Anxiety Time Machine

Submitted by Meeechigan Dan on

The upcoming Michigan - Michigan State game has a certain life all its own inside my brain right now. There are weird images (a feral MSU linebacker with no facial features except glowing eyes gnawing on Denard's bad knee after a tackle)...

...uninformed thoughts (why doesn’t GERG use press coverage when blitzing?), stark colors (radiant maize, cerebral blue, chyme green and an ink cloud of black despair waiting to descend, hovering just out of view), graphic sounds (Fight Club quality bone crunching, the Victors after the winning touchdown, a cartoon whoosh whoosh whoosh sound in my mind that accompanies every Denard breakaway), numbers (200/200, 120, 0.73663, 480, 9-3, 877, 16, 4) and a whole lot of emotions; quite honestly, more bad ones than good ones. All this wraps up into an ill-defined knot inside me as I both anticipate and dread the opening kickoff.

It occurred to me that 25 years ago my impressions of Saturday's contest would be so different as to be unrecognizable. I was just as big a fan back then. Yet, today, my love of Michigan football has so many more data points as to render my 1980s fandom a primitive, low-tech thing resembling Ken Mattingly in Apollo 13 sweating inside a simulator with a flashlight between his teeth trying to figure out how to splash down a spaceship on 20 amps of power.

All this data has, I think, distorted our view of the game. We have analyzed our way into believing that Michigan State is an emerging power that inevitably must eviscerate a statistically helpless Michigan defense.

I say hogwash.

Two decades ago, I would be moving about my week calmly expecting a Michigan victory, because two decades ago it would be the résumé that mattered, not hyper-analysis of data that promotes fear and generates such concepts as RPS-3, Chappellbombing and PAN. My understanding of the team would be that we have a great offense with a great quarterback and a schizophrenic defense, but that we were still winning. I would never have tried (and failed) to figure out a Cover-2 zone or known our national pass defense ranking or even known where Greg Robinson had coached before.

But I would know the résumés, and based upon the résumés, I would have concluded that an oddly unbalanced, uncharacteristic Michigan team nonetheless possessed the strongest résumé of any team in the Big 10.

Say what?! Prove it.
 
No numbers; we are in a variable-free zone and channeling both 1985 and common sense at the same time.

 

Michigan Wolverines Résumé

Michigan has beaten two major teams back to back, the second one on the road. The first was a beatdown of a bowl winning team from the year before with almost everyone back. The second was an always talented and very emotional Notre Dame team at home with an unexpected bonus: a competent coach. Michigan won its first Big 10 game, an away game against a serious offense. A shaky squeaker against a good FCS team mars the résumé.

 

  • Ohio State? Four home games with a solid win against a charitable Miami team, three cupcakes, and a lackluster win over a bad Illinois team. Fail.
  • Iowa? Not bad, but they lost to Arizona. Fail.
  • Wisconsin?  Three cupcakes, a squeaker and a beatdown. Fail.
  • Northwestern? Five cupcakes with extra icing, cherries, sprinkles and a cream filling. Fail.
  • And Michigan State? Five home games, three cupcakes, a less impressive win against a common opponent at home, and a solid win against an overrated Big 10 “power.” Fail.

If preseason polls were outlawed and this year’s Big 10 teams, like 11 sprinters in the blocks, were off at the sound of the gun, Michigan would be in the lead. That’s what I would have known.

I am going to finish my week calmly expecting a Michigan victory.

Comments

Wolverine0056

October 8th, 2010 at 8:20 AM ^

And a Michigan victory you shall receive. I'm with you Meeechigan Dan, I don't need a ton of numbers or theories to know that we are a good team and will bring it every Saturday every fall.

mi93

October 8th, 2010 at 8:57 AM ^

from feeling like this again.  And it's solely due to youth on defense.

The BG and UConn games were a fantastic sign that we are on our way to being what we all expect - think the non-conference pastings of lesser opponents from the Bo era.  That type of consistency has been missing for some time.  I believe next year is the year we see it all come together for 10 or more wins.

For this year, I'm excited about what's happening on the field, but trying to remain cautiously optimistic.  I'm confident we'll get to 8 wins, and that was my hope in August.  Therefore, I'll continue to be on pins and needles every Saturday.

If they go 2-0 the next 2 games, then I fully expect 11-0 headed to Columbus.

Frank Drebin

October 8th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^

I don't understand a lot o UM fans now saying wisky is overrated. They still have a good running game, a solid D, and they were just getting their two best WRs back last week. Just because they lost to State doesn't make them overrated. State played them tough at home and deserve credit. I still view Wisky as a very hard test on our schedule. It doesn't matter who plays who, as every team matches up different against their opponents, and some teams strengths are others weaknesses.

dwinning

October 8th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^

Seriously, there's been a lot of navel-gazing about our defense around here, and just how viciously this maybe-average state team's going to shred it.  At our place.  Fuck that.  We're still  Michigan:  women want us, men want to be us.  State is still a bunch of punk bitches, and Michigan has been routinely smacking down punk bitches since 1879.  It's what we do.  Kickoff can't come fast enough. 

HeismanPose

October 8th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

I'll disagree.  Their three cupcakes were really bad.  Significantly worse than any team we have faced, including Bowling Green.  Saragin:

State: WMU = 152; FAU = 131; N. CO = 181; ND = 44; Wisc = 33
Mich: Conn = 57; ND = 44; Mass = 80; BG = 106; Ind = 87

They basically have one good game to hang their hats on - Wisconsin.  That was an impressive win.  Aside from that, it's total cupcakes and Notre Dame, all at home.  WMU and FAU are Bowling Green lite, and N. Colorado is not much better than Delaware State.

And check out the rush offense ranks of their first 4 opponents:

WMU = 114; FAU = 116; N. CO = FCS; ND = 97

They held Wisconsin to 165 on the ground, which is well below their season average, but Clay was gimpy and his backup averaged 9.8 yds/carry on 10 carries.  State thinks they have an awesome rush defense that is going to crush Denard.  I'm not so sure about that.

Not saying this proves anything, but these guys had a cake walk for the first month of the season. 

Meeechigan Dan

October 8th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

This is a stats-free thread!  Uh, oh, wait. Damn, those are really interesting stats, so they are approved. Truly, I had no idea that the rush offenses MSU has faced so far are so anemic.

The great news is that everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - I have heard in the local and national media is saying how MSU represents the first tough, physical defensive test for our offense and let's suspend judgment on Michigan's offense until the world sees the outcome of that battle. WTF? We'd be opening our veins with such numbers.

According to Jim Miller, bad QB, bad analyst:

Somebody will always have Denard accounted for and they are all guys that can run.  They outweigh Denard and all MSU defenders who have the opportunity, will be instructed to deliver punishment.  Denard is frail at 180 lbs.  You slow players like him down by physical abuse.

HeismanPose

October 8th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

Haha.  Sorry for stating up the anti-stat thread.  My bad.

I love the "State will try to bottle up Denard!" meme.  As if ND and Indiana's game plan was to ingore him and hope he, like, forgets which team he plays for or something.  Defenses have been keying on Denard since the second quarter of the UConn game.  And RichRod has dealt with this before (Danzler, White).  We'll be ready.  And, considering how well our receivers have been playing, we'll be able to exploit it. 

Meeechigan Dan

October 8th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^

I just read the national Rivals commentary and this myth of a great MSU defense is still being bandied about everywhere you turn. "But Michigan State is 20th in the nation in run defense and hasn't allowed an individual to reach 100 rushing yards this season." No anlysis, just a blind acceptance that MSU has a monster D.

Blue in Seattle

October 8th, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^

Because this game isn't about stats.It's about heart, determination, focus and most importantly the denial of bragging rights.  I keep hearing how this game will show us something about Michigan.  But it really won't.  A Michigan win will be met with another round of the post ND response, "player X was out, UM was lucky, blah, blah, blah".  A Michigan loss will be, "we knew it couldn't last, RichRod on hotseat, just like 2009".

Only by playing all the games in the season will we know how strong each team in the Big Ten really is.  In college emotion during the season is as high as the post season, which means stats and measurements get overwhelmed or blown up.

I think this entire game is going to be like the final drive against ND and Indiana.  A pure focus of  "get it done".  The reason I'm going to watch is because I can't define or prove that with logic and stats.

And that's why I watch the games.

Thanks for the post Meeechigan Dan!

Michichick

October 8th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^

A hard hitting game is to be expected, but the difference between these two teams is summed up in that quote above. Michigan will hit and play hard to win the game.  MSU will not just try to stop Denard or slow him down, or even knock him out of the game. They will try to seriously hurt him. This is Sparty after all, it's in their DNA, and tomorrow is their whole season.

OHbornUMfan

October 8th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^

nicely defined my emotions and feelings heading into the game.  Though Palmer's use of the phrase "paralysis though analysis" was annoying last night, I think it's fair to say that in former times, our relative ignorance allowed us to live in relative bliss.

Knowing what I know now, I'd rather go back to my feelings from this summer: in '09 we went to EL, realized in the 4th that the game had started, came back on Tate's (!!) legs to force OT, and lost.  This year we ought to be awake from the start, we have Denard's (!!!!!!) legs, and we're playing in AA.  I'm hoping no OT will be necessary.

profitgoblue

October 8th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^

I was pleasantly surprised to read your post.  I've been thinking along the same lines this week, feeling very afraid on tomorrow's game but, yet, believing in my gut that Michigan is going to hammer them.  But my gut feeling has been unsupported by the data and I've been trying to ignore the feeling.  Your "throw-back" line of thinking is just what the doctor ordered this morning - 20 years ago I never feared Spartie and was always confident that Michigan would beat them and that Spartie would then go into a downward spiral, having lost their rivalry game.  I'm thinking Michigan by 20 with Spartie going 3-4 the rest of the way.  Just like the good old days.

leftrare

October 8th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^

Thank-you Meeechigan Dan.  My affinity to your sentiments is mostly a function of the fact that we appear to be near contemporaries -- I got my degree in 1982.  I would add that back then we always had a sense that the team would improve over the run of the season, not degrade as we've seen in the last two years.  It was a given.  In particular, I remember the 1980 defense that finished the year with something like 16 quarters without a touchdown.

Here's hoping you're right about tomorrow.

uphillfrombighouse

October 8th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

I like the stats and knowledge mgoblog provides but Dan is right.  This is for the Paul Bunyon trophy. Yeah..were a little nervous, but we all know inside it is going to be Big Blue by 11.