Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
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