Diaries

Steve Sharik's response to the I Am So Confused post was after it had moved off the front page, so I am reposting it:

These are the characteristics of a successful defensive system:

1. Lots of talent of varying experience levels at ALL positions.
2. Coaches at every position who can coach technique.
3. A coordinator who knows scheme.
4. A coordinator who can communicate what he wants done by his position coaches.
5. All of the above in place w/o change for at least a few years.

Let's examine the two teams in regards to these areas.

Iowa

1. Not really high talent, but does have players used to the system from seniors to freshmen. Seniors teach the younger players what the coaches expect and also hearing the same thing but in different words deepens understanding.
2. In spades.
3. Definitely.
4. That staff has been together for so long, this is absolutely true.
5. The real secret behind Iowa's defensive success.

Michigan

1. No. Most of the talent is concentrated on the DL. Warren is obviously awesome, but Mouton and Brown are highly rated SAFETIES, and are playing LB. Mike Williams and Cissoko are young players, but Williams doesn't have anyone to mentor him. Cissoko...I feel for him.
2. Not sure yet. If I was on staff myself (ha!) I could tell, but then I wouldn't be able to tell you. Man, that was helpful, eh?
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No, no, no. This is the real problem. This system is new to everyone EXCEPT Greg Robinson. He gets to decide not only the scheme, but also how he wants individual techniques taught. Maybe some of them are different than before. This means not only do the players have to learn new techniques, but the coaches have to teach differently than they're used to, perhaps. Continuity and consistency...and that happens when the coaches are so used to it they can coach it in their sleep and, furthermore, the older players can mentor the younger ones.

So, Iowa has 4.5/5 and we have 2/4 and IDK on the fifth (#2). It should come as absolutely no surprise that Iowa is better on defense.

If this defensive staff is still together in 3 years and Iowa is still more successful on defense (assuming they'll have the same staff) then I think it's safe to say that some of the assistants aren't cutting the mustard, b/c I'm pretty confident we'll have better players and will have rounded out the roster; i.e., we'll have quality players of varying experience at all positions.

As for this year, well, maybe we'll have an average defense by the end of the year.

I predict us to lose to MSU, get thumped at Iowa (they're quite adept at defending the spread), lose a close one to Penn State, and then maddeningly lose to Illinois (a la the basketball team at Iowa last season) but get the rest, including at Wisconsin and then, finally, over the Buckeyes. We end the season on a high note with a win over a name brand SEC team in the Outback bowl and finish 9-4.

Thanks, Steve. Even though there are some painful losses in your scenario, I will sign up for it right now. I have a few questions for you:

• You seem comfortable with GERG's knowledge and scheme, which puts me at ease. I assume you were less comfortable with what Shafer was doing?
• Why don't we give more help to our weak corner? How come that corner always seems to be out there by himself against Floyd or Doss?
• How do you explain that our highly-rated LB recruits who we so desperately need - Demens and Fitz - are still not very good in year two? Did we just strike out on both? Is it too early to tell?
• Why has the tackling fallen off so sharply from week 1? Competition? Habits? I was blown away by the crispness of our tackling early and not so much lately.

Thanks, Steve!

History will be on Michigan's side this weekend when they travel up to East Lansing to try and continue their undefeated season. Since 1900, only one Michigan coach has lost to "Little Brother", achieving a record of 7-1-1. Here is proof of Michigan's dominance in yet another category over MSU.

Fielding Yost: 11-0 overall, 119-0 W against MSU

Tad Wieman: 3-4-1 overall, 3-0 W against MSU

Harry Kipke: 8-0-1 overall, 0-0 Tie against MSU

Herbert Crisler: 6-2 overall, 26-13 W against MSU

Bennie Oosterbaan: 6-2-1 overall, 7-3 W against MSU

Bump Elliot: 5-4 overall, 24-17 L against MSU

Bo Schembechler: 9-1 overall, 34-20 W against MSU

Gary Moeller: 10-2 overall, 45-28 W against MSU

Lloyd Carr: 8-4 overall, 45-29 W against MSU

So after looking at the overall records then what happened against Sparty, for the most part we had good overall records and beat them, which like, duh, we are the winningest program ever. So like i said, 7-1-1 in Michigan coaches 2nd season. Obviously since this is a rivalry and not 1910, this is not going to make a difference, but just another thing to brag about to your State friends.

This is a follow-up to my number crunching from last night (found here) in which I tried to figure out an alternate way of looking at defensive red zone performance.  The method normally used is just to look at what percentage of red zone trips result in points.  The problem with this is that it treats field goals as having the same value as touchdowns - this is not true.  I tried weighting the values of field goals relative to touchdowns, but someone in the comments pointed out a simpler method to create the sort of metric I was looking for: Points per red zone trip (PPT).  On this scale, a team that scores a TD on every red zone trip would show 7 PPT, a team that scored a field goal every time would get 3 PPT, etc.  I'll go back later tonight to edit the defensive charts with this stat as well.  Someone else in the comments asked what the offensive numbers looked like, so without further ado, here's the

Chart

School	Drives	Red zone %	Rank	PPT	PPT rank
Wisconsin	16	100%	1(t)	6.44	2
Purdue	12	92%	30(t)	6.00	8(t)
Iowa	14	93%	23(t)	5.93	11
Minnesota	15	93%	23(t)	5.47	26
Northwestern	15	87%	45(t)	5.20	43
Michigan State	15	87%	45(t)	5.13	49
Michigan	15	73%	95	4.93	53
Illinois	7	86%	49(t)	4.71	67
Ohio State	18	83 %	57	4.67	72
Indiana	17	88%	38(t)	4.29	89
Penn State	17	71%	100(t)	4.24	90

All data from here.

Well, hell.  What do you make of that?  I can't see much of a pattern there at all.  I guess maybe the teams that play more of a smashmouth style are higher up on the list?  I'm willing to chalk this up to limited sample size and uneven competition, and just come back to this in a few weeks.  It does make me question how much sample size and opponent quality affected the defensive numbers as well.  What do you think?

So i went back to look at stats between these 2 teams as far back as i could find to see what stood out as difference makers and one stat seems most relevant:

• Rushing yards

From 1984 to 2008 (1996 data missing) in all but 3 games, the team with most rushed yards won the game. Let me briefly go over columns as i am not sure how my format will look once pasted on here. Under Michigan and Michigan state you have the individual score for that team for that given year. Under Rush and Receiving leader columns you have the leader of each category designated by an S (state) and an M (for Meeeeeeechigan).

• So as you can see, only in 1995, 2004, and 2007 did the losing team gain more rushing yards than the winning team.
• In fact the opposite holds true, though not as consistent - the losing team usually ends up gaining the most receiving yards.

I am not sure how this statistic will hold up under the current spread offense scheme (though 2008 conformed to this trend as State gained more rushing yards). Does anyone think this stat is an artifact of traditional big ten football - pound the ball offense and control the clock - or might it still be predictive of scoring outcomes between these 2 teams? And i must say i did not look at the data for other opponents so this could be the same for the rest of the big ten and other conference outcomes but i just have not checked.

Michigan Michigan State Rush Leader Receiving Leader SCORE 1984 7 19 S S 1985 31 0 M M 1986 26 7 M M 1987 11 17 S M 1988 17 3 M M 1989 10 7 M S 1990 27 28 S M 1991 45 28 M S 1992 35 10 M S 1993 7 17 S M 1994 40 20 M S 1995 25 28 M S 1996 45 29     1997 23 7 M S 1998 29 17 M M 1999 31 34 S S 2000 14 0 M S 2001 24 26 S S 2002 49 3 M M 2003 27 20 M S 2004 45 37 S M 2005 34 31 M S 2006 31 13 M S 2007 28 24 S M 2008 21 35 S M

Dear Blog Owners/Writers/Adminstrators/Contributors,

I’m longtime college football fan/blogger who also happens to be pursuing a Ph.D in Communications. I’m actually a regular on MGoBlog, but I’ve created another username for the purposes of maintaining the highest degree of empirical reliability possible.  To that end, I’m currently designing a survey-based study that asks college football blog readers if they utilize user-created content tools (messageboards, comments sections, diaries, etc) and, if so, why?

As we know, blogs have become increasingly popular. Why? Well, everyone has a different opinion. The decline of the newspaper industry. Poor journalism. The ability for readers to become involved. Cost-effectiveness. You name it, and someone, somewhere has an explanative theory. In an effort to further investigate user content creation behavior, I’m designing a survey tool to acquire information from readers themselves. Accordingly, I need a platform to deliver the survey. I want your blog to be part of that platform. This is a large-scale effort and I’m working with CFB blogs throughout the country (including MGoBlog).

So what, precisely, am I asking out of you? Well, the following:

I want to run a five day survey in mid-to-late November. Basically, I’m asking you to post content, on the first day, which describes the study and asks users to participate. Then, I’m asking that you post small blurbs throughout the rest of the week, again asking readers to participate in the survey. I’ll create the content and readers will be referred to the survey tool via a hyperlink. I’ll be very clear that this survey is for scientific/academic purposes and will help all of us, within the CFB Blogosphere, better understand our community.

In turn, here is what is “in it” for you:

First, I will provide you with all findings in a statistically cogent manner with explanation and discussion of ramifications. These statistics may very well provide key details to usership traits/patterns (demographics, user patterns, what users are looking for in blog content/design) not just across your blog, but the CFB “blogosphere” as a whole. Second, you will have the opportunity to be directly involved in a cutting-edge investigation that will be published in an academic journal.

This research project will be scientifically driven and I’ll be working with several highly respected researchers in the mediated communications field. This study is unlike anything ever done before and is being designed with an unusually high level of methodological rigidity.  

Thank you for your time. I very much hope you’ll agree to be a part of this research endeavor and I want you to know that your participation is both crucial and appreciated.

Please contact me at the following e-mail addresses if your blog is interested in participating:

thopp@mail.sdsu.edu
hopptm@gmail.com

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

A couple of quick notes, the numbers look better than they seem like they should.  Opponent adjustments are based 100% on this year's results.  As the year progresses and Indiana faces stiffer competition, the numbers from the game will likely come down. 

Run Offense vs Indiana

Win for Indiana here as Michigan scored a +2 (two points better than the average team against Indiana) while Indiana scored a +8 (eight points better than the average team would allow to Michigan)

RBs:
Carlos Brown +9 (includes receptions) #2 RB performance of the week
Brandon Minor +1
Michael Shaw -1

Pass Offense vs Indiana

This one was a win for M. Michigan posted a +7 while Indiana posted a middle of the road -1.

QBs:
Tate Forcier +7 #22 QB performance of the week
Denard Robinson +2

WR:
Martavious Odoms +6

Run Defense vs Indiana

Another win for Indiana here, obviously.  Despite Michigan poor job in previous games against the run, the Hoosiers still "beat the spread" going +2 against the Wolverine rush D while the D was 3 points worse against Indiana than the average team.

RBs
Darius Willis +4
Trea Burgess -3

Pass Defense vs Indiana

Indiana was actually below average passing against Michigan, with a -1 while Michigan was +4 vs the Indiana passing game.

QB
Ben Chappell -1

WRs
Tandon Doss: +11 #6 WR performance of the week
T Turner +2

Field Position

Based solely on drive starts, Michigan should have lost the game 30-27, indicating that the offense overachieved by 9 points and the defense underachieved by 3.

Special Teams

Brian pointed this out right away but the ST were huge for Michigan this weekend.  My punting stats are based on a net average with adjustments made for shorter punts that are downed deep in opponent territory.  Zoltan's day was worth 2.5 points, a huge number for a punter and the 5th best tally for any punter in an FBS game this year.  Overall, Michigan special teams had the 22nd best performance of the year, which is tough to do without returning a kick for a touchdown.

Penalties

When Michigan was on offense, the effect of the penalties netted out to zero, despite Michigan getting hit with more yards.

Michigan picked up a single point of benefit when Indiana had the ball.