A fact about the defense from Phil Steele's blog.
This was pulled from Phil Steel's daily blog today.
"Under Rich Rodriguez Michigan has allowed twelve 30+ pt games in 2 years while Bo Schembechler in his 21 years had just five 30+ pt games allowed..."
I didn't give it much thought but the more you read it the more it stings.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^
If I remember correctly, Steele also predicted us to finish 6-6 (maybe 7-5) and he seems to be spot on. I remember reading his prediction and thinking, 'crap,' because he's usually right and I was hoping for 8-4 or even 9-3.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:43 AM ^
I mean it's not like the game hasn't evolved from 3 yards and a cloud of dust and that winning 6-3 is really viable anymore.
I'm sure that if you looked at the data that the opposite would be true of "how many games of over 30+ pts were had by each coach". I'm fairly confident that RR would trounce Bo.
This has also already been discussed on the board yesterday... How about you stop piling on. OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING RR CAN'T COACH DEFENSE!!!!!!!
*jumps off ledge*
November 10th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
you're one of the most passionate commentators on MGoBlog, of which I respect. Hell, I even agree with you on the comparison of the Bo defense vs. RR defense issue. However, to assume that everyone reads every board post and every bit of the minutia on MGoBlog is a bid absurd. Just because a stat or an issue has been posted doesn't automatically make someone a douchebag or the like for bringing it up again or posting something. And, for better or worse, people are going to compare RR to Bo in the same way my grandparents compare every U.S. President to FDR. Fair? Of course not. Reality? I think so.
I also tend to think you're correct on the reverse commparison for offense. Who knows, though. I vaguely remember some hefty blowouts from those days.
I have a feeling this post will be net-banged, but whatever.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
And the only reason why you'd get neg-banged is because you said that you respect me.
I'm just getting sick (as many other posters are) of the same thing being re-hashed every day. This "stat" is a complete non-issue and for the OP to say "it stings to see this" is ridiculous and for him to say that he's not being negative is even more ludicrous.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
I said I respect your passion, not you personally.
I kid, I kid.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:44 AM ^
That stat is terrible. The national scoring average has probably tripled since Schembechler's last season.
Not that the defense doesn't suck, but taking a stat way, way out of context isn't the greatest way to prove it.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^
I didn't see it posted yesterday....my bad. I am not trying to pile on anything. I agree with the evolution of the game. It was more of a "wow" I didn't know that about Bo. You guys need to calm down. Are we all not rooting for the same team? It was not ment to be negitive.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
Because the way that you phrased it was negative particularly this quote "I didn't give it much thought but the more you read it the more it stings."
WTF does that even mean? Your post was meant to be negative we're not idiots.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:25 AM ^
"stings" simply was used to describe how I feel. I am not bashing my team. It hurts knowing that we should be a little better then we are and there is nothing we can do about it. I know they will fix it. I just wanted to get peolea thoughts on it.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^
would be Rodriguez and Yost.
They both rack up some points.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
That would be some worthy reading material...
November 10th, 2009 at 9:58 AM ^
I agree with everyone else. That stat is a horrible stat and I am getting sick of people comparing Bo's stats to RR's stats. Like others have said the game has changed. Bo was a great coach but can we move and let RR be RR and give him some time.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^
10-19-1969 You know, I'm not sure about this "Bo" guy. With yesterday's loss to Michigan State I'm really starting to question Canham's hire. We're now 3-2 with a loss to Missouri (MISSOURI!). Mark it down, this guy doesn't it make it past 1970.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
The "law of small numbers"...or maybe the "law of small minds"
November 10th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
twelve 30 point + games in two years is unacceptable, just as we can agree that only five 30 point + games in 21 years is remarkable even if taken from a different era. There are very few similarities between RR and Bo. Bo made Michigan a regional power in a time where geograpic supremacy was of utmost importance. With the BCS came peer review on a national scale. RR's challenge is much different, and may take longer to obtain, if ever. A good question is, if RR cannot make this team a national contender, but can compete regularly for big ten titles and Rose Bowl births, is that enough. In the long run, will the Michigan football program be satisfied if the end result is that we are right back in the same position we were before Carr's departure? Will RR be satisfied and content if that is the final product? Just some thoughts...
November 10th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
Is this some sort of deity that has eternal life?
If so, mere mortals cannot be compared to such higher powers.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
from guy named Jason or JJ. I want to put my fist thru the radio. You cannot compare the football in the days of yore when 3 yards and a cloud of dust was the mantra that coaches lived by and the forward pass was the "break glass in the case of emergency" solution.
The game has evolved and with coaches and point totals. Gone are the days when winning 14-6 is domination. There were no "style points" in 1974.
Is this defense bad, yes. Were the defenses under Bo better, yes. But if given the same amount of relative talent, RR would most likely be just as successful as Bo.
Speed was not the primary element to those defenses. Now without speed you have no chance. But, speed without knowledge and skill can doom a defense as well.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
Couldn't agree more. How many times is JJ going to quote his book from Woody Hayes?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
quote Woody F'ing Hayes? Isn't he the "anti-christ" of Michigan football.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^
in 1974. Style points were definitely around back then. The computer rankings weren't around, so style points carried heavy influence with the poll voters.
Yes, the game has changed since then, but not so much on the level of number of points scored. Bo's defenses were built on speed and quickness. His middle guards, Henry Hill and Tim Davis for example, were former wrestlers that weighed less than 220 lbs.
In 21 years (247 games), the number of games that Bo's teams scored 30 points or more - 106. Number of games Bo's teams scored 10 points or fewer - 26. Number of games Bo's teams held opponents to 10 points or fewer - 129. Number of games Bo lost where Michigan scored 30 or more - 1 (Miami 1987). Number of games Bo won where Michigan scored 10 or less - 4 (with 2 ties). So these 6-3 games that people remember were pretty rare.
Two differences between now and then - the competitiveness of the Big 10 and non-conference scheduling. For Bo's first 10 years, Michigan State and Purdue were the only teams that could put up much competition to Bo and Woody. That started to change when Hayden Fry came to Iowa. The other is the non-conference schedule. Other than Navy, virtually all of Michigan's non-conference opponents were from what one would consider BCS conferences. I can remember a Tulane game one year, but they never played MAC teams.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
Can we get a comparison of the amount of points Bo's teams scored vs. the amount of points the current team is scoring?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
phil-steele-rr-vs-bo...
Bo enjoyed a huge talent advantage over everyone in the Big Ten except OSU; he had eleven 30+ offensive games in his first two seasons (21 games) RR has had seven in his first 22 games. The times are very different.BTW, six of RR's seven are this year.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^
I was in attendance for virtually all of Bo's home games from 1971 through 1982, and I yield to nobody in my appreciation for the amazing record he compiled. That being said:
1. Bo coached for the most part in the era before scholarship limitations. The size of the teams back then was enormous in terms of numbers of guys on scholarship. Same with OSU. Which meant that Michigan and Ohio State could simply sponge up huge percentages of the top talent available.
2. For virtually the entirety of the '70s and much of the '80s, the Big Ten really was the Big Two and the Little Eight. To a significant extent, this was a result of point #1 above. Seriously, overall the conference was vastly weaker than it is now, and far less competitive on a game-to-game basis for Michigan. It's during this period that Bo's teams racked up a good portion of those tremendous defensive statistics.
3. When you combine the first two factors, Michigan and Ohio State were able to routinely pound Big Ten foes by scores of 55-0 and 49-10 and the like.
4. The offenses during the '70s and early '80s in the Big Ten were predominantly option-oriented attacks. If you were Iowa or Indiana or Minnesota running some variant of the wishbone or the veer going up against Michigan or Ohio State, you were absolutely at a talent disadvantage overall, on both sides of the ball. These offenses, being run-oriented, chewed up the clock at prodigious rates (by today's standards). Once Michigan or the Bucks got up on you by three scores, you're then forced to either start throwing the ball all over the place, using a QB who's not accustomed to doing so, or you stick to your option offense and get ground down by the end of the game. It wasn't until teams like Iowa and Illinois adopted more-or-less pro-set offenses with drop back QBs that the level of competition started to even out, since teams that can throw the ball effectively can score at a pretty rapid pace, compared to ground-oriented attacks.
None of this is intended to make excuses for the putrid defenses RR has fielded the last two years. It was the defensive crapitude I saw us exhibit against Indiana that convinced me that our 4-0 team was going to struggle mightily to get to 6 wins, and I said that to some derision on this blog, where most everybody at that point was convinced we were going to get 8 wins at the minimum. While there are real and serious shortcomings on the defensive roster that RR inherited, he ultimately has to take responsibility for the hiring and retention of certain assistants whose position units have been spectacularly bad in game situations. If RR's tenure here consists of one single contract, I think it will be due primarily to defensive shortcomings.
However, simply comparing the current team to those of a long-bygone era from a statistical point of view has little relevance other than as a historical curiosity. It's just as silly to cite the '47 team that pounded USC 49-0 in the Rose Bowl to complain about Bo's record in Pasadena. Different times, different eras, different results.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
Regarding that 1948 Rose Bowl victory over USC, the 49-0 score matched the 49-0 that M put up on Stanford in 1902, UM's only previous appearance. The headline in the Jan 2 1948 LA Times : "Michigan fails to improve".
November 10th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
the price of bread has gone up 1100% since 1970. The demand for this good must have gone up dramatically in the past 40 years.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
the bread tasted better back then, even though it was so much cheaper. No sugarcoat.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
How many times Did Bo's offense score more than 30 per game? Just asking because I am curious to see if Bo's offense was that prolific.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
Everybody who has already posted has covered my reasons for the comparison between two such disparate eras not being valid. For a pro who makes tons of money dissecting football, I can't believe Steele would be so stupid as to even attempt that kind of a comparison. What's even more puzzling to me is that he actually spent time doing the research.