we're talking transfers so here's Frankie NO I AM NOT OVER IT YET [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

Unverified Voracity Wears One Boxing Glove Comment Count

Brian August 1st, 2022 at 12:13 PM

Sponsor Note: Mmmm, Cheap Seats except tackling UFC 1. Which has Jim Brown doing color! Simultaneous thoughts: "why?" and "how did you get friggin' Jim Brown?"

The Sklars would appreciate a like on the video; this first episode is free to the world, future ones will be on UFC Fight Pass. Sign up, or deprive yourselves. I don't make the rules.

A large survey. ESPN surveyed "over 200 coaches, players, and administrators" about where college football is going. Upshots:

  • A healthy majority (60%) of respondents think football should no longer be under the NCAA umbrella at all.
  • A whopping 80% characterized NIL as a "black-market pay-for-play system that is being used to secure recruits and transfers," which means Michigan is in a small minority of naïve teams. Also it's a gray market—not explicitly prohibited but of murky validity.
  • 75% say tampering is a problem that needs to be addressed, which is essentially impossible right now.
  • A third of respondents favor a 12 team playoff model; another third favor eight teams, with other formats taking the remaining third.
  • Only 15% endorsed lifting the one-time transfer restriction, about which more in the next bullet.
  • Also relevant to next bullet: 88% of respondents believe direct player compensation is on the horizon, with a majority expecting it within five years.
[Hit the JUMP for immediate transfer status]

Well, that's one thing. After rumors that the NCAA was going to do with the "one-time" part of the free transfer rule it appears, per Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic, that the NCAA will still dock your eligibility for transfer #2 and beyond. We've talked about this stuff a lot on WTKA: perpetual roster instability has a much better case that it hurts college sports than players having money, and I'd like to see some restrictions on movement stay in place. I do think it's reasonable to say that you're supposed to be getting a degree and transferring every year makes a mockery out of that. This is more or less why it's being tabled this year:

Presidents on both the Transformation Committee and Board have expressed concerns regarding the possibility of unlimited transfers, sources said. There also has been a great deal of public pushback from football and men’s basketball coaches who believe it will make it nearly impossible to manage rosters. … there remain concerns about the impact of transferring on academic success and athletes’ ability to graduate.

People point at coaches, who can bolt whenever they want to, but that's not quite the same because they can bolt whenever they want to… subject to the conditions of the contract they've signed. NIL does not go far enough towards acknowledging that college athletes are treated like employees and should be directly compensated by the universities that employ them. That would be a two-way street that keeps rosters less chaotic and allows more continuity—things that are good for the sport and probably the players as well.

Jay Harbaugh on kickoff coverage. The level of detail coaches go into for one of the fringiest plays in football remains astounding:

It's mostly fair catches these days and yet.

Of all time. Bill Connelly ranks the top 50 defenses ever. Michigan shows up at various spots. 2016 finishes 48th…

In maybe the most prolific offensive season ever, linebacker Jabrill Peppers, cornerback Jourdan Lewis & Co. took perfectly to what first-year coordinator Don Brown was preaching. The Wolverines held their first 11 opponents to just 10.9 PPG, and while they slipped late against both Ohio State (30 points) and Florida State (33), they still held both of those prolific opponents well under their season averages.

…1927 finishes 46th, 1973 is 40th, and then the heavy hitters. 1997:

14. 1997 Michigan

Head coach: Lloyd Carr
Scoring defense: 9.5 PPG
Record: 12-0 (first in the AP poll)

Having Heisman winner Charles Woodson is an excellent starting point, but Michigan's last national title run was defined by the entire defense -- from lineman Glen Steele to linebacker Sam Sword to a deep and unforgiving secondary. Despite a schedule that featured four top-10 opponents, the Wolverines allowed more than 16 points just once all year.

and 1972:

9. 1972 Michigan

Head coach: Bo Schembechler
Scoring defense: 5.2 PPG
Record: 10-1 (fourth in the AP poll)

Paced by safety Randy Logan and one of the era's best secondaries, the Wolverines' defense was particularly stout in 1972. Michigan played two ranked teams in September -- No. 6 UCLA and No. 18 Tulane -- and allowed a combined 16 points. In the Wolverines' first seven Big Ten games, they allowed 20. And even in their lone loss, 14-11 to bitter rival Ohio State, they allowed only 192 yards, 78 of which came on a single touchdown drive. This was the stingiest defense of the stingy Schembechler era.

Alabama's 2016-17 run finishes first, if you're curious.

A factory. Michigan players and alums check in 1st (Owen Power), 2nd (Luke Hughes), 6th (Matty Beniers), 7th (Kent Johnson), 26th (Frank Nazar), and 34th (Rutgery McGroarty) on Scott Wheeler's list of the 50 best (drafted) prospects outside the NHL. Brendan Brisson and Cam York land honorable mentions. Wheeler on Nazar, who's the least familiar to Michigan hockey fans:

26. Frank Nazar, C, 18 (Chicago Blackhawks — No. 13, 2022)

Few prospects dash around the ice and make plays like Nazar does. Nazar turned me into a big fan with the U17 team and he continued to add layers to his game with the U18 team. He’s a threatening player from the hashmarks because of his wrister, which he pops off of his stick with power and precision thanks in large part to the balance he displays through his weight shift (he’s not a particularly strong kid).

He’s got quick hands, which help him deftly adjust in traffic to get shots off under pressure. He flashes creativity throughout his game. He plays pucks into space as well as anyone in the draft, regularly executing through tight gaps in coverage. And he’s just a hungry, driven player who consistently targets the middle lane with his greatest asset — his skating. …

He moves and does things on the ice that few can. He’s also an extremely gifted natural athlete (which not all hockey players are). I think he’s going to take a little more time to reach his potential than most of the players slotted ahead of him here, but I expect him to do that.

Love to hear about taking a little more time to hit that potential.

Etc.: Khaleke Hudson in the running to start for Washington No Longer Just Called Football Team. Andrew Kahn on the Michigan basketball freshmen. Conor Earegood on Mackie Samoskevich's offseason. Cole Martin on Luke Hughes's offseason. Also Nick Cotsonika on same. Jon Tondora on Seamus Casey.

Comments

DennisFranklinDaMan

August 1st, 2022 at 12:18 PM ^

Nice to see this column again, thanks. Quick heads up -- I think you're missing the word "away" from the first sentence of the "Well, that's one thing" paragraph, but perhaps I'm wrong, or you've already fixed it. 

Anyway, good stuff! :-)

kehnonymous

August 1st, 2022 at 12:38 PM ^

re: the 30 pts vs. Ohio State in 2016, it was arguably 13 (or 17) pts that the 2016 defense allowed:

7 pts flat out weren't the defense's fault b/c it was a pick-6

7 more pts were set up by another bad Speight INT in our red zone.  You can charge the defense with allowing the TD, but if you squint even harder OSU likely at least gets a FG even if the defense stands up, but we were also fortunate they missed 2 FGs

6 pts (the winning score) shouldn't have counted BECAUSE JT WAS SHORT.

Forking A, I'm mad all over again at that game just typing this.

WGoNerd

August 1st, 2022 at 1:06 PM ^

Sometimes I think about how much that spot changed the trajectory of UM football for years. If we make the CFP in Harbaugh Year 2, it changes the entire tenor of his regime.

That said I'm glad I have 2021 to look back on now. I still have The Game saved and rewatch it occasionally.

RockinLoud

August 1st, 2022 at 2:23 PM ^

Glad someone pointed this out.

For my money the '16 defense was superior to '97. The Modern game favors offenses and what the '16 D did was more impressive in the era than what the '97 D did in theirs. Both were absolutely outstanding and easily the two best that UM has fielded in my lifetime (with '06 trailing a bit in 3rd place). I also kind of hate that both were largely built by turn-coat Mattison.

MaizeBlueA2

August 2nd, 2022 at 3:11 AM ^

Exactly.

Sorry, but '16 isn't touching '97. '97 is a top 5 defense of all time. '16 was a GREAT defense, the closest thing to '97 since and I think the gap between '16 and #3 is clear.

And another player to defend the spread was Tommy Hendricks. Who went from SS to LB against pure spread teams like Washington St.

Also, that '97 offense was so conservative. No way that offense puts up 70 on even '16 Rutgers. It's probably the most boring 41-0 win you'd ever see.

enlightenedbum

August 2nd, 2022 at 9:06 AM ^

Yeah that defense was DEEP too.  Like when Eric Mayes (co-captain with Jansen) went down and they didn't miss a beat because the reserves were Gold, Swett, and Copenhaver.

Incidentally, Eric Mayes is a PhD in educational psychology and works in college admin now.

EDIT: That year's Rutgers, Indiana, was a 37-0 win.  Hoosiers had a rough October: 37-0 loss against us, 38-6 against State, 31-0 in Columbus, 62-0 in Iowa City*.

*Naturally Iowa's defense scored 14 and Dwight added 7 on a punt return because Iowa has always been Iowa.  Fry even complained about how many points they scored.

1974

August 1st, 2022 at 1:41 PM ^

As far as the top tier of players is concerned, that team compares favorably to the best Michigan teams of the modern era. It's the tiers after that where they're not as good.

Example: The '06 O-line had Jake Long and a couple other guys that had practice-squad runs in the NFL. The '97 team had a HOFer of its own and other guys that played several collective years in the NFL (Backus, Williams).

EDIT: I forgot Jon Jansen! Add some more NFL years to the line. (Counting Williams is a reach, as he'd just arrived.) Chris Ziemann had a brief NFL career, too.

BuckeyeChuck

August 1st, 2022 at 12:58 PM ^

I'm glad to see that your voracity continues to be unverified!

1. I like the 12-team playoff with only conference champions eligible for the top 4 seeds and a bye. Seeds 5-12 are mostly at-large bids, with the possibility that ~2 conference champions must be included among the 8.

2. If football revenue will go to pay football players, how will all the other sports be funded?

3. I don't want to hear anybody complain that the '97 defense was *only* ranked 14th all-time. About 100+ programs for about 100+ years, and a ranking of 14 is in the 99.9th percentile. It's still elite of the elite of the elite. No whiners.

4. War Sklones!

ShadowStorm33

August 1st, 2022 at 4:06 PM ^

2. If football revenue will go to pay football players, how will all the other sports be funded?

Athletic departments aren't just flush with cash; despite what people apparently think, almost all of them are in the red, with some schools charging their students thousands of dollars a year in fees that go toward athletics and/or heavily subsidizing their athletic departments, with some getting over half of their operating budget from the school itself (as opposed to traditional athletic department revenue sources like TV, ticket and apparel revenue, sponsorships and donations, etc.). It would be incredibly sad to see all of these non-revenue sports get cut so that money can go to directly paying players.

And it would be unnecessary, too, since I think people greatly overestimate the value that the players themselves generate. Yes, the players are necessary, in that without players there would be no team (and thus no revenue), but the players are far from sufficient. It's the schools that truly drive the value. Take Michigan's (or OSU's) roster and plop it on some random new team, and the value would plummet. Without the school name behind it (and all of the emotional connection that goes with it), the new team would be no different from any of the various non-NFL pro/semi pro teams that have flailed around (USFL, Arena League,  XFL, AAF, etc.). It's no wonder that top college teams dwarf minor league/secondary league equivalents in value, despite what would probably be a step up in talent. The colleges, not the individual college athletes, drive the revenue...

bluebyyou

August 1st, 2022 at 7:49 PM ^

The funding issues have the potential to go way beyond how other sports are treated.  Here's a "for instance:"

Let's assume that players are considered employees, which is a likely possibility, and that NIL money is not just gifts, although even gifting has its limitations.  As employees, they will be taxed and if they are well compensated, the taxes will be sizable.  

Businesses are allowed to give employees perks, but often the perks are taxable.  A scholarship for an OOS athlete is likely 70K+ these days.  The annual costs that are amortized over each player may reach several hundred thousand dollars.  In 2013, in the SEC, the average cost per football player was 164K and it is likely much above that now.  That is a benefit that may be taxable. Where is the money going to come from to pay for these benefits?  Perhaps congress may make an exception, but perhaps not.

I'd be curious what our Mgoblog tax folks think about this? 

njvictor

August 1st, 2022 at 1:14 PM ^

ESPN surveyed "over 200 coaches, players, and administrators" about where college football is going

The only things that can really be taken from this survey is the opinions that were almost unanimous. Besides that, 200 coaches, players, and administrators in an unknown ratio all have different priorities and opinions that are conflicting with each other

OldSchoolWolverine

August 1st, 2022 at 1:42 PM ^

I still say Gary Moeller is vastly underappreciated by the majority of fans.  It was his players that he brought in, that won the national title. Wasn't just a few great players, but a full team of them.  Carr gets credit too as he was on staff, but Carr seems to be appreciated much more, and in my opinion it should be reversed.

Seth

August 1st, 2022 at 2:14 PM ^

Well the guy coaching them kind of deserves credit for them. Also Carr was the DC on those Moeller teams, and Mo was focusing more on offense when he was HC. We've talked to a lot of those players and while they credit Moeller sometimes they really emphasize Carr. Specifically they think Carr was one of the best in football history at scouting opponents and preparing you for everything they showed. One guy said he remembers one time there was a play Carr hadn't gone over for them and they were all shocked. Carr had the film ready at halftime to review--it was in the week's preparation report but because someone got injured they hadn't gotten to it.

Don

August 1st, 2022 at 5:09 PM ^

The notion that a HC whose last season was 1994 can claim all the credit for a season that happened three years later is a preposterous bunch of horseshit that speaks to the typical derangement that happens in sports fanbases.

And what those who make that preposterous claim never acknowledge is that if Gary Moeller can claim all the credit for the victories in 1997, he logically has to take responsibility for the seasons in '95 and '96, including some pretty bad losses. Otherwise it's just cherry-picking.

bronxblue

August 1st, 2022 at 2:37 PM ^

Moeller absolutely deserves a lot of credit for recruiting talented guys but (a) it wasn't like UM was in a talent deficit under Bo or (subsequently) Carr for the surrounding years so let's not ascribe too much credit to any single HC, and (b) he did lose a bunch of games he shouldn't have and subsequently never had the highs that Carr enjoyed.  Yes he won three straight Big 10 titles but those weren't necessarily banner seasons for the league (from 1990-1992 UM was the only team to end the year ranked in each season), and his best team (1993) just kept tying teams.  

I do think he has been under-appreciated as a coach but history is littered with good coaches who can't quite break through for some reason or another.  And I don't believe for a second that the 1997 team happens with any coach; Carr was instrumental in that working.

Don

August 1st, 2022 at 5:23 PM ^

Over the course of about two decades I had occasional contact with a former UM player whose head coach was Schembechler, and he would have had lots of contact with Moeller. We would frequently talk about Michigan football, and being a naive Michigan fan, I was shocked to learn from him that at least some Schembechler-era players hated Lloyd Carr. This surfaced during all the angst of the RR years, which notably included Rick Leach publicly accusing Carr of intentionally sabotaging the program. I suspect that much of the "Moeller should get all the credit for 1997" talk comes from people whose direct connections to the program go back to 1989 or before.

patrickdolan

August 1st, 2022 at 1:52 PM ^

I'm sure Connelly has reasons for excluding the 1901 Michigan team, which gave up 0 points. It's not the era, I don't think, he includes a 1903 team.

Anyone know?

 

oriental andrew

August 1st, 2022 at 4:42 PM ^

If it makes anyone feel any better, 2019, 2020, and 2021 UGA were ranked 19, 18, and 17, respectively. That was a(n) historically good defense we played in the CFP this past season. 

The NIL Pandora's box is open. Will be interesting to see how they try to get it under control in the future. Direct payments may be the way, but with most athletic departments running in the red, not sure how that's viable across all schools. I wonder if they end up with salary caps, collective bargaining, etc. But do they then lose their scholarships since they're getting paid? Asking (probably) stupid questions as I idly ignore work...

BornInA2

August 1st, 2022 at 6:28 PM ^

At this point I'm all for removing semi-pro men's football and basketball from the NCAA, along with their pubic funding, arenas, stadiums, scholarships, special housing, and everything else. Wipe the slate clean and go back to club sports with NO financial benefit to anyone.

The changes being driven by greedy humans is not making things better, except by further enriching a handful of greedy humans.

Dailysportseditor

August 1st, 2022 at 8:47 PM ^

Sorry, Brian, Michigan Athletics is not “naive,” nor are the illegal pay-for-play practices by its competitors a “gray market.”  The “interim” NCAA NIL rules clearly prohibit member schools from offering NIL deals as inducements to athletic recruits.  Just because the NCAA continues to fail to  enforce any of its voluminous rules, that doesn’t mean schools like Michigan are “naive” in choosing to abide by the rules anyway.  Michigan has the long-term perspective that committing substantial amounts of money up front to 16- and 17- year old high school athletes is bad for the students, the institution and the sport. Time will tell whether the ongoing black market in athletic talent can survive the expected lawsuits for fraud, breach of contract, etc.  

Leatherstocking Blue

August 2nd, 2022 at 9:44 AM ^

I agree completely. I have a feeling that schools will wish they went the route of Michigan in terms of NIL. Not only is giving recruits money unsustainable, the friction and division of the locker room, the influence on playing time by the athletes' handlers to maximize the NIL money, and the mercenary attitude of committing to a paycheck and not a school, will be the undoing of a lot of schools.

Perhaps as expansion continues, the academic institutions that want their athletes to make progress toward a degree will band together and the schools that don't care if an athlete goes to class can have their anything goes league.