bubble screen	Roundtree	5
Good catch by Roundtree (CA, 1).
M22	3	8	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	4-3	Pass	scramble	Forcier
Tate has time, protection +1, Tate scrambles, tackled short of 1st.
Drive resu;t:  punt, 3 and out.  Zoltan punts 53 yards.  3:08 3rd Q, 10-21

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M17	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Pass	PA rollout screen	Roundtree	43
Fake handoff to Smith, Forcier sprints out, draws D and dumps to Roundtree for a lot.  CA, 1
OSU40	1	10	Shotgun 1-back trips	1	1	3	3-4	Run	draw	Robinson	5
Denard up the middle for 5
OSU35	2	5	Empty backfield	0	1	4	3-4	Run	draw	Robinson	0
Denard tackled at the line "BY HIS SHOELACES"
OSU35	3	5	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	4-2-5	Pass	Go	Matthews	0
Tate back in, protection +1, overthrows Matthews, MA/BR, 0, INT
Drive result:  3 and out.  From the 35, Michigan would have gone for it on 4th, so it may be better than a punt. 12:11 4th Q 10-21

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M50	1	10	Shotgun 2-back offset	2	1	2	3-4	Pass	flat	Smith	13
Quick swing to Smith in the flat, good gain.
OSU37	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	3-4	Pass	bubble	Roundtree	10
Tate and Denard in, fake handoff bubble screen.  CA, 1 Hit quickly
OSU37	2	10	Empty backfield	0	1	4	3-4	Pass	out	Matthews	9
ISQP!  Denard passes, complete to Matthews. CA, 1
OSU28	3	1	Empty backfield	0	1	4	Nickel	Run	draw	Robinson	18
Draw to Denard, nice hole, nice gain.  Great blocking by o-line +1
OSU10	1	10	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	4-3	Run	Zone read	Shaw	5
Zone read look handoff to Shaw
OSU6	2	5	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	3-4	Pass	Scramble	Forcier	INT
Great play by Tate, right up to the point it got picked.  Scrambles, freezes a LB, throws back but picked in the endzone.  MA,0 protection +1  BR?  Odoms was possibly a better option
Drive result:  INT in endzone.8:12 4th Q, 10-21.  Thank you, drive home safely.

Ln	Dn	Ds	O Form	RB	TE	WR	D Form	Type	Play	Player	Yards
M46	1	10	Shotgun 1-back	1	1	3	3-4	Run	sweep	Robinson	-5
Omameh -1 loses his block, Denard TFL
M41	2	15	Empty backfield	0	1	4	3-4	penalty
False start.
M36	2	20	Shotgun 1-back	1	0	4	4-3	Run	draw	Robinson	7
Denard checks off one receiver and takes off.  Protection -1
M43	3	13	Shotgun 2-back	2	0	3	3-4	Pass	out	Forcier	INT
Tate scrambles, but doesn't get enough height on the pass to Hemingway,IN INT.  0.  This is going to be a depressing chart.

Notes:

No depressing chart, show us the TD!  Ok.


Oh no!  Our smurf-back is going to get eaten!


Ha!  No you don't!  I'm going to score!

Now that that's out of the way, charts.  Note on charts:  these are for reference only, since I don't know Brian's system, and am just handing out +/- to players that I notice.  I think I screwed up the receiver numbers, so I'm not charting those.  Only a couple drops, and one or two hard catches.  Anyway, chart.

TATE FORCIER
Opponent	DO	CA	MA	IN	BR	TA	BA	PR
OSU
	2	13	10	3	1	1	4	2

Denard was 1/1, 1 CA, FWIW.  Most of the batted balls came early, and in general the protection was good.  Tate didn't have many throws while being hit, I think OSU was just dropping a lot of coverage and he didn't have anywhere to go.

Heros

Matthews/Roundtree/Smith get co-hero.  Caught pretty much everything that came their way, did what they could in a tough situation.

Goats

Angry Michigan Running Back-Hating God.  If Minor had been healthy, this would have been a different game.

Summary

I really don't think this offense will look much like next year's.  I think one more year of practice, and another qualified QB separating us from DEATH, and we'll start to see some spread-like activity.  This game was an anomaly, anyway.  Michigan was behind early, and didn't have a healthy QB or RB.  I think the gloves came off a bit in the second half, once there weren't many options left.  I loved the fake handoff screen play, more of that please.  I'm not going to fault Tate for the INT in the endzone.  Sure Matthews may not have been the best choice, but it's a split-second decision and who knows what would have happened anyway.

OSU's defense had me confused most of the game (is that a 3-4, a 4-2-5, a Nickel?), and I think it played a part in confusing the offense as well.  At times they would only have 2 down linemen, or wait until the last second to set the third.  Plus the secondary was shifting all over, and it must have been hard to get your keys right.

If anyone wants specific screencaps, let me know and I'll grab them.  Sorry there's no video, but this was hard enough.