Did The Game influence the B1G Championship?

Submitted by Cold War on

One aspect of the B1G Championship not getting enough discussion is Ohio coming off  a hard fought, emotional victory in their biggest  game of the  year, while Sparty had smoother sailing with a decent, but unremarkable, Minnesota team.

Couple this with what Borges and Company revealed about Ohio's defense, and it would seem like a  decided advantage for Staee.

It looks like we may have, at least indirectly, foiled Ohio yet again.

BlueDMD

December 8th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^

Of course it did.  Did you not hear the comentators keep pointing out how Sparty used Borges's offensive strategy?  Why?  Because it worked.

 

The Barwis Effect

December 8th, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^

Playing a game directly after The Game was a new frontier for OSU.  They hate Michigan so much (maybe more than we hate them) and gear up for Michigan so much, that they may have been psychologically and emotionally spent.

It will be interesting to see if OSU and/or Michigan continue to have problems in the game immediately following The Game.

elhead

December 8th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^

Yup. Buckeyes' D was exposed by us. It definitely helped Sparty gameplan. Though I also believe that had Ohio continued to run Hyde they would have won that game.

HelloHeisman91

December 8th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^

Yeah, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois didn't put anything useful on tape. We didn't expose the OSU defense. Everybody already knew it wasn't very good. Michigan didn't have an influence on this game any more than the other teams I mentioned. This line of thinking is a desperate attempt to feel relevant.

flashOverride

December 8th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^

Michigan's offense was hardly the first to put up yards and points on Ohio State, but I'd say that game certainly crystallized just how easily they could be attacked through the air. If there's any effect last Saturday had on last night, it's that, especially with guys this age, sky-high emotions have only one direction to go - down. That may have had some effect on the Buckeyes' slow start. 

But no, last night's result was all about Sparty - a defense that got gashed a few times but for most of the game, and especially at the most key moments late, stood tall...and an offense and particularly quarterback who have shown truly amazing progression. 

Norcal Trublue

December 8th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^

I was thinking maybe Michigan maybe planted a seed of doubt that had ohio thinking hey maybe we aren't invincible and can be beaten. Then when state started rolling on them at the end they just crumbled.

Section 1

December 8th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^

Would even the coaches know with any certainty?

Marcus Hall missed the entirety of the championship game.  I think that most fans might presume that Hall's absence was meaningless, because the announcers didn't tell fans what to think about that (did they?!?) and because Hall's replacement did not commit any glaring, replayed, errors.

The OSU offense mostly ran okay.

But I really wonder what the coaches might see in a film breakdown, that we civilians might never notice, even if we were looking for it.

OSU sure started slowly on offense in the First Quarter.  Got themselves into a 17-0 hole, from which they dug themselves out before fading.  Did it take a while for Pat Elflein to get situated in Hall's place?  Again, the coaches might be the only people who would know what sort of difference it made.

Jon06

December 9th, 2013 at 2:04 AM ^

We should make prop bets on which horse you're going to beat to death first.

TV misleading the fans about Marcus Hall's DNP-Coach's Decision vs. Brian Cook being tired of commenters who aren't you is almost a pick 'em, with the former a slight favorite.

Or: which one of us will get banned first? You'll give me some action there.

LSAClassOf2000

December 8th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^

This is actually something that I've thought about as well in that I did wonder about the question - "Did MSU see our gameplan against Ohio State and say to themselves, 'That.'?" We will never really know - maybe coaches do the "let's try what they did" thing sometimes, but it is hard to say how much that influences in-game decisions because it isn't their game against you. 

Without going back through the entire body of passing yards allowed on Ohio State, I would think that our performance and MSU's performance (451 yards and 304 yards respectively) might be right up there when it comes to sad displays by Ohio State this year. As of today, in fact, theirs is now the #115 pass defense per TeamRankings. Other teams had showed Ohio State as exploitable in the air, but we might have done the most surgical job of this. 

Interestingly, Ohio State also put up 273 yards on the #1 rush defense - a shade over three times what State would typically give up in a game. 

Jon06

December 9th, 2013 at 2:16 AM ^

Thinking about how I watch things that I know a lot about, I don't think it can be so straight-forward. Rather, they must be watching for how the things they've got in their toolbox can be used to exploit weakenesses exposed on tape. So it's not going to be like, "they can't stop Michigan's tunnel screen so we should try that," but more like "the field corner consistently makes bad decisions, so we should use our smash concept plays to attack him." (Or whatever. I didn't watch the B1GCG.) Maybe that's what you meant by "that" but I'd think it's all viewed through the lens of what you already do that's going to work based on the tape, and not with an eye towards using previous opponents' successful ideas.

To put it simply, the focus has to be on what made the plays work, rather than on what plays worked.

LSAClassOf2000

December 9th, 2013 at 7:58 AM ^

That's sort of where I was headed wit that thought but didn't quite get there. I actually do think that perhaps they do watch what other teams do, but coordinators and coaches look more at players and behavior and what they have or do which can exploit a matchup. It might be inspired by something another team did, but it may not be. It could be also inserting Player X instead of Player Y up against a CB, for example, and creating opportunities based on what you saw from the film on that CB. 

Tater

December 8th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^

The Buckeyes had to expend a lot more energy last week than Sparty did.  Remember that even when Michigan sucks, "The Game" is Ohio's Super Bowl.  Ohio payed for their obsession with Michigan last night.  As much as I detest Sparty, I can't really feel too sorry for Ohio.

falco_alba15

December 8th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

But they had to win the ball game. Let's be serious about that. They bottled up Hyde and Miller, we didn't. They forced 3 and outs, we didn't. They capitalized on every opportunity. We did not. They outplayed Ohio and we only played with Ohio.

michiganman01

December 8th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^

At the end of the day MSU out muscled OSU. You saw it in the 4th Q especially on that 4 and 1. They did use, a lot of screens in the first half when they jumped out tp a 17-0 lead, but when they where down 24-17, they reverted back to the ground and pound game.

Reader71

December 8th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^

The emotional thing is real. I've always hated the idea of conference championship games for this reason. Its hard as hell to get up for two big games in a row.

Section 1

December 8th, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^

Did you see how voluble Urban Meyer was just before the game?  I don't think I have ever seen him in the role of such a loud cheerleader.  (Just going by what I saw on tv, which is such a constrained view.)

What crossed my mind at that point was the old comment -- I'm pretty sure that it was Jim Harbaugh during his NFL playing days -- saying that he drank coffee before games inside domes, because in that setting he was not as naturally jacked up as he was outdoors.

And I wondered if Meyer had a gut feeling that his team needed whatever emotional boost he could give them.

I agree; championship games are the new negative we must live with.  And playoffs will be the next new negative that we'll have to live with.

SDCran

December 8th, 2013 at 5:39 PM ^

For whatever reason, OSU came out flat and stupid. MSU's first 10 points were straight gifts from dumb defensive plays, and MSU getting off the field on the first 2 defensive possessions were 100% bad execution by OSU.



And the 4th quarter belonged to MSU. Why? Coaching adjustments? OSU tired from last week? MSU played more competitive games this year? Again, who knows.

kehnonymous

December 9th, 2013 at 12:08 AM ^

Eh, not really - while MSU's defense and coaching deserve the lion's share of the credit - we were closer than anyone else to beating Ohio and certainly gave MSU more on film than anyone else could've done - let's not forget that OSU's Wisconsin and Illinois wins weren't *that* close