i want one of those brian mgoblog shirts. i know they were limited edition, but i would buy one if they became available again.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Field rush update.
Got a number of emails detailing Michigan's field rush activities:
In response to your question, here are the only three I recall since the 1997 OSU game.
2003 OSU game (100th game)
2011 OSU game
2012 MSU game
But here's one that probably doesn't get remembered:
After the 2008 Wisconsin game, about 5-7 students attempted to rush the field and a few were lucky enough to out-juke the security and run around midfield. One was not: he got body slammed by a police officer right in front of the student section, which is probably the only thing that quelled a massive on-rush of students.
I have somehow forgotten the 2003 field rush entirely despite being in the student section for it. Conclusion: I must not have joined it. If you're more than a couple dozen rows up, which I probably was, rushing the field is an exercise in walking around, looking at other people walking around looking at people since no one's even going "WOO" anymore.
So that confirms the 2012 MSU rush: lamest, only non-OSU field rush in 20 years. I get it, I guess, but if they were going to do it at least they did it in the appropriate fashion by half-assing it and taking about 10 minutes for anyone to get down, then trickling out seemingly one by one because half of the students didn't care to bother. That's the right kind of MSU field rush.
What is next years QB looking like? I thought someone said Gardner would move back to QB in the spring and start in the fall. Is that the case or is Morris going to play in the spring and start in the fall or just show up in the fall and start?
I can't see Morris showing up in the fall and starting.
Gardner just about has to move back to QB as soon as the season's over. Morris won't be enrolling early—his high school does not allow it—and Michigan's not going into spring practice carrying one scholarship QB.
Also, there's an excellent chance Gardner ends up being Michigan's best option there. Morris will be a true freshman, one coming off a senior season partially lost to mono. Bellomy has the look of a game manager type (early, yeah, okay). Gardner's the best bet to MAKE PLAYS with his legs, and he'll have as much experience practicing at QB as Bellomy even with this year that's lost to WR.
Meta photobomb. I still have not seen one of these in the wild, but they exist.
[AFTER THE JUMP: game theory, Toledo style, TE play action on the goal line, some guy with a weird idea that Chip Kelly is going to do someday.]
Nerdy game theory bit.
As I was watching my Alma Mater run its record to 5-1 against ranked teams in the Glass Bowl last night, an interesting situation presented itself very late in the game. Unfortunately, I don't have any friends nerdy enough to discuss this with in person, so I'm forced to call upon my favorite tastefully-named-internet-game-theory-junkie to either confirm my mad rantings, or tell me I'm an idiot.
Toledo led 26-23 with 50 seconds left in the game, and faced fourth-and-goal from the Cincinnati 3 yard line. As they lined up to kick the field goal, I thought to myself "I'd go for it here." Obviously, a Rocket touchdown would ice it, with the downside of opening up an additional avenue of victory for the Bearcats if you don't make the end zone (drive, field goal, win in overtime). But, I think that even if you can't convert, the field position is such a huge advantage for your defense that going for it is the correct answer. It would be different if the Field Goal put you up 7 or 8, but in last night's situation, a Touchdown beats you either way.
What say you? Would you also display the testicular fortitude necessary to buck conventional wisdom in that situation, or did I take down a few too many Anderson Valley Boont Amber Ales in the aftermath of Brunette Girls, Part II?
Brian in Charlottesville
YEAH LET'S DO IT.
My seat of the pants take is that it's probably a push. Being up six with something like 45 seconds left is pretty good. Being up three with 45 seconds left and the ball on the opponent's three is pretty good, and being up ten is 100%. The difference in win probability there is between 96 and 98 percent, I'd bet.
I think I'd go for it since reasonable field goal range starts at the 25-30 yard line and you're gaining 22-24 yards in field position even if you fail.
KICK. Opponent needs to go 75 yards to win, assuming touchback.
GO FOR IT, FAIL. Opponent needs to go 65-ish yards for a shot at a tie, 97 to win. BONUS: you may not fail.
Sounds like going for it is the pick. One thing I've always felt is that there's less value in extending a field goal lead with another field goal than you'd think. You're turning, say, fourth and one from the ten into an obvious go-for-it situation instead of a situation on which every coach in America would kick despite the fact that this would be a massive opportunity if presented to them in overtime. Coaches will make conservative decisions if they can possibly be justified, and being up six removes the possibility your opponent will do something suboptimal. Late up three I'm not kicking unless the situation turns into a third and lots.
My thinking here is influenced a great deal by Kirk Ferentz nutting up as soon as he'd gotten into field goal range in the 2005 Iowa game. At that point I was actually glad Michigan was up three instead of four, because Iowa had the advantage on offense all day and was willing to toss away the knife at Michigan's throat to play OT. (That game also influenced my thinking on Ferentz as a hopeless puntosaur, which he still is… at all times he is not playing Michigan, grrr.)
Hmmm, what does that Advanced NFL stats calculator say…
…wow. It says punting or missing the field goal is a better move than actually kicking it. It may not be in this situation because college rules are friendlier to frenetic last-second comebacks because the clock stops when you get a first down and secondaries are composed of things other than hardened assassins, but that's pretty stark.
Denard on kickoff.
Not sure if this has been talked about much, but did you notice Denard in the return team to start the 2nd half? He was lined up on the right side of the field in the 2nd line opposite Norfleet. Throwback? Reverse? Hopefully something we will see against Nebraska next week. This might have been our version of the fake punt if the kick hadn't gone through the endzone.
This was not a hallucination, as Brady Hoke addressed what the dickens was going on with that business. He was out there to "maybe return a kick or something." Wild guess: ostentatious fake reverse now that everyone has gone "ooooh."
Just a quick question. I love watching football, but in all honestly don't know too much about the technical stuff. I watch it for pure entertainment. Why is it, that that play State ran to score their touchdown (pass to the TE Lang) always seems to work? I've seen the play (or some similar variation) run many times over the years in college and the pros and it usually seems to succeed. Why is the TE so open? Is it the speed of the play? The proximity to the endzone? Aren't commentators usually saying how much easier it is for the defense the closer they get to the endzone because there's less field to cover? Who's suppose to cover that guy?
Obviously, I know it doesn't always work. It's probably that phenomenon where you think you always look at the clock at 11:11 but in reality you've looked at the clock numerous times before that but don't register it because 11:11 is a unique number. And there's probably some statistic or mathematical curvature that pinpoints where the defense is at its most and least vulnerable in terms of field position. But darn it if that play doesn't seem to be highly successful.
Confirmation bias is what you're looking for there, and that is a possibility. But the little flip to the tight end off play action is pretty effective yes; it's more effective when you're running it on first down, as MSU did, instead of second.
The fundamental problem for the defense is that they're trying to not give up a yard or two, which is really hard. It generally requires flinging your body into the guy who is blocking you with great force so that he stops moving or goes backwards, which means you need to run at him, and ideally avoid him, and when he goes WOOP and avoids you you get a big question mark over your head and he's generally an extremely open guy. In this specific case it was probably Desmond Morgan who got blown by, but once the offense gets down to the two the defense is either selling out on the run or not and hoping to get lucky. Michigan did not get lucky.
So: the speed of the play and the proximity of the endzone, yes. The linebacker is making a run or pass decision at great speed, generally biased towards run on first down.
With the shift towards faster offenses (and I suppose this question is somewhat relevant to D as well), is it possible for a team to roll with essentially two lineups? Particularly in large gain and hurry up situations where instead of having the entire lineup run 30-40 yards down the field, have a backup lineup (maybe at least the o-line) ready to run out on the field as soon as the whistle is blown? Is such a thing feasible and any more effective than your typical no-huddle offense?
Class of 2004
Um… if Chip Kelly hasn't tried this, probably not. You wouldn't be saving much distance by having guys in the center of the field run off it and vice versa, and how many teams of any variety have a solid two-deep of OL to just flip around? I am guessing the answer is nobody.
Generally, the starters are so much better than the backups—especially in college when the backups are often freshmen—that such a crazy switching scheme is not feasible. Skill position players, sure, but those get interchanged all the time anyway.
But even if he hasn't, Chip Kelly will definitely try this at some point.
i want one of those brian mgoblog shirts. i know they were limited edition, but i would buy one if they became available again.
I have worn the "I heart heart" and "Space, bitches" t-shirts probably 30+ times combined. Not one comment from a stranger. The day of the 'bama game, I wore the photobomb shirt to the M-den in Livonia and had 3 strangers verbally upvote it. What can I say, there's something enchanting about that hair and those eyes will hypotize you.
Same here with my other M shirts and whatnot. Nothing other than the occasional Go Blue. I wear my photobomb T-Shirt twice, UMass and the AWAY game against Purdue, and I doubled the verbal up-votes. Quite a looker Brian Cook must be.
Very strange, but after reading that second-last email I worry this is confirmation bias.
If missing the FG is preferred by the calculator, doesnt it stand to reason that going for it is the right call. Not much diff there between missing a FG or getting stopped on 4rth. At least in reality
But, a punt? Talk about a pooch punt. Not sure even the Zooker approves of that
Doesn't a missed FG come out to the 20 if it is taken from inside the 20? Or does it come out to the 25? Having it automatically placed at the 20 or 25 is better than giving the other team a chance to return it for a TD. And if it's marked at the 20 instead of the 25 that's another advantage to not having to kick off.
Which just adds to the conclusion that going for it on 4rth down is the play.
If the odds calculater favors actually missing the FG over making a FG, then I think they should just go for it on 4rth. If you dont get it, the possession begins there instead of the 20 like a missed FG would. Seems like missing a 4rth down conversion is preferable to missing a FG
I thought that was only in the NFL. In college, the opposing team takes over at line of scrimmage regardless. (?)
EDIT: Nevermind, I caught up to you guys. The calculator is for the NFL
In college, the opposing team gets it at the 20 if the miss is inside there. If it's beyond that yard line, it's from the line of scrimmage.
The 25-yard line is only used as a touchback location after kickoffs. For everything else, it's the 20.
Students rushed the field in
In 1986. Doing fun things as a college student are just fun. Running on to a field that you are not supposed to be on is fun independent of whether anything momentous happened. Put in a mob situation of a climactic finish, and it only takes a small push to topple that tipping point.
There will always be sore losers and the press ( who sell clicks, and poor losers will click on anything ) who point out that displays of celebration were too much.
The second happiest you can be in life is two watch a group of four year olds doing stupid things for absolutely no reason at all.
The happiest you can be is to join in with them.
I thought it was cool that we did it in 1997 after it hadn't been done for years and that win sealed the undefeated regular season. But now the damn kids are screwing things up by jumping out of their seats for things like ending losing streaks. C'mon, rushing the field for finally beating a team is embarrassing - its what a mediocre team that just beat a juggernaut would do. Act like you've been there before, whippersnappers!
I think the main reason students didn't rush the field in the 90's had more to do with the lowering of the playing field in 1991. It's a much longer drop to the ground and it takes a while for 20,000 students to get there. Prior to 1990, the students would be storming the field before the final second had even ticked off the clock.
There were a ton of wins in the 90's over numerous teams that might have had the crowd storm the field had it been access worthy.
I say let the kids have fun. Don't be concerned about having been here before. Our fans stormed the field in the past when we were ranked in the top 5 every year. I wonder if folks told them in the 70's and 80's to act like they have been here before.
Although, to my knowledge, this is the first time it's ever happened against MSU. Unless it was a common thing in the 50's and 60's, I don't know.
Sorry, I hit the wrong button and negged you when I was attempting to upvote with "Underrated". D'Oh!
This concept of "We're Michigan and we shouldn't be rushing the field" or "Act like you've been there before" just seems so pretentious. Generally, the people rushing the field are the college students. Why should 18-22 year olds be expected to behave like they are at book reading when they are attending a footall (or basketball) game? Let 'em have some fun, fer crying out loud!
NOTE: I actually have no problem with non-college students rushing the field, too. It's entertainment, it's supposed to be fun. Eat, drink, be merry and rush the field after a win.
I think the main reason students didn't rush the field in the 90's had more to do with the lowering of the playing field in 1991.
This plus they also converted the playing surface to natural turf, which never really did well in Michigan Stadium and was incredibly hard to maintain. With 20,000 students routinely trampling over it, it would have been impossible. After 1991, the police were a lot more insistent about staying in your seat after a game amd I think that was at the Athletic Department's request.
While I normally don't think it's appropriate behavior of a student body to be rushing the field in the middle of a season, the current student body hasn't had a lot to cheer about in the past 5 years, so I guess they can get a pass this time. Now that all family business has been settled though, it's time for us to act like we've been there before.
Exactly what you said re: the last 5 years. I'm a fifth year senior this year, meaning my first season was the god-awful 2008. This was the first victory against State I witnessed as a student, and though I wasn't on the field, I'll be damned if I wasn't more excited about this victory than most of the others in my college game-watching career (OSU last year, UTL, and perhaps the Sugar Bowl rank above it).
I can understand that feeling. I was on the field in 1997 after the OSU victory and it was awesome. That said, its all relative, I guess. It just seemed strange to rush the field after a victory over an unranked Sparty team that is supposedly the "little brother" or whatever. Seemed a little bush league-ish. But I'm sure it was fun being down there!
Awesome game, I literally was swinging my leg over to get on the field and looked up and saw a dude and a chick getting pepper sprayed right in front of me...I said no thanks and watched the celebration from the first row....anyone else remember the police being hyper-aggressive that day? Which was crazy, the field had 9 months to recover.
Yeah, that was my freshman year and I remember the cops just wrecking people. However, after five-ten minutes of that they gave up and just surrounded the goal posts and thats when I ran down on the field. It was awesome :D.
Yeah, but after spending my 4 years there without an OSU win and having to withstand the Rich-Rod era, it was a relief and well worth it because we hadn't had much to celebrate in years.
Beat Ohio, clinched Rose Bowl trip, Bo's last home game.
We got on the field in 1989.
Also, I seem to recall them letting people onto the field all the time in he Astroturf era. As a kid in the late 70s, early 80s, I would always bring a football because you could get on the field and play catch in the end zone after the game. Of course, this was also back when kids also brough trash bags to collect emptys after the game for pocket money. (Yes, they let you bring beer in.)
Last game with Astro Turf - it was being replace by real grass. People were cutting out small sections of the turf with their keys to keep as souveniers. Less of a rush because of the win but more because of the circumstances.
I was a sophmore at the time and I vaguely recall this. It's vague for me because I didn't rush the field because we beat Minnesota and I was confused as to why students were rushing the field.
The Daily may have inadvertently encouraged this at the time because they had run an article that week about the pending changes to the stadium playing surface and noted that with the field being lowered, it would be harder/more dangerous for students to come onto the field and it would be discouraged more. I think you had a wave of one last field rush for the road hit the student body.
Is there any video of the guy who ran onto the field this year at the Illinois game (Homecoming)? He pretty much went unnoticed waving his hands down the Michigan sideline until one of our players looked up, shot him a look of disdain, and body-checked him with barely a raised elbow. It was hilarious. SIAP (Sorry also if that guy is one of you=)
Someone needs to find this video, and I'm struggling with cat like laziness today, so...
I have a memory of students rushing the field in 1979 after the 27-21 win over Indiana. I could be wrong, though.
That 1982 game against Purdue was the most enjoyable Michigan football game I have ever attended. Many games were better games, none were more fun from start to finish. I don't specifically remember the students rushing the field, but I don't doubt it. I think it was a general rule after the last home game of the season, assuming it was a win. I remember several attempts to pull down the goal posts during the '70s and '80s, not all of them successful.
We beat Ohio, clinched outright Big 10 title and Rose Bowl berth. You better believe we rushed the field.
I remember rushing the field about that time after clinching the trip to the Rose Bowl. Ran into an old friend of mine who has switched from U of M to the Coast Guard Academy. (Which is why I remember it so well)
You are forgetting the homecoming game against Indiana with Wangler passing to AC to win with 6 seconds left. This is the game during which Ufer went even more bananas than usual.
I was a freshman and was too far back, and had lost track of my friends (long story), so I wasn't in the group on the field. Not getting on the field that day is won of my greatest regrets.
Anthony Carter vs Indiana led to a bunch of people on the field.
I recall a bunch of people on the field after a Brown Jug game in the late '70s/early '80s.
Not sure if both included significant student numbers. I ended up on the field after most games when I was in grades 6-9ish.
After the dramatic win in the Pigskin Classic in '95, the students made attempts to rush the field. If I remember correctly, the police were a little harsh in their tatics to keep them off the field. Some even got arrested....a friend's brother had to go to court for it and pay a fine. They (the police and the Univeristy) received a lot of backlash from the Daily. Call it a PseudoRush.
Without watching the play over again (so my memory might be wrong), I believe it was probably Demens who biffed on the goal line touchdown pass coverage.
Sold out against the run, and both the TE and the FB went into the endzone. Demens was closer to the TEwho caught it, I'd guess Morgan had the FB. Play at approx 7:45
The play before it, that damn WR pass option, was frustrating as hell to watch. A huge RPS that fails due to numerous reasons resulting in a decent-sized play. Son of a bee-sting.
The 2003 field rush was pretty special since it was the 100th meeting between UM and Ohio. I remember the players sticking around on the field and hanging out with the students and band for a long time, so your loss Brian for not joining in.
I've posted this in another thread, but I swear the field rush was spurred on by the 900th win on the scoreboard, not because it was "half-assed." I was row 15ish in the middle of the student section and had a good look at it. Plus it would have been pretty hard to get down with all the players there initially.
I'm still standing on your lawn Brian, I'm still standing on your lawn.
Verily, Ubermensch mechanics . . .
Increases in Team synchrony yield greater pain resistance.
Excerpted from NYTimes article on laughter . . .
"The physical act of laughing contributed to the emotional response of finding something to be funny.
Why the interplay of endorphins and laughing should be of interest to those of us who exercise may not be immediately obvious. But as Dr. Dunbar points out, what happens during one type of physical exertion probably happens in others. Laughter is an intensely infectious activity. In this study, people laughed more readily and lustily when they watched the comic videos as a group than when they watched them individually, and their pain thresholds, concomitantly, rose higher after group viewing.
Something similar may happen when people exercise together, Dr. Dunbar says. In an experiment from 2009, he and his colleagues studied a group of elite Oxford rowers, asking them to work out either on isolated rowing machines, separated from one another in a gym, or on a machine that simulated full, synchronized crew rowing. In that case, the rowers were exerting themselves in synchrony, as a united group.
After they exercised together, the rowers’ pain thresholds — and presumably their endorphin levels — were significantly higher than they had been at the start, but also higher than when they rowed alone.
“We don’t know why synchrony has this effect, but it seems very strong,” Dr. Dunbar says.
So if you typically run or bike alone, perhaps consider finding a partner. Your endorphin response might rise and, at least theoretically, render that unpleasant final hill a bit less daunting."
greater team synchrony yields greater endorphin release, yields greater ability to handle pain, yielding a greater ability to "finish."
automated bio response to teams working togther . . . tangible, measureable ubermensch qualities generated by team synchrony.
Bo's The Team concept has measurables, probably numerous measureables. Scientific validation, cappesh?
that be "The fuck?"
I think they meant why the fuck not what the fuck.
That was uh... Completely useful when im uh... The thing you wanna think about is in uh...um... Keeping a marmot in city limits is uh, not uh, um, legal
To Kevin's question:
If the offense substitutes, then the officials must give the defense a reasonable chance to substitute. So if an offense trued to sub in a backup unit after long gains, it would actually slow the game down, because the officials wouldn't let another play be run without giving the defense the chance to substitute.
Plus, Brian's reasoning works: the field is just over 50 yards wide, so even if guys on the sideline were lined up at the exact spot where a long gain ended, they would be running about 25 yards, which probably isn't too much shorter than the guys on offense would have to run to get up to the new LOS. In addition, the guys on offense can start advancing while the play is still going on.
I remember that 2003 field rush. I was a freshman so I was pretty far up and had never been into college football before Michigan. I remember standing around trying to get on the field and when I realized I wasn't going to make it since I had moved down 3 rows in 5 minutes I gave up and figured I would go on the field when we rushed it next year or something.
That last question reminds me of something I saw/heard a few years ago in the NFL. First, some background:
The St. Louis Rams were trying to defend against a comeback from someone (don't remember who, don't remember the score), and that team was driving the field, and got into field goal range. They spiked the ball with less than 10 seconds left, but they didn't have 7 guys on the line so they got hit with an illegal formation penalty. This did NOT result in a 10 second runoff as a false start would have, and they were able to kick the field goal and win.
After the game, the Rams coach (Scott Linehan I think) was furious that illegal formation did not incur a 10 second runoff (this rule may have changed since then, don't know), and he proposed one of the greatest clock saving techniques I've ever heard. He never had the balls to run it, but it would have been awesome.
After a big play late in the game, instead of having your whole team try to get to the ball and get set, have your two fastest players (Linehan used Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce as examples) run to the spot, and have one of them snap it to the other. Clock stops on the illegal formation penalty, but there's no runoff, so you can get the rest of the team to the line and set up your play. You lose 5 yards, but gain precious seconds.
Obviously this would only be valuable in the NFL where the clock doesn't stop on 1st down. My biggest disappointments in the Linehan era for the Rams are never seeing him try this, and retroactively accepting a penalty to prevent Neil Rackers from attempting a 70+ yard free-kick field goal after a fair-catch on a Rams punt. That would have been awesome too.
I'm 95% sure that rule has been fixed, at least in cfb. I think it was actually this offseason, after a major controversy similar to the one you described happening last year.
I would die laughing if a team actually punted on 4th and goal from the 3 yard line.
Man, i was on the field a ton in the 1980s after a game. sometimes it was just me as a kid wanting to be on the field and sneaking on. But other times, it was part of something akin to a field rush.
I seem to recall a lot of different mobs on the field after the 1989 OSU game, including a standoff between a throng of students and a semi circle of cops protecting the goalposts
The cops only protected the goalpost near the student section and it seemed the mob all realized that fact at the same moment as the group turned and ran to the other unprotected end.
We went with the Hunger Games there.
Free imaginary candy corn to the first one who guesses what the heck I'm talkin about.