football

Here's a mildly amusing link. 

Pat Caputo is a guy whom I consider to be mostly mild-mannered, and reasonable, and yet on radio he is often forced into the role of being a screaming lunatic, like most of his sportstalk radio colleagues and competitors.

This link is to one of his recent columns on the aftermath of the Michigan Response and Ceremonial Wrist Slap.  The column is sort of meh.  Caputo is no Michigan apologist (he knows as well as anybody that "Michigan controversy" = "good business" for newspaper sports sections and sportstalk radio).  Nor is Caputo much of a fire-breathing Michigan hater.  What he is, I think, is a good barometer of the lazy middle; and I think he's actually a good barometer of mainstream sports opinionating in the Metro Detroit area.

I'll leave it to you to judge the column.  But have a look at the Comments following the column.  And the Editorial correction that precedes the column.  The first sentence of the sixth paragrapch had originally been written by Caputo as, ""They didn’t pay players, like the Wolverines’ basketball program did during the Ed Martin scandal."

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/05/25/sports/columns/doc4bfc66c7a8b4d234193414.txt

I do some amateurish statistical compiling from time to time for a couple of pools I'm in during the CFB season. In the last couple of days, I took a look at returning starters by unit in the B10 against the relative production of those units last year. Thought I'd throw it out there since I had it anyway.

A couple of notes.

• All of the data come from the NCAA's website
• I've listed the teams in order of retuning starters—used Adam Rittenberg's count from his post Spring Practice overviews of the B10 on espn.com.  
• I've only looked at Total Offense and Scoring Offense, and Total Defense and Scoring Defense. There are tons of other categories obvs, but these to my mind give a pretty good sense of things.
• Also, for the offense, I've noted which teams have returning starting QBs because of the difference that makes in competency of the offense typically. E.g., both Michigan and PSU have 7 returning starters on offense but I would expect Michigan's unit to be much more efficient and productive given the respective options at QB.

On with it, then …

Scoring Offense and Total Offense

Takeaways (in the corporatey bullshit bingo meaning of the word)

• Is it on Wisconsin or Wisconsin's on?Teams are going to have to put up considerable points to beat the Badgers. Slightly odd to think about them as a prolific offense, but with 10 starters coming back and Tolzien back under center, they are likely to put up better numbers than last year. And last year, they were good. They moved it and they scored it.  What's is scary about this unit isn't shown here—they were ranked 3^rd in Red Zone efficiency nationally last year (scoring 96% of their opportunities) and 2nd nationally in what I'll call Red Zone TD efficiency, scoring 42 TDs in 56 opportunities for a 75% clip.  That is pretty sick efficiency.
•  Sweater lets go of the reigns?OSU has a lot coming back from a team that was just so-so in total offense and scoring, though that's typical of a Tressel low risk offense, IMO, not necessarily a reflection of talent.  I'm expecting that TP in Year Three will have this offense clicking. Under a different coach, this could be a Top 10 - 20 unit or better, I think. They have the pieces. But under the suffocating cotton of the Sweater, they might not get there.  Nor need to get there.
•  Good News, Bad News for Minny. The good? They have a lot coming back. The bad? They weren't very good last year. Substantial improvement would only see them as a middle of the road NCAA offense.
•  Thin Green Line. MSU has only 6 returners but they were a Top 35-ish unit with a first-year starting QB in 2009.  I'm expecting them to be comparable and likely better if their revamped line holds up. The skill players are in place. My guess is that they'll move and score even if the line is mediocre, which it likely will be.
• With a D like ours, who needs offense?Or so says Iowa. Their offense was pretty anemic last year, both in the B10 and nationally. Yet they played in a BCS game and soundly beat the ACC champ.  (Anyone wish we could flip flop the relative strengths of Michigan's O and D? I do.) 

Scoring Defense and Total Defense

 Takeaways

• Right, about that crappy offense. If you had your choice, whose 8 starters would you want back on defense, Iowa's or Michigan's? (Rhetorical) The Hawkeyes were Top 10 in both total and scoring D in '09.  While their Red Zone D overall efficiency was only middle of the pack (76^th in the country ... teams scored on 83% of their opportunities), they didn't give up many Red Zone chances (only 29 all year, which was 8^th best in the country), and their red zone TD defense was stout, giving up only 14 TDs in those 29 Opportunities for a 48% clip and 21^st best in the country.
• The Numbers for Wisconsin, PSU and OSU. All of these units were pretty damn good last year.  OSU and PSU have to replace 6 spots, but we know these teams, (especially OSU) lose guys annually and rarely see production drop off with new starters. Wisconsin doesn't have that same track record, but they have a good core coming back. While improving on 2009 performances would be tough, even status quo would be pretty good, and I'm expecting pretty much that.
• Face lift. Minnesota will have a bunch of new guys running around. Typically not a good thing when you were an average NCAA defense the prior year.
• Hoosiers will be generous. Indiana wasn't terribly gifted on D last year, lost a couple of the better defensive ends in the conference, and only return four starters. In other news, the world is round.
• The rest of 'em. The balance of the conference had mediocre or poorer defenses last year. Other than Michigan, most are replacing at least 5 starters. I don't see any quantum leaps in improvement here.  

Enjoy your hot dogs, potato salad and parades this weekend.

[ed: bumped despite deployment of worst photo of yrs truly ever.]

“…if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” –Nietzsche

Son of a bitch. It’s happening. Quit lookin’ at me, abyss.

In 1960 JFK referred to himself as “…a graduate of the Michigan of the East, Harvard University.” I’ve always thought of that as a high compliment towards Michigan. Now, however, I also recognize the glint of the hex that was unwittingly cast upon us on that day. Upon uttering those words, the 35^th P.O.T.U.S not only saluted the University of Michigan’s academic excellence, but he also set our crown jewel onto a collision course with gridiron suckitude. Allow me to explain.

I recently came across an article from 1949 in The Harvard Crimson. The article is over 3000 words long, but the first shiver slithered up my spine before I had even reached the byline: “Alumni, Doing Nothing, Scream for Blood After Worst Season Ever.” By the time I had finished reading the article—A Clockwork Orange style—my spine was a full blown electric eel in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

It’s hard to resist full verse recitation of the whole article but, here some highlights:

• There are references to Harvard’s recruiting footprint and the need for MOAR ESS-EEE-CEE HAWA-EEE-EEE SPEED!
• The authors bitch about being charged “$4.20 or even $3.60 to see Harvard play an obviously poor football opponent.” Oh, the humanity! It’s weird though because throughout the article they vacillate their complaints between playing cannon fodder and actually being cannon fodder.
• There are reports of familiar alumni complaints a la, “Hurr, hurr…get off my lawn with that new fangled, Crisler-style, single-wing offense and two-platoon system; you…you Michigander, you. Gimme back my Power T.”

And two choice excerpts from the article

“[Current coach] ought to adapt his system to fit his players, the way ‘good old [retired coach] used to do.’ "

But the crucial concern right now is that no attempt to change the situation involve the firing of [Current coach], who may not be the genius he was hailed as last year but who is certainly doing his best--and a definitely competent best--with what material he has.

Go ahead and do whatever it takes to rid yourself of those heebie-jeebies; I’ll wait. Seriously, it’s like Brian himself had been warped to 1949 via the way back machine to write that article. It’s impossibly eerie; much like this ancient statue of Michael Jackson an anonymous Egyptian woman and this authentic picture of Brian some bespectacled dude with long hair in a block M tee shirt.

[ed: more disturbing parallels between Harvard circa 1950 and present-day M after the jump.]

I wound up sitting next to a Notre Lame alum on a plane ride. We were having a decent conversation about football in general. Then he brought up the allegations. I said its not that big of a deal, then he goes on to say that Michigan had exceeded practice limits by as much as 20 hours a week. Where do these people get their information?

I looked and didn't see anyone post this, which is surprising since it was written on Wednesday.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12713/big-ten-lunch-links-267

Too bad he didn't cite to the portion in which Brian rips the Freep

I touched on this in another thread. We had a few differents threads yesterday on various top 25s. And, man, there was a lot of whining, crying and charges of bias and/or sensationalism. There was also a lot of great conversation, debate and insights.  But, it did make me think. Everyone, including me, had a bone or more to pick with the rankings somewhere. But, at least these guys did rankings, and, in the case of Steele, you know he did a boat load of research. No way he doesnt know these teams better than most of us on this site. So, then, if we all know for sure where these rankings are stupid, biased and created just to start some buzz for their magazine, then what are our rankings? Lets hear them.

Its a Friday, it will be slow where I am working in advance of the holiday, the rankings because of the threads yesterday are on our mind. Let's do this. Show me your top 25. And lets freaking just shred each other. In the spirit, here's mine. This is the first time I've really put pen and paper to rankings. This is raw. Non binding. But forced to do a impromptu top 25 in a matter of minutes on the last Friday of May, here is what I got:

1  Alabama

2  Boise

3  Ohio State

4   Texas

5 Oklahoma

6  USC

7 Iowa

8 Virginia Tech

9 Florida

10  TCU

11 Auburn

12 Wisco

13 LSU

14 Georgia Tech

15 Nebraska

16 Utah

17  Miami

18  Arkansas

19   Stanford

20 Georgia

21  Oregon

22 West Virginia

23 Oregon State

24  Florida State

25  UConn

There it is. I just reeled these off in a few minutes this morning. I cant worry about shuffling them around or editing. Gotta get ready for work. Crush these all you want. I'm sure I'll have buyers remorse on half in a matter of minutes. So, whats everybody else's top 25?