Unverified Voracity Mimics Dhani Comment Count

Brian

kellen-jones-bowtie

Kellen Jones M bowtie FTW.

Improving the not LOI. Compliance people complain to each other on twitter about people who abbreviate the "National Letter of Intent" as "LOI" instead of "NLI." Apparently there are other LOIs. You have been warned.

In any case they should be heavily reformed. Right now they're one-way binds with silly timing that have created a cottage industry of kids who attempt to reserve their spot by being "committed, but open." Paul Johnson's opinion of this is similar to Artur Boruc's about corn:

What I’d like to see happen, but I’m probably by myself: if you have 85 scholarships, and you can sign 25 a year or however many you have. When they commit, they sign the papers and you stop. It would stop all the verbal commitments and all the hats. The guys who weren’t ready wouldn’t commit. You’d call their bluff. They couldn’t make their reservation. We’ll talk to kids all the time, juniors right now, who are committing. We’ll say ‘Are you sure you want to do that?’

“Oh coach, I’m open.”

[HT: Get The Picture.]

I'm not really sure what the argument against early signing is. The way it's set up now everyone scrambles to get their class locked in on Signing Day, so someone like FL WR AJ King who has his scholarship pulled by Purdue is in a tough spot in his attempt to find a landing place. If he was signed, he'd be signed and hijinks both ways would be seriously reduced.

The Bylaw Blog has a few other suggestions, one of which I've made in this space before: the NCAA should implement a "no contact" agreement. That piece of paper would be non-binding but would allow the school specified by the player to contact the kid without restriction… and make it a violation for anyone else to. Official visits would also be off the table. That's a verbal commitment that actually exists and would help coaches figure out who's serious and who's just making a backup plan.

Heart-hurting. Remember that video of the Detroit Renaissance coach declaring Michigan's treatment of former Ren players "hurt his heart," thus explaining why Michigan couldn't get anyone out of there no matter what? Raise your hand if you're surprised that Ren's Lawrence Thomas recited the entire negative recruiting playbook:

"Why not Michigan? They had problems. There were some past experiences with other Renaissance players that I didn't like. Plus, Rich Rodriguez sent an assistant to our school to recruit me. He wouldn't even send the defensive coordinator, just an assistant. Then we'd hear that Rich Rod would be in Florida recruiting."

The Renaissance players were Andre Criswell, a last-second addition at FB who never saw the field and was kept on as a GA after leaving the team before his fifth year, and Carson Butler, the insane tight end who finally ran out of chances towards the end of Rodriguez's first year. Butler was treated so badly he stuck up for Rodriguez during the jihad. Michigan did as well by those kids as they could given the latter's hatred of nerds, be they in the wrong dorm room or playing for Notre Dame.

So… this was not a situation likely to produce a commitment even if Rodriguez showed up with every assistant he had, and one that would likely have continued under Hoke. Similarly, when Taiwan Jones complains about a lack of attention from Michigan during his visit to the UConn game he's complaining as a guy who had been a MSU commit for months already and who Michigan never even considered offering.

This continues the theme from these Blue Chip articles in the News since the beginning of time: Michigan commits asked about State say something short, polite and vague, State commits asked about Michigan rant about a lack of respect, and the guys towards the bottom of the list submit a tear-stained questionnaire because neither school thought they were good enough. This will happen next year, and the year after, and so on and so forth.

Adventures in re-evaluating wins. So… how about not losing to Iowa by twenty points? Yeah, got a whole new sheen on it today, that does.

I mention it by way of inserting this "Fran-graph" from BHGP:

fran15_medium Michigan's at the top and you can see the extreme focus on the rim or the three point line in Michigan's field goals. BHGP's Horace E Cow explains:

In men's basketball in the NCAA this year, players have made 34.5% of threes and 48.2% of twos.  The average value, then, of a three-point attempt is  3*.345 = 1.04, and the average of a two is 2*.482 = .964.  This fact has led many college (and pro) coaches to the reasonable conclusion that  three-point shots are better bets than two-point shots, and that their teams should take as many threes as possible (Todd Lickliter was one of these coaches, actually). 

Not all twos are worth less than threes, though: shots at the rim are usually made at a very high percentage (60-70%) and thus the average dunk or lay-up is worth 1.2-1.4 points, much more than the average three.  Putting  these two facts together (threes are better than most twos, but dunks are better than threes), coaches have developed what could be called a "hollowing-out" strategy on offense: threes and dunks are encouraged, anything in between in discouraged.

My first experience with this line of thinking was watching some Kentucky game back in the day when Pitino was coaching them and hearing the announcer go on about how Pitino loathed shots just inside the arc. Beilein's system is the logical extension of that thinking. Michigan's makes against Iowa: 14 threes, nine layups/dunks, and ten anything else.

If you can get it to work it's great, and it's not a strategy that seems to have a ceiling. One of this year's other proponents of the dunk-or-deep strategy is #1 and current opponent Ohio State. Because they have Jared Sullinger they aren't launching as many threes but both their 2PT% and 3PT% are off the charts—they're in the top ten in both nationally. They've got four guys who take a large volume of two-point shots, and two of them are shooting a Jordan-Morgan-like 59%. Ohio State's distribution isn't quite as extreme but it's essentially the same thing.

The slight difference between the programs is the ability to recruit Jared Sullinger and Deshaun Thomas every damn year.

BONUS: Do you like slow? You'll love tonight's basketball game.

180 update. Media 180, Signing Day edition:

And I'm not even looking at the Free Press, which remains dead to me. I can only imagine the tiny drawings of angels.

I like the one that says there's more toughness now. That's definitely true. Being not tough was the problem, not the secondary being old enough to drive only if they all stood on each other's shoulders in a huge trenchcoat. Also that's the same guy who wrote about the "impossible expectations" driving Tate Forcier away. Pete Bigelow needs to make up his mind about toughness.

[Disclaimer section: Hoke did an okay job, but nothing that should push opinions either way. Not going into the year down eight kids is good. Losing Willingham to Central Florida(!?!?) is pretty wack, but being in a position to say that's wack is impressive since Michigan was nowhere with that kid before Mattison showed up. Losing Jake Fisher makes the tackle depth chart terrifying. I also don't understand telling Rivals 250 receiver Devin Lucien, a guy who was seriously looking at Stanford and silently committed to Rodriguez during The Process because he liked Michigan's academics, "defense or GTFO." Even if you don't want Hakeem Flowers, Michigan had room for another five players and has no receivers in this class.

Meanwhile, most of the guys picked up were of the low-hanging fruit variety: guys who were committed to Indiana or Minnesota or Vandy and didn't have a ton of other confirmed Big Ten options (Heitzman, Carter, Taylor, Bellomy) or guys who had been openly coveting Michigan offers (Poole, Rawls, Taylor again) but didn't get them until later. TX TE Chris Barnett is the exception.

This class is a wait-and-see sort of thing. We won't know if these late pickups were players RR and other Big Ten schools misevaluated or warm bodies for a while, and we won't know about Hoke's recruiting prowess until the 2012 commits start rolling in and he's competing against Ohio State. Not that Rodriguez won many battles against OSU.

On the other hand, a quarter of the class won't fail to show up or wash out by the end of spring like the last RR class so that's cool. Snatching Frank Clark away from MSU despite his existence in close proximity to Ted Ginn is promising. Also: kicker. Hoke uber alles.]

    Etc.: Thomas Rawls may be a member of the Jackson family. The awkward Hoke-Rodriguez video. Going back to the 4-3. Michigan finishes 21st in the Rivals rankings. Hoke's got 8 years before the deck stacks against him significantly. Don't play the Hoke "toughness" drinking game. Nutt greyshirt hijinks.

    Comments

    MaizeAndBlueWahoo

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^

    Brian, didn't you once make an argument against early signing by holding up Roy Roundtree as an example of someone who'd have been hurt by it?

    The problem with the idea of signing the moment you commit is that it assumes that anyone who decommits later was only "committing" with selfish intent.  Such as "holding his spot" at a school while he looks for something better.  But we're talking about teenagers.  I think in the case of at least half of the decommitments out there, they genuinely believe that they're making their final commitment and would happily sign on the spot, but something better comes along later and they change their mind.  Take David Sills, the junior high QB that "committed" to USC.  He's friggin' 13 - or he was when he "verbaled."  I guarantee you in his 13-year-old head he thinks nothing would change his mind, because that's how 13-year-olds roll.  Chances are pretty decent he'll find something he likes even better.

    travelingblue

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

    Also, I imagine coaches would even put more pressure on recruits to sign early so their spot doesn't get "taken". So recruits who are sitting on some mid-level offers, waiting for the one high-level offer they really crave, will be pressured into signing early and they'll miss out on the offer they truly crave that might not have come til later in the process. Making high school kids figure out their risk-tolerance at such an early age doesn't seem like a good idea.

    michgoblue

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

    Look, we all get that the media has done a 180.  And we all feel bad for RR, who got the really short end of that stick.

    But, at this point, the media 180 does nothing but benefit us.  Most of the 2012 recruits' families get their Michigan info and spin from the MSM.  The recruits themselves are likely to be more receptive to a coach who is flavor-of-the-month, over a coach who is  demonized as a tradition-destroying, family-values-trashing, former-job-that-was-his-alma-matra-screwing slime, who was always on the hot seat.  Like I said, not fair to RR, but that's in the past.

    Many on this blog like to chide posters who dared be critical of RR or who made comments that could be taken negatively.  "Hey, recruits read this shit!"  Ok, if that is the case, then let's stop this whole media 180 meme and just be happy that it has happened and will hopefully lead to our team reeling in some of the big crop of 4-5* midwest recruits.

    michgoblue

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

    Do you realize that you are (currently at 1991) 21 points away from your MGoPoint total equaling your screen name.  I don't know why I (1) noticed that, (2) cared, or (3) posted it, but I did.  As someone further down the chain noted, now that recruiting season has passed, there is little to do to pass the time.

    M-Wolverine

    February 3rd, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

    It only matters that "recruits read this and react negatively" when you agree with things. If you aren't happy, then hey, have a negative slant on the blog. Those sensitive recruits don't matter that much anymore.

    travelingblue

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

    I remember finding this blog back in 2005 (on a random blogspot search for Michigan blogs) and being stoked that there was this incredibly well-written/hilarious/insightful site on which I would doubtless waste countless hours (which I proudly have). I wasn't necessarily as anti-late-era-Carr as Brian...but damn did he make a compelling case, and it was always entertaining. He went a bit insane during the first coaching search, but it was always entertaining. I wasn't always as pro-RRod as Brian...but again his points were really compelling and the posts were almost always entertaining. Throughout all of the past six years I come on to the site near every day (and will continue to do so as long as Brian keeps posting) because I get to read funny, well-researched, insightful posts on my favorite topic in the world -- Michigan athletics.

    I don't get all the posters who get pissy when Brian doesn't see things the exact way you do. If he's skeptical about Hoke, I want to hear about it (just like I did five years ago when he was skeptical about Carr). If he is interested in comparing the public treatment of Hoke to that of RRod, then what he writes will at least be thought-provoking and worth hearing about. The best posts are always about the topic that the writer himself has an interest in. If I wanted to only read stuff about the "news" I'll go to Rivals/ESPN; mgoblog is all about opinion...and as long as it's well-written and funny then Brian can post whatever he damn well pleases. I'll read regardless.

    That said, Brian's most recent posts have been a bit down; you can sense that's where he's at. If this wasn't his actual job my guess he'd take a bit of time away from Michigan-stuff for a bit. But it is his job, so we're going to watch his progression back to normalcy post-by-post. Brian, if you're reading, keep up the great work...and don't forget the humor whenever you can manage it:).

    I will now go back into my hole where I couldn't care less how many points I have b/c I don't often post.

    TrueBlue2003

    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^

    We know exactly what we are getting when we read this blog.  Brian is the head of "The Rebellion" (as defined by MVictors) and people on this site should know how his analysis is going to go.  If people don't like it, they should visit another site or make productive, rational arguments as to why Brian is wrong but it's crazy to tell him not to express his thoughts.

    We come for the entertaining, well written posts and up-to-date news.

    Phoenix86

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^

    They would've been fine starting the second year in the defensive scheme. It's similar to how in 09 the offense wasn't that great, but with a year of experience the offense bloomed. Itw as a bunch of freshman covering upper classmen; not a fair fight.

    kind of a big deal

    February 3rd, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^

    What the hell am I going to do with myself now that signing day is over?  Hitting F5 while at work was literally the only thing getting me through most days over the last month.

    Spring practice just can't get here fast enough...

    MI Expat NY

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

    He explains the 5 unused scholarships right there in yesterday's depth chart post.  Two are completely unused, one for Mike Williams who is likely to go on Medical Hardship and two more who will graduate this spring but have fifth years remaining (Watson and Grady? Herron?).  

    Rasmus

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^

    He explained it, but he counted wrong. He started at 83, but he should have started at 85. Count them yourself.

    [Note that I don't condone cypress's comment (he's whining about whining, ugh), but he's right about there not being five potential scholarships. Two or maybe three at most.]

    cypress

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^

    Wrong. Sorry but his figures were wrong. We have 85 guys who will be on scholarship next yr. 84 without Williams, 83 if Watson doesn't get a 5th yr. So we could have signed 2 more but that would have reduced our 2012 open schollys from 15 to 13 to start off with. Technically we could have signed 24 if we wanted to yank the schollys of Kovacs and Grady away, which would have been the wrong thing to do. So in no way did we leave 5 on the table, and even if we left a couple, it leaves them as a start towards what is now a small 2012 class. So he was incorrect. And regardless, finishing with 20 commits in such a short time frame was commendable.

    cypress

    February 3rd, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

    Everybody go back and count ONE more time. 31 under 2014 category, 22 under 2013, 17 under 2012 and 15 under 2011. That's 85. Williams gone? Ok, now we are at 84 so we could have signed another. Watson..don't want to bring him back so we sign another? Ok, that's 33 in one column and down to 13 for the class of 2012. Where do you want the other 3 to come from? Cut Grady, Kovacs, and Herron loose? Ok, now we have a graduating class of 11 and are down 3 key players. Not smart. A class of 20 is about perfect. It starts us at 15 for this class which will likely grow to around 20 with attrition.

    Token_sparty

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

    [QUOTE] This continues the theme from these Blue Chip articles in the News since the beginning of time: Michigan commits asked about State say something short, polite and vague, State commits asked about Michigan rant about a lack of respect, and the guys towards the bottom of the list submit a tear-stained questionnaire because neither school thought they were good enough. This will happen next year, and the year after, and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]

    Awesome. MGoPosters, click through and read the whole article.  I doubt you'll come up with the same characterization that Brian did.  For me, it was fascinating to read all the recruits' reasons for picking or not picking certain schools, especially those who went outside the state.  I wouldn't read that as anything more than 'It's hard to know the minds of 17-year-olds', but several of the players did mention that Michigan didn't recruit them very hard, or came late (that latter charge also came MSU's way a couple of times, in all fairness).  

    After all, how dare anyone not love UM in all its respects?  Oh, the horror.

     


    MI Expat NY

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

    You must have missed the couple of board threads on this very article where most posters did in fact come up with the same characterization.  

    The article basically gives a baited question (or two) to each recruit on why they didn't choose UM or MSU.  Michigan commits either give a generic "didn't suit me" answer or rehash why they wanted to be at Michigan, MSU commits on the other hand seem to relish playing the disrespected card, more so than simply not getting interest, specifically Thomas and Jones.  

    Token_sparty

    February 7th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^

    You must have missed the point where the Detroit News asks the top 15 Michigan recruits the same question every year.  As in, this isn't new.  And of those 15, 4 committed to MSU, 3 of those also took visits to UM, and 2 of them had something negative to say about Michigan- one, that he wasn't seriously recruited (if I'm a star recruit, I'd probably take exception to being recruited by an assistant too), and the other, that he visited but didn't like the way they talked to him (ok, whatevs).  Wow, 50%, that's a lot!  Let me make a chart out of that and hope no one notices the 'n=4' at the bottom!   

    If the MGoCommunity wants to make hay out of this sample size, who am I to stop them?  I would say the story is the 8 of 15 SOM recruits who are leaving the state and why they are leaving, but what do I know, I went to State, LOL.  Surely my grasp of statistics is much weaker than your own.

    vaneasy2338

    February 3rd, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^

    that you are selling Hoke's job (along with the rest of the staff) short for quite a few reasons.

    1. Keeping 10 of RIchrod's commits was no easy task. Those kids were expecting to play in a completely different philosophy, and Hoke was given three short weeks to gain those kids' trust. Esp. when you talking about a kid like Blake Countless. This is an all-american we are talking about, and a kid that could probably play anywhere in the country. 

    2. Poole and Wlie (correct me if I am wrong) were two kids that we had shown little interest before the hiring. These kids committed almost instantly after receiving an offer. Wlie publicly commits nearly the second he steps on campus. Mattison shows up at Poole's doorsteps the next day the kid commits. You wanna talk about selling the program. The staff did it well with those two guys. 

    3. Are really going to discredit certain commits because their interest was already high in michigan? Only a few months we thought Frost and Zettel were locks because of their lifelong fandom of the program. Yes I know the coaching situation played a large role in those two kids, and they could have played a role in Taylor, Byrant, and Rawls but Hoke and Co. didn't let it.

    4. You can bitch and moan about getting decommits from Purdue and Minnesota all you want (as if a good player has never went to those schools). The fact is we have been losing to those teams the past three years. It's a sad reality I know, but it's true. Regional programs have been beating (ie purdue minnesota msu iowa) us as of recently. We may have beating those teams in recruiting, but it didn't show up on the field. At this point (and esp. under the circumstances) we aren't above taking Purdue and Minnesota commits. 

     

    Go Blue Eyes

    February 3rd, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^

    "Only a few months we thought Frost and Zettel were locks because of their lifelong fandom of the program."

    If it is one thing I have learned from this year's recruiting class is that true life long fans of Michigan ACTUALLY commit to and enroll at the University of Michigan. 

     

     

    Eye of the Tiger

    February 3rd, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^

    I am too.  The guy was never given a chance by some members of the media, and from some corners of the athletic department.  

    He also made a ton of mistakes as HC.  These mistakes, plus the swarm of negativity surrounding the program, doomed his tenure, rightly or wrongly.  Probably, had the media and athletic department been behind him, some things that went wrong wouldn't have.  

    That said, aren't we fans, alumni and so on of the school, not the coaching staff?  We have a new coach now, and no matter what we might think of the Rich Rodriguez era, shouldn't we really, as fans, alumni and so on, want to see things turn out differently?  You know, like with 9+ win seasons, major bowl victories and wins over our two biggest rivals?  If media negativity contributed to RR not getting it done, then surely media positivity will contribute to Hoke being able to.  Or, in other words, Michigan being able to return to its place at the top of the Big 10 and back in the national conversation. Right?

    So why all the complaining?

    InterM

    February 4th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

    Maybe Brian should do a post where he notes (in his typical laconic fashion) that the media 180 is beneficial to the football program:

    This will be annoying for people irritated at the way Rodriguez was treated but is an asset for the program. Everything is black or white, you see.

    He could then repeat the point every couple of weeks for those with short-term memory problems:

    This is fierce pragmatist talk here: by throwing Rodriguez overboard now the next guy gets a PR boon.

    Eye of the Tiger

    February 4th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^

    It's pretty obvious that some posters are so sore about RR getting fired that they are livid--livid--about the positive press Hoke is getting. No matter that, as your quote from Brian says, the positive press is beneficial to the program. I can understand being frustrated with the double standard, nut really, it's way past time for people to get over it. It's 2011 and Rich isn't coming back. So our options are: win with Hoke or lose with Hoke. I'd think media positivity would help, and any real fan of the program should welcome anything (outside cheating and other unethical behavior) that helps us win.

    TrueBlue2003

    February 3rd, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^

    It's cute when Brian tries to analyze bball.  "This line of thinking" is the way basically every basketball coach in America at virtually all levels thinks.  The idea that close range shots and 3 pointers are the best shots on the floor isn't a revelation at all.  

    The main difference in offensive coaching philosophies is how much emphasis a guy puts on the inside game vs. the outside game (i.e. do you emphasize the inside game to open up the outside game or vice versa).  From my experience, most coaches lean towards the former; preferring big guys who can play in the post  and slashers who can drive from the wing and relying on them opening up the outside for shooters.

    This is probably the correct way of thinking for a number of reasons. One being that Horace E Cow's analysis is wrong.  He only considers two of the three outcomes of a shot: a make or a miss.  He fails to consider shooting fouls. The correct analysis would be to analyze the total points scored as a result of 2pt shots and 3pt shots separately.  

    Most free throws a team shoots are the result of shooting two-pointers. And since free throw percentages are much higher than the 48% 2pt %, the value of a two point attempt is higher than the .96 calculated by Cow.  In normal box scores we don't get data on free throws as a result 2pt shots, 3pt shots and bonus, but I suspect that when the analysis is done correctly (which I'm sure John Hollinger or someone has done), 2pt shots would probably be at least as valuable as 3 pointers.  And this doesn't take into account the added benefits from drawing fouls that includes getting guys in foul trouble and hence off the floor (this is a very "moneyball" concept, like getting pitch count high to get good pitchers out of the game) and getting into the bonus quicker so you can shoot more high percentage free throws.

    This is the reason we've been so bad at offense under Beilein. His strategy (very high number of 3s attempted, but not getting fouled often) only works if you have really good three point shooters like Gansey and Pittsnogle.  Besides Morris, Beilein hasn't brought in a single effective post guy or slasher and you see how much we rely on Morris to open things up.  

    I also think the moving back of the three point line implemented at the time we hired Beilein really hurt us more than people realize. Here was a guy that operated this strategy with good success, and the rules change so that strategy is less effective (significantly less effective I would argue).

    NateVolk

    February 3rd, 2011 at 11:19 PM ^

    We have way too many wide receivers compared to other positions of need on the roster right now.  They are usually the easiest to get immediate impact from.  Not grabbing one in this class should please us because it gives us more room to go after more neglected positions and balance out the roster.