[Eric Upchurch]

Brian -

If you're doing a mailbag any time soon, a potential question:  does all the defensive coaching turnover dampen your expectations for the defense?  Having three new coaches, including a new DC, has to impose some kind of transition cost, right?  It would be frustrating to have what might be an excellent defense undermined by coaching changes.

Thanks.
-Joe

On the whole, no. For one, while Chris Partridge is a new coach he's replacing John Baxter, who did not work with last year's D. There are only two guys being replaced. Losing Greg Jackson is a blow, as by all reports the players loved him. The secondary's performance last year was a major step forward from everybody—even Peppers, who we had not really seen before, developed over the course of the season. It's likely that Jackson is very good at his job, and you always hate to lose a guy like that after just one year.

I have zero concerns about replacing DJ Durkin with Don Brown. Durkin's defense last year was very good until it collapsed late, and while part of that was on Glasgow's injury it was very frustrating watching Michigan play a spread option team with a safety lined up 18 yards off the LOS. You can't do that when the opposition has an 11-on-11 run game, and Michigan found that out the hard way. Since that was a thing that even a blogger was warning about…

So it's up to Michigan: ride with what got you here and try to hold up, or go to more of a zone based look in an attempt to replicate what just happened [against MSU]. The bet here is that Michigan enters with the latter in their pocket but tries to go toe to toe, combating zone with the addition of a safety to the end of the LOS and the corresponding blitz.

…and Michigan emphatically had nothing in their back pocket in the second half, I'm happy to see Durkin at Maryland. He could be a great coach, sure. He could be a guy who hung on to Will Muschamp's coattails and got exposed by Urban Meyer.

Meanwhile Brown has an excellent track record:

Bolded years are Don Brown; others are there for comparison. YPP is raw yards per play. FEI and S&P+ are advanced metrics that attempt to take schedule strength and various other factors into account.

It is possible that there's a settling-in period where Brown's D isn't as effective. The data don't show anything conclusive about that, with Maryland and UConn both getting significantly better in advanced metrics in year one despite a drop in yards per play. Meanwhile last year Michigan's defense was very  good despite being in its first year of a new system.

Michigan can't get significantly better in advanced metrics and should expect a backslide just from regression to the mean, so I won't be judging Brown on how he does relative to last year's D… except against Ohio State. The absolute best news of the offseason to me is that Don Brown spent his time at Michigan's coaching clinic ranting about run defense…

Coach Brown believes that it all starts with run defense, “Check our record, 4 out of the last 5 years, nobody runs the ball. I don’t give a crap what I have to do, we’re going to stop the run.” Don Brown’s defenses finished #2 in 2011 (UCONN), #3 in 2012 (UCONN), #2 in 2014 (Boston College) and #1 in 2015 (Boston College) in run defense.

…and detailing the varied and intricate responses he's developed to zone read including inverted veer or "power read," as coaches seem to be calling it.

The result of last year's Game (and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that) cried out for a defensive coordinator who is awesome at stopping a power spread attack. Don Brown looks like the ideal candidate. I was getting pretty nervous for a couple weeks there when Rivals kept bringing up NFL guys—exactly the wrong kind of candidate for the biggest game on the schedule—and couldn't be happier with the way things worked out.

I'll be keeping a wary eye on the developments in the secondary but at least Brian Smith is a DB by trade and a DB coach until he was shoehorned in at linebacker a year ago; this isn't going back to Roy Manning, lifetime LB, as a CB coach. As far as the DC trade goes, I give it an A++++++.

[After THE JUMP: Jim Delany and the satellite camps, college hockey realignment stuff, hockey and basketball expectations.]

Delany on the satellite camps.

Hello Brian,

I am curious to get your opinion on Jim Delaney in regards to how he handled the satellite camps issue.

He is getting quite a bit of backlash from the board. I am no fan of Delaney, butut from my 10,000 foot view of the situation, there wasn't a lot he could have done on THIS issue. He voted against banning the camps, but the other Power 5 voted in favor of banning them (Why did the Pac-12 and Big XII vote in favor of banning them?) He was the odd man out.

It seems from reading your postings that you are also disappointed in how he handled this. What more do you think he could have done?

Wolverine Incognito

Is it unlikely that he could have singlehandedly gotten the matter tabled? I mean, at first blush, sure, but it certainly appears like there are a number of conferences who voted against the better interests of a majority of their members. Mike Leach says that Pac-12 coaches were 11-0 opposed to the ban with one abstention(!!!) and the league still voted for it. I have to imagine there was something Delany could have done to at least make the vote closer. Like, say, point out everything that is wrong with the legislation.

Meanwhile I don't even know if I want Delany opening his mouth to make a case because whenever he talks it's a disaster. But it is frustrating that Greg Sankey is making easily refuted arguments intended to hurt the league and the Big Ten cannot respond because its commissioner has so many feet in his mouth people call him Millipede. The league as a whole is undergoing a period of negotiation similar to that Michigan experienced under Super Genius™ Dave Brandon, where they eat crap (MSU/OSU home in same year, ND, etc) because everyone hates them and smile publicly about it.

If the Big Ten is going to get boned on every piece of legislation the least you can do is make an argument for your side, as Warde Manuel is doing right now. Issuing triple-vetted statements that say nothing isn't getting you anywhere.

[Eric Upchurch]

Shane Morris, receiver.

How seriously should we take Shane Morris at WR? On one hand, I don't recall reading any "chatter" about it. On the other hand, he's pretty athletic and didn't look half-bad, plus there's a lot of precedent for WR-QB switches and there would seem to be an opening for a few slot snaps each game behind Perry. And, like, putting in a little package of throwback/endaround plays that used Morris' arm as a threat a la the spring-game TD pass is something Harbaugh would actually do.

Not seriously. In a split-squad game with both outside starters held out and Moe Ways injured, Morris was the third option for his team. In the fall, Chesson, Darboh, Perry, Harris, Ways and some number of freshmen will all be way ahead of him on the depth chart. A lot of those freshmen can play the slot. This was just a lark forced by the dearth of receiving options this spring.

Hockey vs Basketball expectations.

Brian,

Long time reader, first time emailer. I’d love to hear your thoughts/explanation on your (and seemingly most of Mgoblog’s contributors) vastly different assessments of the coaching jobs done by Red and Beilein the last couple years, obviously culminating in the disappointing results for both programs this year. I am in the camp that believes both coaches have taken their programs as far as they can go, and that only a coaching change will improve the stagnant results and atmosphere around each time. Based on your posts after this weekend’s hockey games, it seems like you feel the same about Red:

I guess trying hard and going down fighting to a vastly superior team is preferable to some of the alternatives we saw over the past few years. That assertion was featured in some pushback on Twitter after I said "it's over" for Red, as if Michigan—Michigan!—was some try-hard program that's just happy to be here. I guess some people are just happy to be here, these days.

However, after the basketball team lost last week you vilified anyone that even remotely suggested Michigan should consider a head coaching change. In my opinion, the block quote above that you wrote about the hockey team is EXACTLY applicable to Belein and the basketball program also. Based on your past posts I can accept that we will agree to disagree on this topic, but I’d be very interested in hearing why you think the programs should follow such polar opposite paths when it could be argued that they are in the exact same place.

Thanks,
Scott

Michigan basketball is not Michigan hockey. Hockey recruits at an elite level. There are three, maybe four, programs that are able to match Michigan's ability to bring in first-round draft picks on the regular: North Dakota, Minnesota, Boston College and maybe BU or Wisconsin if they're in one of their fertile periods. Basketball does not do that for a lot of reasons. Some of that is on Beilein. Most of it is the fact that Michigan hasn't been a power for a long time and doesn't want to do the kind of things you have to do to be a consistent presence for one-and-done types.

Meanwhile the hockey program did not lose the services of its best player over the last two years. The basketball program did not have a four-year tourney drought despite being one of the most talented teams in the country.

It is reasonable to have different expectations for the two programs, and it's clearly hockey that's fallen short more than basketball over the past five years. Add in the fact that hockey has an obvious slam-dunk candidate waiting in the wings while basketball does not and there you go.

I haven't vilified anybody, by the way, unless you think eyerolling counts.

Big classes followed by small ones a problem?

Do you think the unbalanced recruiting classes will hurt Michigan down the road? It seems like they are rotating two large classes with two small classes and it may lead to some inexperienced teams.

Probably not. It is a thing that happens frequently at Wisconsin and Michigan State and they do just fine with it because they're good at developing their players.

And I'm guessing that life under Harbaugh is a bit strenuous for people without much chance at playing time. Brady Hoke was really good at retaining guys… probably too good. Harbaugh may be slightly aggressive for some, but he's done an excellent job of shaping the roster to his tastes while still getting the folks who depart a Michigan degree. I expect that to continue, so if a recruiting class does end up small it's because Michigan's roster is stocked with very good players.

Secondly, fill in the blank: If Michigan's defensive line reaches its potential, it will be Michigan's best defensive line since ____.

Mike

…I can remember.

Further hockey moves.

Brian,

With Notre Dame's move to Big Ten hockey happening, what do you see happening in college hockey realignment? I see two big questions out there:

1. Where do the dominoes fall with realignment? Quinnipiac to Hockey East? RIT to the ECAC? Maybe even an ACHA club to Atlantic Hockey? (Rhode Island?) Will old WCHA teams get insecure again and blow everything to bits in response?
2. What's the Big Ten's plan here? Is Arizona State in? Foresee anyone in the Big Ten making a Division 1 program like an Iowa or an Illinois? North Dakota???

Looking forward to your rampant speculation,

Brandon

1. Hockey East will probably add a team. Quinnipiac is the obvious choice but may prefer to stay in the ECAC, where they've had an excellent run. They've got no problem getting their RPI high enough to get an at large bid. HE may look at Bentley, which has rink issues but is in Boston, or try to entice Rhode Island to start a program.

I don't think you'll see any other drastic moves. If the Big Ten poaches an NCHC program they'll either respond with Arizona State—which makes much more sense in a conference with the two Colorado teams—or a WCHA team, and then the WCHA responds with Arizona State.

2. If Quinnipiac goes to HE, RIT is the obvious move for the ECAC.

3. As mentioned in the earlier post, in my opinion North Dakota is the obvious first choice for the Big Ten to go to eight. Realignment aficionado Frank The Tank rather condescendingly calls this a "thinking like a fan" and urges speculators to think like a university president. This leads him down a ludicrous path: he suggests going after—wait for it—either BC or BU. Or maybe UConn.

I'll let your laughter subside.

Now that odd duck Notre Dame has departed, no Hockey East program will leave for the Big Ten. The money on offer will not be enough to offset a vast increase in travel expenses and time. Hockey East is terrific competitively and logistically. It is once again a league where a bus gets you where you want to go in a few hours tops. Anything short of full admission to the Big Ten will not be compelling, especially after all those schools see what's happened to Minnesota attendance in the aftermath of their fan revolt. 

I still believe the candidates mentioned in the previous post and—sigh—Arizona State are the only possibilities. Academics will not play a factor. There are no available AAU schools and this is an affiliate membership that does not come with the various institutional tie-ins a full membership has. (Even Johns Hopkins is waiting on those.) Competitive factors and attendance should matter—almost all of college hockey revenue comes at the gate. North Dakota checks both those boxes with authority. And if you're talking about media markets you have to think which markets a hockey program can actually deliver you. There's only one that adds a state to the footprint, and that's North Dakota. Another 170k households equates to a couple million dollars a year that nobody else brings.

4. I did forget one possibility: the Big Ten stands pat at 7 and waits for things to develop a bit more. There is at least one school that will not need a huge up front investment to start hockey: Nebraska. Nebraska has a 5,000 seat arena literally across the street from campus.

It is the current home of the USHL's Lincoln Stars and is just the right size for college hockey. If they really hit it off, their new basketball arena also does ice. With the state enraptured by anything red and the basketball program usually an afterthought, they could be revenue neutral right away. Title IX is the main hangup. (Title IX is never more frustrating than when it prevents a break-even hockey program from starting up without a lead weight around its leg.)

Nebraska has the three Colorado schools and UNO relatively nearby, as well. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the Huskers fired up a program in the near future.