this may be of some local interest
Sanity Check: Will having a first year quarterback prevent Michigan from competing for a national title?
Edit: this diary is not meant to be taken as a homer-rific prognostication of making or winning the playoffs, but only looks to dissuade the notion that Michigan cannot reach or win the playoffs solely because of the QB situation.
As many of you may have noticed, Michigan has been ranked inside the top 4 in quite a few national “way too early” Top 25 polls. Of course, if Michigan were to finish in the top 4, that would mean that we would be competing in the 3rd edition of the NCAA football playoffs.
Many jimmies across the land have been rustled (and many revenue-friendly clicks generated) because of this lofty ranking bestowed upon Michigan football in these meaningless pre-preseason polls. This playoff prognostication has driven any or all of the following reactions in the Michigan community, in no particular order:
Meanwhile, other fanbases be like
One of the reasons that I see cited most frequently that Michigan should not be ranked so highly is because we will be breaking a new quarterback (and we don't even know who that quarterback will be). Admittedly, this does feel like a pretty valid reason to expect that Michigan will not reach the very top of the football post-season. Because of this, I've decided to investigate a simple question: ignoring other factors, has having a first year QB historically prevented teams from making the national title game?
I’ve compiled a list of the national champions and runner-ups from each of the past seasons from 2000-2015. The list includes starting quarterback, whether or not the quarterback was a first year starter, and if so, what year the quarterback was at in that point in their career. Behold:
|Year||Name||QB||1st yr starter?||Year||Name||QB||1st yr starter?||Year|
|2000||Oklahoma||J. Heupel||N||FSU||C. Weinke||N|
|2001||Miami||K. Dorsey||N||Nebraska||E. Crouch||N|
|2002||Ohio State||C. Krenzel||Y||RS JR||Miami||K. Dorsey||N|
|2003||LSU||M. Mauck||Y||RS JR||Oklahoma||J. White||Y||JR|
|2004||USC||M. Leinart||Y||JR||Oklahoma||J. White||N|
|2005||Texas||V. Young||N||USC||M. Leinart||N|
|2006||Florida||C. Leak||N||Ohio State||T. Smith||N|
|2007||LSU||M. Flynn||Y||RS SR||Ohio State||T. Boeckman||Y||RS SR|
|2008||Florida||T. Tebow||N||Oklahoma||S. Bradford||N|
|2009||Alabama||G. McElroy||Y||JR||Texas||C. McCoy||N|
|2010||Auburn||C. Newton||Y||JR||Oregon||D. Thomas||Y||RS FR|
|2011||Alabama||A. McCarron||Y||SO||LSU||J. Jefferson||N|
|2012||Alabama||A. McCarron||N||Notre Dame||E. Golson||Y||RS FR|
|2013||FSU||J. Winston||Y||FR||Auburn||N. Marshall||Y||JR|
|2014||Ohio State||C. Jones||Y*||SO||Oregon||M. Mariota||N|
|2015||Alabama||J. Coker||Y||SR||Clemson||D. Watson||Y||SO|
Huh. Exactly half of the teams competing in the National Title game over the last 16 years were using first year starting QBs. Interestingly, 10 first year QBs won the national title, while only 6 lost (and 5 of those were facing other first year starters!)
Also interestingly, many or most of the guys on the list were not perceived as "big-time" quarterbacks. The data seems to indicate that even younger first year QBs can, in fact, play in, and win the national title, but will probably be an athletic QB in a high-powered spread offense, so that will not apply to us.
Michigan seems to have most other pieces in place going into the year - we have what looks like a dominating defense (LB questions notwithstanding), solid-to-great skill position players on offense (Chesson, Butt, Darboh, PEPPERS), and a pretty solid, if not overly deep or dominating offensive line. Our QB options do not look like absolute stars, but they don't need to be, if the above data is taken into account.
In conclusion, yes, it is entirely possible for a team to not only make, but win the national title with a first year starting quarterback, and not necessarily a star quarterback. There is a lot of historical precedent that bodes well for Michigan in 2016 in terms of the quarterback situation.
This is an admittedly over-simplified analysis, only intended to disprove the notion I've seen across the web that our QB situation will prevent us from making the playoffs or winning it all this year.
That's all I got, but for those of you who read this far, here's an unrelated bonus gif (one of my absolute favorites of all time):
This is my first diary, so here goes nothing.
As you all know, the new divisional alignment in the Big Ten will depend mainly on the following two factors: geography, and competitive balance. This diary will attempt to evaluate each of the proposed divisional alignments on the BTN survey based on geography.
I have created a spreadsheet that contains the travel distances from each school in the Big Ten to every other school in an effort to see which divisional alignment is best in terms of travel distance. I used Google Maps directions to obtain the distances. I know that teams fly if the distance is over a certain amount, and therefore these distances may not be useful in some instances, but this can give you an idea of the travel costs for each team.
Here are the straight up distances, along with average distance to other schools for each team:
Here is a list and description of things I will be looking at:
Avg Division Travel (ADT) - Average distance from a school to each of the other schools in the same division
Avg Crossover Travel (ACT) - Average distance from a school to each of the schools in the opposite division
Composite Avg - [(2/3*ADT)+(1/3*ACT)] The thought here is that in a 9 game conference schedule, 2/3 of the games will consist of divisional games, and 1/3 will consist of crossover games. This value attempts to compute the average travel distance for each away game in the conference.
Average Outer - This is a critical stat for comparing the amount of travel in each divisional layout. This value is the average traveling distance to an away game for one of the schools that would be in the Inner-Outer divisional layout. These schools will typically have the longest travel since they are located on the outskirts of the Big Ten footprint. Making travel a little easier for these schools should be an objective.
Average All - This is the average of the Composite Average for each school in the Big Ten
Now, let's look at the divisions:
|Avg Division Travel||375||365||436||448||446||588||658||396||352||498||340||507||840||668|
|Avg Crossover Travel||398||460||493||363||379||697||777||349||476||635||405||382||518||820|
|Avg Division Travel||295||465||263||350||389||410||480||267||320||357||331||265||425||498|
|Avg Crossover Travel||467||375||641||447||428||850||929||460||503||756||413||589||873||966|
|Avg Division Travel||230||233||574||247||245||713||844||236||263||531||194||569||746||804|
|Avg Crossover Travel||522||573||374||535||552||590||659||487||507||497||530||329||598||703|
So, what did we find? You can tell right away that the Existing +1 divsion setup is the worst in terms of geography. The average away game will be 500 miles on the dot from the traveling team's campus. The Outer teams will have to travel an average of 600 miles to opposing teams' campuses.
The East-West setup improves things a bit, which is an intuitive result. The average away game is 451 miles for each Big Ten team.
The Inner Outer setup is less improved, but somewhat surprising is the fact that it is a little better than the current setup. This is because while the Outer Division will have to travel very far for half of its division games, the crossover games won't be very far in most cases. The Inner Division will rarely have to travel very far.The average away game is 484 miles from campus.
Overall, I think the Inner-Outer setup provides the best competitive balance, and it improves upon the current divisional setup in terms of geography. Inner-Outer gets my vote, and it already seems to be the most popular amongst mgobloggers.