this place is a joke at times.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
this place is a joke at times.
Because that's totally how statistics work.
After a long night of drinking, I usually did some multi variate regression and analysis of variance*. It works better than pizza
*could explain why I didn't do well on the homeworks
You can make stats say ANYTHING!!!!
Not sobering at all. He's lumped together dozens of teams under completely different circumstances.
Slight correlation does not lead to causation.
on what the record is of a team that has had their record increase progressively with a favorable ratio of Fr-Jr vs. Sr roster
"Slight correlation does not lead to causation." That's exactly the same quote my Psychology professor uses. Do you happen to be my psychology professor?
that any person with any background in statistics uses. I wonder if he is everyone I've ever talked to about statistics.
Whew. Thank God for intro stats.
Good ol' Stats 350, the most useful class that I hated every moment of.
Lou Holtz has also picked ND to win the championship the past 3 years
How many of those teams had 20 or so returning starters? And had half their defensive contributors 1st or 2nd year players?
Never, under any circumstances, do that again. I feel like I'm reading Rivals or Red Cedar.
you're getting laid like your signature suggests? Take it easy; I have seen people do that on here many times.
Or how many of these teams are returning Dilithium?
Cue the "face palm" embeds because this is a joke.
|September 3||Western Michigan||Win||1-0|
|September 10||Notre Dame||Toss-Up||1-1/2-0|
|September 17||Eastern Michigan||Win||2-1/3-0|
|September 24||San Diego State||Win||3-1/4-0|
|October 8||@ Northwestern||Win||5-1/6-0|
|October 15||@ Michigan State||Toss-Up||5-2/7-0|
|November 5||@ Iowa||Toss-Up||6-3/9-0|
|November 12||@ Illinois||Win||7-3/10-0|
|November 26||Ohio State||Loss||
N'Western and Illinois are toss-ups not auto-wins, but I respect you for at least acknowledging that UM won't beat Nebraska or OSU next season. That makes you more realistic than 90% of the people on this board.
Auto wins (no such thing, I know): WMU, EMU, SDSU, Minny and Purdue
Toss-ups: ND, NW, MSU, Iowa, Illinois
Auto losses (again, no such thing): Nebraska, OSU
Looks like 7-5 or 8-4 in the regular season in 2011 by my reckoning.
i think Northwestern and Illinois will have new qbs. Not a guarantee Win but if I have to chalk up why i would even begin to think 7-5 next year can be improved, it will have to take place in those.
Persa is a Jr. and Scheelhaase is a rFr.
But I'll bet Leshoure takes off for the NFL after this season.
Assuming there will be an NFL next season.
Scheelhaase isn't their starter next year. that's all.
Didn't Persa rupture his achilles? I thought that full recovery from a ruptured achilles takes a long time. I don't know if he will be back and at full speed, and his mobility is one of his strengths.
Illinois won't have a new QB unless you think Scheelhaase is getting benched after this season. Dude's only a redshirt freshman. And probably a lot better than Juice Williams, too.
Persa (NW) is a junior and Scheelhaase (Illinois) is a freshman. The will both be back.
I know whining about negs on your own posts is verboten, but maybe complaining about negs someone else receives is more acceptable.
As of 11:50 am EDT, two people have negged msoccer10 for stating the indisputable FACTS that Persa and Scheelhaase will be returning next year. If there was ever proof that there are some on this board who are so unable to have an adult discussion that they will attack people for mentioning facts that they do not like, this is it.
Scheelhaase is a RS frosh? Is he going pro, or Taylor Martinez, or something?
I think Illinois will be tough to beat next year, but Zook makes them difficult to predict.
EDIT: Late to the hate party.
i don't think it's a lock he's the heir apparent. zook's on the pressure cooker and i think (and i could be wrong) Scheelhaase has shown a ceiling already. just my .02
Scheelhaase has made huge strides over the course of the season. I'll be stunned if he isn't starting next year.
I'd be willing to bet that this year teams goes 7-5 on that schedule. So with T-Wolf being on the field again and everyone getting older, I'm hoping for 9 or 10 wins but all that can change with injuries (Please God no)
why do people think we cant beat nebraska or osu? nebraska lost to texas and A&M and if we would have played anything that resembles football in the first half vs wisconsin it would have been a toss up, the same wisconsin team who beat osu. there are always upsets, we will be better next year on both sides of he ball, and fresmen RBs can drastically help a team (dion lewis, michael dyer) so lets hope d. hart can do the same. no doubt in my mind we will be in every single game we play next year and the majority of the games the other team won't be close
?????? Anyone whose takeaway from that Wisconsin game is that it should have been a toss-up has no credibility.
He's got a point in a way. He's not saying Wisco should have been a tossup, he's saying it could have been a tossup. Which...I guess, but eh not really.
Regardless, I too am surprised at the lack of faith in this team to beat OSu or Nebraska next year. Will UM be favored? Probably not. But with so many returning starters on an offense that, though inconsistent, gashes up opposing teams, and a defense with one more experience (and a better DC/staff...please!), plus they're both at home...I'm inclined to believe those are toss up (maybe "leaning towards loss") games as well. And we're not accounting for intangibles and other unforseen circumstances that we won't know until we get there.
we scored no points in the first half and 28 points in the second half, if we would have scored points in the first half we might have stopped them from putting up the last touchdown of the first half and the game would have been close. i don't think the numbers lie.
Do you recognize the fact that we were UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF STOPPING THEM, even when they stopped passing the ball in the second half? Unless you think we should have scored on every possession, that game was never going to be anything resembling a toss-up.
First you show one of the dumbest statistics that could apply to this team. That is like saying "A team from the WAC has 10% chance of beating a team from the Big Ten" When trying to prove Boise State's chances of beating Penn State, which would probably be around 90%. This team is not the average 7-5 team. I would predict that a lot of those teams were from lower-level conferences and got crushed in out of confrence play or we're lower-level BCS conference teams having their peak year(due to experience). Also I doubt that they had the talent returning that our Wolverines do. Now regarding your belief that Michigan has no chance to defeat Nebraska or Ohio St. next year, that is absurd. With the added experience and talent to this team next season it is ridiculous to think that our team has no chance. Also making prediction about having no chnace in next years games when the season is not over and guranteeing a loss this week (I don't believe we'll win, but I always hope) is disrespectful to boys in Maize and Blue who work harder for this university than you ever will.
Why do we think Notre Dame is always a toss-up? We overrate them as much as the rest of the media. Notre Dame is terrible, and Brian Kelly has been terrifically underwhelming in his first year. Yes, we've had close games with them the past two years, but that's because we're not particularly good either. If we legitimately believe that this team (especially the defense) is going to improve over this offseason, there's no reason to think that next year's Notre Dame game - at home, in year 4 of the RR era - should be a toss up.
In conclusion, Notre Dame sucks. SUCKS.
Yes, ND does SUCK, but consider that UM won that game by 4 points on a last minute drive with ND losing the TO margin at -3 and playing most of the first half without their starting QB. The plain fact is that UM was fortunate to win at ND this year.
I think there is enough evidence to believe that ND should be able to challenge UM next season...thus it goes in the "toss-up" category.
Every season Notre Dame is given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be a competent football program...solely because it's Notre Dame. (They were a fringe preseason top-25 team this year, for reasons that are totally beyond me.) They don't deserve it.
If we aren't confident that we can beat Notre Dame next year, at home, we aren't confident at the prospects of this team. If Notre Dame is a toss-up, then the liklihood of us besting this year's record is a lot less likely than everyone here assumes. Michigan State and Illinois on the road are much much tougher games than Notre Dame is at home.
Really, I just can't stand Notre Dame.
More proof that some (not all) people on this board are insane homers incapable of a rationale discussion. Everything Logan88 said above is indisputably correct, yet he is getting negged. Unless and until we have a game against Notre Dame that is not decided by a last minute come from behind drive, in which many breaks go our way, that game has to be considered a toss-up.
We are still a team that eked by Notre Dame, Illinois, Indiana and UMass. Where in the hell do people get off saying that any game against a team like Notre Dame is a sure win?
Fuzzy articulated my thoughts better than I. So, instead, I'll steal Dale Carnegie's:
"When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity"
This is poster child material for delusional Rich Rod supporters -- in their minds Michigan will only get exponentially better while all other teams will stagnate or get worse.
The team has gotten better each year under Rodriguez. At the current rate, we will be 9-3 next year. Also, if people were just saying "Hey, we're Michigan, we'll win just because we are awesome!" you might have a point. But people are looking at who returns next year and assuming a natural progression for freshman and sophomores and are realistic in assuming that next year should be much better.
Very few teams return as much next year as we do. So we should improve as much or more than just about everyone we have faced.
The offense has gotten better each year. Defense and special teams, not so much. If we don't win another game this season, I'm not sure how improved we really are from last season overall. The difference between 5-7 and 7-6 might just be statistical variance. We went 2-3 in one-score games last year and 4-0 this year.
So improving in close games =/= improvement? That's news to me. I mean its not like we even played well in some of those close games.
Because "Michigan will only get exponentially better while all other teams will stagnate or get worse" would give us any lossed or "toss up " games.
You sir are not delusional at all, thank god you are here to set the rest of us straight.
while all other teams will stagnate or get worse.
Your point would be valid but for the fact that Notre Dame has stagnated or gotten worse in every season since 2006.
EDIT - Whoops, Notre Dame did improve from 3 to 6 wins in 2008. Still terrible though.
And how have we done since 2006?
You may not be happy with the results (I'm certainly not), but the team HAS improved in every year of the RR era. Clearly not as much as anyone would have liked, but you cannot deny the existence of improvement, record-wise.
And Notre Dame has a new coach, who has been a proven success at his old school, who can be expected to improve the team in his second year, once players have bought into his system, etc. Sound familiar? Amazing how Michigan is bound to improve over time with Rodriguez at the helm, but Notre Dame under Brian Kelly doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
Add to that the fact that Notre Dame, in Kelly's first season and with a backup quarterback, just got a win over a ranked team. How many times has Michigan accomplished that in the last three years?
Right, their ranked win came over Utah.
Yeah, that Utah who made their way to the No. 5 spot by ...
Beating No. 15 Pitt 27-24 in OT. Pitt is now 6-4 with losses to Notre Dame and UConn.
UNLV (they're 2-9 now)
New Mexico (they're 1-10)
San Jose State (they're 1-10)
Iowa State (5-7)
Colorado State (3-9)
Yes, Utah achieved their #5 ranking by beating only 1 team that currently has a winning record. Utah's victories (up until their #5 ranking) came over teams that are a combined 21-58.
Yes, Utah beat teams who's win percent is an astounding .256 to get their ranking.
Then they got absolutely demolished by TCU and blown out by ND. Hmm... Can someone say overrated?
Kind of comparable to Wiscy 08, no?
I think that game is going to be a dog fight. They have lost close games to BYU, TCU and Utah, and they are only getting better under Brady Hoke. They have their Junior QB coming back who has been sick this season (he had 500+ yards last week against Utah). I am nervious about that game. I would rather play any team in the Big East. SDSU is on the rise. I think it is going to be a shoot out, and if we have a few turnovers, we could easily lose.
Hoke will know how to beat his old team
If you're worried about Brady Hoke, there's a good chance he will be coaching in the Big House.....in either September or October.
He's one of the top candidates for the Gopher job and would be a great hire for that team.
and yes he would be a good hire for the Gophers. I like him as a coach
hasn't looked half bad of late. I'm not sure who they've got back, but I'd be inclined to pencil, not ink, in that win.
ND doesn't lose much so I think "tossup" is appropriate if the only options are win, lose, and tossup, but I think we'll have the edge at home.
I think we will also have a slight edge over MSU and Iowa. MSU loses 6 starters on offense and 5 (including Jones) on defense. Iowa is likely to decline even more than MSU. The offense loses 5 starters including Stanzi. The defense loses 6, including 5 of the front 7.
NW might not be so easy. They have 9 starters back on offense and 7 on defense.
Purdue should be better, but I don't see us losing that one at home coming off a bye.
Illinois looks like a tossup. They return the core of their offense and lose just 3 starters on defense. I know you don't think much of Scheelhaase but in all probability either he will be much improved or they will replace him with someone better.
I'm not ready to concede the Neb or OSU games. Neb's offense is inconsistent this year. They sputtered against Texas' weak run defense. They return 7 starters but lose Helu. The defense loses 5 starters including 3 DBs. OSU's offense loses only the guards and 1 WR but the returners are mostly juniors now and are not likely to improve much. The defense loses 7 starters including all of their difference makers.
Expect to win: WMU, EMU, SDSU, Minn, Pur
Near tossup, but would pick M: ND, NW, MSU, Iowa, Illinois
Near tossup, but would pick opp: Neb, OSU
To finish 7-5 or worse, we would probably have to lose at 3 of the 5 games in the second category, which would be very disappointing.
Obviously, this comes down to one's feelings on toss-up games.
4 of the 5 you have listed are on the road. I believe UM will lose at least 2 and, very likely, 3 of those road games.
My confidence levels re: the toss-up games for UM next season (chance UM wins in parens):
MSU's offense is losing 6 starters but 2 of those starters are a TE and FB which are easily replacable positions with little loss of productivity from player to player. The only significant loss on offense is 3 starting OL. They will still have Cousins, Baker, Bell, Caper and several dangerous WR's back.
How either side of a debate can always find evidence to support their stance. Though you are scarping the bottom of the barrell with Mr. Steele.
I would say there is 11% chance we don't finish with a better record and I don't need Mr. Steele to back up my point.
The only way I see us not improving next years is if the defensive staff remains intact. If that happens, all bets are off.
In other news Brett Favre is reconsidering retirement
I wish I could kick BF in the nuts.
return a large number of starters for the next year, the liklihood of an improved record is very high.
...might be predictive if they didn't ignore every other unquantifiable factor that tells us that next year's team will be better.
You had a nice run being able to add content Logan.
You'd hope that our youth makes us an exception to this generalization. I would like to think that, with another year of experience, our young guys on both sides of the ball will turn those close wins into decisive wins and turn some of those convincing losses into toss-ups. We had a ton of chances against ND and Indiana, for example, to make those games uncompetitive.
I think our unique situation with so much young players makes us exceptional here.
In that case, I guess we should just start over after this season since we are going to be average again next year. Why bother even playing the remainder of the games this season.
You're reading that stat wrong. This stat shows that Michigan is probably on the lucky side of 7-5, so any improvement next year should be off of a baseline of 6-6 or 5-7.
If he just ran returning starters the same way, we'd look like a 4-game improvement perhaps.
It's just too general of a stat. The point is that some of the "improvement" will have to come atop of repeating good luck. Getting an infusion of talent and experience in the secondary next year is, alone, probably worth as much improvement as we got from winning close games this year against Notre Dame, UMass, Indiana, Illinois.
Sixty percent of the time, Phil Steele's predictions work every time.
Funny, that book is on the table, about 5 feet behind me. Still hasn't been opened.
And I can say that with 57.6% honesty because I've read 5/6 of that book*. On nearly every other page I can point to methods that prove you wrong over 75% of the time.
In conclusion, the percent error for the distance the book is behind you as we speak is generally around 64%.
* I may or may not have read more than just the book title, but I think I'm already getting the hang of it.
(2) Consistent Progress.
(3) Next year is a better schedule + time for younger players to get better + T-Wolf and JT Floyd.
A team that wins a bunch of close games one year and doesn't get a lot better the next year will probably regress (like Iowa this year), but we are still getting better, applying these stats to our team is a waste of time. As we get better, we will pull away from teams like Indiana, and compete with teams like Wisconsin. Hopefully, next year we will win a few close games against the better teams in the B10.
We'll probably end up on his "most improved" list again for the third year in a row. He has been putting us there repeatedly because we have been "young" every year and our turnover margin has been terrible.
Also, if you read Phil, you'll see that he doesn't automatically just pick one indicator and predict a record from it. He analyzes each position group. losses from the draft, net yardage differential. Everything.
While you can glean a decent amount from data, this place acts like it's the end all be all. It seems like every week there are 45 charts projecting, predicting, and analyzing.
Did we really need charts to figure out Wisconsin has a massive o-line with good backs and we have a very bad defense. Hence, Wisconsin will probably run at will.
I'm waiitng for a player to tweet that he has indegestion and his farts stink, then someone to immediately put together a chart going over the records of tems who have had a key player fart within 24 hours of kickoff.
There is one game left this year against our most hated rival and then a bowl game. Next year will take care of itself because the A.D. will be making a decision about our future. And he's a hell of an A.D. I trust him to do whatever is best for us. I hope he keeps our coach, but if he doesn't, I'll understand that too. Right now, there's hate to focus and it's on the city of Columbus.
Bring up the stats on returning 21 of 24 starters and see what the improvement is there.
Not saying this is guaranteed, but if we get a favorable bowl match up and light up the scoreboard with a convincing win, we will generate a lot of buzz for top 10 and sleeper categories up the ass next year.
Once all the drama peels away and everyone stops making fun of the defense, guys like Steele are going to look at the returning players, our schedule, Denard etc.... and we are going to be the "It" team going into 2011. Hopefully we handle it better than a Georgia or Clemson or other teams that had everything lined up.
But, Steele also has numbers on returning lettermen, plus starting QB returning that speaks to high percentage chance of improving their record
The problem with trends is you can find confilcting ones all the time for the same team
Agreed, but Iowa is a pretty good team to look at:
Iowa had several close wins last season, Iowa returned a veteran starting QB and a large number of returning starters this season and they have dropped off considerably from where they finished 2009.
I don't think UM is going to fall back to a losing record next season, I just think too many people are expecting UM to win 10+ games next season and there is enough data out there to indicate that UM is more likely to win 7 or 8 in the regular season.
Actually, I think UM will go 7-5 next season which would not be an improvement on this season's (likely) 7-5 record. Thus, UM would fail to be in that rare 11% that improved their record.
To be honest, this post was mostly to demonstrate that UM will PROBABLY not make the huge improvement that most on this board seem to be predicting for 2011. Remember, when a lot of posters thought UM would win 9 or 10 in 2009? Remember when I lot of posters thought UM would win 9 or 10 in 2010? I simply think many fans don't realize that UM is probably going to be a mediocre Purdue-under-Tiller-type program and win 7 or 8 games a year as long as RR is HC.
Now it has simply turned into a "Neg-Logan into oblivion" fest. Sad that there are so many petty people on this board.
Personally, I think MICH is one game better in 2011 after 10 games than they were this year.
I'd say two games better, but like yourself, I have ND in the toss-up category. It's MICH/ND, hello, nothing is a given and expect the unexpected when those two play
I think Michigan wins the other three OOC games, NW, Minny, Illinois, Purdue
So, thast 1-2 in the ND, at MSU, at Iowa trio. MICH can go 1-2 agasint the bunch
I'm think 8-2 heading into the final two.....from there, we'll see if we are in a better position defensively now than then. I'm willing to keep Rich around, but we had better be in a better position to compete and win those final 2 games than we are now. I'd rather not fire people, that's just me, however.
But, the Steele close game theory does conflict with a couple of his other theories that foretell improvement, like his numbers on experience that I brought up. Thats my real point
I read the Phil Steele magazine pretty thoroughly every year and I think that his "close wins theory" makes sense when you're talking about a team whose level of talent is stagnent from one year to the next. With Michigan, that doesn't apply, as the team's young guys coming back greatly outnumber the seniors leaving (as you mention). Michigan also ought to be able to reduce its turnovers next year, another measuring stick that Steele uses.
that Nebraska and OSU are automatic losses next year.
Basically, i view every Big 10 game next year outside of MN and Purdue as a tossup. With a year under Denard's belt, a maturing offense, and a defense that HAS to be better than this year (even if marginally so), why should any game be a absolute loss?
I would predict, right now, a 9 win season.
Phil Steele is strictly into stats and in my opinion does not do a good job of understanding the intangibles that go into college football.
Apparently the go to resposne here is to mock you. I've seen several other threads here that say Phil Steele is a pretty reliable guy, but I guess not when he doesn't say what you want to hear.
As far as an actual response, I don't think this is an unreasonable thing to post. When you look at this as a generality, it's not at all unreasonable. If you saw a team that won three games in the last minute and got blown out four times, it's not unreasonable to expect that things might not go as well next season.
2011's schedule is a double edge sword. Sure, you get Nebraska and OSU at home, but you also have to go to Iowa, MSU, and Northwestern. Maybe it's better to just play your two toughest games on the road if you are likely to lose them anyway and move the more toss up games home.
So, if you're saying next regular season is going to be an improvement, you are assuming that UM will win one of @Iowa, @MSU, Nebraska, or Ohio State, OR not slip up anywhere else on the schedule. I'm optimistic, but that doesn't mean ending up 7-5 again or worse is at all out of the question.
With two games to play, he might not be wrong
The does not shock me. It's kinda like how people's activity on the board changes based on result of the MICH game.
I am a big Steele fan, myself. I could not be ready for the season without his preseason mag
In his mag, he called for a winning record, return to bowl game, but also had OSU, Iowa, Wisco, PSU and MSU all picked ahead of MICH in the Big 10.
Sounds like he's been pretty dead on.
It's like in HTTV, all of pegged the team as 7-5....how in the world can I freak out when my prediction is actually, you know, coming true
People's ignorance of how statistics works is so mindblowing sometimes allthetime. Damn it.
But yeah that statistic is super interesting and suggests (insinuates?) we've been super lucky all year and we won't be anywhere near as lucky next year. Let's go jump off a cliff like a pack of lemmings. You first.
Woh woh woh, statistics say we have been Lucky all year? I think statistics should have a little sit down with Angry Michigan Hating God, because he has made it a point that this should not happen.. and he has forbidden it for quite a while now.
sobering stastic. Ed: bump to front page? :)
What is with everyone on this board being so reliant on statistics. Statistically PennSt. should have been a win. Statistically Jonas Mouton is a better linebacker than Greg Jones. Statistically if the election were today Sarah Palin would be our president. I don't remember who said it, but my hat goes off to the individual who said the following: " There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are STATISTICS"
Mark Twain who said that.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Well said, sir. Well said.
And liars figure...
Well then, I don't see any need to waste my money on tickets next season. My wife thanks you in advance.
Brock Mealer was given a 1% to ever walk again. I'm just saying.
I'm gonna go ahead and wait till after spring ball to start throwing around prediction. Who's the DC/staff/scheme? Transfers? I know I should be a politician "I always tell the truth, even when I lie."
I've been coming to this site for a long time, and it's always been that way. The key difference between MGoBlog and Rivals or MLive isn't that MGoBlog never has silly, dumbass stuff, but that those other sites never have anything but silly, dumbass stuff. No blog like this that allows open posting is ever going to be as totally erudite and brilliant as a blog that is highly controlled with limited posting access.
Totally agree. I'm fine with the occassional dumb or overly-controversial posts, and I think the mods do a very good job keeping the place clean. I will never post on a Rivals forum because the insanity there would scar me for life.
The standards around here have sunk pretty low this season.
I think this is a fair statistic, but I also think that "lucky" wins can be misleading and overly simplistic for a given situation. With a team like Iowa last year, they were winning games with a largely-veteran program by the skin of their teeth, and MSU has apparently inherited that magic this year. I wouldn't be surprised to see MSU regress next year because of it. But with UM, you have an incredibly young team that has been making strides in spite of massive injuries and attrition. Next year the team returns 19 starters and finally has some depth, and for those reasons I think good money is on this team winning between 8-10 games. I'm not going to knock Steele's reasoning here, but in that 11% you tend to find teams like UM.
Another is draft day hangover - we won't be subjected to that, for the 3rd or 4th straight year.
Yet another is Turnovers = Turnaround - that too should play into our favor.
So, we're +1 in Steele's random correlation department. Another thing he looks at in the back of his annuals are upper/under classmen for each school, by conf. We were near the bottom this year, and will be slowly inching upward next year.
All that has to bump us up to at least 13%...
Turnovers = Turnaround
and last, compared to 2008...
Still was still correct here.
His TO Turnaround does not say that TOs will be better, although its an obvious implication.
But, the whole article spells out how teams record will improve the following year, not that their TO margin will specificall get better,
So, in 2008, MICH had a double digit minus TO margin. Per his numbers, they should imrpove their record in 2009 and they did going from 3 to 5 wins.
In 2009, MICH still had a double digit TO margin. Per his numbers, they should improve their record in 2010 and they did going from 5 to 7 wins....and technically still counting.
Translation? If MICH ends up with another DD minus TO margin when the 2010 season is in the books, then expect another increase in wins
ALright, so as Logan points out, PHIL's close win theory predcits no improvement for Michigan in 2011
PHIL also has an experience formula that if I am reading it correclty--unlike my comments above I didnt have the magazine in front of me--puts MICH in 2011 in the 89.1% chance of improving their mark.
Like I said, for every trend/stat in favor of something there is usually one that also goes against it. I guess this is another example.
Anyway, the five teams that qualified for his experience formula this year were Boise, Ball St, Arky, Rice and UNC........Boise cant really improve their record from last to this year. Ball State, Rice and Arky have won 2, 1, 1 more games already this year than last. UNC has not, but I'd be willing to bet (what, really?) that UNC does not qualify for this formula once all those suspensions hit.
Anyway, I am rambling. My only point to Logan the OP and everyone else is that there are dueling Steele theories than conflict when using them to forecast 2011 MICH...otherwsie, Logan is right, There is a metric Steeele uses when determining a team's worth in the offseason that does point to a lack of improvement in 2011. I'm just pointing out that there is another one that says the opposite
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
are based on past perfomance and trends that he "sees" when looking at stats. He predicted OSU and Oklahoma in the NC game. He has predicted Michigan woud significantly decrease its turnovers the ast two years and that has not happened. With the state of the program and the unpredictability of freshman and sophomores and their impulsive decisions, it is next to impossible to predict the outcomes for this team in the future.
Will the offense be the same or better next year, one would assume, but assuming the defense will be better just because they are a year older/wiser and less injured is reaching somewhat as well. There are so many variables that go into it. The one variable that shouldn't exist is the defensive scheme. Dump any notion of the 3-3-5, hire a real DC and let him pick his entire staff and scheme. If RR is an offensive genius, then hire a competent DC and let him do his thing.
2005 season: 7-5
2006 season: 11-1
That is all.
I feel that the stat of virtually everyone coming back next year including Woolfolk means more to improvement than a team winning some close games.
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners."
- Bill Belichick