2012

 To talk about something (other than PSU) on a slow day, there is a good article on the nearing completion of Crisler Center renovations.

Crisler Center improvements near completion

 Included are comments from Beilein, my favorite being:

 "Crisler is probably an 80-percent finished product right now. There's a completely new facade and the outside is all brick and it's beautiful," Beilein said. "There's a new entryway to Crisler that's going to knock you out. There's a big block 'M' and the escalators and big glass entry. All of the concourses are wide open with food courts, lighting and windows. It is going to be something really special."

To view photos of the latest Crisler Center renovations, visit:

http://www.mgoblue.com/view.gal?id=122324

 

With all the talk about the upcoming Olympics, I thought I share something I saw on the news here last evening.

 French runner Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad won the gold medal in the 3000-meter steeplechase race during the European Championship last weekend. It seems that he celebrates in an unusual manner. He likes to abuse mascots. He walked directly over to and then shoved the mascot at the event, which turned out to be a 14-year-old girl. Fortunately, she wasn't hurt. However, this is not the first time this has happened. After winning the same event in Barcelona in 2010, he told a mascot to kneel in front of him and then pushed him to the ground. He also got in a fight with his teammate at the finish line then.

 VIDEO HERE

 When I first heard it I thought it would be an overblown, inadvertent bumping or the like. Yet, he went out of his way to attack this mascot. I just found this so bizarre I had to share it to see if anyone has further input as why he'd do it.

What should we expect in Year 2 from a Greg Mattison led defense?

 

I'm going to attempt to answer that question by looking at trends from his previous stints elsewhere.

 

Greg Mattison has been a defensive coordinator for 2 years or longer at 4 different schools: Western Michigan University (1985-86), Michigan (1995-96), Notre Dame (1997-2001), and Florida (2005-07). I’ll examine those changes that Mattison’s defense made from Year 1 to Year 2.

 

I’m going to take the time to quickly explain what you will see below. The rest of this diary is split up into 5 sections: Western Michigan, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, and the Summary. The first 4 sections each have 2 sub-sections: a sub-section examining Mattison’s time at the respective coaching stop and a sub-section applying the trend from the respective coaching stop to Michigan in 2012. Each sub-section will contain 3 charts and 3 tables. Each chart depicts the trend over 3 years. The tables contain the respective raw data. The 1st year shown will be the year before Mattison arrived, the 2^nd year shown will be Mattison’s 1st year at the program, and the 3^rd year shown will be Mattison’s 2^nd year at the program. Years 2 and 3 will be bolded to signify those years as the years in which Mattison was the coach. If it sounds confusing, it all makes sense once you start reading.

 

Now for a word on the methodology. The math used was really quite simple, I just used proportions to estimate the stats for Michigan in 2012. I’ll illustrate how I calculated the predictions using the numbers from Greg Mattison’s time at Michigan from 1995-1996. The calculation is solving for the expected points allowed per game in 2012.

 

Solve for X and the number you get is 15.6 points/game. That’s the number we should expect from the defense in 2012 based on Greg Mattison’s performance at Michigan from 1995-1996. I followed the same procedure for each category for each team. It can produce some unrealistic numbers but it’s a relatively simplistic method that provides a general idea of what to expect. I’ll point out some of the unrealistic numbers as they pop up.

 

I’ll keep the commentary scarce until the summary, as there really isn't much to comment on.

 

 

Western Michigan

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
WMU 1984	146.8	210.5	357.4
WMU 1985	173.8	138.2	312
WMU 1986	163.6	213	376.6
2nd Year Difference	-10.2	+74.8	+64.6

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
WMU 1984	3.5	1.2	1	1.6	1.2
WMU 1985	3.7	1.8	0.64	1.4	1
WMU 1986	3.8	2	1	1.6	1.1
2nd Year Difference	+0.1	+0.2	+0.36	+0.2	+0.1

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
WMU 1984	60.8	19.2
WMU 1985	53.6	19.3
WMU 1986	56.9	23.2
2nd Year Difference	+3.3	+3.9

 

 

 

Applying it to Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Michigan 2010	188.9	261.8	450.8
Michigan 2011	131.7	190.5	322.2
Michigan 2012	124	293.6	388.9
2nd Year Difference	-7.7	+103.1	+66.7

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Michigan 2010	4.4	2.6	1.6	0.92	0.54
Michigan 2011	4	1.1	0.92	0.69	1.5
Michigan 2012	4.1	1.2	1.4	0.79	1.7
2nd Year Difference	+0.1	+0.1	+0.48	+0.1	+0.2

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Michigan 2010	63.8	35.2
Michigan 2011	59.1	17.4
Michigan 2012	62.7	20.9
2nd Year Difference	3.6	3.5

 

 

Notes of Importance

-A 103.1 Yds/G (!) increase in Passing yards allowed from 190.5 to 293.6 Yds/G is unrealistic; This would be more Passing yards allowed than in 2010, by over 30 yards.

 

Michigan

 

**Note: The only statistic available for Mattison’s first stint at Michigan is Pts./G**

 

 

 

	Pts./G.
Michigan 1994	22.3
Michigan 1995	17.2
Michigan 1996	15.3
2nd Year Difference	-1.9

 

 

Applying it to Michigan

 

 

 

 

	Pts./G.
Michigan 2010	35.2
Michigan 2011	17.4
Michigan 2012	15.6
2nd Year Difference	-1.8

 

 

Notre Dame

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Notre Dame 1996	119.5	150.5	270
Notre Dame 1997	184.8	180.3	365.1
Notre Dame 1998	146.2	208.4	365
2nd Year Difference	-38.6	+28.1	-0.1

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Notre Dame 1996	3.1	1.3	0.82	1.2	0.55
Notre Dame 1997	4.5	1.7	0.38	1.1	0.31
Notre Dame 1998	3.5	0.83	1.3	1	0.67
2nd Year Difference	-1	-0.87	+0.92	-0.1	+0.36

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Notre Dame 1996	44.9	16.5
Notre Dame 1997	57.4	18.3
Notre Dame 1998	56.8	20.7
2nd Year Difference	-0.6	+2.4

 

 

Notes of Importance

 

-Notre Dame significantly improved in almost every category except for Pass defense and Scoring defense.

 

 

Applying it to Michigan

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Michigan 2010	188.9	261.8	450.8
Michigan 2011	131.7	190.5	322.2
Michigan 2012	104.2	220.2	322.1
2nd Year Difference	-27.5	+29.7	-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Michigan 2010	4.4	2.6	1.6	0.92	0.54
Michigan 2011	4	1.1	0.92	0.69	1.5
Michigan 2012	3.1	0.53	3	0.64	3.3
2nd Year Difference	-0.9	-0.57	+2.08	-0.05	+1.8

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Michigan 2010	63.8	35.2
Michigan 2011	59.1	17.4
Michigan 2012	58.5	19.7
2nd Year Difference	-0.6	+2.3

 

Notes of Importance

-Recovering 3+ fumbles a game is unrealistic. I doubt that it has ever happened in the modern era.

 

Florida

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Florida 2004	141.9	203.7	345.6
Florida 2005	94.9	204.9	299.8
Florida 2006	72.5	182.9	255.4
2nd Year Difference	-22.4	-22	-44.4

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Florida 2004	3.7	0.9	1.3	1.4	0.6
Florida 2005	3.1	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.3
Florida 2006	2.7	0.6	0.7	1.5	0.6
2nd Year Difference	-0.4	-0.6	-0.6	+0.2	-0.7

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Florida 2004	55.4	21.1
Florida 2005	52.3	18.8
Florida 2006	53.3	13.5
2nd Year Difference	+1	-5.3

 

 

Applying it to Michigan

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Michigan 2010	188.9	261.8	450.8
Michigan 2011	131.7	190.5	322.2
Michigan 2012	100.6	170	274.4
2nd Year Difference	-31.1	-20.5	-47.8

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Michigan 2010	4.4	2.6	1.6	0.92	0.54
Michigan 2011	4	1.1	0.92	0.69	1.5
Michigan 2012	3.5	0.54	0.5	0.8	0.71
2nd Year Difference	-0.5	-0.56	-0.42	+0.11	-0.79

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Michigan 2010	63.8	35.2
Michigan 2011	59.1	17.4
Michigan 2012	60.2	12.5
2nd Year Difference	+1.1	-4.9

 

 

Notes of Importance

 

-If we see the same improvement that Mattison saw in his 2^nd year at Florida, this defense could be the best in the nation

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. Yds/G.	Rush. TDs/G.	Comp. Pct.	Pass. Yds./G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Total Yds./G	Pts./G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
WMU	4.1	124	1.2	62.7	293.6	1.5	388.9	20.9	0.83	1.7
ND	3.1	104.2	0.53	58.5	220.2	3	322.1	19.7	0.64	3.3
Florida	3.5	100.6	0.54	60.2	170	0.5	274.4	12.5	0.8	0.71
Michigan								15.6
Average w/WMU	3.6	109.6	0.76	60.5	227.9	1.7	328.5	17.2	0.76	1.9
Average w/o WMU	3.3	102.4	0.54	59.4	195.1	1.8	298.3	15.9	0.72	2
Median	3.5	104.2	0.54	60.2	220.2	1.5	322.1	19.7	0.8	1.7

 

 

I wasn’t sure whether to use the median or the average of the projected data without WMU for the final projections but I decided to use the average obtained without using the WMU data for the final projections for several reasons:

 

1. WMU was Mattison’s first coaching stop. Looking at the data as a whole, the WMU data was significantly different than other coaching stops and skews the data. The median would normally correct for this but so few data points exist that the median isn’t very helpful in this regard.

 

2. WMU as a MAC school has a lower level of talent than ND, Florida and Michigan, which are all upper-tier BCS schools. I’m not sure if it’s the primary reason behind the major difference but it might have an effect.

 

3. I had already created all the charts and tables for the average without WMU and I didn’t think it was necessary to create the charts and tables for the median. If anyone is outraged by this say so in the comments and I’ll think about adding it in if the anger is great enough.

 

On to the final projected stats for the 2012 Michigan defense:

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds/G.	Pass. Yds./G.	Total Yds./G
Michigan 2010	188.9	261.8	450.8
Michigan 2011	131.7	190.5	322.2
Michigan 2012	102.4	195.1	298.3
2nd Year Difference	-29.3	+4.6	-23.9

 

 

 

 

	Rush. Yds./Carry	Rush. TDs/G.	Pass. TDs/G.	Int./G.	Recov. Fumb./G.
Michigan 2010	4.4	2.6	1.6	0.92	0.54
Michigan 2011	4	1.1	0.92	0.69	1.5
Michigan 2012	3.3	0.54	1.8	0.72	2
2nd Year Difference	-0.7	-0.56	+0.88	+0.03	+0.5

 

 

 

 

	Comp. Pct.	Pts./G.
Michigan 2010	63.8	35.2
Michigan 2011	59.1	17.4
Michigan 2012	59.4	15.9
2nd Year Difference	+0.3	-1.5

 

 

One final note: hundreds, if not thousands, of confounding variables exist and I didn’t account for any of them. Listing them here would be pointless. Just take all these numbers with a grain of salt and know they’re not going to be entirely accurate. They’re just meant to give an idea of what to expect.

 

Anyways, hope you guys enjoyed this. Please leave some feedback as I’ll be doing something similar for the offense and I’d like to know what I should add, leave out or leave the same. I expect to have it out in around 2 weeks. This was also my first time publishing with Windows Live Writer so I have no idea if the format will turn out fine. Sorry in advance if it isn’t.

Link: http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8078414/northwestern-adds-7-2-chier-ajou-cousin-chicago-bulls-luol-deng

Offseason recruiting plus transfers for NW's basketball team includes Luol Deng's cousin who is 7-2, 3 other commits, a 6'6" winger, 2 6'7" wingers, a 6'9" forward, and a 6'11" forward. Now add that to waht they currently have and we're looking at a team that could give teams in the B10 fits after this year's graduations and attrition. 

Source . Young has been asked not to show up to the Lion's practices this week due to allegedly punching Louis Delmas last week. I hope Broyles is ready if this sort of thing isn't an isolated incident. 

This isn't exactly an exhaustively researched report, but there has been nothing in the diaries lately, and I thought I'd bring up a foreboding bit of Michigan history for you all. As we prepare to enter the 2012 season, I got just a minor sense of foreboding thinking of a few parallels to another well known season.

The year is 2006. Michigan football rebounds from an extremely disappointing 7-5 2005 campaign that sees losses to OSU and the bowl game to have a breakout year. The juniors on the team finally seem to gel completely and Michigan storms to an 11-2 record, including playing one of the most epic games in one of the most storied rivalries ever.

The following season, the pundits say, if there were ever a Michigan team that was primed to make a big run, it was the 2007 Wolverines. A truly gifted senior QB entering his 4th year of starting, who looks poised to make that leap to true stardom. A lockdown left tackle clearly produced by the NFL's most crack genetic engineers. A tailback that had emerged from a rash of injuries the previous season to prove a star, and a defense that had lost a few pieces but had improved so vastly from the seaon before that an upward trajectory could only be expected to continue.

Of course, we all know how that went.

 

Consider the 2011 Wolverines. Fresh off an extremely disappointing 7-5 campaign that sees losses to OSU and in the bowl game, the Wolverines put together a breakout year. The team seems to gel and Michigan storms to an 11-2 season including playing in one of the most epic games in one of the most storied rivalries ever.

For the 2012 season, Michigan will feature a truly gifted senior QB entering his 4th year of starting. He seems primed to make the leap from extremely talented to true stardom. Michigan features a lockdown left tackle seemingly produced by the NFL's most crack genetic engineers. We even have a tailback that emerged from a rash of injuries last season to prove a star, and a defense that made a stratospheric leap that bodes extremely well for the future.

Now, I'm not saying that Michigan 2012 is Michigan 2007. These teams are extremely different. But, it is the middle of the off season, and with Hoke heading things up, it's all sunshine and lollipops. What fun is that? Maybe it's good to be a little scared?