Diaries

Preseason Prediction (Not Happening!): Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 6.

Defying the Odds: Over the past decade, only 8% of all FBS teams with a turnover margin of – 5 or worse have had a record of 8-4 or better (only 28% of teams with a TOM of – 5 or worse have even had a winning record).  With a TOM for the year of – 6, Michigan is definitely defying the odds (yea!!).

Michigan Football: Michigan had 23 pass attempts and 39 rushing attempts for a 63% run play percentage. For the year, M has a 61% run play percentage overall (ranked #15). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Ryan forced a fumble but is was recovered by Iowa. Gardner threw the one pick and had a fumble recovered by M. Michigan has 16 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #14 in fumbles and #9 in fumbles lost but remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.9% (which would be ranked #70).

For takeaways, M is ranked #65 in forced fumbles, #74 in fumbles recovered, #96 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #89 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 2.9 expected points benefitting Iowa.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #12, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

ONCE UPON A TIME

(Click the image to view full size)

Beat Ohio... now and forever.  Let's get 'em.

On Thursday we give thanks.

THE BLOCKHAMS™ runs (typically) every Tuesday here at MGoBlog,
and at least every Thursday on its official home page.  Also, don't forget to
check out Friday Roughs, a spontaneous low-end comic based on trending
Michigan events, available on Twitter and Facebook every Friday.

Follow THE BLOCKHAMS™ on Twitter at @theblockhams, and don't forget to
LIKE THE BLOCKHAMS™ on Facebook at www.facebook.com/theblockhams.

I decided that it might be useful to take a slightly closer look at how the Michigan and Ohio State defenses have been doing from a production standpoint this year, so in a similar fashion to yesterday’s diary, I have done a game-by-game graph for each team with solo and assisted tackles, tackles for loss and yardages, and also sacks and sack yardage.

There were a few that I didn’t think would be graph-worthy as well, but they might provide some insight into the opportunistic streak of both defenses as well as who they have played, so indeed, take the numbers for what you will. For example, Ohio State has 14 recorded QB Hurries, whereas Michigan has only 3 of these. Ohio State has 13 total interceptions for 163 yards, but Michigan has 7 interceptions for 127 yards.  Michigan has 21 pass breakups, and Ohio State has 71 pass breakups.  As these teams have faced diverse offenses, I would think we can’t read too much into this last one. That, and I had to get the stat from the Buckeyes’ official site.

Here is the table with the season average and standard deviation for the graphed data:

It is interesting to note that these teams are fairly comparable in terms of their productivity in making tackles, and that they are also close in average TFL per game as well. The sacks and sack yardage, I would think, have much to do with the relative quality of the offensive lines that Ohio State has faced to date more than anything else. You will also note that in most measures, Ohio State performs with more variability than Michigan, so perhaps that is useful to know on some level.

Michigan - Tackles By Game - 2012:

Ohio State - Tackles By Game - 2012:

Michigan - TFL & TFL Yards By Game - 2012:

Ohio State - TFL & TFL Yards By Game - 2012:

Michigan - Sacks & Sack Yards By Game - 2012:

Ohio State - Sacks & Sack Yards By Game - 2012:

Stop moping around.

I know adding Maryland and Rutgers to B1G was not exactly what you had in mind, but it is happening, so deal with it. Not only that, B1G will most likely add two more teams to make it even 16 before Devin probably graduates, so you better buckle up.

If you are in a fetal position holding on to an old tattered frame with a picture of Bo, let me at least give you some reasons why this is happening so you can make some sense out of this and also show you who is most likely to join B1G next.

There is a gold rush happening right now.

The bluebloods of college sports are pairing up to form 4 super conferences (with at least 16 teams each) that will divide up the country like the market barons of old and extract every cent of TV money they can by creating sports networks to go along with those conferences.

Three of those 4 super conference are already set with B1G and its BTN, PAC and the west coast, and SEC, with its super lineup of football powerhouses, the lord of the southeast. The last open spot will be a battle royale between Big12 and ACC.

But who is going to win that last spot? Most of you just shrug your shoulders and say “who cares?” But Jim Delany certainly cares. He cares because there are were four seats available at the table and he wants to make sure those seats are filled by the biggest whales who can fill the B1G’s mighty coffer.

But who brings the most money? Whoever has the biggest cable market.

Big Ten Network is the teat that B1G suckles on. What is good for BTN is good for B1G (at least money wise). So, how does BTN make its money? From cable subscribers (more specifically, regional cable networks who offer BTN as part of a low tier package) – and more subscribers there are, more money B1G will make.

So, who has the most subscribers? Here are the top 50 TV markets in US.

Due to logistics and deep seated support, we can eliminate all of west coast (PAC) and south and southeast (SEC). Obviously, we can eliminate most of mid-west that we already own.

Eliminating those, the TV markets that are really in play (for B1G) are as follows:

1             New York

6             Boston

8             Washington DC

21           St Louis

24           Baltimore

27           Hartford & New Haven

28           Charlotte

29           Raleigh–Durham

31           Kansas City, Missouri

35           Greenville–Spartanburg–Asheville–Anderson

42           Norfolk–Portsmouth–Newport News

44           Buffalo

45           Oklahoma City

46           Harrisburg–Lancaster–Lebanon–York

47           Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem

48           Louisville

50           Providence–New Bedford

Obviously, the prettiest girl in the room is the #1 market in the country – New York. The second is Boston and the third is Baltimore/DC area. To say that Delany COVETS those areas would be an understatement. So, who are B1G’s possible opponents for those areas? The most obvious choice – Big East – is in shambles. The only other choice is ACC, especially now with the possibility of adding ND.

From B1G’s point of view, the most ideal scenario for the 4 super conference is for Big 12 to grab that last spot, not ACC. This eliminates the biggest threat to B1G for the biggest markets in US. It also has an added bonus where much of Big 12’s territory will overlap with SEC, and help keep SEC in check for the future (because you never know).

Now, that we have established that it is in B1G’s interest to make sure Big 12 succeeds, the decision by Delany to spurn Missouri makes a ton of sense. But SEC knew what was best for them and tried to break apart Big 12 by getting Texas A&M and Missouri.

This probably surprised Delany and forced his hands to attack ACC more directly. And what is the best way to attack an enemy? Divide and conquer. You attack the heart of your foe and divide their forces, cutting off the supply lines and causing mass confusion.

It just happened to be that a school right in the heart of ACC was desperately in need of help. Due to years of mis-management, Maryland athletic department was seriously running in red. They needed money and fast.

This was all the opening that Delany needed and he pounced. Maryland not only brings #8 and #24 market, it makes ACC that much weaker and makes it more likely for ACC powerhouses like Clemson and FSU to bolt to Big12/SEC, which would seal any possibility of ACC becoming a super conference.

Delany balanced Maryland addition by getting Rutgers to join, which bring the #1 market in play. With PSU, UM, and Rutgers, any existing college football interest in NY area will be squarely on B1G. This was a very, very shrewd move by Delany in many levels. It makes no difference how weak Maryland and Rutgers are in football. Those things are things that can be addressed. Turning #50 TV market into top 10 is significantly harder to achieve.

But now that B1G has 14 teams, it is not likely to stop there for very long. Getting to 16 makes a lot of sense in scheduling and logistics. It is just a matter of when.

But who are the most attractive targets now?

Some are saying Georgia Tech due to their football consistency and academics. But if you look at Delany’s modus operandi, I think this is unlikely. Georgia/Atlanta market already belongs to University of Georgia, Georgia Tech is not going to bring that market to B1G, and Delany is not about to play second fiddle to SEC in that market.

Looking at the list above, it is obvious which markets Delany will try to target; Boston and Raleigh/Charlotte.

The #6 market, Boston, is an interesting case as there are numerous colleges/universities in the area. The most obvious choice is Boston College with their solid football and basketball programs. But their enrollment is small (~15,000), and I am not sure if they really fit B1G’s mold. But if it means getting access to the #6 market, Delany will explore there.

The next largest market is Raleigh/Charlotte. There is a clear option there in UNC, which has almost ideal combination of size and quality (both academic and athletic) that B1G is looking for. I doubt that UNC is looking to move out of ACC right now, but if FSU and Clemson bolt for greener pastures, UNC will certainly be looking for a new home.

However, to convince UNC, it may be necessary to also add NC St or Duke. If Boston College does not work out, this is certainly a possibility, as North Carolina is a market that is growing.

The final area for expansion is Norfolk/Virginia. VT/UVA are obvious options there. But UVA with its profile is probably the best fit for B1G.

There are really no other options that are as attractive as these schools and B1G expansion will certain revolve around these schools barring some other titanic shifts in college sports. Adding any combination of these schools will lock up the NE corridor (and its lucrative TV markets) for B1G for the foreseeable future.

This should be a very interesting couple of years.

Michigan and Ohio have played four common opponents this season:  Michigan State, Nebraska, Purdue, and Illinois.  I got to thinking about how the comparision between the teams via these common opponents might look like so I've thrown some numbers together.

Michigan State:

MIchigan played them at home, won 12-10.

Ohio played them on the road, won 17-16.

Nebraska:

Michgan played them on the road, lost 23-9.

Ohio played them at home, won 63-38

Purdue:

MIchigan played them at home, won 44-13.

Ohio played them at home, won 29-22 (OT)

Illinois:

Michigan played them at home, won 45-0.

Ohio played them at home, won 52-22.

Some totals for all four games, Michigan first:

And Ohio:

A few things that jump out to me right off the bat are the point differentials and the turnover differentials.  The point differentials are almost identical.  Ohio scores more points than we do but also give up more at about the same rate.  Turnovers, however, are completely opposite.  They have managed to win all four games with a negative differential, while we have been on the positive side and lose a game (yes huge caveats apply to the Nebraska game for obvious reasons, but M was still only -1 in TOs that game).

So, what do all these numbers mean?  Not much, probably.  None of these games take into account the new Devin throwing/Denard running offensive machine.  Gallon and Rountree have both stepped things up in the last 2-3 weeks (I'm sure DG has had something to do with that as well).  Fitz is now out.  A lot has changed on our side since any of the above numbers happened.  I don't know much about what's happened on their side other than what I see on Sportscenter.

OSU seems to be a bit bipolar to me.  They blow out a solid Nebraska team yet have to go to overtime to dispatch Danny Hope's hapless Boilermakers?  Obviously they are a good team, but how good?  Is the new Devin-Denard Fushion Cuisine Offense really as good as it's been, or is it more the result of overmatched foes with poor defenses?  What do you guys think?

EDIT - Sorry I posted before I was done, I didn't know "save" meant "publish". 

Mod Edit: Bumped to diaries for effort. [zl]

My brother and I have griped for several seasons now about the number of punts that seem to drop and roll for extra yards on on us.  He has suggested that we actually put one man deep and another 15-20 yards further up to catch the short ones before they can bounce and roll.  So I went to the stats and checked out the kicking game and made a .......chart? 

chart...

Our opponents punted to us 48 times and we returned punts only 13 times (27%).   Seems we should have had more returns.  Punts out of bounds or into the end zone could account for fewer punt returns. Wouldn't those into the end zone result in reduced net yards/punt for our opponents?  This does not seem to be the case. Our opponents have averaged 42.4 yards per punt and have net of 39.3.  We have a average punt of 41.6 and our net is 36.3.  The punt average difference is less than one yard but the net yards per punt were 3 yards in favor of our opponents.

Maybe there have been more fair catches by our returners (or maybe they are not catching the ball and it is dropping and rolling for extra yards).  Short of re-watching all the games and actually counting these different scenarios I am not sure I can come up with an answer.  (Maybe there is another data base out there somewhere with the details.  I just looked at the posted stats at the U of M site.) 

I did look anther data set.  It was in the form of a ………

chart.

This chart of NFL expected points by first down starting position.  This suggests that it is particularly important not to allow the drop and roll type kick when the opponent is pinned back as the yards lost in field position are even more important since it costs you points. (Duh!)

It is also interesting to look at the kick off data.  We have kicked off 60 times and our opponents have returned it 35 times (58.3%).

They kicked off to us 44 times and we returned it 34 times (77.4%) The kickoffs are averaging about 60 yards for both us and our opponents and returns are averaging about 23 yards per return for both us and our opponents.  Our net is better and I assume that is because Wile is kicking it out of or deep enough and high enough into the end zone that it is tough to return or maybe they are just smart enough not to return it.  Looking at these numbers the average benefit for returning a kick off looks like it would only be about 3 yards beyond the 25.  (The average kick goes from the 35, 60 yards to the 5 and we return it to the 27 on average.)  You can get that for free almost every time without the risk of a fumble or injury to a good returner.  Perhaps we should never return a kick off out of the end zone and only return those kicks that are short of the 5 yard line since any beyond that will roll into the end zone.  The NFL chart above also suggests that the extra yards gained say out to the 35 or so by running it back do not put you into much better position to score points vs. the 25.  (My eyeball says you would gain less than ½ point even if you could reliably make the 35 yard line instead of the 25 which only the best punt returner can do on average.)

My brother made the following observation-

"There may be a large cost/benefit factor favoring the risk of the kick off return. Let’s say you always take the touch back. Call it 20 kicks. Then let’s say you always run it out. On 19 you end up on the 18. That’s a negative 133 yards. On the 20^th you run it out for a TD. Would you trade the 19 cases of -7 in field position for the one TD? I guess it depends upon whether the TD is against ND or OSU or MSU or not."

I guess this is what the NCAA wanted with the rule change.  Maybe we are trying to return too many kickoffs. (An AP article on the kick off rule change notes the following..."Spotting the ball at the 25 should discourage .... risk-taking by the college kids. From 5 yards deep, it’ll take a 30-yard return to get to the 25. The top kick returner in the country, Purdue’s Raheem Mostert, averaged 33.48 yards per return. Seven others averaged more than 30 per return". )