Unverified Voracity Demands To See The Cheesekeeper Comment Count

Brian

Same as it ever was. Nothing changes.

The king stay the king. Harbaugh twitter will always be delightful.

If you do not listen to this song, this whole song, he will find you.

The equivalent Harbaugh story here is doing pushups with mom at 3 AM. De'Veon Smith was on Inside Michigan Football last night, and said things that make you… uh… notice a contrast between recent Michigan coaching staffs. For one:

"Coach Hoke was a great coach, he meant a lot to me," Smith said. "He came over to my house one day and literally just fell asleep on the couch."

I hope this was unannounced. De'Veon Smith comes home finds that one of his windows is broken. Inside, Brady Hoke is splayed out on the couch covered in cheeto dust and pinecones. Smith ventures a poke in an attempt to wake Hoke up; Hoke mutters "I am the cheesemaster" and rolls over, inert. There he stays for the winter. When he awakes he demands to see the "cheesekeeper" and runs into the forest.

For two:

"I guess until this year I wasn't really taught properly how to pass protect and what are my keys exactly," Smith said. "And (running backs) coach (Tyrone) Wheatley is instilling that into in all the running backs.

"In previous years, we tried to cut-block somebody. We weren't aiming at the right spot to cut down somebody and now coach Wheatley has taught us to get up on them and get low on them whenever we have to cut them. All the coaching points are definitely the main difference from this offense and last year's offense."

Smith has been excellent in pass protection this year. Michigan ran a couple of smash combos in the Rutgers game in which he was tasked with cutting an unblocked DE and did it with aplomb.

Mizzou chaos. Mizzou's president resigned, their chancellor also got booted, and because the football team decided they'd join the protest several people are poking me to talk about it. So here we go. Hold on to your butts.

  • If you don't understand what's going on, Bill Connelly's explainer is the best that I've found. I still fail to grasp why a few unrelated racial incidents—one of which saw the perpetrator expelled—blew up like it has, but the impression given off by the Connelly piece is that the upper echelons of Mizzou were taken over by Brandon types with an eye on the bottom line and the incorrect assumption that they had infinite political power. Yanking grad student (read: teacher) health insurance the day before classes is a Total Brandon Move. The inciting incidents here were a spark in a dry forest, to borrow Mark Bernstein's analogy.
  • The football team joining the protest promises to be a watershed moment. The president was likely on his way out anyway, but for the axe to fall so quickly after the football team announced a boycott indicates the latent power athletes have. Mizzou was about to get hit very hard financially because the football team simply decide to not do stuff. That is power.
  • This is still far away from the dread strike-for-money that will happen in the next decade, probably at the Final Four. The climate on the Mizzou campus during a campus-wide protest the aftermath of Ferguson is going to be a lot different than the climate if a team says it simply wants a piece of the pie. Whatever team does that is going to get it from both barrels nationwide. Mizzou's football team has largely been praised by non-ideological* media.
  • Gary Pinkel trying to walk it back afterwards by saying it was about nothing other than the health and well-being of the student on a hunger strike is disappointing. If you're going to do it, do it. That's some phony PR right there.

The merits of the protest, its interpretation of what the First Amendment means,  and the larger campus climate nationwide are outside the scope of this blog until such time as Michigan gets stuck in a similar morass. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

*[yes yes all media is ideological especially that newspaper or that website here's a cookie]

Okay, Bill Plaschke. I'd link Drew Sharp if he was talking to Keith Jackson.

It is a voice still so memorable, people still call his home and hang up just to hear his greeting.

"If you're calling the Jacksons, you have succeeded," the voice says. "Help yourself."

I don't think that's how it works. The idea of a medical redshirt for Mario Ojemudia came up again:

Elsewhere, Harbaugh said Monday that the team is still in the process of appealing for an extra year of eligibility for injured senior buck linebacker Mario Ojemudia. The 6-foot-2, 252-pounder suffered season-ending Achilles tendon injury during the second half of the team's fifth game of the year -- a 28-0 win at Maryland.

Per the NCAA rulebook, medical hardship waivers (also known as medical redshirt years) can only be obtained (in a team sport) if three separate conditions are met. The injury must occur during one of the player's four seasons of eligibility, the injury has to have taken place prior to the second half of the player's season and the player has not participated in more than three contests (or 30 percent) of his or her season.

Ojemudia appeared in five games, which is obviously more than three/30 percent. Still, Harbaugh said the process of an appeal is still ongoing.

"There's an appeal process," Harbaugh said. "It's a process."

I assume this will get shot down because the NCAA has been very strict about keeping that rule intact, especially since they moved from 25% to 30% a few years back. I'd be really surprised if Michigan wins here.

Kickering, evaluated. SBN Auburn blog College & Magnolia piles field goal attempts from the last decade into a couple of graphs in an effort to evaluate kickers by the worth of their kickery. Average point value by distance:

Points_per_FG.0[1]

Surprised a 50 yarder is a 50/50 proposition but I guess they don't throw you out there if you obviously can't make it.

Gets choppy at the end there for obvious reasons. C&M assigns points relative to expectation for the nation's kickers and finds Kenny Allen in a tie for 40th. That's about right since he's mostly hit mostly short field goals.

There are a couple of problems with this approach, It tends to give guys who don't have a big leg a pass for not attempting long field goals and it might underrate guys who end up with a lot of limited-upside chip shots relative to equivalent kickers who get more valuable attempts.

But it's a good first approximation, and Allen is about what we've seen: above average and not outstanding. FWIW, OSU currently is 116th. Jack Willoughby is 7/11 on the year and hasn't hit one from 40+. Just something to keep an eye on.

Smart Football back. Chris Brown has revived his blog until such time as someone else snaps him up. He talks packaged plays and how defenses are adapting to them:

In the below clip, Mariota is reading the backside inside linebacker — who is unblocked as the backside tackle is blocking out on the defensive end — to decide whether to hand off on an inside run or throw a slant into what should be a vacated area.

counter

Yet even though the linebacker steps up for the run — and thus Mariota’s read takes him to the slant — the nickel defensive back had been reading Mariota’s eyes the entire time and he simply steps in front of the slant for a too-easy pick-six.

Does this mean defenses have figured these plays out? Not even close; one of the many reasons Whisenhunt got fired was because he had only superficially begun integrating these plays into his offense, rather than truly understanding how they fit together. But I’ve seen other examples of plays like this so far this year, and it’s evidence that defenses are catching up. That, of course, shouldn’t be a surprise. In football, nothing stays easy for long.

The Borges-Denard parallels are obvious.

Michigan hasn't had a ton of trouble with packaged plays this year since they tend to play a lot of man, FWIW.

Etc.: List of top uniforms has Michigan #1, Oregon #2, which is kind of an amazing list. Leaders have leadership. Dedicating Yost Field House. The Slippery Rock story. The dumbest game theory decision ever. Probably literally. LeMoyne things. Harbaugh's got it all.

Comments

JeepinBen

November 10th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^

I agree that the SB Nation piece was a good writeup. One thing that seems to be lost in terms of the Chancellor leaving too is that a good chunk of the faculty was ready to walk out. The Brandon parallels are very similar - the President and Chancellor had lost major constituencies (Endzone talks about the Lettermen, Donors, Students, Etc) and the football team taking a stand seems to have helped bring the media attention.

The situation Brian describes - about a group of players refusing to take the floor during an event - is exactly how the NBAPA came to be formed. The players refused to take the floor at the first all star game.

I think it'll happen too.

Rabbit21

November 10th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^

The Brandon parallel is what finally made the whole thing make sense in my head.  I couldn't grasp why the cited incidents were such a big deal that a sitting univeristy president had to resign, but if this is piled on top of a long list of issues and burnt out political capital, then it makes a lot more sense.

Dubs

November 10th, 2015 at 1:33 PM ^

That is what I've gathered as well.  From the surface I asked why several, seemingly isolated incidents led to the president resigning.  But after reading up on all the issues permeating from the university and hearing some current and former students, it seems like this type of thing was almost death by a thousand cuts.  The most recent incidents were the straw (or straws) that broke the camel's back.

Yo_Blue

November 10th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

After many years, Gordon Lightfoot changed one of the stanzas at the request of the surviving relatives of the sailors.  After divers determined that the hatches were all secure (and not left open as some speculated), he changed the line about "a main hatchway gave in".  He didn't change the "official" version, but no longer sings that part.

creelymonk10

November 10th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^

The best part about the Falcons game theory link is that they had a 35% chance to win if they went for it at the 2 and didn't get in, and only a 17% chance to win by kicking a FG to get within 1 point. More than twice as likely to win if you just give them the ball at the 2 yard line rather than kick a FG to pull within 1. Awful, awful decision by Quinn.

Pepto Bismol

November 10th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

Against the Bears a few weeks ago, Jim Caldwell of the Lions made a similar but worse decision.  Working off memory, so bear with me:

Down 7 with about 3 minutes to play and the ball around the Chicago 25 yard line, Detroit faced 4th and 4-ish.  Caldwell decided to kick a FG.  They were down 7.  Kicking a FG meant they still needed a TD.

At least Quinn's decision eliminated the need for a TD in exchange for another FG.  Caldwell's tactic changed nothing. 

Only sharing this to dispute the UV claim of "dumbest game theory decision ever".  Lions are the worst - Always.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^

But I had not seen this view of the Nebraska touchdown until now. It is very clear the DB forced the reciever out of bounds and I think its interesting that the TV replays started after the WR had already been forced out of bounds.

Note: If you click the gear looking icon, you can then play it in slow motion.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^

really made it clear to me. You have to understand that the DB leading the WR by boxing him in (kinda like basketball) forces the WR to go out, not to mention there is plenty of contact including an extended arm by the DB just when the WR goes out of bounds. Notice the WR is actually somewhat facing back towards the field trying to avoid going out. Basically what it boils down to is do you believe that the DB had nothing to do with the WR going out of bounds, because there was contact and thats undeniable.

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 1:02 PM ^

C'mon man.  You can't possibly believe that video makes it "very clear."  It's full-on motion blur at the moment the receiver goes out of bounds, not to mention a tiny view and an angle where it's difficult to tell the extent of the contact between the two.

If that same call goes against Michigan, the collective outrage here would register on the richter scale.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^

Do you think the DB influenced the WR's route toward the sideline? Because to my eyes it is in fact clear that the DB is guiding the route by boxing the WR in towards the sideline, which all DBs are taught by the way. Because of this the WR is giving ground towards the sideline(over 10 yards and near the sideline there is considerable contact including an extended arm by the DB at exactly the time the WR crosses over out of bounds. Remember this is not pass interference that is being judged but simply did the WR voluntarily, on his own volition choose to go out of bound? The WR did not have to be pushed, boxing out the WR which is legal, would still allow the WR to reestablish himself and make the catch so long as there was contact. 

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^

I agree that the DB shrinks the route to the sideline, as all DBs should do.  I also agree that there was contact.  But I think it's very plausible that the DB reached position to which he was entitled, and the WR had to either go around him by going out of bounds voluntarily or force his way though.

I think it's a close call.  Defensible either way.  I don't think this video makes it "clear."

I should also note that I appreciate you posting the video -- I had not seen it before.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 1:33 PM ^

"the DB had to either go around him by going out of bounds voluntarily or force his way though."  I assume you meant WR rather than DB? If so, then this scenario would make the play call correct as the WR was forced to go out of bounds or commit offensive pass intereference. 

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 1:36 PM ^

Yeah, typo.  I edited.  Is that true though?  Say I am a DB standing still right along the sideline.  You're a WR and want to run a go route right through me.  You can't just bowl me over, so you go around me out of bounds.  Say there's slight contact as well.  Are you eligible?  Under my understanding of the rule, no.  I was entitled to my position and you chose, voluntarily, to go around me out of bounds.

I think something similar may have happened here.  He also may have been forced out.  Close call.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^

in your hypothetical scenario the key  element is could the WR have gone around the DB to the other side and stayed on the field of play. If the reciever has any other option besides going out of bounds or commiting offensive pass interference, then it should not be allowed. In the Nebraska case, the WR had no other options.

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

I'd say that your scenario is implausible.  A WR isn't going to line up to run a go route so that his only option to get around a defender is to go out of bounds.  Not only does the WR effectively cut off one direction for beating the DB, he also eliminates margin of error for the QB.  My instinct on the Nebraska play is that this shouldn't be illegal touching.  There's contact the whole way and he's being forced toward the sideline, it's still a one on one battle, between the receiver and cornerback, and the receiver does not gain a clear advantage by going out of bounds.  I don't think the purpose of the rule is to prevent that type of play by the Nebraska wide receiver.  That said, I'm not sure that's the proper interpetation of the call.  Does being forced out require a true affirmative action by the defender to force a wr out of bounds (like a shove)?  I'd be surprised if that is the standard.  Similarly, I'd be surprised if a defender running side by side with a wr where their arms brush against each other would constitute being forced out  

I'll also note that this was a poor route by the receiver.  

In reply to by Franz Schubert

Erik_in_Dayton

November 10th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^

 


Eligibility Lost
by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4

No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds
and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A. R. 7-3-4-I, II and IV) [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A. R. 7-3-4-III)]. If he touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching.

 

This is from Rule 7, Section 3, Article 4 of the NCAA Rulebook.  I added the emphasis.

It leaves a lot of room for interpretation, IMO. 

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 2:24 PM ^

The "immediately returns" portion also has to be questionable on the Nebraska play.  The WR took 4 or 5 steps after first going out of bounds.  Is that clause of the rule satisfied because the contact continued, or did the WR have an affirmative duty to break contact and get back in bounds as soon as he stepped out of bounds.  Officials must have believed the former, wonder if they were right?

Erik_in_Dayton

November 10th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^

I would not have thrown the flag based on my reading of the rule.  I don't think the contact was the primary cause of him going out of bounds, and I don't think he returned quickly enough. 

But I also don't think the rule makes it plain that the officials were wrong.  The rule doesn't say, for example, that the contact has to be the primary cause of the receiver going out of bounds. 

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^

Fair enough.  I said elsewhere in this thread that I don't think it should be a penalty, was just questioning whether the officials were correct in their rules interpretation for not calling a penalty. 

To me it comes down to, was there some advantage gained by the offensive player that the penalty was meant to target?  I don't think there was.  The penalty was meant to target shenanigans with receivers mixing with players on the sideline and getting lost.  Here the defender and receiver continue to battle the whole way.  The WR eventually won and caught the ball while in bounds.  I'd like to see that called a catch, as it was.  

Erik_in_Dayton

November 10th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^

I meant to say I would have thrown the flag (maybe that was obvious). 

I can see your side.  I agree that Nebraska did not score that touchdown because they broke the rule.  I would have thrown the flag because I think they violated the rule as it's reasonably interpreted.  But I also think the receiver violated only the letter - not the spirit - of the rule.

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^

as soon as he could escape the DB that was blocking his ability to get back on the field. Watch the video and you will see that it is only after the WR slows considerably and the DB's momentum continues him forward that the WR is able to escape his block and reestablish himself. Dude was not out there strolling along by choice.

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^

I could, and maybe would, just as easily argue that he didn't "slow considerably" until he was making a move to come back and catch the already released pass.  He just as easily could have made the same move three steps earlier before the ball was released.  I think a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written would have required him to do so.  

You keep speaking as if this rule is hard and fast while everyone else says there's a lot of wiggle room in the way the rule is written.  Do you have anything to base your opinions on, or is it simply your interpretation as a football fan?  

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^

it is you that is saying the rule is "hard and fast" as you are saying things like this;

"He just as easily could have made the same move three steps earlier before the ball was released.  I think a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written would have required him to do so."

One must consider that the players are running at full speed, which at this level is really fast. So when you think of how fast this is happening in real time, two or three steps is a really short time to react, especially when one is physically engaged to a defender. 

I am saying that the spirit of the rule is intended to prevent recievers from intentionally going out of bounds to gain an advantage. This allows more wiggle room than what you are actually proposing. It all comes down to whether you think the actions of the DB led to the WR going out of bounds. To me, it is very clear to see that they did lead to him going out of bounds. Others are free to disagree if they see it differently. 

 

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^

Using the term "reasonable application," as I did, pretty clearly shows that I don't think the rule is "hard and fast."  

So you have no basis for saying your interpretation (which again, I generally agree with) is the one true interpretation.  That is all anyone here has a problem with.  You said it's "very clear."  I don't think anyone else would say that's true.  Most would say it was a judgment call that could go either way with some saying it clearly should have been a penalty.  You're in the small minority thinking this was clearly the right call.