Mike Lantry, 1972
Yesterday I posted about Brady Hoke's offensive philosophy and how his actions haven't matched up with his words. Unfortunately, a large part of that post was based on a massive misunderstanding of the data at CFBStats. I thought first downs were first down playcalling. They were how first downs were acquired, which is a totally different stat.
I called upon the Mathlete to fix this massive boner and he rose to the occasion. Brady Hoke's first down playcalling versus the national average, according to these parameters…
Only 1st and 10s
Only between the 20's
Only in competitive time/score situations
Run PCT is Run/(Run + Pass) excluding penalties
National average from 2008-2010 was 56% Run
Hoke 2008: 55%
Hoke 2010: 54%
…not significantly different from the populace at large. This obliterates my argument that Hoke passed to set up the run. He's not neolithic but neither is he Secret Mike Leach.
Of course, with Denard Robinson and 6 YPC you could run on 70% of first downs and that would be a good idea. It's all about context.
Thinking about making this a regular feature when the inevitable corrections/comments come up on the 14k (this week) words put into UFR:
On the Savoy "drop" in the endzone. Millen's right and the ball got tipped, so I bumped that to a 2. Good if he brings it in, not a pure drop.
On Tate's interception. I doubted Greg Mathews' words here but everyone says I'm wrong in the comments, this guy most authoritatively:
Matthews made the wrong read
as a former Div I WR, I can confirm that this was on Matthews - the read was to settle in the seam - Forcier read the seam in underneath coverage and the DB running deep - there was a clear hole in the zone - Forcier read it and Matthews missed it - if he settles there, complete pass and he turns it up for a few more yards
Withdrawn. I don't have a category for "receiver runs wrong route," so I'll just redact the BR. Pretty remarkable that the huge "oh noes, freshman" screwup in the game was actually on the senior wide receiver, not the freshman.
On Cissoko. Okay, okay, I definitely shouldn't have said he's "not any good" after all of two games, especially considering the shoulder injury. That's going too far. But, man, even Rodriguez acknowledged that he had a rough day on Saturday:
Boubacar didn't have his best game, but he's a good football player, and he's a competitor, and I'm sure he'll come back and play better the next time.
So I stand by the assessment. He's unlikely to be so negative again if only because he's not going to face Michael Floyd. Can the Cissoko War in the user-generated content areas end now?
On Minor and thumping blocks. I failed to notice Brandon Minor totally burying a Notre Dame defensive end on the Odoms third down conversion:
On Koger and Webb. I misattributed a couple of excellent run blocks, saying they were Koger's when they were Webb's. Recalibrate your sensors on the tight ends accordingly.
On the run game. Genuinely Sarcastic has its run chart up; the right side of the line grades out very well, especially Molk and Moosman. A +4 from Huyge offsets some of his pass protection issues, which were mostly of the –1 annoyance variety instead of the –2 oh crap our QB is dead variety. Also oh snap from the GS comments:
Tate's TD run is omitted because it wasn't a designed run. That and I'm pretty sure there aren't enough plus signs in the world to accurately represent what he did to Darius Fleming.
On "ability." Yes, yes:
Brian, again, it's ABILITY to destroy a planet.
We've been over this.
It's even written correctly right above!
I don't know which illegal, Translated-by-Taiwanese, rip-off videocassettes of the Star Wars Trilogy you've been watching, but I'm sending you a copy of Episode IV anyway (sorry -- it has the stupid Jabba scene and Greedo shooting twice. Keep your remote handy).
I'm sorry. Here' a picture of Pirate Yoda:
I assume this fixes everything. Hyyyarrr.
Buy or throw at, your choice. Attention State College persons/bloggers: I'm going to be in your neck of the woods next weekend, as the GF attends a food studies conference. (The last one was in New Orleans, which seemed more logical, no offense.) She is going to busy talking about Foucault and whatnot; I am going to be bored and possibly forbidden from doing any sort of daytime activities. This is your opportunity to discuss Big Ten refereeing with an actual Michigan fan.
Correction. Yesterday I asserted that club varsity teams had it made. Unfortunately, this was so vastly wrong I received two responses that explained just how vastly wrong I was. Picking the first to arrive in the inbox:
I thought you might want to know a little info about our team and I can clear up the term "varsity-club" a little bit. For our team, each player pays dues of $3,500 per year. Our annual budget is over $500,000, this is more than almost all of the big time Division 1 programs (much more when you consider we don't provide scholarships). The University provides $20,000 a year to us. The rest is made up through our dues, fundraising, and sponsorships. I can't give specifics in regards to the other varsity-club teams here, but I know that they pay dues and not much is free.
-David Reinhard, #20
These are men who love their lacrosse. For more on the club varsity status and what it takes to remove "club" from it, see this Daily article from a couple years ago that focuses on the lacrosse team. I assume they're on top of the list for addition given their success and the sudden, permanent availability of Oosterbaan, but that any varsity additions will be put off until the stadium renovation starts gushing cash.