the_white_tiger

Note: I know Brian mentioned it on the front page, and I know he linked to it in the sidebar, but I was intrigued with the prospect of a more Michigan-centric analysis of this sabermetric-ish basketball statistic provided here. I'm not a statistician by any means, nor am I a basketball expert, not even close, but I'll try to provide that Michigan-centric look at PORPAG.

PORPAG (points above replacement per adjusted game) is much like VORP in that it attempts to quantify the value of a player (offensively only, it's simply not feasible to gauge the defense of a player) by comparing their value to the value of a theoretical replacement player. The formula provided in one of the articles above is this:

(OffRtg – 88) * %Poss * Min% *65

The numbers are for the entire season, and this is the list of the top 60 players in the Big Ten for PORPAG (via the excellent analysis at The Only Colors, sorry that it's formatted poorly):

Rk	Player	Team	Yr	Poss%	Min%	ORtg	PORPAG
1	Jordan Taylor	WIS	Jr	0.262	0.882	131.8	6.28
2	Jon Leuer	WIS	Sr	0.295	0.827	120.4	4.90
3	Jared Sullinger	OSU	Fr	0.268	0.780	123.6	4.61
4	Talor Battle	PSU	Sr	0.286	0.939	112.8	4.13
5	JaJuan Johnson	PUR	Sr	0.270	0.866	115.5	3.99
6	Darius Morris	MICH	So	0.289	0.860	112.6	3.79
7	John Shurna	NW	Jr	0.256	0.731	120.3	3.75
8	Jon Diebler	OSU	Sr	0.125	0.861	139.1	3.41
9	Demetri McCamey	ILL	Sr	0.255	0.815	114.4	3.40
10	Blake Hoffarber	MINN	Sr	0.196	0.862	119.3	3.28
11	Jeff Brooks	PSU	Sr	0.211	0.783	120.0	3.28
12	E'Twaun Moore	PUR	Sr	0.270	0.831	111.0	3.20
13	Jordan Hulls	IND	So	0.165	0.753	128.0	3.08
14	Keaton Nankivil	WIS	Sr	0.172	0.651	132.2	3.07
15	Michael Thompson	NW	Sr	0.210	0.895	114.0	3.03
16	David Lighty	OSU	Sr	0.216	0.778	115.8	2.90
17	Christian Watford	IND	So	0.287	0.673	111.1	2.77
18	William Buford	OSU	Jr	0.232	0.733	111.9	2.52
19	Draymond Green	MSU	Jr	0.254	0.732	109.4	2.47
20	Kalin Lucas	MSU	Sr	0.263	0.778	106.1	2.30
21	Zack Novak	MICH	Jr	0.135	0.858	119.7	2.28
22	Trevor Mbakwe	MINN	Jr	0.231	0.729	108.3	2.12
23	Ryne Smith	PUR	Jr	0.114	0.563	139.9	2.07
24	Luka Mirkovic	NW	Jr	0.202	0.617	113.9	2.00
25	Josh Gasser	WIS	Fr	0.144	0.640	122.6	1.98
26	Matt Gatens	Iowa	Jr	0.188	0.752	110.2	1.95
27	Bill Cole	ILL	Sr	0.117	0.499	141.6	1.94
28	Mike Davis	ILL	Sr	0.183	0.777	110.0	1.94
29	Ralph Sampson	MINN	Jr	0.196	0.723	109.6	1.90
30	Drew Crawford	NW	So	0.235	0.734	104.6	1.78
31	Mike Tisdale	ILL	Sr	0.207	0.634	108.9	1.70
32	Tim Hardaway	MICH	Fr	0.240	0.707	104.0	1.68
33	David Jackson	PSU	Sr	0.187	0.736	107.2	1.64
34	Tim Jarmusz	WIS	Sr	0.095	0.579	134.9	1.60
35	D.J. Richardson	ILL	So	0.160	0.737	109.2	1.55
36	Lewis Jackson	PUR	Jr	0.183	0.611	110.3	1.55
37	Melsahn Basabe	Iowa	Fr	0.229	0.599	104.9	1.44
38	Aaron Craft	OSU	Fr	0.166	0.699	107.7	1.42
39	Mike Bruesewitz	WIS	So	0.142	0.514	118.2	1.37
40	Jordan Morgan	MICH	Fr	0.207	0.590	105.5	1.33
41	Durrell Summers	MSU	Sr	0.217	0.741	101.0	1.30
42	Victor Oladipo	IND	Fr	0.240	0.447	107.2	1.28
43	Jereme Richmond	ILL	Fr	0.222	0.518	104.1	1.15
44	JerShon Cobb	NW	Fr	0.176	0.571	105.9	1.12
45	Alex Marcotullio	NW	So	0.154	0.501	111.0	1.10
46	Delvon Roe	MSU	Jr	0.158	0.606	106.5	1.10
47	Brandon Paul	ILL	So	0.232	0.523	102.2	1.07
48	D.J. Byrd	PUR	So	0.147	0.482	112.2	1.06
49	Jarryd Cole	Iowa	Sr	0.158	0.566	105.7	0.98
50	Andrew Jones	PSU	Sr	0.137	0.765	102.1	0.92
51	DallasLauderdale	OSU	Sr	0.127	0.447	112.4	0.86
52	Stu Douglass	MICH	Jr	0.163	0.698	99.9	0.84
53	Al Nolen	MINN	Sr	0.190	0.443	103.3	0.80
54	Verdell Jones	IND	Jr	0.293	0.555	94.3	0.64
55	Rodney Williams	MINN	So	0.169	0.605	97.6	0.61
56	Tom Pritchard	IND	Jr	0.090	0.436	111.6	0.57
57	Evan Smotrycz	MICH	Fr	0.193	0.474	98.0	0.57
58	Keith Appling	MSU	Fr	0.149	0.529	99.3	0.55
59	Colton Iverson	MINN	Jr	0.228	0.449	96.0	0.51
60	Bryce Cartwright	Iowa	Jr	0.261	0.751	92.0	0.49

A cursory glance shows what Brian alluded to in the front page post, Darius Morris is the sixth most valuable player offensively in the Big Ten, behind Wisconsin's excellent Jordan Taylor, a future top-5 pick, and three seniors. Another glance shows that Tim Hardaway Jr. is the third-most valuable freshman according to PORPAG, behind Sullinger and Wisconsin's role player, Josh Gasser (this statistic loves the Badgers, they have the 1st, 2nd, 14th, 25th, 34th, and 39th best PORPAG players, part of this is probably due to the slow deliberate pace at which they play, and the fact that everyone's non-conference schedule is included in this compilation of this stat, so a team like Wisconsin would be given an advantage over a team like MSU. Still, Wisconsin's numbers are impressive here, near miss against Iowa notwithstanding).

Michigan's players are here:

 

Rk	Player	Team	Yr	Poss%	Min%	ORtg	PORPAG
6	Darius Morris	MICH	So	0.289	0.860	112.6	3.79
21	Zack Novak	MICH	Jr	0.135	0.858	119.7	2.28
32	Tim Hardaway	MICH	Fr	0.240	0.707	104.0	1.68
40	Jordan Morgan	MICH	Fr	0.207	0.590	105.5	1.33
52	Stu Douglass	MICH	Jr	0.163	0.698	99.9	0.84
57	Evan Smotrycz	MICH	Fr	0.193	0.474	98.0	0.57

Morris stands out as the headliner and his production is well-doucmented and very impressive, but Novak is a little bit of a surprise, with his high ORtg balancing out his relatively low usage rate (which is the lowest for all six of these players). Another encouraging bit is that no other Big Ten team has 3 freshmen on the list, in fact Ohio State is the only team with two, so this incoming class has paid great dividends for Michigan thus far. Hardaway takes a lot of shots and doesn't have a great ORtg, but his recent emergence and potential seems to suggest that he has and he will improve substantially by taking fewer and better shots. Morgan's also a bit of a surprise with how effectively he's played -- as evidenced in his game last night with 27 points on 13 FG attempts -- in overcoming his previous, offseason injuries. Douglass and Smotrycz are solid performers, and Smotrycz in particular will improve as his game develops a little bit and he gets more of a feel for the college game.

So what does this mean? For this season, probably not a whole lot. We know where Michigan's at right now; the consensus seems to be that Michigan needs to finish 4-2 from here on out and win a Big Ten Tournament game to be competitive for an NCAA bid. KenPom has this covered:

Basically Michigan has around a 15% to 20% chance to get to .500 in conference play, which seems realistic, Michigan would need to beat Indiana and MSU at home and Iowa on the road, as well as steal one @ Minnesota, @ Illinois, or at home against Wisconsin, and that seems to be a bit of a stretch. Michigan's played well as of late, and hopefully they can make a push to  sneak onto the bubble and make it in to the tourney, but I don't know if this team can win those games or make a substantial run into the Big Ten tournament.

The biggest thing that stuck out to me is Michigan's promise for the future. Yes, I know we heard that after getting into the dance in '09, and yes, I know we collapsed in '09-'10, but this team doesn't lose anybody from this year's team. That's incredible. Michigan is the 11th least experienced team in the whole country out of 345 teams, and all of this production is coming back with an extra offseason of practice and development. If anyone can improve like Morris did this past offseason (I'm looking at you, Tim Hardaway), which is admittedly pretty insane, Morris is one of the most improved players in the whole country, but a leap like that would place Michigan solidly in the upper half of the conference, if not higher. Looking at the PORPAG numbers for next year (keeping the curent numbers, taking out all of the seniors and assuming Jared Sullinger decides to go pro), each player's ranking would look like this:

• Darius Morris -- #2
• Zack Novak -- #8
• Tim Hardaway -- #16
• Jordan Morgan -- #22
• Stu Douglass -- #30
• Evan Smotrycz -- #34

Of course this doesn't account for improvements, regressions, attrition, incoming freshmen, or anything of the like, but these rankings are eerily similar to what Ohio State has this season. I'm not suggesting Michigan will be where the Buckeyes are this year, the Wolverines' defense is currently seventh best in the conference (as per KenPom's adjusted defensive ratings), but with all of the departures of senior talent from the Big Ten, Michigan could make their move and rise up to the top of the conference.

This is the biggest thing about looking at the PORPAG numbers (and obviously they don't tell the whole story, of course), Michigan's future is looking great. It might seem kind of stupid to look ahead to next year while this season is still in full swing, but next year is looking excellent for the Maize and Blue. It's been entertaining to watch this year's team grow and improve, and the stretch run will doubtlessly be as exciting as it was two years ago, and heck, even this year's numbers look decent right now. Basically this team has a bonafide star in Morris and a bunch of solid role-players, but the recent 4 out of 5 streak and the recent performances of Hardaway and Morgan suggests that they've made a leap in the improvement process. This season has exceeded almost everyone's expectations thus far, it's hilarious to read the season preview magazine that projected Michigan to finish last in the conference and only made a cursory mention of Darius morris competing for the point guard spot. A NIT finish would be a reasonable finish, a definite improvement from last year, and an NCAA bid would be a pleasant suprise. Michigan's built a strong nucleus though, and these PORPAG numbers show that Michigan's young players are playing well and the program is trending upwards. The rest of this year, and for next year and the years after, Michigan should move up to where they should be in the conference. Now is definitely not the time to fire Coach Beilein.

About five weeks ago, I took two polls after the loss to Penn State. The results were not too surprising, but I felt that it would be interesting to see what the board thinks after all of the ANGAR. Well there has been a large amount of ANGAR after the game on Saturday, so I conducted another poll. Admittedly, the loss was probably too fresh in our minds, but I was impatient, and I wanted to see if all of you really wanted to keep this guy. There have been several hundred responses to each survey, and I really appreciate everyone taking the time to do this.

The answer is yes, MGoBoard still wants Rich Rodriguez to coach Michigan again in 2011

After the Penn State game (with the assumption of a 7-5 record), I asked if Michigan should retain Rich Rodriguez as head coach.

Response:	% of responses
Yes	88
No	8
I'm not sure	11

After the game this weekend, the responses were not quite as steadfast in their support of Rodriguez, but there is still a clear majority in favor of retaining Rodriguez. Apparently 7-5 looked better five weeks ago than it does now, and the way that the games were won or lost were probably not exactly what most of us had envisioned at that point, although nobody thought that Michigan would beat Wisconsin (88% thought that Michigan would lose) or Ohio State (85%).

Response:	% of responses
Yes	55
No	32
I'm not sure	13

GERG is not as lucky as Rodriguez however. The responses to asking if Michigan should retain Greg Robinson weren't shocking.

Five weeks ago:

Response:	% of responses
Yes	9
No	54
I'm not sure	37

Now:

Response:	% of responses
Yes	4
No	84
I'm not sure	12

I think we're pretty clear on this. Needless to say, MGoBoard wants Greg Robinson to resign, retire, or be fired. I think the consensus is that Rich Rodriguez will need to completely overhaul his defensive coaching staff, starting at the top, make a good hire this time, and give the defensive coordinator free reign in personnel, strategic, and recruiting decisions. Greg Robinson has failed here (and it was not entirely his fault), but we're fed up with the performance on defense and we think it's time for a change.

The other four questions that I asked were pretty consistent in their responses, but yet again, there was less of a clear cut majority. Keep in mind that most of the responses in the previous polls were largely given with the assumption that Michigan would not beat Illinois and finish 6-6.

Has Michigan shown enough improvement in Rich Rodriguez's tenure?

Response:	then	now
Yes	30	38
No	70	48
I'm not sure		14

Can Michigan eventually succeed under Rodriguez?

Response:	then	now
Yes	72	68
No	7	14
I'm not sure	21	18

Would Michigan be better off with Rodriguez as head coach in 2011 than without?

Response:	then	now
Yes	87	58
No	13	26
I'm not sure		15

Take a guess: Will Michigan retain Rich Rodriguez as head coach?

Response:	then	now
Yes	80	65
No	15	22
I'm not sure	5	13

Well, there you have it. I would agree with the majority who want Rodriguez to have another year (personally I think that a coach should have more than three years to build a program and that it's hard to discount the progress that has occurred from 2008 to now), but I understand some of the perspectives of those who wish to have a change in coaching occur because it has been frustrating to seee the team perform so poorly.

A couple of interesting responses from some seemingly irrelevant questions from the earlier survey:

Question #5: If a coaching change is made, should it be done before or after the bowl game?

• Before – 51%
• After – 37%
• I’m not sure – 12%

Question #8: Would Jim Harbaugh be the best candidate if Rodriguez is fired?

• Yes – 48%
• No – 19%
• I’m not sure – 33%

There isn't really correlation between these two and any other of the questions, so there isn't really much to be gained other than just an answer to my curiosity, I suppose. By the way I don't think that this is a place to start a "'Jim Harbaugh is awesome!' 'No he's not!" flamewar (which are kind of annoying anyways)*

*new emphasis

There are countless other threads in which to debate the merits of Jim Harbaugh, and I wonder what the response would be now if I asked the same question, but it is irrelevant because as of now, Rich Rodriguez is our coach and devoting so much time debating the merits of a possible replacement coach if he is fired is potentially pointless.

Note: I'm really going to try to keep this from being an opinion piece, as I'm sure everyone is sick of those "Hey look, it's my opinion and it deserves it's own thread" threads. I'll do my best to to keep from doing this, but I must admit that I'll probably stray from that a little bit.

This poll was conducted at the end of this article, and most of the questions were about Coach Rodriguez. Here is the data (for just over 1,200 responses):

Questions #1-3: Should Rich Rodriguez be retained after the season? (Answers sorted by final records given in each question). 

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	81%	57%	23%
No	8%	24%	53%
I'm not sure	11%	19%	24%

I don't think that this is very surprising; as the record falls, the amount of respondents who replied "yes" fell, and the amount of respondents who replied "no" or "I don't know" rose considerably. The main thing to take from this is that MGoBlog seems to support keeping Rodriguez if Michigan has a winning record.

Probablitity:	5-7	6-6	7-5	8-4	9-3
Responses from the previous poll:	6%	48%	38%	8%	1%
The Mathelete:	13%	39%	36%	12%	1%
Average:	9.5%	43.5%	37%	10%	1%

So if we can combine our probably optimistic predictions and The Mathlete's realistic predictions, there is less than a 10% chance of having a losing record.

This data agrees with Question #6: Take a guess: will Rich Rodriguez be Michigan's head coach in 2011?

• Yes - 80%
• No - 15%
• I'm not sure - 5%

I agree. I believe that Brandon will stick with Rodriguez, but, as always, this is 100% pure e-pinion.

I think that Question #4: Can Rodriguez succeed at Michigan if he's given two or three years? is a more interesting question however.

• Yes – 72%
• No – 7%
• I’m not sure – 21%

Here's what people responded to the first three questions (Should Rich Rodriguez be retained after the season?), broken down by their choice in question #4.

Yes, Rodriguez can be successful at Michigan if he's given a few more years:

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	94%	72%	31%
No	1%	9%	40%
I'm not sure	5%	19%	29%

No, Rodriguez cannot be successful at Michigan, even if he's given a few more years:

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	17%	4%	3%
No	71%	95%	97%
I'm not sure	12%	1%	0%

I'm not sure if Rodriguez can be successful at Michigan if he's given a few more years or not:

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	56%	23%	5%
No	13%	52%	81%
I'm not sure	30%	25%	13%

What's really intriguing here is that the respondents who stated that Rodriguez can succeed at Michigan do not necessarily think that he should be back for next year. Obviously those who said that they didn't think that he could succeed here pretty much all want him gone, but it is really interesting that those who think that he can succeed in a few years do not necessarily think he should be given that. It seems as if those who aren't sure if Rodriguez can succeed at Michigan or not are waiting for the end of the year: if the team finishes with a winning record, then he should stick around, but if not, he should be let go.

Question #6: Will the 2011 season be more successful with or without Rodriguez? provides another chance for an interesting breakdown.

• With – 87%
• Without – 13%

(It was probably a mistake not to add another "I'm not sure" option, but oh well, my bad)

2011 will be more successful with Rodriguez than without:

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	90%	65%	46%
No	2%	14%	21%
I'm not sure	8%	21%	21%

2011 will be more successful without Rodriguez than with him:

Response:	7-5	6-6	5-7
Yes	21%	5%	2%
No	47%	87%	96%
I'm not sure	32%	8%	2%

Again, it's interesting to see that more of the "with" respondents wished to get rid of Rodriguez if Michigan finishes 5-7 than those who wished to keep him. Doubtlessly some of that can contribute to the fact that there would be a pretty painful transition if Michigan hired a coach with a pro-style offense for next year, but still, I thought that there would be more support for Rodriguez for those who think that next year would be better with him than without. Those who do not think that the team will be better with Rodriguez next year unsurprisingly think he should be removed, and rightfully so.

The last two questions deal with the possibility of a coaching change, and we will cross that bridge if or when we get to it. I was just curious to see what the answers would be and...

Question #5: If a coaching change is made, should it be done before or after the bowl game?

• Before – 51%
• After – 37%
• I’m not sure – 12%

Question #8: Would Jim Harbaugh be the best candidate if Rodriguez is fired?

• Yes – 48%
• No – 19%
• I’m not sure – 33%

There isn't really correlation between these two and any other of the questions, so there isn't really much to be gained other than just an answer to my curiosity, I suppose. By the way I don't think that this is a place to start a "'Jim Harbaugh is awesome!' 'No he's not!" flamewar (which are kind of annoying anyways)

So there it is, MGoBlog has spoken, and it has said that we should probably keep Rodriguez if Michigan wins at least one more game and achieves bowl eligibility, but if not, a change might be in order.

[Ed: Bumped for interestingness. Here's where you're at.]

[UPDATE: The new poll was not functioning at the bottom of the page, please retake it]

Last night, I posted a poll to see what MGoBoard’s opinion is regarding the state of the program. Much has been said over these topics in the past few days, but there truly hasn’t been an accurate way to see how the board has reacted as a whole. The bickering has been not only annoying, but unhelpful in determining what people are really thinking. Unfortunately, I can’t post the results directly from the host (as I don’t want to shell out the $200 to be able to share the information other than copy and paste), but here are the results. This poll was flawed and there are more questions that can be asked after seeing this data, so a follow-up poll will be conducted at the end of the post.

 Question #1 - Has Michigan's offense improved enough in the past three years?

• Yes – 82%
• No - 18%

This is pretty unsurprising, considering how the offense has come from being one of the worst in the country in 2008 to arguably being one of the best in 2010. There has been improvement from year to year, and with Michigan’s young talent at many offensive players, including Denard Robinson, this looks to continue.

Question #2 - What has been the single biggest reason Michigan's defense has struggled?

• Lack of talent – 30%
• Youth - 22%
• Rich Rodriguez has made poor decisions trying to influence the defense - 18%
• Attrition – 18%
• Greg Robinson has coached poorly schematically – 12%

Admittedly, all of these reasons have probably been a contributing factor to how unsuccessful the defense has been this year. Nothing has really stood out as the main factor, but a combination of all of these has definitely crippled the defense. The two biggest factors, the lack of talent and youth, combine together with attrition to make the biggest reason for the failure of the defense to be the personnel for 70% of the respondents, while coaching was signaled out by 30% as the biggest reason.

Note: I am not questioning the effort of the players on defense; they have worked and played as hard as they can. They are great representatives for the University of Michigan in how they conduct themselves on the field. They may have struggled, but they haven’t quit.

Question #3 - Should Greg Robinson be retained as Michigan's defensive coordinator?

• No – 54%
• Let's wait until after the season to decide – 37%
• Yes – 9%

Over half of MGoBoard wants Greg Robinson to be removed from the defensive coordinator position at the end of the season, and more than a third will reevaluate their position after the conclusion of the season. After the struggles on defense this season, there seems to be a consensus that someone should take the fall after the season.

Question #4 - What was Rich Rodriguez's most egregious off-the-field mistake?

• Nothing was particularly egregious – 25%
• Attrition – 22%
• The NCAA practice violations – 22%
• Poor choices on recruits who did not make admissions standards – 20%
• Other (leave in comments) - 7%
• Comments he's made in press conferences - 3%
• Not being a "Michigan Man" - 1%

Despite this being a poorly worded question (one commenter stated: “egregious may be a little strong” and I agree), the responses have been all across the board for this question as well as Question #2. I think that the top three have been mistakes on Rodriguez’s part, but I wouldn’t call anything that he’s done “egregious” per se. Some of the comments left in other that have been echoed in others:

There's not a whole lot that RR has done that many or all other coaches go through.

Everything

Remember the way he left West Virginia?

Not giving his DC enough freedom to install his own staff.

Hiring Scott Shafer

Forcing out Scott Schafer

Too much focus on offense, not enough on defense or special teams. Not enough recruiting there (or recruiting ones that can enroll), not enough coaching there. This is a team based on offense first, I see no whole team concept.

Neglecting to recruit defense enough until the late stages of the 2010 cycle. If we had gotten some of those freshman DBs in for spring practice, they would be further along than they are now.

I enjoyed:

He ruined the sanctity of Michigan Football.

the audacity of having a west virginia accent /s

Question #5 - Has Michigan shown enough improvement in Rodriguez's tenure?

• No – 70%
• Yes – 30%

Agreed, although I think this figure would change a lot when Michigan makes or fails to make a bowl game. In year three, I think the fanbase has reasonably expected the team to make a bowl game and have a winning record but it remains to be seen if that will happen or not.

Question #6 - Should Rich Rodriguez be retained after the season?

• Let's wait until after the season to decide – 41%
• Yes – 37%
• No – 21%

Very interesting, despite all the anger and frustration voiced on the board after the Penn State game, only a fifth of MGoBoard wants a different coach for 2011. Personally, I think that it’s fair to wait until after the season to assess final judgment and that will be addressed in the follow-up poll.

There is something interesting of note though: the 257 people who indicated that they would like to see Rodriguez stay around for 2011 responded that Michigan has improved enough under Rodriguez’s tenure (62%), Michigan will beat Illinois (61%), and that the defense’s struggles are not his fault (2% selected “Rich Rodriguez has made poor decisions trying to influence the defense” as the biggest reason).

On the other hand, however, the 147 respondents who do not want Rodriguez to be retained said that Michigan has not improved enough under Rodriguez’s tenure (only one said that they have), only 9% think that none of Rodriguez’s off the field mistakes were particularly egregious, and 47% think that his poor decisions in trying to influence the defense is the biggest reason why the defense has struggled.

Questions #7, 8, 9, and 10 – Will Michigan beat each of its final four opponents?

• Michigan will lose to Illinois – 65%
• Michigan will beat Purdue – 88%
• Michigan will lose to Wisconsin – 88%
• Michigan will lose to Ohio State – 85%

The board has been pretty clear; most of us see a 6-6 conclusion to the season, with 7-5 being possible and 5-7, 8-4, and 9-3 as being pretty improbable. This is pretty obvious; Illinois should be coming in as a favorite, Michigan should be heavily favored against Purdue, and Wisconsin and Ohio State look to be heavy favorites against Michigan.

Here’s the follow-up poll. [FIXED]

We all know about the upcoming plans for Big Ten expansion. The potential teams and alignments for a twelve team league have been discussed ad nauseum (but there is a good breakdown of possible choices, the probability of these choices , and possible alignment issues.) There is little doubt that the Big Ten needs to move in a positive direction, it is currently the only FBS conference without a full round-robin schedule or a championship game. Conceivably, two teams could finish undefeated without playing each other in the current system. It is consensus at this point that the Big Ten should make a move to twelve teams. A conference title game would bring in added revenue and media attention, while possible expansion into untapped media markets would greatly enhance the Big Ten Network. More sponsors would roll in, thereby forcing Ro*Tel with Velveeta from having an ad every commercial break (I can always hope).

The teams involved are up to wild speculation. Texas? Notre Dame? The Cleveland Browns? Logically, there are only a few schools that fit the right criteria to include into the conference, without an unforeseen massive expansion to the south or west. These schools (Missouri, Maryland, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse) may or may not be willing to enter the conference. For the sake of discussion, let's just all assume that these schools would be willing to become a part of the Big Ten for the academics, revenue sharing and lucrative T.V. contract.

My idea for the new Big Ten (I am not creative enough to come up with a good name for it), is to make it the Big 14. It's not outside of the realm of possibility.

A conference statement spoke of an "evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion."

"Anything is possible," one source said, beyond the conventional wisdom of simply adding a 12th school.

This idea largely hasn't been approached, but it could work if the Big Ten decides to aggresively expand to fourteen. A split into two seven-team divisions would be obvious, as would the addition of a ninth conference game (like the PAC-Ten, who plays a round-robin with 3 OOC games). The real question would be if it is really worth it for the Big Ten to expand to fourteen. The WAC had a 16-team conference, and it was inevitably doomed due to its size. Teams would lose out on additional revenue with the loss of an OOC cupcake home game. Teams in different divisions would rarely play each other. The divisional champions would have to play a total of 10 conference games, which would make it hard for a team to run the table or receive a second BCS berth. These are all legitimate reasons not to make the jump from eleven or twelve to fourteen, but there are plenty of incentives to do so:

• The conference would generate much more T.V. revenue, due to the expanded T.V. markets and alumni base, as well as the conference championship game
• More schools would receive bowl and NCAA Tournament appearances from the conference
• The conference would become the elite conference in all of college sports and there would be a large increase in national attention to the conference
• An undefeated football champion would all but be assured of a national championship berth, and a one or two loss team would be assured a BCS berth due to strength of schedule
• A conference with more than twelve teams (the MAC) has not experienced too many problems
• A team would not go three years without playing a team in the other half of the conference (see below)

Breaking the conference up into divisions would not be too difficult depending on who is added. There are already three states with two existing Big Ten teams, and if Pitt enters, that would make four. breaking up these in-state rivalries would not go over well, so Michigan-Michigan State, Indiana-Purdue, and Illinois-Northwestern (and maybe Penn State-Pitt) would be in the same division as their rival. Selfishly, we can add Michigan and Ohio State to the teams have to be in the same division. These fanbases can agree that playing the rivalry twice in the same season would not be good for the rivalry, and both parties would be vehemently opposed to being in different divisions. Dividing the proposed teams into East and West, there are four teams to the east (Maryland, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse), and one to the west (Missouri). Therefore, the only possible combinations for adding teams would be adding two teams to the east and one to the west or adding three teams to the east.

Adding three teams to the East would be easiest (a team is across from its permanent rival, some of which are arbitrary):

EAST	WEST
Michigan	Minnesota
Michigan State	Purdue
Ohio State	Illinois
Penn State	Iowa
Maryland*	Northwestern
Pitt*	Wisconsin
Rutgers*	Indiana

*any of these three can be switched for Syracuse

However, adding Missouri would put the Big Ten into quite a conundrum, some rivalries would inevitably be split up (and I know that the geography of the divisional names is not quite correct):

LAKES	PLAINS
Michigan	Iowa
Michigan State	Purdue
Wisconsin	Minnesota
Ohio State	Illinois
Penn State	Indiana
Maryland*	Northwestern
Pitt*	Missouri

*either Rutgers or Syracuse could be switched in for Maryland or Pitt

The schedule would work something like this (if there is an East-West alignment), a team in the East would play all of the other six teams in the East, their permanent rival in the West, as well as a two out of six teams from the West that rotate yearly off the schedule so that the team in the East would play their non-rivals from the West once every three years.

For example, Michigan's schedule may look something like this:

2011	2012	2013
MINNESOTA	at Minnesota	MINNESOTA
at Michigan State	MICHIGAN STATE	at Michigan State
PENN STATE	at Penn State	PENN STATE
at Maryland	MARYLAND	at Maryland
PITT	at Pitt	PITT
at Rutgers	RUTGERS	at Rutgers
WISCONSIN	at Northwestern	PURDUE
at Indiana	IOWA	at Illinois
OHIO STATE	at Ohio State	OHIO STATE

So logistically, a move to fourteen is feasible. The practicality of it is in question, but it is the offseason and thus it is the time for wild speculation. Any thoughts?

Editor's note: with the recent influx of quality diary entries I'm reviving a short-lived plan from last football season and bumping my favorite to the front page once a week.This might be tricky during football season but we'll play it by ear.

 
UConn taking popular choice Virginia to the woodshed 45-10 last year (sorry MaizeandBlueWahoo)

Donald Brown the 27th overall choice of the 2009 NFL Draft
Okay, it's UConn, the general reaction from the MGoCommunity has been, "UConn, why would we play them for the opener? Bill Martin is an idiot!" UConn's blog has caught wind of the opener and is pretty excited but has however noted our comments on the situation.

Man UCONN would be a HORRIBLE game. We all had illusions of grandeur for a huge opponent and per usual they get blown to bits.

It’s a lose/lose for UM! We win and no one really cares outside the fan base. We lose and we just lost to a middling to low BCS team from a weak, weak conference. I’d rather schedule a true pansy and just annihilate them.

UConn is worse than WMU. I hope it’s not them because a 7-5 team in the Big East does not deserve a home and home.

Ouch. Not our highest praise for the Huskies, they even said MGoBlog was "a simply fantastic website devoted to Michigan football". We do have a basketball program too, even if it is nothing like yours. To be fair, Connecticut, a program that has been in a BCS conference for less than a decade, is not our illusion of the Wolverines taking on the Bulldogs (no, not Fresno State) nor the Broncos. It's not the big splash that we anticipated to be sure, but this late in the process it's not totally a terrible "MAC-level opponent." They play in a BCS conference (the BCS is not every conference in the FCS Division, there are six BCS Conferences. The Big East is one).

Another reason that we are angry with this choice is the fact that it is indeed a home-and-home with the 2013 return game being played here. Rentschler stadium is not the Big House, it's only approximately 36% of the capacity. Michigan fans are frustrated with the fact that a precious OOC road game that isn't in South Bend is being played at a relatively tiny staium, and that Connecticut is getting a home-and-home instead of a 2-for-1 at least. Proposed locations for the return game include Gillette Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and the Meadowlands but are not legitimate choices because of this. Notre Dame screwed over UConn with the "5 games in South Bend, and the rest not in Connecticut" schedule which UConn did to get some exposure and go from "basketball school who has a new football team" to "big-time major college football program."

Not the Big House
Thus Michigan is resigned to play a game in the state of Connecticut , which is nice for the East Coast fans and alumni who haven't seen a game out there since Michigan defeated Boston College in 1994, but not great for many others. Brodie proposed going to the Yale Bowl, which has more capacity than Rentschler. Michigan will be the biggest name ever to play there, and UConn is lucky to have a big-time team there while only sacrificing one away game.

The MGoCommunity is also not too happy with the fact that UConn is not a team with the "prestige" of another potential BCS opponent, such as Virginia (see above). The point is, Michigan doesn't need a phenomenal (read conference championship contender in a BCS conference) opponent next year. Reasons are here, in Michigan Arrogance's excellent diary.
Some quick facts on Connecticut, not a lot is known around here about the Huskies. Most historical information (that being said, not much) found here:

• The Huskies have been playing football since 1896, and in 1-A since 2001. (Interestingly, they and Villanova were both given the choice to become a football member in the Big East. Obviously Villanova passed).
• They have been to three bowl games, going 2-1.
• UConn tied West Virginia for their only Big East title, but WVU got the BCS berth because of this loss at the hands of Rich Rodriguez. More on Rich Rod versus Connecticut here.
• Coach Randy Edsall is 58-60 at UConn, 49-36 in the FCS, and was rumored to be a candidate for the Syracuse job vacated by Michigan Defensive Coordinator Greg Robinson.
• This is how the Huskies have fared since entering the Big East in 2004, not phenomenal but pretty successful at 34-29:

Year:	Record:
2004	8-4
2005	5-6
2006	4-8
2007	9-4
2008	8-5

• In 2009, the Huskies look to replace 4(!) first day draft choices including Brown (above). They have a new offensive coordinator who looks to ignite an anemic passing game, which reminds me of Michigan's last year. They have a four-star former Notre Dame quarterback Zach Frazer who looks to lock down the starting job and a stable of backs to replace Brown. CFN, NY Times on Connecticut's 2009 season. We will be rooting for the Huskies this year because we want Michigan to beat a good team* in the opener. They are a young team and figure to be more experienced and successful next year.

*We know that a win is not a given considering Michigan's recent failures in the season openers.


Dan Orlovsky, former Husky

Thus, 'tis Connecticut. A bunch of anonymous MGoBloggers will not change Bill Martin's mind (or a contract for that matter). This move does make sense as it is a BCS opponent, Michigan has a good chance of winning since by then Rodriguez should have the ball moving, and it is far harder to schedule and defeat a big-name opponent in real life than it is in a video game (I note your examples of Alabama-Penn State, and Ohio State-USC and counter with the seven mediocre opponents that PSU and OSU combine for OOC this year). Martin is reaching out to a very large alumni base out east and giving them a game in their vicinity for the first time in a long time, even if it is in a small stadium and a home-and-home (the largest athletic department in the country scheduled a home-and-home in Laramie, Texas plays at Wyoming this year). It's hard to call UConn a great, up-and-coming program, but the Huskies are improving and playing good football. Maybe it wasn't the Gameday game we were looking for, but it should still be a good game (which we will have a far greater chance of winning than if it was against Boise State or Georgia), the comparisons to the 2006 game against Vanderbilt are not fair. Kudos to Martin for scheduling the Huskies.