Okay, so we've just taken a spin through Michigan's hitch-susceptible cover three. What's the alternative? The Big Ten Network did give us one replay of something different. It comes on third and long in the third quarter with Michigan on offense. Threet is going to throw a hitch to Darryl Stonum.

(This camera angle is wider so I've cropped the pictures down; it'll be slightly fuzzy.)

This is pretty much the same as the first frame we saw with Morgan Trent earlier, except the defensive back is lined up a little further inside.

The Purdue corner turns his hips towards the receiver and looks directly at him. This is man coverage.

When Stonum starts making his break it's immediately apparent to the corner and he can turn his hips towards the receiver. Trent had to turn around the other way, taking himself away from the receiver until he can get his body around.

The ball from Threet is low and inside and gets marked IN in UFR, but Stonum still has a chance at a diving grab…

…but the Purdue defender is right there making life difficult. If the ball was better thrown he had a chance at a breakup or even an interception.

Here's the video on this one:

So it's pretty obvious why Purdue was able to play this sort of tight coverage on third and long: Michigan's receivers don't seem like much of a downfield threat and this guy has safety help over the top, a luxury not afforded Michigan's corners on the regular.

Okay. Question: does Michigan's coverage style (here's another example from Cissoko) make any sense given the defense they're running? I'm not a coach, but doesn't it seem like Michigan corners should be setting up outside of the receivers and funneling them towards the safety and/or zone dropping flex players and linebackers? Maybe Shafer thought Siller couldn't throw well enough to make him pay. He was wrong.