chance of bowl: 13.6%
Midweek update. Because no games of interest happen Thursday night this week. So, I’m posting this right now. I will admit this one is pretty similar to Monday’s.
So, so far, week’s gone well for us. There have only been four games of interest, and #25/#25 Clemson beat North Florida, #23/#21 Memphis beat Arkansas-Little Rock, and #19/#22 Michigan State beat the Citadel. Whatever.
The biggie, however, is that #24/#23 Marquette lost to #16/#19 Tennessee. This is great! This means Marquette should fall out of the polls. If we can beat Oakland, we WILL enter at least one. Which is sweet.
So, lemme plan your weekend, what to watch, where to watch it:
Well, actually, there are more priority games than non-priority games this week. But, you know, lots of important games.
Michigan v. Oakland: We win, we’re ranked. Its that simple. Also, LLP shows up. Which is cool. This one’s at the neutral Palace of Auburn Hills at 4:00pm, you can find it on FSN.
#19/#22 Michigan State at unanimous #5 Texas: Well, even though a loss by the Spartans could take them out of the polls opening another spot and further guaranteeing our entering and being ranked not too low our first week in, it’d be better for us to have Texas lose this one, because, well, we play MSU (at Crisler on February 10th. I think I’m going.), and what’s good for the Big T1e1n is good for us (for now). Should be a good game no matter how you root, catch it at 2:00pm on CBS.
#22/#20 Davidson at #13/#18 Purdue: GO BIG TEN! I’ll root for Purdue pretty hard here, because, well, the Big Ten winning is good, and, a solid Davidson loss could allow us to pass them in the polls, which would be hella tight. 4:00, CBS, just switch back and forth between this and the UofM game.
BYU at #20/#17 Arizona State: Alright, BYU is between us and a ranking in the coaches’ poll, so, them losing means they have no chance of getting the spot if only one spot opens, so, I’m pushing hard for a loss. This game is at 4:30pm, but, you’re not going to find it in Detroit. It’s on FSN, but, they’re showing the Michigan game here. Oh well.
#23/#21 Memphis at unanimous #11 Syracuse: Just another possible loss by a low-ranked team, which can help us get ranked, and not be ranked #25. 6:00pm, ESPN, also, if you’re computer-bound, ESPN360.com.
#25/#25 Clemson at Miami (FL): This one’s interesting. Either way this game goes, its good for us. Clemson loses, they fall out of the polls and there’s another spot available. Miami loses, well, they’re between us and a rank in the Coaches’ poll, and if that loss can be combined with a BYU loss, we get any open spots in that poll. So, uh, just, flip a coin or something. 7:45, FSN (even in Detroit).
Games that I care less about because the team that should win probably will:
#23/#24 Marquette v. Western Carolina, 8:30, Sports 32
#21/#24 Baylor v. Texas-Arlington, 9:30, Online
So, that’s that. With a big win and some luck, I think we could be looking at #23 or #22 next week. With a win at all, we’re looking at at least #25. Cool.
Also, #11 Colorado College plays Sacred Heart in hockey Friday and Saturday. No TV of any kind. Whatever.
Good night, Go Blue.
The Scout Top 100 list for 2010 is up, and one of the new five star recruits is Christian Lombard. He’s an offensive line recruit from Illinois, and has a hefty list of offers already. “I don’t really have a top list yet, I want to do some more research on all of them. The ones that I’ve visited will all be on my list though,” Lombard said. Christian has seen Michigan, Notre Dame, and Iowa. He is now going to start focusing more on recruiting as he goes into his senior year, and said that, “academics is number one, without an education there’s no football, next is the football team in general, and the training program, and third is the campus and everything outside of football.” The training program was one aspect that stuck out to him when he spoke with Mike Barwis. He said, “Coach Barwis is real high energy, I’ve met him a couple times. It was cool, when we were there, Braylon Edwards and Mike Hart were working out. It was cool to see some NFL players with him.” Lombard has a lot of offers from Midwest schools, but told me, “I’m not sure if distance is a factor yet, I’ve talked to the coaches at North Carolina, so we’ll just see how it plays out.” Christian came to Michigan on an unofficial visit, and got to watch the Michigan, Michigan State rivalry first hand. “It was definitely powerful. It was exciting, Michigan State had as many fans there as Michigan. That rivalry is huge, and the tradition there is pretty neat.” His footwork, knowledge of the game, and his strength are what he prides himself on, and uses to his advantage. His high school runs a variety of offensive schemes, and he told me, “We run pretty much everything, primarily a spread. I don’t really prefer a style, but I can run in a spread.” His coach has been helping him with the recruiting process, and it seems like he’ll let us know where he decides when he knows. “I’m just going to see what happens, when I find the school I think I fit into I’ll probably make my decision, why wait?”
Alright I was a day early, looks like all the Okie, 4-3, 3-3-5,nickel,dime and "time to let it work" is out the window.
Back to a guy I tried to introduce you all too, before it became a coaching clinic.
NOW THAT SHAFER IS OUT THE DOOR there is one man that I think should be heavily considered.
With the recent finalization of Monte Kiffin to Tennessee, it leaves a good defensive coordinator w/out a job.
Living in the state of Tennessee, I am forced to hear all about Vol football, and of course Rocky Top at the top of every hour. I know Vol fans credit Chavis for being the only bright spot in their 3 year downslide, or ten year depending on who is asked.
Chavis recruits speed on defense and has sent many a talent to the next level. But unlike Florida State, his players are top notch in college and carry it with them to the NFL. Line backers are his specialty and to my knowledge, we need them, and we need them to be better.
""Following the national championship season of 1998, Chavis was named the SEC's outstanding linebacker coach."
Rumors swirled a month or so ago that LSU was his destination, so I kept my mouth shut, BUT nothing has come of it. So I bring it to the Michigan fan base.
"Tennessee's defense led the SEC in 1996 and ranked in the top three five of the past seven years."
Yep thats TOP 3 IN 5 OF THE LAST 7 YEARS!!!
Whats your opinion on Chavis? If he is unknown to you These next few points might help.. I promise it will be easier to find his success that it was Shafer.
Here are a few points from his Bio.......
"Johnny "John" Chavis (born October 16, 1956 in Dillon, South Carolina), commonly known as The Chief, is the former defensive coordinator, linebacker Coach and associate head football coach at the University of Tennessee, where he has been since 1989. Chavis is the only Native American that is currently a Coordinator or Head Coach for a major college or NFL team."
"Following the 2006 Season Chavis was named as the Assistant Football Coach of the Year by the American Football Coaches Association."
"Chavis and then Florida Defensive Coordinator Bob Stoops are credited with bring the "Zone Blitz" into College Football in the mid to late 90's."
"Following the national championship season of 1998, Chavis was named the SEC's outstanding linebacker coach."
The question was whether Positional Rating meant more than star (or Rivals' sliding scale) ratings in determining the value of a player toward success of his program.
To do this, I compared averages of recruits who entered college during the period of 2005 to 2008, and stacked that up against real results. In other words, I wanted to see if there was a greater correlation between the current BCS standings and any of several factors:
1. Star Rating
2. Rivals Rating
3. Positional rank in class
4. Number of ranked recruits
5. Team speed (40-yard dash)
6. Team size (height (in) times weight)
Since I can't figure out how to post the entire sheet, I've written out the Top 15 for each category.
For our purposes, I used only recruits that were ranked by Rivals.com. Rivals usually ranks only those recruits that it rated higher than 5.5 (which is a low 3-star).
For some positions, there were typically 90 or more ranked recruits each year, whereas for others, there was only 15 or so. I thus considered making recruiting rank a percentile, for a team that recruited a 4 star receiver ranked 70th (of 92) in his class would be penalized more than a team that recruited the 15th (last) fullback or kicker. However, I felt this -- the ability to recruit all positions -- was an important factor in the key differential between Star Rating and Positional Ranking. Plus, a successful team would be responsible for recruiting all of those positions. So instead of a percentile, I simply dropped from our list any team that did not bring in 20 or more ranked recruits in this period.
This eliminated a lot of Mid-Majors, but the only BCS conference teams to be cut were Cincy (7), Indiana (13) and Connecticut (15). It is assumed that these teams, which could not bring in more than five 3-star or higher recruits in four years, would perform below the teams included.
I also did not cover attrition (transfers, early leaving, etc.) Instead, I simply omitted the 2004 class altogether, figuring the good done by holdovers was roughly equivalent to the bad of attrition for the four following classes. I understand that this is very inexact, but I feel the results are still useful for our purposes.
Results Skewed by Southern Bias in Data
Particularly interesting was the SEC schools and their higher number of ranked recruits brought in. Among teams that had more than 85 recruits in this time, we get Florida (91), Alabama (95), Georgia (90), Florida State (88), LSU (88), Oklahoma (88), Tennessee (86) and Auburn (86). In other words, seven of nine over-recruiters were SEC schools, and all were in the South. Overrecruiting did seem to have a correlation with winning, but not as much as class rank or star rating. I posit that this represents not so much the ability of the SEC conference to recruit better talent, but Rivals.com's tendency to overrate recruits in the South. It's noteable that teams that recruited nationally like Notre Dame and Michigan were the most overrated by talent influx, while other Northern teams that had most northern recruits were largely underrated. If you look at the cut-off line for where Rivals stops their ranking, the picture becomes even more clear; the last few 5.6-rated players included in the rankings are normally from Southern states; the alphabetic list of unranked, 5.5-rated players is overrepresented by Northern players.
Top 15 -- Current BCS Standings
6. Texas Tech
7. Penn State
8. Boise State
9. Ohio State
12. Oklahoma State
13. Georgia Tech
Top 15 -- Star Ranking Only
3. Ohio State
4. Florida State
11. Notre Dame
12. Penn State
Top 15 -- Rivals Ranking Only
4. Florida State
7. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
13. Penn State
Top 15 -- Avg Positional Rank of Recruit in Year
4. Florida State
6. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
15. Penn State
Top 15 -- Most Ranked Players
4. Florida State
9. Notre Dame
13. South Carolina
Top 15 -- Avg. 40-Yard dash time
4. Texas A&M
5. Southern Miss
7. Ohio State
10. Georgia Tech
13. Kansas State
14. South Carolina
(Little brother is 16th!)
Top 15 -- Avg. size of recruits
2. Penn State
8. Mississippi State
9. Texas Tech
13. Virginia Tech
15. Boston College
Recruiting as a whole was shown to be a fair but imperfect predictor of overall success.
Team speed was the most overrated statistic; even removing teams without recruits at every position, the speed ratings made little mark on anything. In fact, Texas Tech (4.78) and Missouri (4.81), both of which employ speed-based offenses, were both near the bottom among teams in total team speed. This means that either speed makes little to no difference in a team's ability, or 40-yard-dash times are arbitary (or in Brian, "FAKE.")
No recruiting statistic stood out as a definitive predictor of team ability, but the positional rank of recruits did, in fact, prove to be a slightly better metric than star rating, and a much better predictor than other factors.
To look at Michigan in particular, it does in fact seem that positional ratings mattered a great deal.
Top 15 positional ratings of M recruits 2005-08:
1. Justin Boren (#1 Center, 2006)
2. Marques Slocum (#1 Guard, 2005)
3. Brandon Minor (#1 Fullback, 2006)
4. Zoltan Mesko (#2 Kicker/Punter 2005)
5. Brandon Graham (#2 Mack Linebacker, 2006)
6. Stephen Schilling (#2 Guard, 2006)
7. Ryan Mallett (#2 QB-Pro Style, 2007)
8. Donovan Warren (#3 Cornerback, 2007)
9. Jonas Mouton (#3 Safety, 2006)
10. Boubacar Cissoko (#4 Cornerback, 2008)
11. Kevin Grady (#4 Running Back, 2005)
12. Kevin Koger (#4 Tight End, 2008)
13. Antonio Bass (#5 Athlete, 2005)
14. David Molk (#5 Center, 2007)
15. Carlos Brown (#6 Running Back, 2006)
Look at all that attrition!
Among top recruits in high percentiles we include Mario Manningham, Stevie Brown, Greg Mathews, Michael Shaw and Terrance Taylor.
Then again, here's our lowest positional ratings:
1. Martavious Odoms (Receiver 81)
2. Mark Huyge (Tackle 76)
3. James Rogers (Athlete 71)
4. Chris Richards (Athlete 63)
5. Troy Woolfolk (Cornerback 59)
6. Obi Ezeh (Running Back 58)
7. Mark Ortmann (Tackle 55)
8. John Ferrara (Strongside DE 55)
9. Carson Butler (Strongside DE 55)
10. Perry Dorrestein (Tackle 53)
11. Quinton Woods (Strongside DE 53)
12. Greg Banks (Strongside DE 51)
13. Artis Chambers (Safety 51)
14. Roy Roundtree (Receiver 50)
15. Zion Babb (Receiver 49)
As you can see, these are obviously positions in which there were a lot of recruits. Percentile-wise, the lowest guys were Odoms, Huyge, Rogers, David Cone, Chambers, Brandon Logan, Quinton Patilla, Steve Watson, Woolfolk and Ezeh.
So it does seem that positional ranking means a lot, even if the player was projected at a different position. And if so, it is even more devastating that Michigan lost Bass, Slocum, Mallett and Boren before they could become top contributors. Equally devastating was Stevie Brown and Kevin Grady being busts, at least up until now.
In the future, as a fan, this shows me that my projections for future seasons needs to be looked at again, and that when evaluating recruits, their percentile means more than their ranking.
Other than that, plus the already well-established fact that the SEC badly needs to get over itself (i.e. Rivals scouts need to get over their fear of crossing the Mason-Dixon line), this analysis proves little.
Hope you were entertained.
this was my latest repsonse to the "my thoughts on who might be DC" thread... I figured i would repost it as a diary....
for those of you that have followed the season, and listened to what was happening, this is a rehash. For revisionist wanna-be coaches that didnt really pay attention, you might learn something.
1. 4 vs 3 man front. Shafer is a 4-3 guy. However shafer likes the 3-4 okie defense, ESPICALLY vs spread teams. Most of the top dc's in the country use some type of nickle package against spread teams, unless they have safeties and lb's that play well in space. SO shafer ran a lot of 3 man fronts against the spread teams and as his nickel package. All dlmen prefer 4 man fronts becasue they are dlmen, and they want them and their buddies to make plays, and believe that they can. But straight 4 man fronts, against spread teams is suicide unless you have lb's that make big plays in space (michigan did not this year) the other alternative is that 4-2 nickle that shafer used some as well getting thompson off the field for harrison. The fact that michigan was not good on 3 downs had ZERO to do with scheme and everything to do with the fact that our lb's and safties were not very good in coverage. doenst matter if we had 50 dlmen out there... the 3-3 exepriment was something the rr people wanted to try, and that was the perfect week to do it.. nothing at stake, wr turned qb who we didnt think would be able to throw, etc. it didnt work, so be it... The less spread we saw, the less 3 man fronts we ran, except in passing situations... becasue the best way to blitz is with deception, and the 3 man front offers more deception and flexablity of coverages..
2. this year vs last. 2 words, englemon-adams. In shafers system these would be the top two safties in the country. michigan lossing them was huge, and no defense can survive the type of safety play we had this year, unless their lb's were studs. I have never seen a defense of michigan implement as many coverage schemes as this year, and that was 100% due to the fact that shafer was trying to cover up major personal issues at safety, and LB....
3. THe wings fell off the freekin plane. IT is ok to have an opinion but dont say "we couldnt tackle or cover, but the rest is on shafer" no we couldnt tackle or cover, thats all that has to be said. It doesnt matter if it was tenuta, veneables, Amato, Gruden, etc. just like it takes time to implement a zone read offense, it takes time to implement the techniques needed to run a complicated defense. Shafer was a frustrated coach that couldnt spend the time teaching the fundamentals that were sorely lacking as the season progressed.. and it became more and more evident that there was not the personel to fill the holes that were hurting us. Look for major improvements next year. if we dont see it, then you can START to talk about coaching... but even then, it took me 4 years at this school to really implement the type of defense that we can run now.
coaches have to be able to fit the right schemes vs offenses, and shafer did that. Then coaches have to teach the fundamentals and the techniques to implement thier system and give the players a chance to make plays, and that takes more than a season to implement.
very seldom was michigan out of possition to make a play, that speaks more about players than coaches, obviously... the coaches for the most part had kids in places to be successfull, but by sometimes a very small margin, did not exectue well. When a lack of exectuion happends on offense you lose yards, when it happends on defense you give up td's... simple as that...
Rankings came out today in basketball and hockey.
I’ll start with hockey.
The loss by Vermont was enough for us to pass them, the split by Colorado College with Minnesota kept them at the same place. This puts us at #11. Which means we got better without playing.
#10 Colorado College has a Friday/Saturday series against Sacred Heart. If they can split, there’s probably no effect on us. And they should split, at least. Sacred Heart is .333 on the year, and CC plays at home. A sweep is a reasonable assumption. We’ll probably stay the same next week, at which point there’s the GLI.
Now, I got me some basketball jones. (That basketball was like a basketball to me!)
So, we beat EMU by 31. Kansas lost to UMass. As a result, they fall from the polls.
And we’re media darlings. Not really, but we’re a theoretical #26 in the media poll. Which is one away from an actual rank. If we can beat Oakland this weekend, maybe we get it.
Similar story in the coaches poll, #28. So, we’ll see how that goes.
So, other than beating Oakland Saturday at the Palace of Auburn Hills, here’s what can affect our rank (this might be different from what I said last time, but, rankings are now listed media/coaches):
First, teams that were only got more votes than us coaches’ poll, both of which are not really ranked in either poll:
Miami (FL): One game this week, against #25/#25 Clemson, on Sunday night, which is weird, because a loss by either team helps us. Personally, I think a Miami win actually helps us more, because a loss by #25 definitely means they drop out of the poll, and, depending on what we do against Oakland, does not necessarily mean they get replaced by the team that beat them.
BYU: Again, one game, against #20/#17 Arizona State Saturday. I’m rooting for the Sun Devils here, because they’re a bit too highly ranked for a loss to certainly drop them from polls, and a loss by BYU certainly lets us pass them next week (if we beat Oakland).
No teams beat us in the media poll but not the coaches’ poll, so, on to the bottom 5 (well, 6):
#25/#25 Clemson: See Miami. Also, North Florida tomorrow. Should win.
#24/#23 Marquette: Two games this week, one tomorrow at #16/#19 Tennessee, which they certainly could lose, and one against 4-2 Western Carolina on Friday, which they should win, but, you know, nothing’s certain. But, if they lost to the Vols, they probably drop out.
#23/#21 Memphis: One probable win Wednesday over an Arkansas-Little Rock (7-2). I mean, I guess theoretically ALR could beat them (based solely on record), but, we have a much better chance of them getting a loss Saturday, when they play #11/#11 Syracuse.
#22/#20 Davidson: One game this week, and it’s of interest. Davidson plays at #13/#18 Purdue on Saturday. I want Purdue to win pretty badly, both because they’re a Big T1e1n team and because, well, a Davidson loss could help us.
#21/#24 Baylor: One game, Saturday, easy win over Texas-Arlington.
#19/#22 Michigan State: Two games this week; an easy win on Wednesday over the Citadel. There’s a pretty big contest Saturday though: at #5/#5 Texas. In the end, its probably better for us if State wins this game. There’s enough other possible losses that if they win, it won’t be too big of a deal.
So, the skinny: Almost every bottom 5 team in both polls plays a very, very losable game this week. We really only need one of them to lose and for us to beat Oakland to be ranked in at least the coaches’ poll. I’m gonna go ahead and predict a ranking next week.
Good night, and Go Blue.