he grew a beard
I decided to move this to diaries since I put a little bit of work into it and it was already buried on the sidebar by the time I updated with results.. This is based on a survey a number of board members filled out earlier today.
I’d like to preface this with a warning: this is not intended to divide the fan base or claim that alums have more of a right to cheer for the team than anyone else. I simply had a hypothesis and decided to test it. I did not perform statistical analysis to determine validity. Obvious caveats of sample size, measurement technique, sampling procedures, etc. apply, but here it is:
My hypothesis was that those officially connected to the University (alums, employees, etc) would be more concerned with long-term damage to the program (and greater University as a whole) more than win/loss record, and thus would consider ousting Brandon the more pressing issue.
Caveats: (1) For people who indicated both Hoke and Brandon in their responses, I counted one towards each. Obviously this isn’t the best way to do it, but it was easier on me, so deal with it. (2)Also, I collapsed alums and employees together. For the sake of testing my hypothesis, they are effectively the same.
First, some demographics: 62% of respondents were associated with the University (student/alumnus, employee, etc.). 38% had no association to the University.
Of those associated with the University, 24% placed the majority of blame on Hoke. 86% placed the majority of the blame on Brandon (see caveat (1)). 3% said Hoke should be fired first, while almost 100% (see caveat (1)) said Brandon should be dealt with first.
Now for the fans: 43% said Hoke is to blame, and 56% said Brandon is primarily at fault. 18% said Hoke should be fired first, while 82% said Brandon should be fired first.
All caveats applying, it seems like my hypothesis was, to some extent, supported. It seems like those associated with the University harbor more ill-will towards the AD than the fanbase as a whole, while the fanbase is more willing to consider Hoke the problem, placing less blame on Brandon.
Take from it what you will, but I thought it was an interesting idea to look at. Just take it with a grain of salt.
Hoke: NEED MORE RECRUITS! Shane, do your thing!
Shane: I got you, coach. On my way to campus to watch us beat Ohio.
Bosch: I’m in.
Shallman: Me too.
Lewis: Sounds like a party. I’ll bring the backfield skills. My teammate and I are planning on coming together.
Dawson: I’ll be there.
Hoke: Basketball team, BEAT OHIO!
Basketball Team: Done, Coach.
Chris Fox: This looks like too much fun to pass up.
Taco: Oh yeah. I’m comin!
Hoke: OK, let’s get some sleep!
Butts: Wait for me!
LTT: Spots are filling up, let me get a seat!
Hoke: Great job, Shane! Welcome to Michigan, boys!
Shane: No problem. I got a date with Erin Andrews.
THE END...for now.
Some people said some things after the NCAA basketball tournament that I wanted to address, that can also be extrapolated to the NC game today. A great number of people, especially from that Rural College Up North, began calling Michigan fans “Fair-weather fans,” because the basketball games have not been very high in attendance in recent memory. While some might agree, I have serious issue with this.
I will be honest, I have never enjoyed basketball as a sport. I was raised in an area where football reigned supreme, and everything else was secondary. Coming to Michigan back in 2005, especially with how basketball was back then during the Amaker era, reaffirmed those conceptions. Football was King. I’m not ripping on basketball; this is just a statement of fact.
During the most recent basketball season, I kept up with the team, but did not watch many of the games. My work schedule did not grant me many evenings or weekends to enjoy them. But when they were selected for the tournament, I was ecstatic. I ducked out of work to watch the Tennesse game, and was absolutely devastated by the Duke loss. Now the lay may call me a “fair-weather fan”, but I have a dissenting opinion.
While I do not go out of my way to watch basketball, I live for all things Michigan. Since I was a kid it was my dream to attend UM, and when I was accepted I could not have been more excited. I have a block “M” tattoo on my back, and I wear it with pride and honor. I am a fan of the University. I am a fan of every Wolverine out there, and will root for them to succeed in everything they do (barring the obvious, like This Guy). Rooting for the basketball team was not “becoming a fair-weather fan” but rather rooting for my alma mater, my peers, and friends. .
Even if you have never watched a hockey game in your life, I want everyone to root with all their might for this team. Root for the University of Michigan, its glory, tradition, history and future. Wear your colors proudly, and scream until you can’t scream anymore. Then scream some more. If you’re going to the game, scream louder.
These boys will be giving it their all in under 15 hours and every Michigan fan needs to do the same. Cheer, scream, celebrate, and if necessary, though I hope it won’t be, cry. Even if you don’t like hockey, remember you are cheering for something bigger than the sport, bigger than the University—you are cheering for history. Student athletes give so much effort and time and heart to the University of Michigan, and we owe them the same.
Go Blue, and let’s celebrate a National Championship tonight!
So, I had some spare time at work and decided to look into something that I have been wondering for a while: does it seem like Rich Rod sticks to the run too much, even in games where we are losing? At this point I’m sure you all know RR likes to run the ball—duh. But how often, exactly, does he run the ball?
This analysis is just a basic overview of my dataset. I will follow up with more in-depth looks at point margins and down and distance, but I thought you all might be interested to see basic percentages for our offense through Purdue. If anyone has anything specific regarding playcalling vs. score margin vs. down and distance, let me know and I will see what I can do.
A few notes and stipulations on the dataset:
1.) All data is taken from Brian’s UFRs for games this season.
2.) Analysis stopped at end of UFR, so if Brian didn’t include it in his UFR (i.e. blowouts), it is not in my analysis. If Brian doesn’t think its worth looking at, well, neither do I.
3.) Plays in which either team got a penalty are included ONLY IF the ball was snapped, since if it didn’t, we can’t know what play was called.
4.) Every snap weighted the same regardless of time left in half/game, because my thought process, we are almost as likely to run the ball in a 2 minute drill as the rest of the game (almost, though not quite).
5.)2 pt. conversions left out.
Disclaimer: 4th down numbers are not very accurate due to low sample size.
Now, for a chart:
A few things here are obvious. First, RR likes to run on 1st down (69.1% of the time). His affinity for running decreases every down, with the exception of 4th down. Most of the runs on 4th down are 4th and short, and the passes 4th and long.
Next, we will take a look at the distribution when the game is tied:
What we see here is that RR is more likely to run the ball on every down when the game is tied than his average, except fourth down.
Now, we look at when we are winning the game:
So, RR is more likely to run when we are winning, though not to a statistically significant level except on 1st down.
And when we are losing:
So, RR is much less likely to run on all downs (except 4th) when we are losing.
This data all flushes out pretty much as expected, but I thought I'd share anyway. In the next edition, I will analyze run-calling affinity per down based on score margin. Stay tuned, folks for all upcoming editions of 2010 Playcalling so far: An Analysis.
P.S. If anyone is interested in seeing my whole dataset for validation or to do your own analysis, please leave a comment/message me (can you message people on here?) and I will be pleased to share!
EDIT: Title and Tags edited to be more informative