We all know Denard hates to tie his shoelaces but has anyone else noticed he throws the ball using the non-lace side? Is there something we should all know about laces? Maybe Denard and Ray Finkel know something that we don't.
Just got a text from DeAnthony, the official time for his press conference is 7pm on Wednesday, at Saginaw High in the media center.
I was at the game on Saturday with one of my friends from college, who is a pretty sharp guy. As Michigan scored their second TD in overtime, he made a case for going for two right there instead of kicking an extra point and forcing a third period.
His reasoning was that both offenses were likely to score on the next possession so we should try the 2pt conversion now, when Illinois would not have a chance to answer. At the time this line of reasoning sounded okay; however, I decided that it was somewhat unconvincing. The fact is that as long as our win percentage is higher by kicking an extra point than by going for two, we should, quite obviously, kick the extra point.
The question then becomes, is it possible that our chances of converting the 2pt conversion are higher than our chances of winning in a third overtime? In order to determine the answer to this question, I had to consider a few different factors:
1. We were going to be playing offense first, which carries with it a strategic disadvantage. What is the inherent disadvantage that we’d have in the next overtime?
2. What are the chances of our team converting a 2pt conversion? How much more likely are we to convert than an “average” team?
3. How likely is it that the kick to force a third overtime will be successful?
I did a bit of research and found a study that showed that the team that starts on defense wins about 52.25% of the time in the third overtime and later. You can find the study here. And, looking at M’s kicking statistics I’ve found that the team is 46/47 on extra point attempts, 98%. I used that for our success rate in this spot. So when we kick the extra point we’ll win .4775*.98= .468. So if we can convert the 2pt conversion 47% of the time, we should go for 2.
How often should we expect to make a two point conversion? Advanced NFL Stats says that the conversion is good, on average, 44% of the time. So obviously, if we had an average chance of converting, we should kick the extra point. But our offense is significantly above average.
In order to decide how much more often our 2pt conversion would be successful than an average team’s conversion, I divided our total offense in terms of yards/game by the national average. The result is a multiplier which I applied to the average 2 pt conversion percentage. Our total offense per game is 536 and the national average is 384 giving us a multiplier of 1.39 (our multiplier is similar when considering scoring offense). Applied to the average conversion rate of 44%, our new conversion rate should be 61%.
Now this seems pretty high to me, but given the things we’ve seen our offense do this year, I’d be surprised if we didn’t fall somewhere above the 47% necessary to make going for two at the end of overtime correct.
I didn't see this posted anywhere else but remove if I'm wrong. Rivals has released a new top 100. Michigan has one player in the top 100 Dee Hart #17 overall (Highest rated 4 star). Other players:
Hasean Clinton-Dix #6
Sammy Watkins #25
Ray Drew #28
DeAnthony Arnett #60
That is just a short list of players interested in Michigan on the list...
“I like Michigan in the Big Ten,” Drew said. “I'm mostly looking at Michigan; they have a great football program but mainly looking at them for the educational standpoint,” Drew said.
“When I talk to the Michigan coaches they need me for the program and they want to turn the program around. I’m not sure If I will visit them it’s a possibility,” Drew said.
Per Scout: Height = 6'5", Weight = 248, 40 = 4.74, Position Rank = 8
[Ed-M: What are these numbers? Returning players on 2-deep? Next year's upperclassmen? Whatever: to the board with you]
edit: fuck it, see below. Much better stated.
I am sorry for not writing what I was using down. I DERPed up. I am doing this by Varsity letters earned by returning players.
For paragraph 2 I will state this: for career back-ups I awarded a varsity letter only if they are an upper-classman. This was to differentiate between a returning sophomore who only played (for example) 3 games and crap time, and who hasn't gotten enough lifting time in and a 5th year returning senior (who you could say would equal Banks I guess, so it's still off). The thought was that a returning 5th year who was a career back-up would only get 1 vasity letter awarded beause they didn't do much in PT, but they did get scheme training, and weight training.
*We run a 3-3-5, not a 4-3. Thus, we’re under a player here.
**For convenience I’m putting the Spur as a WLB, not an additional safety, for this metric.
*** based on the metric below, the average is 5.9 years of PT.
Complicated crap that you might not care about:
If you shift the numbers on DL to a three man front, it gets really complicated. Whose production do you take out? The other team's least or most experienced player? I can't think of a metric for this other than AVG EXP/player/3 DL positions. If you use that, the average EXP for DL is about 5.9 years. If anyone has any better ideas for this metric, tell me.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
You’ll see that our DL is more experienced than average (per player, not unit) while the rest of our D will be just around the normal experience level. In Fact, our secondary will be more experienced than the average BT secondary. This makes sense.
- We lose 1 player in the secondary: Rogers. Not much of a loss, but a significant loss when you think about PT. Counter that with Woolfolk, a 5th year Senior taking Roger's place, and you don't lose any experience.
- We don't lose any other players in the secondary; everyone comes back with experience
- After such decimation for two years, we should have expected this. It only makes sense that teams will tend back to the norm.
The fact that the DD argument will no longer be tenable next year (due to us having MORE!!! experience than an average BT team) is a good thing. While we can no longer cling to that as a legitimate excuse for RR, we can now bring up our expectations.
- DD is no longer a valid excuse. It's premise was that we lost experience; we now will have average experience. If low PT was the reason for a poor defense, a middling PT/experience factor should give us a middle-of-the-pack defense.
- Our D SHOULD be middle of the pack, based on the PT logic. I've argued from day one that a middle of the pack D would give us a shot at the BT title and if our O is #1 (which it could be, but depends on TOM) a shot at the MNC.
- We should shoot for the BT title next year. If our offense continues taking the strides it has, and we stop this TOM BS our D should finally be good enough for this to be a goal.