Unverified Voracity Bids Crystal Adieu Comment Count

Brian

bcstrophy[1]

It's over. Hooray?

And lo, it ended. It ended for us before the new year, and now it's all over, all of it: the season, the BCS, the goofy bowl scheduling. Next year, there are three large games on New Year's Eve and three large games on New Year's Day, two of which are national semifinals leading to a final the next week.

The BCS itself was sent off with a grander finale than it deserved, a taut back-and-forth affair between Florida State and pretty-much-arbitrarily-chosen Auburn that worked out, unlike near-arbitrary matchups that ended up in one sided blowouts with another team with a near-identical resume looked on in disgust. With the playoff these outrages have been reduced in intensity and spread over a greater number of teams, which seems like progress.

How long this holds before expansion and realignment kicks in, I don't know. I tend to think we'll end up with an eight-team playoff sooner rather than later, and from there who knows what happens. Someone will say "but we can get more money," probably, and then things spiral on and on.

At the very least, a bunch of bad ideas have ceased to impact college football, like

  1. Coaches voting on teams they haven't seen and have a huge conflict of interest about
  2. Retired coaches voting based on what Oklahoma was like in 1975
  3. Computer polls that can't take margin of victory or anything else into account
  4. Richard Billingsley

Whether the new ideas are better is yet to be seen; they almost can't be worse.

OH GOOD. Penn State may have been an incestuous mockery of an athletic department for years, but by God did they turn that around quickly. Bill O'Brien goes so well that an NFL team scoops him up after two years and their sanction-riddled mess of a program heading for a crater is about hire away

...the guy who turned Vanderbilt from a 2-10 type outfit into a consistent bowl participant and all-around thorn in the side of the SEC. Ace and I are trying to come up with the last Big Ten coach to have 1) a job at the time of his hire and 2) a resume better than Franklin's, and, well…

[12:22 PM] Ace: is it bad that kevin wilson was the first name that came to mind?
[12:22 PM] Brian Cook: #ImitateAdam_Jacobi

…we're having some difficulty. Ace throws out Dantonio, but Dantonio's record in three years at Cincinnati was 18-17. Best we've got is Gary Andersen at Wisconsin, who implemented a hugely impressive build at Utah State. But I dunno man, Vandy is coming off back to back 9-4 years. Vandy. Which is in the SEC.

Not sure how good of a cultural fit the fiery, weird Franklin (remember that thing about how he only hires guys with hot wives?) will be at Penn State, but for a team in their situation to poach the hot up and coming SEC guy is impressive.

Unless this is all agents getting their dude a raise, but there's a lot of smoke here indicating he's the guy. Which will mean Michigan is in a division with Urban, Dantonio, and Franklin. Plus Randy Edsall. It's not all bad, I guess.

That was awesome, do it more. Twitter was agog about the ESPN News section of ESPN's BCS overkill broadcast, as it featured coaches (and Chris Spielman and Matt Millen) with instant off the cuff reactions to what was going on. I was with Twitter. Spielman's fervor for assignments came through clearly as he steamed about Auburn's screen touchdown, and then Kevin Sumlin jumped in to say that is what Auburn does, they put the eye candy in front of you for just those reasons, and everything was just terrific.

A few suggestions:

  1. Everyone do this all the time. Seriously, I would watch Glen Mason in a room just dying in disgust as he tries to watch Michigan run the ball. This may qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention; if it doesn't, do it.
  2. The game is the most important bit, so make it the whole screen, with the coaches popping in with small PIP boxes. The All-22 camera angle combined with the smaller box for the actual game was problematic, and I have a huge TV. Maximize the game size; no need to cut to visuals of Spielman, et al., when I can hear them talking.
  3. Cut two guys. One guy to run things, one D guy, one O guy, and Spielman.
  4. Send small electric shocks to anyone who talks in platitudes, like Paul Chryst did much of the night.

Thumbs up.

What I have been trying to express all year. Smart Football profiles Gus Malzahn for Grantland. This is the core of the offensive philosophy that brought Auburn from 0-8 in the SEC to the precipice of the national title in one year with a converted cornerback at QB:

Malzahn had never been in charge of an offense before. Searching for help, he turned to a book famous in coaching circles, The Delaware Wing-T: An Order of Football, by Harold "Tubby" Raymond, and followed it "word-for-word."

The genius of Raymond's book is that it's not merely a collection of football plays, though there's still plenty of that. Instead, it's primarily a treatise on how to think about offensive football. "The Wing-T is more than a formation," Raymond wrote. "It is sequence football." The animating idea behind Raymond's "Delaware" wing-T was his belief that the best offenses were built around a tightly wound collection of plays that fit together so that defenses effectively dictated the next play; each time a team tries to stop one thing, it opens itself up to something else. Beginning in the 1950s and lasting into the early 2000s — first as an assistant under wing-T innovator David Nelson, then as head coach from the mid-1960s on — Raymond fielded teams that devastated defenses. If the opposition tried to stop his base plays, Raymond had counters to his counters, counters to his counters to his counters, and so on. He amplified this "sequential" approach by "utilizing the misdirection theme to its fullest." With a dizzying array of motions, backfield actions, and fakes, Raymond correctly determined that defenses wouldn't be able to stop his offense if they couldn't find the ball.

Auburn's offense is a modernized version of that. It's like Fritz Crisler, basically, except not as wacky. Michigan does not have a tightly wound collection of plays, partially because they can't execute basic runs and partially because that's just not how Al Borges rolls. Borges does have sets of plays that are interrelated, but instead of piling wrinkle on wrinkle like Malzahn does—his thing this year was double arc blocks…

ibmLPHqsI8XGUB[1]

…Borges goes to a different package once his previous stuff has been figured out. And they dispense with the frippery. To me that's a philosophical thing on par with huddling.

How do you run the ball in college football? The top 25 teams in yards per carry this year, with offense type appended (note: distinction between spread to run teams and passing spread teams largely based on how many yards the QB had. Generally spread to run teams had 500+ QB rushing yards, and usually 700+).

RK Name Avg. Offense
1 Ohio State 6.8 Spread to run
2 Wisconsin 6.62 Pro-style
3 Northern Illinois 6.35 Spread to run
4 Auburn 6.3 Spread to run
5 Oregon 6.26 Spread to run
6 New Mexico 6.14 Spread to run
7 Toledo 5.99 Passing spread
8 Alabama 5.8 Pro-style
9 Missouri 5.66 Spread to run
10 Florida State 5.63 Passing spread
11 Navy 5.46 Flexbone
11 Georgia Tech 5.46 Flexbone
13 Baylor 5.37 Passing spread
14 Army 5.36 Flexbone
15 Arizona 5.32 Spread to run
16 Indiana 5.29 Passing spread
17 Boston College 5.28 Pro-style
17 Arkansas 5.28 Pro-style
19 BYU 5.23 Spread to run
20 Oklahoma 5.21 Spread to run
21 Texas A&M 5.17 Spread to run
22 Wyoming 5.1 Spread to run
23 Washington 5.09 Passing spread
24 Marshall 5.05 Passing spread
24 Western Kentucky 5.05 ???

Yeah, it's possible to have a good running game by going under center and grinding it out, but is it likely? Four of the top 25 teams are pro-style outfits, one of which is Alabama and their overwhelming talent. Is Michigan going to be Wisconsin? I hope so, because that's the only way we get on this list.

Dolla dolla bill. We have money. Some of it comes from the only incompetent Germans.

According to a study done by the Portland Business Journal, Michigan's contract with Adidas (which is currently set to expire in 2016) is the most lucrative apparel deal in the country. Yes, more than Oregon's flashy contractual arrangement with Nike.

Per the study, Michigan currently receives a total of $8.2 million annually from Adidas stemming from the contract signed in 2007 between the two parties.

Michigan receives $4.4 million in equipment and apparel, and $3.8 million in cash. That's more than twice as much as the next-highest school in the Big Ten, Nebraska, which makes a total of $4 million from Adidas.

Part of that is the fact that Michigan has so many sports, which drives up the equipment and apparel bit. I wonder what will happen in 2016; that Most Favored Nation status Martin acquired has long driven ND crazy and Michigan's national appeal has… uh… suffered in recent years. The brand, if you will. Maybe we'll run an ad campaign about how we know our football is terrible so we changed our football sauce.

#footballsauce

Etc.: Noah Spence got suspended for… ecstasy? See you at DEMF, bro. Bring your glowsticks. Here are the twitter jokes about this you need to read. Jake Butt makes Leno. Congrats? HAIL SPIELMAN.

Comments

Former_DC_Buck

January 7th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

I didn’t hear it but it sounded like his enthusiasm was a bit contagious.  

I mentioned this in another thread after your bowl game where folks were knocking Spielman for being overly critical of Michigan.  He is honest in his appraisal and will praise or criticize not because of the color of the uniform but because of how you are playing the game.  If he was critical of things Michigan was doing or not doing, it wasn’t because of the team doing it.  I’m not sure how much you hear him outside of Michigan games, but this is the way he does his job.  This venue allowed him even a little more freedom.   

El Jeffe

January 7th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^

Other than the offense, defense, and special teams, I saw nothing in Michigan's performance in the Buffalo Wild Wings Toshiba Kleenex Softique Depends Disposable Diapers Poulan Weedeater and Brushwhacker Bowl that would engender criticism; hence, Spielman is biased against Michigan.

/ A certain kind of Michigan fan

Mr. Yost

January 7th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^

Just because he's passionate, which is great...doesn't make him great.

He only sees the game from a LB, toughness standpoint, which is a perspective that I love...but it also makes him extremely limited.

When I listen to him, I get insight about defense, toughness and tackling. However, as far as why teams are doing what they're doing. He doesn't bring that to the table. As to explaining what teams should be doing, he doesn't do that either.

So I don't think he's the best in the game because he's limited, what he does...he does EXTREMELY well. But if I want a complete breakdown of the complete game, there are others that do it better.

west2

January 7th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

the stupid thing is we had mature talent for the read option or spread to run with possibly the best player ever to run it (Denard) but we were trying to run a pro style or hybrid offense.  Now some are suggesting that we go back to the spread to run while the past 3 years we have been recruiting for pro style.   Makes sense to me...

snarling wolverine

January 7th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^

We didn't do that badly when Denard was our QB under Borges.  We went 11-2 (6-2 in conference) in 2011 and were 5-2 (3-0 B1G) entering the Nebraska game in 2012.  That's a 16-4 total (.800) and 9-2 (.818) in league play.

Gardner/Borges has actually been the much less successful marriage of the minds.

 

markusr2007

January 7th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

for anyone interesting in the wing-T offense.

http://www.bucksweep.com/

The Delaware offense (Wing-T) is primarily a running attack for the following reasons:

  1. The core of any offense football team is hardness and as there is no separation of offense from defense, the style of offense affects the defense. The development of a grueling consistent ground game builds a desire to dominate the opponent physically. How the ball is moved then shares importance with moving the ball itself.

  2. During a football game, each team will get the ball between ten and fifteen times. The team that controls the ball by making first downs with the least risk of turning the ball over will decrease their opponent's opportunities to have the ball.

  3. A consistent ground game increases the number of opportunities to enter the all important four-down area.

  4. The running game is not as subject to severe weather problems as a passing game.

  5. The running attack is not as dependent on superior ability of one or two players as a primary passing attack is.

snarling wolverine

January 7th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^

I'm skeptical Franklin will actually take that job.  He can do better at this point than a school with two more years of sanctions and the lingering PR stain from the Sandusky mess.  I can believe he's their top target but I bet he turns them down in the end.

 

EDIT: The Vandy AD expects to keep him, per this article:  

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24401489/…

west2

January 7th, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^

some relatively "B" coaches are being courted for what were previously considered top coaching postions.  Charlie Strong to Texas, Franklin to PSU....not exactly exciting coaching moves.  Makes you think if Michigan were to make a coaching change, not that I am suggesting they do so, but who would we get that would infuse enthusiasm at this point?

freejs

January 7th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^

Hoke, with no dislocations and only positive short-term changes, I'd be doing cartwheels over either swap.

I don't believe I'm in the minority with that opinion.

Strong at Michigan? Franklin at Michigan? Our current mess?

Yes, please.

 

Mike60586

January 7th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^

They execute.  

To be serious, they looked like a terriffic offense, run based, punching people in the mouth.  Hard to believe that they were dissapointed with 200+ yards rushing.

I also saw a stat last night during the game where Auburn had 4 runners this year with 500+ yards for this season.  Pretty good.

 

Erik_in_Dayton

January 7th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

I'm just throwing this out (really):  Auburn ran for 4.3 ypc in 2004 with Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.  They ran for 4.8 ypc the next year.  I don't know if those were Borges's best two ypc years, but it seems relevant to look at what he did with talent at Auburn and what Malzhan did this year. 

newtopos

January 7th, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^

Cal. under Borges:

’01  3.4

Indiana:

’01  5.7 (pre-Borges)

’02  3.2

’03  3.4

Auburn under Borges:

’04  4.3

’05  4.8

’06  4.1

’07  3.8

Michigan:

’10  5.6 (pre-Borges)

’11  5.2

’12  4.8

’13  3.3

Auburn:

’12  4.1 (Loeffler )

’13  6.3 (Malzahn)

Arizona:

’11  3.4 (pre-RR)

’12  5.4

’13  5.3

Count me as someone who does not believe that all OCs, all schemes, and all S&C programs are relatively equal on the FBS stage.  (If that were truly the case, we should simply hire the staff willing to work for the lowest amount.  Our spending suggests that we do not subscribe to this theory.)

maize-blue

January 8th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^

It seems like Borges likes to throw alot and I think he will continue to do so, especially when the offense improves. He does not appear to install a "power" run game. I believe this could be part of the reason why his offensive rushing stats haven't been gleaming.

It's kind of clashes, really, with Hoke's vision of a tough, smash mouth, ball control, run offense.

I still don't know for sure if Borges is a good OC or not but I do wonder is he is the right fit for what Hoke envisions doing.

micheal honcho

January 7th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^

I played in a "power T" variation of the "winged T" in HS and one of our local coaches is pretty much the master of it in Michigan HS. He's won 3 state championships in 9yrs with talent that has yet to produce even a single legitimate division 1 player.

Watching him work a defense is like an artist. They are in some ways the anti-spread since they line up all 11 players within a phonebooth, including 3 backs in the backfield straight across. Line splits are like 6" and 2 TE is the norm, but watching them manipulate a defense and just rack up points you can see all of the roots of the run based spread at work.

He passes 1 to 3 times a game and usually gets a TD on one of them. His most critical asset is precise(to the point of orchestral) footwork by the backs and textbook O-line play thats simply beautiful to watch.

You can youtube them and see some of it in action, just search for zeeland west football. Be carefull because if you're like me you'll be in a fit wondering why when we couldn't get 2 positive yards rushing we didn't just hire this guy.

micheal honcho

January 8th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^

They've won it 2X in Division 4 and this year in Division 3. As far as the difference between divisions goes I'd say generally the bigger schools(Div. 1) have better talent on the field but not always the case since some of the traditional "city" schools have lost population, expecially in Michigan(detroit area, muskegon).

Anyway, the scheme(power T, winged T, single wing etc) are all rooted in some very elementary but time tested football concepts that, as I learn more myself(now a youth coach) I see many similarities with spread to run/spread to pass offenses. I find it fascinating because I think that coaches of yesteryear like Crisler could actually have great success today just like they did back when. The players change but the coaches ability to react to what they see the defense giving them does not(IMO) and systems like these allow me to actually watch it happen.

I've actually watched the zeeland west coach call a play and give his assistants a "look" on the sidelines because he knew ahead of time that this was going to be a touchdown and sure enough it would happen(or a huge gain of 30+ yards anyhow). Its cool to watch for sure.

Zone Left

January 7th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^

I don't know that I agree with Brian about the styles of all the teams listed. For example, I feel like Texas A&M and Oklahoma run passing spreads and FSU runs a multiple / pro-style offense that takes snaps from the shotgun.

Semantics aside, I don't think yards per rush is the stat to focus on. I want to know if offenses are successful on a per-drive basis. FEI is probably the best measure of that, even though I think there are problems with it. Based on my count, there are 6-7 multiple / pro-style teams in the top-25 FEI, including 3 of the top 6.

My view is that consistency is highly undervalued in offensive metrics, while big plays are overvalued. 

ca_prophet

January 7th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^

That is, over the long haul, consistency correlates with success, and big plays don't, because they show up once in a blue moon. This makes FO stats more predictive but less descriptive; the classic example is James Harrison's TD return against Arizona in the Super Bowl. DVOA heavily discounts that because 99+% of the time Harrison doesn't score and the clock runs out. This leads to the team DVOAs discounting the pivotal play of the game. Something like Win Probability Added or other results-based stats accounts for this kind of play usually at the expense of predictability. After all, Brandon Herron doesn't always return fumbles for TDs, and even if you amortize that over a season you end up expecting him to make a game changing play every game.

Ty Butterfield

January 7th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^

Interesting article about Malzhan. The game last night was great but also made me depressed. The Michigan coaching staff is light years behind the top teams. It is not even close.

Autostocks

January 7th, 2014 at 8:13 PM ^

I think it's a big mistake going to the playoff format, and it'll be a bigger mistake if the playoff field is expanded.  It doesn't end the debate about who should be in the national championship game, it just changes it to who should be in the semifinal games.  And if the field expands and the season gets longer, why don't we just start paying the players and call it minor league football?  I am convinced that as a result of our society's desperate desire to have an undisputed champion, we're going to kill the uniquely appealing aspect of intercollegiate football that is amateurism.

bo.mo.llo.ro.ho

January 7th, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^

I remember Borges making a remark along the lines of, "we want to run the offense that wins us games, not one that accumulates yards/stats."

My question, then, is: are all YPC created equally?  Watching Alabama and Stanford (and, to a lesser degree, MSU), I see teams that want to get 4-7 yards every attempt, control the ball, control the clock, then slowly pillow-suffocate the other team with an elite defense. They aren't necessarily keeping opposing defenses outpaced and off-balance, or going for the home run. 

I see Borges wanting to emulate the ball-control teams (obviously it's not happening yet -- they got neither enough wins nor yards this year), so yards-per-carry would seem to be not a perfect metric for the success of such an offense. Thoughts? I don't know the x/o's as well as many of you, but it does seem that different schools have different approaches to what they want their offense and running game to accomplish.

 

Blue Balls Afire

January 8th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^

Why is everyone praising Bill O'Brien so much?  He was successful to a large extent because he was able to convince impressionable teenagers to make a commitment he himself was not willing to make.  Hypocritical, if you ask me.