Execution myth?
So I suffered through reading the game recaps of losses on USA Today archives from 1999 - 2006 (2007 is it's own painful hell that needs no mention). It's marked by blown fourth quarter leads, missed/blocked PATs and FGs, blocked punts, fumbles and INTs at the worst possible times, snaps off Scott McClintock's head on fake punts, Anthony Thomas against NW, Chris Graham on WRs, losing while allowing no offensive touchdowns, trendy punt formations that were never actually practiced, dropped passes at the worst possible times, 2005 ND (this is its own circle of hell to me, GRADY DON'T CUT TO THE MIDDLE HOLY SHIT NOOOOOOO! Oh, and Henne scored on the sneak before the fumble.), 1999 Illinois game, etc.
After going through all this, I'm wracking my brain over whether other programs have such a ridiculously high level of pratfalls. We kept saying "we're Michigan, we'll out execute them" but I'm starting to question if this actually ever happened. It's almost like, "we're Michigan, where Charles Woodson was god and we somehow couldn't blow every game since." I think Brett Bielema was 11-0 or something when leading going into the 4th Quarter before losing to us this year. Michigan under Carr lost FIVE games in 2005 when leading going into the 4th quarter, and a bunch more before that.
I'm thinking the problem is that blogs didn't really exist before 2005, so we only knew what we saw and what the MSM wrote about it. As a result, we think of the Wolverines as the 2006 buzzsaw edition that lost to OSU then somehow got routed by USC with a 3-3 halftime score. We've blocked out 2005 and earlier, then 2007 is tossed because it just confirmed what we suspecting. 2008 is opening really badly in a difficult transition year, and for some reason we're surprised by the fumbles and other miscues. However, given the hilarity (stabbing pain in eyes) that I chronicled above, does anyone still feel that bad about this season? It's kind of like, damn, we've never really been that dominant, and even in good years we were on the razor's edge. I realized that a lot of teams lose close games to keep them from being 12-0 every year, but I can't think of any other program that has lost close games in the amazing multitude of ways we have.
Thoughts?
October 6th, 2008 at 3:17 AM ^
that those are the marks of good teams. if it takes a lot of ridiculousness to beat you, that means the odds are largely in your favor. part of the problem of being a fan of a very good team is that it will take a confluence of high variance plays in favor of bad teams for them to win and subsequently a lower margin as the talent of the opposition increases. the better you are, the more painful a loss necessarily is. either you for some reason aren't playing to your talent level (inexplicable suck is very straining from a fan's perspective) or some array of horrifying bloopers and prayers are central to a loss. the elasticity of turnover margin regardless of talent is football's great equalizer. and from a fan's perspective, that's the great misery of fandom in this case.
it's like being sisyphus if he got to party during the week and had to push the rock on the weekend.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:35 AM ^
We kept saying "we're Michigan, we'll out execute them" but I'm starting to question if this actually ever happened.
---
It happened about 80% of the time for 30 years.
70s: .848
80s: .750
90s: .775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I-A_football_team_records_by_decade
I guess you could also look at it like Michigan failed to be perfect 29 times. I don't.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:22 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 10:24 AM ^
Nope, I don't feel bad. If this was any other year I'd be jumping off a bridge.
That offense is so GREEN it's tough to get upset. Illinois has one killer offense and it's tough for any D to beat them. We shouldn't have expected our O to keep up with their O point for point. The first half was nice, but I think the D got tired and there it was. Oh well, looking forward to more water buffalo types at QB. We likes them.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:28 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 11:08 AM ^
In retrospect my point is poorly worded. That's what happens at 2:30 am when you're reading recaps and trying not to cry. I think I was trying to say "Damn, we're having things go wrong all over, but look, it did in the past as well with much more experienced teams."
Damn that was a really bad post by me.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:36 AM ^
October 6th, 2008 at 8:31 PM ^
Bo and Moeller were actually considerably more flexible in terms of offensive philosophy than Carr. Bo ran everything from the wishbone to a fairly pass-happy attack with Harbaugh. Moeller often ran a no-huddle and his offenses racked up tons of points. Only under Carr did we really start to underperform relative to our talent on offense. We were usually one of the top 2-3 scoring offenses in the Big Ten under Bo and Moeller, but under Carr we were generally middle of the pack, both in points and yardage, despite producing a huge number of future NFL players.