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

TennBlue

November 10th, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^

but wouldn't change anything. The rules are not determined and enforced by popular opinion. I think the refs got the call right on that play.

"Forced" doesn't have to mean the defender beat him up and threw him out of bounds. In this case, the receiver would have had to commit OPI to avoid going out of bounds, so I think he was actually forced.

The point of the rule is to prevent hidden-receiver plays, which were popular in the early days of the forward pass. The receiver would deliberately run out of bounds and get lost in the substitutes on the sideline, then reemerge 20 yards downfield uncovered. Hence the distinction between going out of bounds voluntarily and being forced.

In this case I think he was legitimately forced out and thus the refs made the correct call.

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

I wonder if anyone has other examples of similar plays being either called illegal touching or a legal play because the defender forced the receiver out of bounds.  I just don't recall this happening all that often, where a defender is riding a receiver towards and ultimately over the boundary and the receiver is able to re-establish position to make a catch.  I'd say almost every time the penalty is called, the receiver has clearly wandered out of bounds, often on a QB scramble where the receivers route took him to the sidelines.  And most times a receiver gets ridden out of bounds on a fade or go route, he doesn't get back in bounds and the pass is simply incomplete.  I just don't recall similar instances as the Nebraska catch, though I'm sure they've happened.  I'd be very interested to see how it's typically called.

One other question, I read somewhere that the big ten said the "mechanics" of making the call were correct.  Does that mean the official was correct for throwing his hat even though the receiver was pushed out, or did a second official say he saw contact forcing out the receiver? 

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

The only instance I can recall, painfully, is 2005 UM-OSU.  No call, and, like this game, the DB really just stood his ground while Anthony Gonzalez bumped his way around out of bounds and came back in.  That no-call was similar to this one.

Go to 1:25:50 for the misery (youtube won't allow this video to be embedded, for some reason).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-ZOsLcIo

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2015 at 1:52 PM ^

Even that is closer to the typical example.  QB scramble with the WR running an out route to the sideline.  It's only really similar in that neither Gonzalez nor the Nebraska WR could run straight down the sideline without contact forcing him out.  I don't know if either contact, which is permissible contact by the defender, should result in a nullification of the illegal touching, but my instinct is that it should.  I probably felt differently in 2005.  

Franz Schubert

November 10th, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^

the contact with the DB in anyway led to the reciever going out of bounds? Or rather that the contact did not in anyway lead to the WR going out of bounds? You acknowleded the WR was being led to the sideline and that there was contact. So the only question is did the contact play any role?

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^

I don't think "in any way led to the receiver going out of bounds" is the proper interpretation of the rule.  The rule reads

 

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

I think the WR primarily went out of bounds "due to" the DB rightfully being in the spot where the WR wanted to be.  I agree that there was contact, but I don't think you are automatically elligible if that contact plays the slightest role in you going out of bounds.

In reply to by Franz Schubert

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^

Probably very hard to judge live, but I would say: if, but for the contact initiated by the defender, the WR would have stayed in bounds, then yes, I think he's eligible.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 10th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^

The football team's strike was far and away the biggest reason the president stepped down when he did. I'm somewhat familiar with Missouri politics (long, boring story), and I don't think the politicians who pressured him to leave would have done so without the threat of games being forfeited.

JeepinBen

November 10th, 2015 at 1:58 PM ^

Yes, Mizzou would have had to cut a $1M check to BYU for the forfeit, but there also would have been:

  • Lost gate receipts totaling $X Million (Game was to be played at the KC Cheifs' stadium off campus, face value of tickets were up to $225 a piece)
  • Plus the headache and PR nightmare (as you note) of returning the ticket sales $$
  • TV $$ - no game, what's the payout from the networks?
  • Lost concession sales (Including booze?)
  • Cancellation of the event - what happens to workers/salaries/etc? Does the Missouri Govt worry about lost tax revenue?
  • What about BYU fans with travel plans?

Yes, some of these are straight PR nightmares, but Mizzou would have missed out on a lot of money by not playing this game.

 

Rabbit21

November 10th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^

Even then, still it's a rounding error in the overall university budget.  The lost revenue is bad, sure and I bet there would be a fine from the SEC over the inability to field a team.

I still think the relative PR issue was a bigger issue in their minds over the, "Can we afford this?" question.

JeepinBen

November 10th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^

But the athletic budget? Losing the $$ from a "home" game is a big deal. I don't think we disagree. Both the actual dollars and the huge PR issue caused by FOOTBALL as opposed to general angst lead to the result today.

Football caused the issue a lot more attention, both in PR and in Dollars than it was getting previously.

M-Dog

November 10th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

I posted this on the Board thread about the Enmund Fitzgerald anniversary:

Old man editorial:

It's sad, but an epic song like this could never be made today.  Today we all live in our own little self-contained bubbles where we only hear "our" stuff . . . hip hop, rock, rap, country, whatever.  There is very little crossover.

Oh for the glory of Top 40 where you would hear "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by Gordon Lightfoot, "Disco Duck" by Rick Dees, "Walk This Way" by Aerosmith, and "Dancing Queen" by Abba, all back to back . . . whether you wanted to or not!

MGoBrewMom

November 10th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^

blocking and coaching points about this year vs last just made me sad for Devin Gardner. shit...he gave everything, and was pummled. I'm thrilled with where we are, and I've never been one to kick the old staff, but shit...if the RBs are being taught better how to block, you know the O Line is too.

LJ

November 10th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^

That packaged plays article is fascinating.  It's basically a scrape exchange between the LB and the DB, much like the DE and LB perform the scrape exchange on a zone-read to make the QB's decision wrong when he goes through his normal progression.

I love football.  What a perfect combination of physical and mental competition.

Sopwith

November 10th, 2015 at 1:53 PM ^

is not saying something hurtful, it's an overt physical threat. If they roll down the window and say "hey, jerkface!" that's something else, unless they're brandishing something. The police call would be appropriate in the former case at a minimum.

I could also go with "jerkweed" or "tubby" as not implicating a police call in the absence of brandishing something.

 

matty blue

November 10th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^

i can't really go into specifics of how or why it came about, but i know someone who once had access to gary moeller's rolodex (note to millenials - think of an iphone address book, only on these custom paper thingies), and once found myself in possession of the home phone numbers of lou holtz and keith jackson.  this was back in my pre-12 step days, and from time to time i'd be on a bender of sorts and do exactly what plaschke describes - call the number, hear keith jackson's annoyed 'hello,' and hang up.  he never graced me with a "whoa nelly, who's a-callin' now?", to my great regret, and i've long since lost the numbers.  sigh.

harmon98

November 10th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

Harbaugh doing Mario a solid by going to bat for him with regards to the slimmest of margins he'll get the redshirt. Love to see Coach fight for his players. Recollections of c. 1989 apt above China Gate and my multitalented friend playing acoustic guitar to the tune of The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald whilst singing the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner.

Barca Wolverine

November 10th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^

Those "few incidents'"were only the public ones.  More articles, Missou student interviews (sory for the lack of citation, but I have work I need to get back to) and my own experience at Michigan all show that for every one public incident, there are plenty more that happen in private.

Getting called a nigger while walking through the Diag at night is an awful feeling.  They know you're alone. You know you're alone.  A blue light sounds like a great campus safety feature, but what would calling it do?  What would they do if I tried to stand up to their ignorance and abuse?  Those are the things we as people of color have to deal with at college and in life.  I don't expect anyone who hasn't experienced it to understand but I ask that you seek out and ask someone who does understand.

It's bad enough in private, but it's another thing when it happens in the public light and those in power still do nothing, and actively ignore calls to make improvements.

NB: Sadly I won't be around to respond to any replies until later tonight, but I'm happy to talk more with anyone who wants to have a respectful discussion about this topic.

SalvatoreQuattro

November 10th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^

I have been called names while walking by myself. I even had a mob of drunk farmers surround me while I was in my car. Scary as shit to experience that as an 18 year-old.


People like to bully others, especially loners or outsides. My step-mother was beaten up by black girls as a student at Robichaud in the 70's. Unfortunately what you experienced is not unique. It's widespread and impacts people of all ethnicities.

In having noted this we have a long history of racism and race-based violence that makes incidents like you described extra worrisome.

Europe still has problems with Judeophobia even after 2000 years and countless acts of persecution. Once a bias is ingrained it stays there for a long, long, long time.

lbpeley

November 10th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^

the assbags who actually have those beliefs and say that kind of stuff to you aren't going to suddenly come to their senses because a university big wig came out and made a Strong Statement(!) against it. They won't be deterred by signs and slogans and "awareness" measures. 

I hate it that these people exist but like you mentioned, what's the blue light or a call to authorities going to do? Nothing will change these people's thinking. Sure, maybe every once in a while it may happen like in the movies but beyond that, what can actually be done with any effect? It may be a lazy statement, but the best prevention probably starts at home.

JeepinBen

November 10th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^

I think a parallel might be around the Gibbons situation here. As the proprietor of MGoBlog, when Brian wrote about that mess he didn't go out of his way to explicitly say "Sexual Assault is Bad", because he thought it was a given and it wasn't required of him in his role. Some commentors thought he should have been more explicit in condemning sexual assault. Brian's a writer and small business owner with no power over that situation (and he later explicitly said "sexual assault is bad" just to close the loop). In that example, while the AD didn't do a great job of being communicative there was never any doubt where the University stood on the issue.

In this case, there were multiple, documented, publilc racially charged incidents on campus and the "leaders" did nothing. Even when his vehicle was stopped in the homecoming parade the president would not engage the students. In that position, I think it would have been critical for the president to condemn what happened, and he didn't. It's not hard to make the leap that if the leader doesn't condemn, it's almost like a silent condoning of what's happening.

Rabbit21

November 10th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^

Yes, because being stopped by students who are blocking access to your vehicle is going to be interpreted as an invitation to a dialogue, instead of being Oh, I don't know, a threatening gesture made to bring across the message of, "Agree with us or else."  

The one incident in which leadership had the power to do something tangible, like expel a student caught yelling racial epithet's, they did just that.  I don't know I'd say that leadership did nothing. 

matty blue

November 10th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^

okay, i know that the oregon uniforms are cool with the kids, and all that, but i guess i have a hard time with calling it "a" great uniform, since it literally changes, top-to-bottom, for every single game.

go ahead, describe michigan's uniform, or ohio state's, or notre dames, or pretty much anyone else on the list.  now describe oregon's.

gutsnglue

November 10th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^

Jackson not only gave the Rose Bowl its nickname, but he also came up with the phrase that today is commonly used for majestic Michigan Stadium.

"We walked in there one time when it was empty and Keith looked around and said, 'Boy, this is one big house,' " Turi Ann says, and "The Big House" was born.

CoverZero

November 10th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^

Regarding the Best Uniforms link/video....Michigan is so lucky that Coach Fritz "Chris-ler" brought the winged helmet in back in 1938.

Blue Balls Afire

November 10th, 2015 at 1:46 PM ^

About Mizzou:  What I’ve noticed and what is discouraging to me is the sentiment among many here and in the national discourse that they don’t understand what all the fuss is about over a few unrelated racial incidents.  I’m reminded of the problem of the good-hearted white folk, as a friend of mine explained to me once.  GHWF aren’t racists and they don’t hang out with racists and they have black friends, and they’re ready in an instant to fight perceived oppression.  But, that’s the problem.  GHWF don’t perceive it so it’s hard for them to believe it still happens to the degree it does.  They don’t see the racism that people of color encounter so often.  Because they don’t experience it, every incident that does come to their attention is necessarily an unrelated, isolated incident.  But that’s not the reality.  The frustration among people of color is the apathy among GHWF, exemplified by the head of an institution who was aloof in the face of naked racism.  Ferguson was not about one incident, but the culmination of many incidences that did not get the attention it deserved.  So too Mizzou.

SalvatoreQuattro

November 10th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^

and ask yourself how aware you personally are with antisemiticism, ageism, homophobia, misogyny, and xenophobia. I am willing to bet you don't think much about these as much as you do racism as they more than likely don't really impact you.

We all have blind spots. We all need to be more aware of the daily acts of injustice that surround us.

SalvatoreQuattro

November 10th, 2015 at 8:36 PM ^

it is helpful to remind them that they are guilty of the same thing. Part of the problem with this country is a lack of self-awareness of one's own foibles. This is a countrywide issue and not directed at any one segment of the populace.

His statement is correct insofar as it goes. But the specific problem he is referring is much more widespread. We all have to work on being more aware, not just whites of overt acts of racism.

 

Blue Balls Afire

November 11th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^

I thought you were using the term "you" in the general sense and not specifically about me, but I see in your subsequent post that you were referring to me and that you believe I was being pious.  Of course we all have blind spots and we all have prejudices and pre-conceived notions and schema developed to help navigate the world, and we can certainly talk about each one of those areas you mentioned, but this topic was about Mizzou and race, was it not?, so I limited my response to that.  

So, let's talk about antisemiticsim, ageism, homophobia, misogyny, and xenophobia.  I'm all for it.  

Blue Balls Afire

November 10th, 2015 at 2:21 PM ^

That you don’t know is what is discouraging to me, and what speaks to my broader point.  I know you were not downplaying the protesters’ problems/concerns, but their issues and motivations are so patently obvious to one segment of the population and so misunderstood by a vast majority of others.  I’m saddened by that.  We have a long way to go.