that makes one of us
As the title indicates, this is yet another interesting way to make a 16 team Big Ten work. It has some similarities to Brian's backwards plan, but adds a few new elements and works to protect some old ones.
Protected rivalries have to stay. There is just too much tradition in college football and shifting to a 16 team league is such a big change to begin with, I just don’t see people being ok with ditching the rivalries. Schedule variability is pretty cool, but it has to be done in a controlled manner. The logistical challenges of bringing 100,000 people to a city on such little notice would be pretty overwhelming. I’m no expert in the area, but I have to imagine that the city of Ann Arbor has to plan for OT for a lot of people to make that happen. Something like that might work in basketball when you’re bringing in 15,000 people, but I think it’s a pretty tall hurdle for football.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
So, here’s how I’d do it.
Step one, split the sixteen teams into four permanent “pods” or “groups” or whatever you want to call them. The goal here is to protect as many rivalries as possible. Obviously you will play the other three teams in your pod every year, rotating home and away. Every year two pods are paired together to form a division. You play everyone in your division. This rotates on a three year, set basis (year one AB-CD, year two AC-BD, year three AD-BC). This gives you seven conference games per year that you can schedule ahead of time into eternity.
There seem to be two “most likely” 16 team scenarios. Both assume Pitt, Rutgers, Missouri, and ND are in. One gives another east coast team (UConn or Syracuse) while the other gives Nebraska. Here’s how I’d break down the pods in each scenario.
Pod A Pod B Pod C Pod D
Penn State Michigan Illinois Iowa
Notre Dame Michigan State Northwestern Minnesota
Rutgers Ohio State Nebraska Indiana
Pittsburgh Wisconsin Missouri Purdue
East Coast Scenario
Pod A Pod B Pod C Pod D
Penn State Michigan Illinois Iowa
Pittsburgh Michigan State Northwestern Minnesota
Rutgers Ohio State Missouri Indiana
UConn Notre Dame Wisconsin Purdue
The scheduled Big Ten season would run from the last weekend in September to the second weekend in November, straight through. The third weekend in November would be open. This would allow the teams to fit their three non-conference games into the first three weekends of September or into the third weekend of November, whatever they think is best.
Now you have to allow for some flexibility. At the end of the seven game schedule, the league would be split into four new pods. Championship pod, second, third, and fourth. Top two in each division into the championship, third and fourth into second and so forth. The bottom three pods just play a home game and an away game against the two teams from the other division. One game on Thanksgiving weekend and one on the first weekend of December. This ends in a 9 game Big Ten season with zero chance for rematch among 12 of the 16 teams. The championship flight is a simple “final four” type situation. The two division champs host the second place teams from the opposite division on Thanksgiving weekend and the winners play in the Big Ten Championship game at a predetermined neutral site on the first weekend in December. I guess the two losers would play each other on someone’s campus on the first weekend of December too. While that game would certainly be a downer in a lot of ways, it would almost certainly affect the bowl destinations of the two teams, so they’d have something to play for.
I think this really is the best of both worlds. Some bullet points…
- 10 of a team’s 12 games are prescheduled.
- Obviously seven games is unbalanced home and away. I recognize this flaw. The way to even this out would be that in each pod, two teams are “even” and two teams are “odd.” The even teams get four home games in even years, and the odds get them in odd years. If you don’t make the championship pod, you’re getting another home game there. If you make the championship pod and lose out on a home game, I think you’d be ok with that.
- I think this is the best way to mitigate the whole UM / OSU last game of the season thing. They will always play on the second Saturday in November and it will be the last game of the regular season. Assuming UM gets it together, there’s probably even a better likelihood that something will be at stake. They could be playing for a spot in the championship pod, playing to keep one of them out, or playing for seeding. Since the difference between winning the division and second place is huge (home or away in the final four would be significant), it would be a big deal even if they were locked into the first two spots in the division. The same obviously applies for any other season ending rivalry. If there was a rematch, it would be three weeks later with a game in between, so it would be “better” than just playing the next weekend.
- You could always just play the seven division games and then do a 1vs1, 2vs2 and so on weekend, but I think this is a lot more awesome. Imagine the hype of Thanksgiving weekend, Big Ten semis… Nebraska at Michigan followed by Ohio State at Notre Dame...
- The trio of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota caused me issues in making the pods. They seem to need to go together, but there’s no obvious fourth member and no “singles” really out there. In my mind, Wisconsin seemed to be the one who could stand on their own the best, so I moved them.
- In the east coast scenario, Michigan’s pod looks unbalanced (as in too tough), but those are teams that they schedule every year now, so it wouldn’t be any worse than they already have it.
- I like ND in the east coast pod. I think it would make them feel better about coming and would help to make sure the BTN gets into those markets.
- The basketball regular season is kind of tough. I don’t know what you do. I love what the Big East did with the double and single byes in the tournament though. That would be nice.
Here’s some potential standings and how it would play out as an example for the Nebraska Scenario.
Division AB Division CD
1. Michigan 7-0 Nebraska 7-0
2. Ohio State 6-1 Iowa 6-1
3. Penn State 5-2 Purdue 5-2
4. Notre Dame 4-3 Missouri 4-3
5. Wisconsin 3-4 Northwestern 3-4
6. Pittsburgh 2-5 Illinois 2-5
7. Rutgers 1-6 Minnesota 1-6
8. Michigan State 0-7 Indiana 0-7
Semi: Iowa at Michigan, Ohio State at Nebraska
Week 1: Missouri at Penn State, Purdue at Notre Dame
Week 2: Penn State at Purdue, Notre Dame at Missouri
Week 1: Wisconsin at Illinois, Pittsburgh at Northwestern
Week 2: Illinois at Pittsburgh, Northwestern at Wisconsin
Week 1: Minnesota at Michigan State, Indiana at Rutgers
Week 2: Michigan State at Indiana, Rutgers at Minnesota
As a bonus, an example of Michigan’s conference schedule in a six year block under the Nebraska scenario.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
@Wisconsin Wisconsin @Wisconsin
Penn State @ Illinois Iowa
@Notre Dame Northwestern @Minnesota
Michigan State @ Michigan State Michigan State
Rutgers @Nebraska Indiana
@ Pittsburgh Missouri @Purdue
@ Ohio State Ohio State @Ohio State
Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Wisconsin @Wisconsin Wisconsin
@Penn State Illinois @Iowa
Notre Dame @Northwestern Minnesota
@Michigan State Michigan State @Michigan State
@Rutgers Nebraska @Indiana
Pittsburgh @Missouri Purdue
Ohio State @Ohio State Ohio State
My first diary ever was a look at the hypothesis that option QBs get hurt with a higher frequency due to the extra hits the are exposed to. I followed that one up with an expanded data set to include 5 seasons instead of 1. This update adds 2009 to the set and gives the helihat a spin that I had not gone through the trouble of in the previous diaries.
For the forcier-like detail on what was done, please refer to those diaries and discussions. But here’s a high level summary:
- The scope was all FBS schools and all QBs with significant playing time. Significant playing time is defined as players who average more than 17 plays (passes + runs) per game they played in. This level is based on the median of the data (50-50 split on either side of the line).
- QBs were binned into 4 groups according to their run-to-pass ratio.
- Injuries and games lost (quarter game resolution) were tracked and statistic-ated.
Here’s the data. Sorry for the table not being copy&paste-able, Windows Live Writer was not cooperating with me.
Last season was a bad year for non-zero threat level QBs with levels 1-3 coming in above 30%. It’s important to note here that sample size is a factor in this. For example, each level 3 QB accounts for about 5% of that population so one injury sways the percentage by quite a bit. This is a big reason why there is so much variation in the injury rates for levels 1-3 from year to year. The aggregate totals are much more reliable because, at this point, each category has plenty of observations with which to make conclusions.
The graph above shows the overall range (black line), average (red circles), and the standard error of the average (red hashes) for each category. At first blush it looks like there’s a difference in the injury rates of level 1, 2, and 0/3 but the fact of the matter is that there is insufficient evidence to support this. I actually ran hypothesis tests this time and that was the outcome (failure to reject the null hypothesis that A=B=C=D). Note that this does not mean that no difference exists, simply that there is no reason to conclude that a difference does exist. The differences observed are statistically insignificant.
People who believe that option QBs get injured more often do so because that’s what they want to believe.
Michigan (24-12, 6-3)
Iowa (14-20, 3-6)
|Friday 2:30pm ET, Ray Fisher Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI|
|Alan Oaks (4-4, 3.60 ERA)||vs||Jarred Hippen (2-3, 3.86 ERA)|
|Notes: Michigan is 100-43 all time, Last year: 2-1 series win. Hippen |
is a LHP.
|Friday 30 minutes after Game One, |
Ray Fisher Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI
|Bobby Brosnahan(4-3, 4.26 ERA)||vs||Nick Brown (2-4, 7.27 ERA)|
|Saturday 1:05pm ET, Ray Fisher Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI|
|TBA||vs||Phil Schreiber (3-3, 5.29 ERA)|
|Notes: My guess is Burgoon if available, Sinnery otherwise. It may |
not matter due to weather.
The Hawkeyes come to Ann Arbor this weekend to close out the first half of Big Ten play. The Hawkeyes started the year with an inflated RPI by losing almost every game they had to some of the best teams in the nation, but since returning north, they've struggled offensively and fallen to #169 of 301 (Boyd's Pseudo RPI).
Full preview after the jump:
MGoBlue announced the release of the 2010 volleyball schedule today and while it's a bit disappointing compared to last season, this schedule may set up well for Michigan to make a run to return the the volleyball version of the Elite 8.
|8/27||Loyola (MD)||Toledo, OH|
Oregon State Invitational
|9/4||Florida Gulf Coast||Corvallis, OR|
|9/4||Oregon State||Corvallis, OR|
|9/10||Youngstown State||Cliff Keen Arena|
|9/11||Chicago State||Cliff Keen Arena|
|9/11||Miami (OH)||Cliff Keen Arena|
Arizona State Invitational
|9/18||@Arizona State||Phoenix, AZ|
Big Ten Season
|9/24||Iowa||Cliff Keen Arena|
|9/25||Minnesota||Cliff Keen Arena|
|10/1||@Ohio State||Columbus, OH|
|10/2||@Penn State||State College, PA|
|10/8||Wisconsin||Cliff Keen Arena|
|10/9||Illinois||Cliff Keen Arena|
|10/13||Michigan State||Cliff Keen Arena|
|10/15||Northwestern||Cliff Keen Arena|
|10/23||@Purdue||West Lafayette, IN|
|11/5||Penn State||Cliff Keen Arena|
|11/6||Ohio State||Cliff Keen Arena|
|11/13||@Iowa||Iowa City, IA|
|11/19||Purdue||Cliff Keen Arena|
|11/20||Indiana||Cliff Keen Arena|
|11/24||@Michigan State||East Lansing, MI|
Unfortunately, we weren't picked for the AVCA Invitational in Omaha, but we did pick up two quality tournaments in PAC-10 country. Michigan will face only one tournament team from 2009 in the non-conference, that being Binghamton. So compared to last season's schedule is quite a bit weaker.
The Oregon State trip is a return for last year's game, a 0-3 Michigan loss in Ann Arbor, and should be the marquee game of the non-conference. OSU does lose their best player in Rachel Rourke, but they do return a lot of players that should see them competing for a slot in the top of the PAC-10.
In conference season, Penn State and Ohio State remained paired on our schedule, with Michigan headed to State College and Columbus early in the season and getting the two at home early in the 2nd round of games. Michigan starts out the season with a home heavy schedule, which just means they have to end the season with a lot of tough road games.
Michigan should be poised for a very high winning percentage as it returns Lexi Zimmerman for her 4th year as well as junior defensive specialist/libero Sloan Donhoff, junior middle Karlee Bruck, leading kill returner, junior left side Alex Hunt (pictured right from MGoBlue), and junior middle Courtney Fletcher. Maybe this year will be the one where Penn State finally gets knocked off by Michigan.
Michigan took two games against a weak opponent that is still looking to wake the echoes and return to glory from their days when Paul Mainieri, current coach at LSU, was still in South Bend. In Notre Dame's first visit to Ann Arbor since 1977, Michigan won a closely contested game, and the next night, the Wolverines pounded out a huge win.
Abbreviated midweek recaps and thoughts after the jump.
So I just finished watching the Spring Game for a 5th time, and I will admit that watching it that many times has changed the opinion that I had after the first time that I watched the game. First of all, thanks to MgoVideo for posting the 720p torrent so that I could watch the game as often as possible!
So, I only concentrated on Tate's and Denard's drives. This was because I don't see Devin making huge strides this year to supplant both of these QB's. His plays reminded me of Denard's last year, except Devin can run the Zone Read a bit better than Denard at this point of his career (# of practices, that is, since Denard didn't enroll early). That may seem like something that shouldn't just be glossed over, but Devin's inability to read the defenses in the passing game, along with his penchant to revert to his shotput throw under durress causes me to be a bit dismissive. He IS the future, and the future looks bright, but why rush it?
So, after watching the two QB's, I have to say that I do not see Tate and the inevitable #2 nor do I see Denard as the inevitable #1. I'll share what I have, and see if maybe it gives some people a different perspective. I guess I should say that I don't personally care who starts for this team. I don't think a single person is ever bigger than the team.
So, I counted the number of pass plays called, run plays called, and put a check mark next to pass plays that I would consider those that forced the QB to "read the defense". So, WR Screens, HB Screens, etc. wouldn't get a check mark.
Tate: 35 plays, 19 pass plays, 16 run plays
Out of the 19 pass plays, Tate suffered 2 "sacks" due to the pressure from the #1 defense. So, unlike the official box score I actually have 17 passes that Tate threw (completing 10), not 16. Out of the 19 pass plays that have Tate as the QB, 5 required looking downfield and disecting the defense. 1 of these resulted in an Incomplete and 1 resulted in a "Sack". So, 14 pass plays were screens or rollouts to one side of the field where Tate looked for a WR or TE on the play side sideline.
Denard: 30 plays, 16 pass plays, 14 run plays
Here I also have Denard going 9 for 12. Even though there were 16 pass plays, 4 of those had Denard tucking the ball and running for positive yards. Out of the 16 pass plays, though, only 2 required a reading of the defense, and both went to Roundtree. I did not include the 97-yard pass or the pass to T-Rob because both pass plays were a 4 Verticals route with the inside receiver slanting towards the opposite hash (thanks Mark Campbell!). The 2 I gave him included the PA Rollout left to Roundtree (he wasn't primary receiver, FB was, and Roy looked like he played a hitch or dig route) and the 2nd TD pass to Roundtree (was an all curls pattern, but Denard had to direct traffic and wait for a hole in the defense to thread it in there).
My conclusion was that we can win with either of these QBs and that we need to stop using the old-school mentality that you HAVE to have a #1 guy. The playcalling will be totally different based on who is in, but even if the same plays are called, they will have totally different packages depending on who is QB. With Tate, the Zone Read and Belly plays could be successful if they keep a TE in as a pulling H-Back type. That way the line could be used for the RB and the TE could pull in a trap-style block in case Tate wants to keep it (since he is Dilithium-deficient). With Denard, I think the passing game becomes more simplified with more 4- or 5-WR sets so that he has the gaps to take off or be powerful in the Zone Read scheme.
I just think that if you only saw the game in attendance or once or twice, take another look. I was much more excited for both QBs after the last time I watched.
As a sidenote, I bombarded everyone with a lot on the QBs, but I did have other observations:
1. Will Campbell was destroying Centers and Guards all day, but the Michael Cox TD was due in large part because Will pushed himself right out of the play. If he kept his head up he would've eaten....no wait, that would be inappropriate...
2. Love the nuances of the new defense, and can't wait to see who ends up at Spur, since Kovacs seems to have that Bandit positon locked up.
3. I think Brian was the one that pointed out that the weakness of having guys like Mike Williams and Kovacs as the SS's was that the 4 Verticals route would expose their lack of speed, yet RichRod ran that play several times. Maybe film or GERG?