The current seating capacity is enough to hold a full Rutgers Stadium AND Oregon Ducks (Autzen Stadium) with a few thousand empty seats to spare.
I thought that myself when I read that article that talked about a Data Scientist(tm)
Correction. The recruiting profile of Richard Ash brought up Jason Kates because he's the canonical recent example of a guy whose weight problems prevented him from becoming a player. In that post, I mentioned that Rivals had 'won' that evaluation since they issued two stars to Scout's four. I got that backwards. It was Scout that was skeptical and thus won.
The underbelly of disaster(!). Tim is taking in the official media bit of the tour (lunch!) and is tweeting brooding photos of empty stuff. Full post coming up later today; for those who can't wait UM Tailgate got in way early and already has the first of what will be dozens of galleries posted today. Swanky:
Meanwhile, Michigan has released this year's box-engorged seating capacity: 109,901, which puts it back in its rightful place as the largest in the country. Wikipedia was updated in nanoseconds:
Michigan Stadium's capacity will drop next year when the seats and aisles are widened but should still check in #1.
Beam me up. I can't control when I get the weird photoshops of recently graduated players, but here's this:
His people are Patriots. Thanks to Corey Ray.
Also in graphic stuff, TRSaunders expands his library of MS Paint crazy photo stuff with Cam Gordon.
Raid your own stadium. Tickets for the Big Chill are all but officially sold out as Michigan holds back the last few blocks for incoming freshmen. Unless you head to Michigan State's ticket department, that is. Buy away. Plot in the message board thread.
In graphic form. A poster named BlueMonster threw this chart up on Rivals. It speaks for itself:
Steele can be wobbly on certain things but not wobbly enough to get Michigan out of the overall cellar when they're so far behind the nearest competitor, especially since Steele's evaluation of Michigan's starters is significantly more veteran than the actual lineup will be.
Interesting to note that UConn, which had a rep as a very veteran outfit, comes in towards the bottom of the list. Penn State, meanwhile, checked in next to Michigan at just below average on the Steele experience ranking but is well up the rankings here. Everything else looks to be about what you'd expect, with that Notre Dame game looming large as an opportunity to start off in a non-flailing fashion.
Expansion of the other variety. Everyone else has an opinion, so I should too: the NCAA has announced that the four play-in games will be contested in two groups: everyone who used to be a 16 seed plays for two spots and the last four at-large teams will play for the other two. So everyone gets slid down one more notch and the three teams that are added have to play for a spot with the team that would have been the last at-large in a 65-team tournament.
I was against any sort of expansion from the start and still think 68 is goofy, but if they're going to do it this is the best way. The 16 seeds are invariably weak opponents and bidding another one goodbye is not going to make anyone shed a tear. While the occasional interesting team finds itself a 15 seed, usually the worst 15 seed is no threat against the best 2. Meanwhile, having the last few at-large bids face off against each other will reduce the "what about X" complaining every year because X will have an opportunity to play Y, settling the argument on the court. More of those third place Mountain West or A-10 teams will get the opportunity to prove themselves better than Clemson or Minnesota.
The Artist Formerly Known As Big Ten Wonk dislikes this, calling it "dumb":
I realize many pundits are fine with this today, but wait until they see it in action with actual team names inserted into these brackets. Inevitably a five-seed will lose to a 12 that emerged from a play-in game and we’ll hear all the usual talk about the “advantage” and “momentum” the 12 had from playing already. And as for talk of 10-seeds being in play-in games, mark me down as absolutely terrified. I’m already on the record as thinking that tournament seeding has far too little to do with reality. (And note that today’s decision only raises the stakes that will be riding on a team’s seed.)
Now, if you’re talking about a team seeded as high as a 10, there’s a good chance that said team is way better than the selection committee could have realized. To require a team that good to win an extra game while every year the 64th-best team in the field is guaranteed a comparatively easy six-win path is antithetical to what’s made the NCAA tournament the best postseason spectacle in major American team sports. We’ve trusted the tournament’s outcomes precisely to the extent that the courts have been neutral, the brackets have been balanced, and the opportunities have been equal.
I think that's an anticipation about talking heads doing the thing where they have a fierce disagreement over a petty issue because of Stephen A Smith and not an actual argument that this will be a factor, but even so I must dissent from Gasaway's dissent. A case where the second to last at large spot is actually a 10 seed will be exceedingly rare. The equivalent would be the last at large in the current tourney being a 10, which I'm pretty sure has never happened. Meanwhile, the 64th-best team has earned something (the auto-bid) the last teams in have not. It's not entirely fair but if it keeps a bunch of small teams from getting shuffled to "TruTV" in favor of major conference mediocrities, I'm in favor of it. Seeds are mostly guesses and a small conference team that won its championship and avoided the play-in has proven itself better than a subset of college basketball; major conference teams that finish seventh have not done this.
The committee did the best possible job given they had to assemble a 68-team tournament and include a cable channel no one's even heard of.
Leader for real. Now that the World Cup is over it can be said: ESPN has shed its Mark Shapiro skin and has returned to something that people can both love and hate instead of just the latter. Not once during the 2010 tournament did I pine for the Univision that I had in HD in 2006 but not 2010, and this is despite the fact that Univision is such terrific fun that I would occasionally flip on replays of games I'd already watched just to hear someone's head explode because of Diego Forlan. Also, 30 for 30 is an unqualified success, the sort of original programming that ESPN always should have done instead of "I'd Do Anything" or literally everything else Shapiro ever came up with. (His latest trick: running Six Flags into the ground.)
Everything from the play by play to the studio crew was fantastic—even Alexi Lalas was genuinely fun when he ribbed the English. My only complaint was the time spent showing replays when action was going on, and that wasn't even ESPN's fault since FIFA controls the feed. There has never been a greater turnaround between consecutive broadcasts of a single event. Last year we were stuck with Dave O'Brien and Marcelo Balboa.
Why can't they do this for other sports? Well, if you took ESPN's top four college football announce teams (PBP: Musberger, McDonough, Franklin, ?) they would probably come close to the four excellent teams put together for the World Cup. When you get to #8 it's Pam Ward, and by #12 it's that awful Rod Gilmore/Trevor Matich color pairing that had a combined IQ approximately the equal of tapioca pudding that went 12-20 in 15 years as as boxer. Plus ESPN had the pick of any English announcers they wanted. If you could put together an All-Star roster of college football from ESPN, CBS, Fox, and, uh, NBC… well… you'd get Verne Lundquist. Never mind.
Initial NCAA impressions. If you're like me and have gotten tired of EA's consistently lame NCAA franchise, I suggest you check out GameShark folks Bill Abner and Todd Brakke's "Nut and Feisty Weasel," where they'll be posting their annual stream of consciousness reviews of the latest edition. These are always unvarnished and far more useful than any review ever is.
The first impression, as always, is promising. This is something that I don't know if an NCAA game has ever managed before:
John Clay had 88 yards on 20 carries. He was hard as hell to tackle. Michigan? I shut that team down with impunity. I had a chance late to get the ball back against Wisky and they marched 30 yards to nail the coffin shut.
Against UM my DE Cam Heyward was UNBLOCKABLE. He was KILLING whoever the Michigan RT is. 3 sacks, multiple pressures, etc. In years past this would raise a quick red flag. This is a potential pattern that could really kill the game because before--something like this simply meant...the AI blocking sucks.
Against Wisky? Heyward was as non factor. And believe me...I tried.
Abner is an OSU fan, unfortunately. Let's hope the game's projection for Mark Huyge is pessimistic.
Etc.: Pittsburgh and Philadelphia get the 2013 and 2014 Frozen Fours. Fine by me; at least Pittsburgh is drivable. Boston fans are complaining about the FF's long absence from their neck of the woods—by 2014 it will be a decade—and I would have some sympathy if the Detroit FF was the first time in forever that the perpetually-screwed CCHA had gotten to host one. Rivals ranks Michigan a job-saving #41.
The current seating capacity is enough to hold a full Rutgers Stadium AND Oregon Ducks (Autzen Stadium) with a few thousand empty seats to spare.
Why is the M on the bleachers white? Unfinished or is this how it's going to be now?
They are repainting it. It will be Maize.
Maybe the Michigan-football-hating Gods were really just Michigan-Stadium-loving Gods and now that we're back on top, they'll let us kick some ass in the Big House.
30 For 30 has definitely been good. Even my least favorite ones have still been pretty good, and some of them are fantastic. The Two Escobars really stands out in my mind.
This chart is proof-positive that Rich Rodriquez needs to be at Michigan through the 2011 season before we can get an accurate picture of the fruits of his labor.
I also hope we keep his alter ego through 2011 -- you know, the guy who spells his name without the "Q."
Just an FYI, I wouldn't trust anything BlueMonster says without double checking. If he posted here, he would've been banned long ago, he's essentially a troll.
Have it in the Open House Thread, but I think it looks impressive enough, everyone should be able to see it and ooohhhh and ahhhhh. (I mean, it made me figure out Flickr for the first time!).
I really didn't want to leave. I could have stayed there till 8 pm....then for 52 more days. But they had security at all the ends. The chance to hide and squat were nil. But it's definitely nicer than my house. And the view.....
based on what I put in my diary I calculated 2.91 on both O and D. Starts would seem to be a better data points to track than seniority though
I think starts is more important than class, but it's so subjective it's really hard to quantify with 1 formula. You could do one for starts and 1 for class and morph them to get a good idea, then tweak for QB. A returning QB is more valuable than a returning WR.
Not exactly sure the formula but going off what Brian listed the chart is pretty off base
QB 2 Forcier/Robinson
RB 3 Shaw
TE 3 Koger
WR 3,3,3 Odoms/ Hemmingway/Stonum/Roundtree
OL 4,3,4,4,4 if Lewan starts over Huyge/Dorrestein then replace a 4 with a 2, but Schilling/Omameh/Molk/Huyge/Dorrestein
That's 36/11=3.27 not 2.27.
Again not sure the exact formula, but I can not believe our O is the least experienced so I had to go thru the exercise. Maybe they have a starting lineup of Gardner, Hopkins, Lewan and Schofield.
I was wondering about that, too. Thanks for doing the math.
As for the defense:
Martin = 3
Roh = 2
Banks = 4
Van Bergen = 3
Ezeh = 4
Mouton = 4
Kovacs = 2
Floyd = 2
Woolfolk = 4
Gordon = 1
Gordon = 1
TOTAL = 30
30/11 = 2.72
Redshirts don't count, but your general gist is correct. Michigan is much more experienced than the 2.27 on offense.
Assuming the starting five is Huyge, Omameh, Molk, Schilling, and Lewan, that's 3, 2, 3, 4, 1 right there. Add in Hemmingway (3), Stonum (3), Odoms (3), Roundtree (2) and Forcier (2). Assume Cox or Smith starts at RB (2) and your average is 2.54. You have to start Toussaint at RB and Schofield at RT to get 2.27.
Defense, unfortuantely, seems about right and maybe a tad on the high end. If Campbell starts or somebody replaces Kovacs (I think this will happen -- like Nick Sheridan getting replaced last year), Michigan will be even younger on "D".
While I dont know how accurate those charts are (see OB's post above), as far as UConn, they seem to be an all or nothing team as far as experience goes.
They have it on the OLine and Linebacking corps and with Toddman running the football.
But, their WRs are young guys going from role players to starters, the secondary is all basically brand new and, IIRC, they're inserting some new folks on the first team along the DL as well.
They have a couple of units that are very experienced, but several that are looking green.
That might help explain those numbers
My uncle and my dad each bought a suite, but we don't know if we will use them. I mean, my dad has 250K travel home for the tailgate that is nicer than those suites and the bathroom is closer. Plus, he has one of those 105 inch HD flatscreens with surround sound, dvr and satellite. The Old Man was complaining the other day about he should have waited, but then I reminded him he still had all that money from the Regan trickle down era, and he just laughed and cracked another bottle of Makers Mark. He had forgot all about that.
Did he get it on eBay? Is he slumming it? Was it painted green and white? Personally, I find I can't get comfortable in a mobile home for less than a mil.
Tht chart is foreboding, but I agree that starts should matter more than seniority. I would rather have a guy who started as a RS freshman than a 5th-year senior who is playing simply because there is nobody else to fill the spot.
It was a pleasure to watch hours of supplemental programming, just because there were interesting color commentators, the 'murricuhns were pretty neutral (though Fowler did try to rain on the parade in the aftermath of the final game), the video/FIFA-ing ranged from slightly above average to excellent...
I thought it was odd that there was so much programming before and during, then after the final whistle, brief trophy ceremony...wham...cut to local programming. It would have been nice to have some lingering camera views panning, highlight replays, best of's, etc. Yeah, it was back on ESPN later, but it was jarring to just end abruptly. Dammit...I gave a month to my sofa and TV. I wanted that afterglow to last a while longer...
I'd say Mike Tirico again did himself proud with his even-handed commentary and hosting. We can say we knew him when...
But biggest in the western hemisphere. Word up.
I'd like to see a weighted experience metric where QBs, OL, and DL are given extra weight and RBs and WRs are discounted. I think that would give you a really good metric of how experienced a team will be where it counts.
but boycott Maker's Mark. Try Blanton's.
Maybe if it was Jim Beam, I'd say, "Sure, makes sense." Or even Wild Turkey. But, Makers? Really? Its no Basil Hayden's or Booker's, I'll give you that, but it works very well in a Bourbon Old Fashioned.
That reminds me, I need to go shopping ....
was an unqualified failure. I would question how he got the job in the first place, but then it doesn't take much effort to look around and find someone in a comparable position at another company with the same lack of talent and the same type of fool who hired him in the first place.
Then again, if ESPN hadn't wasted so much on such lousy programming, perhaps there wouldn't have been so much of an opening for the Big Ten Network ... obviously Shapiro's crap didn't fill college football time slots, but it certainly wasted a lot of money.