Diaries

(Alternate Title: Braving the Weather Edition)

Diarist's Note: A few minutes before kick and the action is final. Here were the odds I got going to the windown at the buzzer: UM +4, Over 53.5, Wisco +3, Over 52.5, NW +7, O 57

We're one month into the season, and just one week into Big 10 play, and already we've seen the league's offseason conventional wisdom and pecking order usurped. Iowa rudely crashed the Big Two of Ohio State and Penn State. Darkhorses Illinois and Michigan State struggled to a combined 0-5 against Bowl Subdivision teams and need fast reversals just to get back into bowl contention. Michigan might be a candidate. Wisconsin, thought to be on the decline, are 4-0, looking as dangerous as ever on offense.

This week's storylines include two intense rivalry games, league heavyweights laying heavy chalk, including two in road games and a lot of teams fighting to save their season or extend the early season good times.  As for my picks, we took a dip last week going 3-4. Iowa and the Michigan Over were Ab Fab. But, I should have to wear a bag over my head in shame for a day for hitching my wagon to Illinois.  The biggest mistake I made was not adding the MSU/Wisco Over to the card. I did so at the JCB, but right at the last minute before we left in the morning for Ann Arbor. Why I didnt do so here is beyond me. It loomed large as I would not have had to face the indignity of a losing record. Eh, those are the breaks. The column record this year is 13-7, so I really should stop the bellyaching routine. The positive MGoMojo has been good to my picks ever since I began penning diaries, so let's keep that going this weekend.

Northwestern +7 at Purdue, O/U 57, noon, BTN

Wisconsin +3 at Minnesota, O/U 52.5, noon, ESPN

Michigan +4 at Michigan State, O/U 53.5, noon, BTN

I am grouping these games all together, not just because they all kick at high noon, but because I have a theory on the Big 10 this year. We'll get a lot of proof in either direction with this trio of games. And, of course, we're putting our money where our mouth is. It would not be fun otherwise, right?

This will be the year of the crazy shootout here in Big 10 country. Part of it is I think some of the offenses are underrated and potent. I love the skill position players throughout the huddled masses of this league. Al Toon, Jon Clay, Brandon Green, Tate Forcier, BJ Cunningham and Darius Willis just to name several underclassmen who are emerging as the next great round of playmakers and game changers for the league. I'd argue 10 teams in this league are experiencing a significant upgrade at the QB position from a year ago.  Sorry Illinois. It's really been several years since I've looked out at the conference landscape and felt that so many teams pose a dangerous offensive threat. I dont expect this to be as shockingly explosive as say the Big 12 South last season, but I dont think it will be too far behind. Most can score 30 with no problem if they're on their game.

And these emerging offenses have the benefit of playing in a season where the defense across the conference might be at an all-time low. Ohio State, Iowa and Penn State can play D, for sure. In fact, they're the only ones I trust on that side of the ball and why, right now, I only consider those three to have any legit BCS Bowl hopes. The rest? Try a combination of too young, not talented enough, no depth and poor fundamentals. Most teams can circle at least two of those plaguing their defensive hopes. Just take a look at the six teams involved in these conference nooners. I think Minnesota might have the best defense of the bunch. If its not them, it might be Purdue. I can't justify putting any of the other four schools at the top of this list. Coming into the season, I thought the Boilers and Gophers D would be among the bottom 2-3 stop units in the league. But, the fact they may rate better than these other outfits is not as much a reflection on any improvement on their part as much as it is a major downgrade of the others.

What does any of this mean? I think it means a lot of points. A lot of teams scoring 30 or more points and still losing. Since it still looks like mass chaos in the league's bursting middle class in the pecking order behind the top team, this will play out with exciting, dramatic up tempo games. It wont be your father's Big 10. But, it might be more fun to watch. The chase for bowl positioning will rival the topsy-turvy world that was the ACC last season. Handicapping this league will prove dangerous for chalk lovers as with these shootouts, the underdogs will regularily make runs at the favorite with more than their share of outright "upsets." When these teams play each other, I see a lot of Overs hitting, and I see a lot of Dogs covering.

I like the sound of that. I enjoy games where I like both the Dog and the Over. Everyone has their own style and mine is rocking when I'm able to pinpoint games with this Dog/Over combo. In 2009, I think we're going to find a lot of these games in Big 10 play. We saw two of these combos cross the stage last week out of five league games. Because of their defenses, I would exclude games involving Ohio State, Penn State and Iowa from this hunt, so really in the first week of play two out of three games hit this combo, with the third at least seeing the Over hitting.

I said in the middle of September that any game involving Michigan, Michigan State and Wisconsin should be Over bets. During the podcast segment I did with Brian and Tim, I expanded that list a bit, but now really see no reason to include all the other eight teams in this league into this equation. They're all worth a look at the Over every week until these defenses prove they can stop the offenses. And, when they're playing each look extra close, we might have our lucky Dog/Over combo.  I think we have it in all three of these nooners. Therefore.....

Wisconsin +3 over Minny, Over 53........one of the greatest rivalries in the Big 10. It's also one of the highest scoring games of the season. In six of the last nine contests, both teams have scored at least 30 points. In eight of the last nine contests, at least 60 points have been scored. No reason to think that'll stop. The Badgers will have a hard time all day containing Erik Decker. And Minny QB Adam Weber has slowly, but surely brought in the other receivers into the downfield game. They're a running game a away from going from good offense to dangerous. The Badgers already are dangerous. I've said it a few times in various diaries and comment threads, but the Badgers might have the best collection of skill players in the conference. They have so many guys who can hurt you and a typical big Wisco offensive line blocking for them. If they're going to dedicate getting Jonathan Clay the ball the way they did last week against MSU, then the Badgers will make a run at league honors. Brett Bielema, if you keep Clay as your feature back, I will take back everything I have said about you. Well, most of it, anyway.

Northwestern +8 over Purdue, Over 56......I said on the podcast I like Purdue to win. I still do. But, there is no way, no how they are more than a TD better than anyone in this league. Northwestern has won three of the last five straight up in this series, so you can make a case they're the better program right now. I'll take this head start. As for the Over, Northwestern has not stopped anyone in three weeks, a cast that includes Minnesota, Syracuse and Eastern Michigan. Purdue has allowed more than 32 points per game. Ironically, their best outing was last week against Notre Dame. That was such a weird ND lineup, however, with injuries knocking out entirely or limiting severely almost all their glitzy weapons. That was a bit of a fluke. I hate the be repetitive, but I see both teams scoring 30 points here.

Michigan +3.5 over Michigan State, Over 54.......what, it's raining? No worries. Why would two defenses already a step slow, hesitant to the ball carrier and a twisted mess in pass coverage suddenly get better at that in rainy weather. The offense, after all, knows where its going and thats a strategic advantage. The game will have sloppy moments, but some of those will set up short field scores. These clubs have already played two games apiece where the loser has scored 30 or more. Why would that stop here. Both teams are better at the QB position this year. Both teams have receivers who have improved their games from a year ago. Michigan, in specific, also has an offensive line playing better and more explosiveness from the tailback spot than 2008. These teams scored 56 points last season and both offenses are better. Neither of the defenses are better. MSU cant get off the field, having forced just five three and outs or better than last three weeks and have been easy pickings on third down. We know Michigan's troubles. In the end, Michigan has the one defensive chip State does not and that is the presence of Brandon Graham who murdered the Spartans last year. He will come up with a huge play to kill MSU's final drive. Michigan 41-37.

As for the other Big 10 games of the day, I'm changing suits, and I will be an unabashed chalk eating mo*!@*!er.

Penn State -7 at Illinois. When you watch the Illini, recall that they were the top team on Phil Steele's Most Improved Team list. Yikes. This team is a mess. I dont see how they get better against a angry, bitter Penn State team that cant wait to take out some frustrations. They may sleep walk a bit, but eventually they pull away here. Illinois is the one team in this league that's seen an obvious regression of production at the QB spot. That's going to hurt them all year and drive them into the cellar of this league. Oh, and their defense blows donkey. No Sugarcoat. I'm not sure this game will be any tougher than previous 2009 tussles for Penn State against the likes of Temple and Syracuse. The Nittany Lions win this game by double digits.

Ohio State -17 at Indiana. Speaking of double digit wins. And then some. The Bucks roll. The crowd in Bloomington might be a 50/50 split, and the IU athletic department might have been better off relocating this game to Cincinnati or something and at least cash a paycheck. They wont get much of a home field push. Only twice since 1994 have the Hossiers stayed within 17 points of the Buckeyes, and the Bucks have won the last five matchups by an average of 30 points. Oh sure, the Cream and Crimson in me wants to see IU do to OSU what I saw them do in person to Michigan last week. But I'm keeping those hopes firmly in check.  In the last ten games with the Buckeyes, Indiana has not scored more than 17 points in any of them and seven times been held to 10 points or less. Ohio State is all business on road trips. Frankly, they play much better on the road as they dont have 100,000 insane freaks grumbling every time Tressel Ball calls a punt. Ohio State is 15-4 as road favorites since 2005 and they're 12-1 ATS on the road agasint teams that are .667 or better. Ironically, Indiana fits that bill. Road success has followed the Buckeyes to Bloomington where they covered seven or eight against IU. Buckeyes win this by three touchdowns. Indiana will look like a mere shadow of the team we saw up close last week.

Iowa -21 over Arkansas State. Only by the spirit of the agreement that I would play every Big 10 game once league season starts does this game make the list. I wont lie, this game is getting a small amount placed on it as far as real monetary values go. Actually, I'll say it now. I'm passing on this game. Iowa has been known to play down a bit to their foe, especially after a big game. And therein lies the rub. This is a classic sandwich game, a week after such a breakout victory over PSU and a week before another primetime showdown against hated Michigan. The Hawks have spent all week being feted for last Saturday with a lot of hype already being thrown on next week's home game under the lights on national TV. Oh. Yeah. That's right, Arky State comes into town first. It's good policy to avoid heavy chalk wedged in this sort of sammy. So, its hard to recommend Iowa. But, I cant go against them either. Not at home. Kinnick Stadium has been very, very. very good to me over the years. I hate not betting on the Hawks when they're at home. It's like a parent missing their kids Little League game.  But, I think I'm going to have to in this case. The power of the Sammy is too strong. While Iowa is 19-8 as double digit home chalk under Ferentz, their actually just 3-8 in that role the last three years. We wont be doing anything with this game. Pass.

(Diarist Note: I'll have a couple updates on the JCB during Saturday. First one about half way through College Gameday, although I dont think I'll have anything to say about the rest of the noon schedule beyond these Big 10 games.)

After putting together the data for the Point per Field Position post I put up earlier, I realized that I could Frankenstein the data into a projection for the game score. What follows is method and result. I'll skip the gory details because they're boring.

Performance Expectations
Nothing spectacular, going with equal parts offense and defense. So if Michigan’s Offense scores an average of 2 points per possession from a certain sector and State’s Defense gives up 3 points per possession, the expected value used would be 2.5 points per possession.  The result of this operation is Michigan scoring at an aggregated 2.7 points per possession and State at 2.2 ppp.

Expected Number of possessions
Michigan has been averaging 14 possessions per game where as State has been averaging 12 possessions per game.  Same idea as the method to generate performance expectations; using 13 possessions in a 4 quarter game.

Giving State a home field advantage of 3 points we end up with this: Michigan 35, Michigan State 31. This lines up pretty closely with Brian's and The Mathlete's projections so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

Hmmm
There is another way of assembling the numbers that has beating State by 10 (38 -28)based on performance during drives not starting via a special teams play such as fumbles, interceptions, missed field goal attempts, and turnover on downs. But, I dont know if doing what I did was fair so I'm just tossing it out there for fun. WEE!

We’ve heard a lot on this topic since MD has taken up residence in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />East Lansing and begun to “ratchet up” MSU’s in-state recruiting effort. MD seems to have landed a few recruits at MSU who may have not even considered the school in previous years.  This has led many Spartan fans to declare that MSU now “owns” the state of Michigan in terms of getting the best and most home-state athletes, and conversely Michigan has given up on recruiting Michigan and having in-state players on the roster.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Question: is such rhetoric consistent with the facts?  What does the record actually show?  I thought it would be interesting to go back over the last 50 years and analyze the makeup of the UM football roster. I decided to go back that far because it would give us a good idea of what things were like in the “pre-Bo” days of Bump Elliot.   Fortunately this task is facilitated by the excellent football roster database available on the UM Bentley Historical Library website.  Here you can find rosters for every Michigan team (and I mean every team, dating back to 1879), and where the players went to high school.  Unfortunately, this data includes all players, including walk-ons, and thus doesn’t reflect only recruited players.  However, I thought it still might be instructive to look at how the makeup of the team has changed over the last half-century, and see if there is any evidence of state of Michigan representation falling off in recent years.

Before we begin the analysis, we need to recognize that the size of football rosters has changed over the years, generally becoming smaller as scholarship limitations were imposed.  For instance, Bump Elliot’s 1960 squad had 144 players; Rich Rod’s 2008 squad has 96.  In order to account for this difference, I’ve focused on not the total number of in-state players on the roster, but also what fraction is from the state. 

Results (chart-based!).  I’ve broken down the results into three “eras,” the Bump Elliot Era (1960-68*), the Schembecler Era (1969-2007, including the regimes of Moeller and Carr), and the Rodriguez Era (2008-2009).

Elliot Era:

Year	Total	%Mich
1960	145	52
1961	140	55
1962	128	54
1963	137	54
1964	144	55
1965	138	53
1966	144	53
1968	144	51

 

Schembecler Era:

Year	Total	%Mich
1969	113	48
1970	130	49
1971	126	41
1972	128	45
1973	119	37
1974	118	25
1975	115	34
1976	118	45
1977	116	47
1978	111	48
1979	112	42
1980	113	35
1981	114	33
1982	112	36
1983	113	36
1984	114	35
1985	121	36
1986	117	39
1987	119	40
1988	122	30
1989	111	32
1990	117	33
1991	107	35
1992	103	35
1993	99	33
1994	99	37
1995	105	43
1996	105	43
1997	105	41
1998	108	37
1999	111	37
2000	107	33
2001	110	31
2002	111	38
2003	108	44
2004	110	43
2005	111	43
2006	118	42
2007	116	46

 

Rodriguez Era:

Year	Total	%Mich
2008	96	50
2009	122	47

 

Here we see some interesting things.  First there are two large drops in total roster count (column two in these tables): one in 1969, Bo’s first year, and a second in 2008, Rich’s first year.  Obviously this is the well-documented result of attrition with the new regimes.   Bo’s 1969 roster was 113, compared to Bump’s last roster of 144.  Similarly, Rich’s first roster was 96, compared to Carr’s last of 116.  We also see a more gradual decline in the early 1990’s.  This was in response to the imposition of the 85-scholarship limit in 1994.  Overall, it’s pretty clear that Bump’s typical roster was about 140, Bo’s about 120, Carr’s about 110.  Interestingly, in spite of the “small” number of players on Rich’s first team (96), the roster this year is up to 122, equivalent to the biggest roster (122 in 1998) of the entire Bo-Moeller-Carr time span.  Perhaps this reflects Rich’s emphasis on a robust walk-on program?

Now let’s look at column three, the situation regarding Michigan-bred players.  Once again, we have some very interesting results.   Bump had a very steady record of having about 55 % of his players from the state of Michigan.  Things clearly changed dramatically when Bo arrived.  By 1974, only about one-quarter of the roster were Michiganders.  Throughout the Bo-Moeller-Carr years on the average only about 1/3 of the players were from the state of Michigan (the time period of 1976-1978 was a bit anomalous, and I think this is evidence of what was one very strong group of state of Michigan recruits that entered in ’76).  Since about 2001, however, the fraction of state of Michigan players has been rising.  Interestingly, last year’s roster, for Rich’s first year, had the highest fraction of state of Michigan recruits since the pre-Bo years, and this year’s roster has 47% Michigan-bred players.  I think that pretty much blows a big hole in the entire “RR has turned his back on the state” argument.

Now how does this compare to Sparty?  Unfortunately, I could not find database information on historical MSU football rosters.  My suspicion is that they exist only in paper form, archived away in some barn alongside records of state milk production quotas and soy bean yields.  There is roster data for the years 2004 and 2006-2009 on the MSU athletic website (don’t go there!), but that’s the best we can do:

MSU:

Year	Total	%Mich
2004	105	47
2006	106	44
2007	105	43
2008	106	52
2009	115	52

The MSU roster for these years averages about 105  or so players, and the fraction of Michigan-bred players varies in the range 46-52%.

 So who represents the state?  I see almost no difference in the representation of state of Michigan players on the rosters of UM and MSU over the last 5 years.  In fact, state representation on the Michigan roster in the Rich Rod era (nascent as it is) is at historically high levels.  If anything, state of Michigan representation on UM’s roster reached its apogee in the early seventies, when Bo was hailed for developing a national program, not disdained for “turning his back on the state.” On the basis of these data, the argument of UM “turning its back on the state” in recent years must be refuted. 

Who owns the state?  Alas, from these data we can’t tell, because that question involves determining who has the highest quality players from the state of Michigan (e.g., based on recruiting rankings).  One piece of evidence: the somewhat wild variation in state representation on the Michigan roster(varying from 25% to 50%) suggests that when higher quality state players were available, Michigan took them.

I’m sure that there’s a lot more that can be discussed and determined from these data and I hope this encourages more discussion. Sorry for any formatting issues here.  I am a bit of an old dog learning new tricks.

*I excluded data for the 1967 roster.  It was inconsistent all other rosters in the Bump Elliot era, and I think that perhaps the Bentley database in incomplete for this year.  Plus leaving it out helps support my argument.

For a primer on the stats used here, go to the bottom of http://mgoblog.com/diaries/indiana-numbers

Rush Offense

A look at all of Michigan's performances this year, opponent adjusted.

Game - Rush+

Def	Total Off	Rush	Yards	TD
Western Michigan	2.42	50	242	1
Notre Dame	5.03	36	199	2
Eastern Michigan	12.75	37	399	6
Indiana	2.40	47	153	3

Michigan's run game, obviously, hasn't a bad game all year.  Their 5.6 overall average is the #5 ranked unit in the country.

As for State, they too have had generally positive performances from a top ranked (17) unit.

Game - Rush+

Off	Total Def	Rush	Yards	TD
Central Michigan	4.05	26	81	0
Notre Dame	-0.03	35	149	1
Wisconsin	4.21	49	197	1

Sparty's 2.7 average brings down Michigan's expected performance for the game to a still solid +3 advantage.

Player - RB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Rush	Yards	TD	Rec Yards	Rec TD
Carlos Brown	Michigan	4	4.89	9.50	80.25	0.75	37.00	0.33
Brandon Minor	Michigan	3	2.08	10.33	59.00	0.67

Pass Offense

Despite more moderate yardage output, Michigan's passing value has still been solid at +3.1 overall, good for 30th in the nation.

Game - Pass+

Def	Off Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Western Michigan	8.39	28	15	197	3	1
Notre Dame	0.63	35	25	231	2	1
Eastern Michigan	-2.95	19	9	49	0	2
Indiana	6.52	26	15	216	2	1

The real opportunity opens up against Sparty's pass defense.  Even when adjusting for opponents (like Notre Dame), the unit comes in at 101st in the country, -5.0. 

Game - Pass+

Off	Def Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Central Michigan	-6.19	50	36	337	3	1
Notre Dame	-1.49	36	26	288	3	1
Wisconsin	-7.29	31	19	243	4	0

Michigan year to date has passed less than the average MSU opponent, so if Tate and Denard?! put more balls in the air, this could be an 8 point advantage for Michigan.  Even at their current passing levels, it is a solid 7 point opportunity, the biggest unit advantage in the game.

Player - QB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Yards	TD	INT	Rush Yards	Rush TD	Att	Comp
Tate Forcier	Michigan	4	5.60	167.75	1.75	0.50	40.50	0.50	21.75	13.50
D Robinson	Michigan	3	2.19	19.00	0.00	0.67	51.67	1.00	3.67	1.33

Player - WR - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Value+	Rec	Yards	TD
Greg Mathews	Michigan	2	3.13	1.17	3.50	43.00	0.50
J Hemingway	Michigan	3	3.01	2.54	2.33	37.00	0.67
Kevin Koger	Michigan	3	2.76	2.70	2.67	35.33	0.67

Rush Defense

The fears for this unit have been well discussed and the numbers here bare a muted version of the same story.

Game - Rush+

Off	Total Def	Rush	Yards	TD
Western Michigan	2.97	21	45	0
Notre Dame	-1.81	29	159	1
Eastern Michigan	0.39	46	192	2
Indiana	-2.52	32	209	3

After a solid opening game, Michigan has regressed and fallen into the second half (67th) of the national ranks.

Without Mr. 50 carries a game, the State offensive focus has shifted and the running game is still above average (43rd) but nothing fearsome at this point.

Game - Rush+

Def	Total Off	Rush	Yards	TD
Central Michigan	-0.26	29	106	1
Notre Dame	1.27	25	105	2
Wisconsin	1.09	19	101	0

As MSU has done all season, this shouldn't a gain or liability for either team all season, just a way to slow down BG and Roh on the pass rush. 

Look for State to have a point or two advantage in the running game, depending on how much they are willing to shift focus to it vs throwing it.

Player - RB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Rush	Yards	TD	Rec Yards	Rec TD
Larry Caper	Michigan State	3	1.14	8.00	35.67	0.67
Caulton Ray	Michigan State	3	-0.21	7.33	24.67	0.33

Pass Defense

Despite the justified fear that comes from having but a single DB you feel safe with and a marginal pass rush, Michigan's pass defense has produced fairly well.  Ranking 29th nationally, the unit has been worth 3.6 points per game to date, without a single game significantly below average.

Game - Pass+

Off	Def Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Western Michigan	8.75	41	25	251	1	2
Notre Dame	2.41	42	25	336	3	0
Eastern Michigan	-0.21	27	16	100	0	1
Indiana	3.72	39	22	258	0	1

The fear returns when looking at what Michigan State has done through the air so far this season (17th).

Game - Pass+

Def	Off Total	Att	Comp	Yards	TD	INT
Central Michigan	8.07	27	17	210	2	0
Notre Dame	3.63	39	25	340	2	1
Wisconsin	4.60	48	26	384	4	3

State has put up very solid numbers in all three game, even if Wisconsin's numbers are padded by a couple late inconsequential drives.

The net of all of this is a 2 point advantage for MSU.

Player - QB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Yards	TD	INT	Rush Yards	Rush TD	Att	Comp
Kirk Cousins	Michigan State	3	3.91	222.33	1.33	0.67	2.50	0.00	29.00	17.67
Keith Nichol	Michigan State	3	2.40	84.67	1.00	0.67	18.67	0.00	7.67	3.67

Player - WR - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Value+	Rec	Yards	TD
Mark Dell	Michigan State	2	6.59	3.52	5.50	97.50	0.50
B Cunningham	Michigan State	3	6.42	3.37	6.00	79.67	1.00
Keshawn Martin	Michigan State	2	5.47	3.35	2.50	76.50	1.00
Blair White	Michigan State	3	5.07	3.49	4.67	62.67	0.67

Special Teams

The specialists should be a 2-3 point advantage for Michigan.  We are +2 for the year, good for 12th nationally while MSU is 47 at just below 0 points per game. 

Based on this years results, Michigan should have the advantage in every unit with the exception of punt return.

Predictions

Because no one can have enough predictions, I am adding predictions for all Big 10 games this week.

The numbers say Michigan has a 10 point advantage with the ball, and State a 3 point advantage when they are in possession.  Home field is worth, on average about 3 points that is likely offset by Michigan's advantage in special teams and field position.

Michigan 38 MSU 31

Elsewhere in the Big 10:
NW 20 @ Purdue 40
Wisconsin 24 @ Minnesota 25
Arkansas State 7 @ Iowa 43
Penn State 31 @ Illinois 9
Ohio State 27 @ Indiana 17

.
In Week 1 of this college football season, two men - either of whom could have ended up as Michigan's HC under slightly different circumstances - faced off against each other in a remote part of America that is notorious for its bad coffee
.
yes
.
the man most folks thought was a lock but never was (Miles) won that game over a less talented team coached by the man that had a more realistic shot of being the HC (Sarkisian)
.
THE KNOWLEDGE said way back that Sarkisian will be a good coach at Michigan; unfortunately, THE KNOWLEDGE's prediction that he will be the coach didn't come to pass due to some reasons (read Carroll). Sarkisian then proved THE KNOWLEDGE's point that he is a good coach by beating Carroll and USC. but, as a final twist, he lost last week to yet another man with Michigan ties in Harbaugh
.
yes
.
the world is a small place
.
yes
.
Onto the main point of this diary
.
Three weeks ago, on these very pages, THE KNOWLEDGE predicted that M will beat ND and promised that THE KNOWLEDGE will return before the MSU game
.
As promised, THE KNOWLEDGE is back
.
yes
.
THE KNOWLEDGE has basked in the glory of yet another closely accurate prediction of M's score against ND
.
yes
.
Now, THE KNOWLEDGE shall accurately predict the result of tomorrow's game
.
you may remember that THE KNOWLEDGE has a season prediction for M going 12-1 (with a Rose Bowl win over an overmatched USC). this means that there is a loss somewhere this season
.
yes
.
That loss will not be tomorrow
.
yes
.
Michigan will win a close game against MSU 38-34
.
yes
.
Doubters may STILL continue to doubt THE KNOWLEDGE, but by Satudary afternoon, when THE KNOWLEDGE's prediction comes right again,
.
THE KNOWLEDGE shall soar
.
and leave everyone in a trail of dust
.
yes
.

For obvious reasons, field position is critically important to the success of a football team. This is a timeless fact.  Teams starting with poor field position have a tougher time scoring because they must move the ball further to get into scoring position.  Football geeks wearing green eyeshades and helicopter caps such as myself talk about an obscure stat related to this; I’m not sure it even has a name. I’ll refer to it as points per field position, meaning the average number of points a team has scored (or allowed) from a given starting field position. I thought it’d be interesting to look at this week’s matchup through this prism. For this analysis I’ve split the field into 25 yard chunks for simplicity’s sake and also to boost statistical significance. I’ve excluded Montana St. from MSU’s dataset since they are an FCS opponent and therefore not worthy of analytical scrutiny. I keed…not really. Onward

Offensive Comparison

Advantage: Push with a nod to Michigan. The reason I say push is that the overall averages of both teams are within 0.1 points of each other. I don’t pretend that this analysis is able to reliably detect this level of separation. However, closer scrutiny of the data reveals an apparent advantage for Michigan. That is, in addition to being awesomer.

Starting in their own territory, both offenses perform about the same. The separation comes when the offenses start drives in enemy territory. There are only 2 drives available for MSU, which I take as evidence that their offensive special teams (the return teams) are not sweet, but there’s nothing to say that more data will necessarily improve their average rather than hurt it. So, for now, I’ll believe my flimsy 2 drive average of 3 pts per possession. For equal filed position, Michigan scores an average of 4 points per possession. Hence they get the nod for having demonstrated proficiency in enemy territory.  Also from what I’ve seen on the field I think Michigan does show more offensive prowess and schematic advantage than does MSU. Also I’m a homer. Plus we have the Force.  And I have a chart…go go gadget CHART!

Defensive Comparison

Advantage: Michigan. This is probably better characterized as Michigan having a lower disadvantage than Sparty because I think it is safe to say that both defenses are pretty damned bad. Think of it as having a lower handicap. I’m actually surprised at Michigan’s overall average of 1.8 points per possession…it felt like it’d be higher. Sparty on the other hand is basically allowing as many points as its scoring, 2.8 points per possession.  Again, see the chart.

Special Teams

Advantage: Michigan. Here I’ve split special teams play into coverage and return units with each establishing defensive and offensive field position respectively. The numbers here reconcile nicely.  Michigan’s coverage units and State’s return units have both ended up at about the same field position to date; at about the 26 yard line. On the flip side, Michigan’s  return units and State’s coverage units have also ended up at about the same field position; at about the 31 yard line.  These are just averages so, presumably, Michigan will have a few more drives starting in sector 2 and State will have a few more drives starting in sector 1.  No chart here, just a table.

Obviously Zoltan is a huge asset for establishing defensive field position and Darryl Stonum is doing a kick ass job at establishing good field position for the Offense. What’s kind of aggravating is that the woes of last year seem to have the coaching staff content with simply holding onto the ball, which, yeah duh. But damn, we should be able to improve our average field position on punts if Mathews or some satisfactory replacement would be allowed to attempt a return. If the staff insists on not attempting a return then, why not skip even putting a guy back there altogether and sending 11 every time for a block? I know catching the ball stops the roll but, I wonder how much of a difference it makes overall. I dunno, it’s just annoying that we forfeit better field position simply because we’re scared of dropping the ball.

Wrap Up

This work is based on past performance and doesn’t account for key injuries, personnel changes, and what not. Another issue is that of unequal opposition. Obviously playing weaker opposition (such as FCS caliber Montana St.) would inflate a team’s numbers so strength of schedule has something to do with the numbers. However, Sparty’s opponent record to date is 5-2 where as Michigan’s opponents are 6-3, and I've already thrown out MSU's game against Montana State so I think the relative strength of schedules are pretty even.

This analysis indicates that Michigan has performed better in all three phases than Michigan State has so far this year (as if the respective win-loss records didn't already say this). What’s not shown here is that both defenses have given up about 100 points so far this year but Michigan State has done it in about 30% fewer possessions; Yowza. Our offense has been more efficient at hitting pay dirt and our special teams have done a good job at setting up field position. These three things should at least neutralize Sparty’s home field advantage. All of this data includes possessions ending in turnovers so, barring another Notre Dame 2008 type scenario, that shouldn’t be a concern.

Next Steps

While analyzing the past is neat, synthesizing the future is what everybody is really interested in. I’ve got a little sumpin sumpin cooking on that but that’ll have to wait until later tonight because I’m tired of writing and you all are probably tired of reading.