[Bryan Fuller]

Of The Decade update

Hi Brian,

Back in 2010, you gave us your "of the decade" team.  If five years later, you had to make another one (with this year crucially being the last year to include players from the 2006 team), who would you put on it?   And how many players from this year's squad would be included?

Thanks,

Ben.

The Of The Decade team from 2010 versus a hypothetical 2006-2015 team:

I've got four guys on there from this year's team, three of whom I assume are pretty obvious. Without a true nickel spot on the Of The Decade team Peppers is a bit of an awkward fit, but I mean cumong man. If I expanded the team to have a nickel, which I will definitely do in the future, he'd be it and Jarrod Wilson would slide into his spot. So 5-ish.

Desmond Morgan, you ask? The pickings are not great at linebacker over the past decade. The only eligible guy from the backups on the '10 team is Shawn Crable, and while Crable was a freelance sower of havoc he's competing with Jake Ryan, not Morgan. Morgan is one of the most sneaky-good players in the recent history of the program (and I'm through most of the first half against Indiana and he is doing really well in tough situations).

This year's team would have even more spots if that defensive line wasn't rough to get on. That's four guys with long NFL careers and dominant senior years.

Hey Brian,

Beyond the interpretation problems, have you given any thought to the enforcement process for targeting calls?

Not exactly an analogous comparison, but a thought - treat targeting calls more as a yellow card than a red card. More to the point, don't throw guys out in the moment on these judgment calls - refer questionable hits to the referees' office, let them have a look at it during the week, and decide if a future suspension is warranted, The NFL reviews plays for fines all the time so I don't see how this is much different. You'd think time and centralization make the enforcement more thoughtful and consistent, and thereby allow coaches to better correct their players.

Inherent in this solution is separating targeting from a personal foul, so you can still throw a flag for 15 yards on outlawed hits without necessarily an ejection. You still get some bad PF calls/no calls, but we've always lived with those - egregious ejections not so much. If you wanted there could be an accumulation component, which is also like yellow cards, so if you have a guy dishing out repeated borderline hits it's an automatic suspension at some point. Seems to strike a much better balance and still emphasize safety.

Anyway, sorry this is long. Curious if you've had thoughts of your own on this.

-Mike in DC

If they do centralize the review process instead of delegating it to a varying selection of potential incompetents I think a lot of the inconsistencies go away. I don't think many of the targeting calls I've seen this year have been the kind of thing that you can't determine the legality of within a few minutes, and the immediate ejection does have the benefit of helping the team that suffered the hit.

I do like the yellow card idea, if implemented correctly. If something like the Bolden hit gets inexplicably upheld at least it can be adjudged a yellow card (or flagrant 1, take your pick) and he can stay in the game. In that case I would prefer that yellows don't clear for ten games or so.

But the real problem remains the utter inconsistency with which the rule is applied. A world in which the hit by Bolden is an ejection and the hit on Sypniewski against Rutgers is nothing is one in which we're just polishing turds. This targeting call was overturned:

STOP SLIDING

Until that gets fixed the penalty is a worthless piece of security theater.

[After THE JUMP: pushing a hypothetical demonic button, finding Marques Slocum, clock malfeasance, staff composition]

Wasn't this a movie with Cameron Diaz?

Brian,

Would you push a button that would cause someone random somewhere in the world to die if Jabrill scored in all three phases against Ohio State, directly in your eyeball at the Big House? In my opinion the only issue is the remote possibility that pressing the button eliminates Jabrill himself which would be devastating for the 2016 Natty Run that is already "the primary focus."

Thank you,

Mike

"Random" is the key factor here. Usually when this happens there is a startling reveal later that there is a chain of button-pushers before you, many of whom have met an alarming and unusual demise soon after pushing the button. If you can get the demonic entity providing the button in question to agree to certain parameters in writing that guarantee certain safeguards, then you might consider it.

The problem with all such scenarios is that invariably the callous act backfires on the perpetrator no matter how carefully the battlefield is prepared beforehand. Ways in which this could happen:

• Urban Meyer freaks out and quits, whereupon he is replaced by a 20 year old clone of Bill Belichick
• The random victim's loved ones are informed of the dastardly act and vow Tonya Harding style revenge on the team on the eve of the 2016 Game
• The method of untimely demise is by earth-wrecking asteroid

Before we even get to the moral aspects of such a decision, pushing the occult button is never a good idea. Ohio State will get theirs at some point. I mean… yeah. That's the ticket.

INTERESTING

My buddy who plays for the Shanghai Titans just told me Marques Slocum and Caron Butler play for the Chongqing team.

30 for 30: F--- Lion In Congqing. Do it.

Really late response to a person wondering about running out the clock with Bert-type malfeasance

I happened to have this hypothetical debate with a fellow Michigan fan a week before the scenario unfolded, and was displeased that I got to live the real life version the following week.  With the understanding that this play would have to be put into to the book ahead of time, similar to a spike or a victory formation, could an intentional false start play have helped us in this situation?
My thought would be, instead of calling the timeout (keep the clock rolling), call your “false start play.”  With one tick left on the play clock, a member of the Michigan team jumps, and draws the flag.  An automatic 10 second clock runoff is enforced.  Game over?  Can that be declined?
I understand it would have to be organized before implementation, but is it a sound theory?
Again, I have no idea if this email is going to get to someone that cares, but any input would help my brain sleep.
Go Blue!

KSmith

This is covered in the NCAA rulebook:

Unfair Clock Tactics

ARTICLE 3. The referee shall order the game clock or play clock started or stopped whenever either team conserves or consumes playing time by tactics obviously unfair. This includes starting the game clock on the snap if the foul is by the team ahead in the score. The game clock will start on the ready-for-play signal after Team A throws an illegal forward or backward pass to conserve time (Rule 3-3-2-e-14) (A.R. 3-4-3-I-V).

Committing a penalty never helps you with the clock. The rule is always "do whatever the offending team would not want you to do." Your best bet would be to have important guys hold, because then maybe that doesn't get regarded as "obviously unfair," but any penalty-related clock stuff was long ago nerfed. Probably because Fielding Yost tried all of it.

Durkin departure?

With all of the pretty big openings in the P5 thus far, what do you think the likelihood is that someone makes a run at Durkin this year?  I mean, I expect to lose him to somebody at some point, but...

Jason

I'd be a little surprised if he went this year. While I think he's going to be a head coach in the near future, this is the first year he's been a defensive coordinator under a head coach with an offensive focus. It is a little early for his name to come up with search firms and the like.

Even if he does come up, the kind of jobs he'd be offered right now are things like Maryland and Illinois with dubious histories of success. Maryland in particular looks like a death trap given the state of the Big Ten East. If, say, Herman gets hired away and Houston comes after him that's a different situation. A ton of coaches bounce from Houston to major programs. Nobody has moved up from Maryland or Illinois since John Mackovic in 1991, and there have been many who tried.

Durkin can afford to be patient, as well. Next year Michigan returns 7 starters and three more DL who are playing very well this year. There should be little to no dropoff if Jourdan Lewis follows through on his tweeted desire to get his degree. Like Pat Narduzzi, Durkin can make sure his first stop is one with a reasonable opportunity for success.

The one thing that gives me pause is the sheer number of jobs that are open this year. Once big schools start poaching small school head coaches there are going to be 30 jobs available, and one might find Durkin to be of mutual interest. The nice thing is that if that happens Harbaugh has an impeccable track record of finding and attracting A-level coaches, including one DJ Durkin.

Hypothetical good puntin' stats.

Brian:

I have heard you mention your dissatisfaction with the punting statistics that are widely available, including the "inside the 20" statistic that is often cited.  It seems to me that a useful statistic for measuring a team's success in punting would account for the punter's "leg"; his accuracy in pinning the opposing team deep within their own territory; the punting team's ability to down an unreturned ball advantageously; and the punting team's ability to cover a return.  With that in mind, it seems that a useful metric would consist of (i) the distance of the punt as a numerator ("leg"); and (ii) a denominator consisting of the distance between the opposing team's goal line and the yard-line where the next offensive play begins (expressed that way in order to account for returns that cross the 50).  For touchbacks, the denominator is 20.

I am guessing that no one really tracks it that way already, or we would have heard of it.  Is that true?

If it is true that no one currently tracks it that way, whom would I need to address in order to make this a thing?  Nate Silver?  Someone Australian?

Thanks,

"Hugh White"  

The best simple punting stat that doesn't require extra data is one that has a big database of punting outcomes and compares your outcomes to those. So if punts from your own 20 usually end up 45 yards downfield, you get credit for a punt that nets 50 and dinged for one that nets 40. I'm pretty sure that's the approach that FEI uses.

But my plea there was for more data. Two items are pretty simple: location where the ball is fielded or hits the ground and the location where the ball ends the play. A third is a bit more finicky but if you also gathered time from the snap to when the ball hits or is fielded then you would have a pretty robust set of data to figure out which punters put the ball in advantageous situations, as Blake O'Neill did with a rugby punt to the sideline that Indiana returned for a TD anyway. Also you could then quantify things like "how much yardage did that fair catch save?" Approximately, at least.

Coaching staff composition.

Brian,
A fellow Michigan fan and myself continue to go back and forth on the value of a special teams dedicated assistant coach. Obviously Baxter has paid dividends for Michigan but I think he is somewhat of an outlier based on his track record as arguably the best in the business at what he does.

It bothers fellow Michigan fan that Baxter does not appear to be heavily involved in recruiting and he thinks that final coaching spot should go to an "ace" recruiter. Counter-argument to that is with the size and background of our current recruiting staff adding a guy just to recruit seems redundant. The difference Baxter has made from a special teams standpoint significantly outweighs the value of adding an assistant that is strictly a recruiter unless that assistant is Ed Orgeron (and Ed isn't only a recruiter).

He also argues that we could more effectively use that last spot for a dedicated QB spot or split the DL or add a LB coach and let Durkin oversee the whole defense. I argue that it is very rare for a defense to have more than 4 coaches across college football and we also have some guy named Harbaugh that seems to do ok with QBs and still managing the team as a whole.

So my question is does the way a head coach divides responsibilities matter much to you as long as there isn't a glaring weakness? (Stacked staff on one side, clearly underqualfied coach at another position, etc.)

Thanks,
Matt

I have to contest one of the assumptions here. Baxter is just as much of a recruiter as anyone else on the staff. He's held an "associate head coach" title for much of his career, which usually indicates a guy who has a lot of recruiting responsibilities even if his coaching role is a position coach or whatever. His Academic Gameplan approach is something I just saw USC fans pine for while scouring their 247 board for anything on Keyshon Camp. He's a lead guy on the West Coast and in Utah.

The only guy who I think didn't recruit much was Al Borges, who generally just grabbed whatever quarterback that Clarkson guy told him to get and then disappeared. Other than that, everyone always recruits.

As to the staff composition Q, Michigan has a great luxury in Jim Harbaugh since with him they do not need a QB coach. He is also kind of the offensive coordinator, and Drevno is kind of the offensive coordinator, and Jedd Fisch is kind of the offensive coordinator. This allows Drevno to also be the OL coach and (probably) do a lot of work with the TEs.  Getting double duty from Drevno and Harbaugh allows Michigan to have a dedicated ST coach and a dedicated TEs coach in Jay Harbaugh. Jay Harbaugh also covers the Twitter Expert and Guy Who Knows What Dabbing Is spots.

I normally do think that a special-teams-only spot is a bit of a waste, but given the spare capacity Harbaugh gives the staff it's a luxury Michigan can afford.

Counterfactual is not fun

Brian,

With the hiring of Harbaugh and the subsequent revitalization of the program, not to mention this season's on field success, I have to imagine site traffic has increased quite a bit. I was wondering what things were like roughly this time last year. I'm talking about the seeming apathy of the fan base, the program to some extent, and even you. Whether you truly didn't care anymore or not, you certainly had the appearance of going through the motions.

With all that said, this site and Michigan football is your job/life/passion. At the time we didn't know what would happen. It was entirely possible that the program go down in flames and not recover. Did the thought ever occur to you "what will I do if this goes completely to shit?"  Did you ever seriously consider that you may, if things didn't turn around, have to close up shop? Maybe not right away, but maybe 2-3 years down the road. Consider that Brandon and Hoke would still be here now, the team is maybe 2-5, maybe 1-6 after another blowout loss to MSU and Hoke is a lame duck, if not fired mid season. You're looking at probably less than 60k fans at the Rutgers game in November. Who knows what happens as far as another coach as it's entirely possible our program is such a tire fire that no one wants to touch it. Where was your head in regards to the viability of the blog at that point? Did you ever get that far?

Thanks for all you do.
Sincerely yours in football,
Kyle (Carolina Blue)

I think this year would have been a professional and personal disaster but Brandon and Hoke would be out the door either already or in the near future. John Bacon's Endzone and my conversations with the author lay out a scenario that without the swift kick in the ass the emails provided, Mark Schlissel was inclined to let Brandon try to find his footing until the end of the school year. I can't imagine he survives that since literally everyone hated him save the student-athletes, including the regents, but that's probably long enough to nerf the Harbaugh pursuit and kick off a death slog through 2015.

At this point I'm probably firing up the Tom Herman bat-signal for Jim Hackett and saying "well, basketball though" after doing 1.5 UFRs. But we don't have to think about that any more, do we?