at least it's not just us?
First, Michigan scored 34 points in regulation. I don't think anyone was unhappy with how the 3rd quarter worked; despite the 1st half, we were in a position to win. Then, we put on the brakes, which presumably gave the game away. Let's see how that worked.
with 6:35 left in the game, Michigan led 34-27. Herein lies the following drive:
7 rushes, 1 pass.
What did this "putting on the brakes" do?
It gave us the ball on the PSU 28 yard line, on first down, with NO PSU timeouts left. The time read 3:10.
We ran twice, for 1 total yard; there were less than 2 minutes left and Michigan was within field goal range at the 29.
I just don't understand how this could be construed as a failure. We took off 4 minutes left, and drove to within field goal range; if we made the field goal then the game is effectively over as we're up by two scores with less than 2 minutes left.
Michigan then takes a delay of game. (Blame goes equally to Borges, Gardner, and Hoke). The DOG makes it 3rd and 14 from the 32 yard line; there are 80 seconds left and PSU has no timeouts. What would you do here? an incomplete pass gives PSU 30 more seconds, a QB draw is OBVS(!), and a run is also OBVS(!).
Borges chose to run it, and we lost 3 yards, taking us out of field goal range. Yes, this was a problem, but I think it follows sound game theory. A run takes the clock down to 50 seconds, and the punt means PSU has to drive it 80 yards, with a FRESHMAN QB. I mean, everything had to go perfect for us to lose. Playing not to lose isn't really a bad strategy when everything has to go perfect for you to lose. I don't think too many people were moaning about the choice to punt it after the failed run.
Then, people are bitching about the OT. In OT #1 and #3, all we had to do was make a field goal. I don't know what everyone's seeing, but I still think that game strategy dictates that you just take the 3 free points and go home with a win. The fact that Gibbons missed/had blocked 2(!) field goals is not on the play calling.
OT is really what gets me. How does a pass, an end around, etc improve our odds of winning? We've got one of the best FG kickers in Michigan history, and were out around 25 yards. Of course, a TD could win it; DG also has 3 TOs at this point. Why not just take the easy 3 and go home?
Wanted to get PSU view of Michigan so I went over to Black Shoes to see what they had to say...
Know Your Foe, Week Seven: #16 Michigan Wolverines
Brief Interviews with Horrible Men: Michigan Edition
Just the Stats: Penn State vs Michigan
Just another thing to get us by till the DEF UFR. Oh I almost forgot...
EDIT: Mgo.licio.us has a post, DAGNAMIT.
Just noticed that Mark Snyder has some comments about the upcoming game against PSU up at our friends the Free Press, and got to wondering what observations others have to make about the Nittany Lions.
It looks like Penn State's defense got exposed a little against Indiana, and we all know that they are down. But I assume a fairly stiff test and a pretty full house for a game between these two traditional powers this week.
Snyder notes that establishing Funchess makes us less one-dimensional in the passing game, but that the run game, while better, has yet to really establish itself as a serious threat. He also observers that Minnesota's QB showed we may be vulnerable up the middle on defense (though Leidner was tough, and only needed to fall forward a few yards to get positive yardage against us, from what I observed).
I have not watched PSU play, but am itching to start obtaining a fix on next Saturday. Any ideas about how we stack up in these areas against PSU, on how it may go more generally against them?
I know we just want this to be over, but I thought this should be covered, because it's new PSU stupidity. If you don't want to hear anymore about it, stop reading now. At this point, you have to wonder how much more PSU's athletic department can take.
I'm not sure if these are two independent suits, or flipsides of the same suit, but it reads like they are independent, which I think would make sense. They can be filed independently, and then that gives him two shots to win. Can an MGoLawyer confirm if that makes sense? Filing two separate lawsuits that each have the same final aim if there is a separate legal tennent for filing each one?
Evidently, McQueary was shocked to find out he was the ONLY member of the football coaching staff A: not offered a chance to interview for his old job under the new head coach, and B: to not have his legal fees covered by the university.
Now, the legal fees thing might not have merrit, because as I recall, McQueary electeed to get his own laywer rather than be represented by the university, because he feared the legal association (I could be wrong on that. I can't find a source that confirms it). However, if the univeristy paid for anybody else's independent lawyers, then that ones got legs.
The other issue, not being interviewed for his old job under a new coach, leaves them with no legal recourse, I think. If they had made a clean break, and told everybody from the old staff, "We're cleaning house, 100%", they might be okay. But to only leave him out? Do they not have a legal staff in their HR department over there?
Seeking: $4 Million, Legal Fees
In this case, McQueary states that the Three Stooges - Spanier, Curley and Shulltz, worked together in public and behind university closed doors to discredit McQueary and make him a scapegoat and clearly indicated on several occasions that McQueary was a liar. He claims that this has ruined his reputation for honesty and dedication in the local and higher-education communities.
Seeking: $4 Million, Reinstatement, Lost Bowl Bonus, Legal Fees, Back Pay and Benefits
I think Bill O'Brien has been granted a tremendous opportunity at PSU. For the next 4 years PSU football will celebrate wins like the super bowl and blame the losses on Mark Emmert and the NCAA. O'Brien no longer has to worry about respecting the legacy and traditions of Penn State because they got nuked by the Freeh Report. He can now rebuild penn state in his image without the pressures of following one of college football's greatest coaches. You think following Lloyd Carr at Michigan was hard, try following JoePa at PSU regardless of the circumstances. He essentially has 4 years to prepare for the 2016 season and beyond and nobody can question his methods with "That's not how Joe did things".
With smart, targeted recruiting strategies I think a school like Penn State, even with 65 scholarships, can be competitive in the B1G. I don't think Bill O'Brien is in as bad a situation as we think, but it could be a glass half-full viewpoint.