Reasons for hope: Win Pct vs. Trends in years under LC and RR
RR is often criticized based on the low win pct so far. The big dropoff from LC’s win percentage shocked many of us. Certainly, one can blame RR, the system, coaching changes, the players, or even just bad luck for the poor first season. In any case, there’s a lot of error in just considering one season. It doesn’t accurately reflect the direction of the program as a whole. So, what happens when we look at this direction: that is, the average trends in the UM program as a whole, irrespective of coach? Has the program been getting worse?
To answer this question, I looked at the trends since LC took over in 1995 (based on a moving average involving each four year period). The data below suggest that, while the LC’s record was generally excellent—in fact, even above our NCAA-leading all-time win pct-- it declined after the Moeller-as-HC recruits circulated out of the system for 3 years. Afterwards, there was also a small trend downward under LC (amounting to .125 fewer wins each year). Possibly, this result lends mild support to the idea that the program was slowly going downhill.
What we find, unsurprisingly, is a big dropoff initially with the coaching change—the size over two years is .75 more games lost on average per season * However, just as Moeller gets some credit for the first 3-years of LC’s record, LC gets some blame for the first 3 years of RR’s record. LC does not bear responsibility for the coaching but he does bear some responsibility for the recruits.
There is some mildly reassuring news too. Assuming a 7-6 final record this year (including either a win or loss in the bowl game), there is no further decline in the average this season (it stays at 7.5). Possibly, RR has stopped the bleeding—which began as a small series of skin cuts under LC and appeared to become a gushing, cut artery when the coaching change occurred.
So, the bleeding may be coming under control, and the patient can probably be taken out of intensive care. But the patient is not yet entirely out of the woods. Note that, just as LC had a slight positive bump in his third year average, we should expect a slight negative bump in the total win average next year (unless UM wins 11 games). This bump will disappear if RR wins 9 games in his fourth year. The trend will continue to be upward for each successive 8+ win season; but RR needs a string of 9+ win seasons and a tenure approaching LC’s to match or exceed LC’s record.
Data
Toal wins and average wins for four successive seasons beginning in 1995 to present.**
9, 8, 12,10 avg 9.75
8,12,10,10 avg 10
12,10,10,9 avg 10.25
10,10,9,8 avg 9.25
10,9,8,10 avg 9.25
9,8,10,10 avg 9.25
8,10,10,9 avg 9.25
10,10, 9,7 avg 9.25
10,9,7,11 avg 9.25
9,7,11,9 avg 9.0
7,11, 9,3 avg 7.5
11,9,3,7 avg 7.5 (7-6 season assumed for this year)
*The dropoff with the coaching change admittedly was more rapid, taking only two years to lose 1.5 more games on average, compared with the decline of 1.0 games on avg under LC over 10 years.
**Note that a few of the season involved 12 rather than 13 games total, but the 12-game seasons were spread over the 12 year period. So, just considering total wins shouldn’t affect the trends much. If anything, they will probably increase slightly the decline under LC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Carr
November 5th, 2009 at 8:09 PM ^
I've seen more numbers this week than a bad episode of Real World.
Good post though.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^
I was crunching some numbers recently and discovered this: E=MC2
November 5th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
make math look exciting!!!
November 5th, 2009 at 8:39 PM ^
This is very impressive, but frankly the math went way over my head. For me the most important number to keep in mind with respect to this team is the fact that there are 39 scholarship players on the roster who aren't freshmen (this includes former walk-ons Moundros and Sheridan). There aren't enough guys in the sophomore, junior, and senior classes to make a two-deep. In the secondary, there aren't enough guys for a one-deep (Woolfolk, Warren and Williams are the only non-freshman DB's on scholarship). By comparison, we have 33 freshmen on scholarship, most of whom are very talented if you believe the folks who scout high school players for a living.
When this first number goes up (as it almost certainly will), we can expect (and I'm sure we'll get) much better results. To expect better than .500 results before then shows a complete ignorance of what it takes to field a successful football team.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^
Yes, I noticed on OSU's roster that 17 out of the starting 22 O and D players were either juniors or seniors.* That's a big advantage for them this year--like when they had 5th year Troy Smith or 6th year Boeckman.
However, this year, there is a lot of motivation ($$$) for those Juniors to enter the draft. So OSU could have as few as 5 returning starters. No matter how many Juniors go, we'll clearly have a l
*(oddly, they listed Boren as a Freshman, I don't know if this is a mistake and he should be counted as a Junior too).
November 5th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
No matter how many Juniors at OSU go, we'll clearly lose far less and be much better off than we are this year.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^
Boren used up two years of eligibility at Michigan (and his redshirt year last year when he transferred), so he is a junior.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:06 PM ^
There seems to be an abnormally high volume of number crunchers that contribute to this blog. It astounds me what you people can do with numbers. I use the phrase "number crunchers" for a reason. That was the name of a "math" game I played in elementary school. The game was on a floppy disk. I swear to god my ability to understand numbers and use math has not progressed beyond that point in my life.
Kudos to you sir.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
And there was also Word Munchers. Oregon Trail was also sweet. The Apple IIE had some bad ass games.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:33 PM ^
You said: "The data below suggest that, while the LC’s record was generally excellent—in fact, even above our NCAA-leading all-time win pct" which is correct; and
We were 3-9. I mean Three Wins and Nine Losses last year. That's like the worst ever (at least almost). So, no, moving averages are ridiculous in this scenario. ]
Why don't you try to chart the extraordinary dip in the moving average which was last year?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
You seem to echo the media hyperbole about one season at UM. But, if you go back in time, you'll find that, in the not too distant past, programs like the currently glorified Florida did a lot worse than 3-9. They went essentially 0-11 twice. So did that mean that Florida was dead meat?
One season is a blip in time that people will quickly forget. It does not along define the direction of a program. To see that direction from another perspective--and I am not saying it's the only perspective--I have argued that it is useful to look at a moving average is to eliminate "noise" in the data. This considers more than just one year. For instance, if you use cnn another website to look up your stock performance, it will ask you if you want to graph a moving average. People do so because it helps them filter out the noise and more clearly see trends.
Similarly, when you are trying to look at what direction a football program is heading, considering just a single season is misleading. Many factors, as I stated, can produce a bad year. But if you look at multiple years, you may begin to see more meaningful trends.
I hope this explanation helps.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^
That one season just happened to be the worst "blip" in UM history and wiped out 40 years of tradition. And it is being followed by another "blip" that threatens to make last year look like a cakewalk because two of these "blips" in a row is unfathomable to any sane UM fan.
I'm sorry, there just isn't enough room at the Rationalization & Justification Suites for me to even TRY to check in.
That so many people feel the need to crunch data in so many oddball ways because they have run through their bank accounts buying all the Rolaids in the world suggests that, well, they are really feeling the pinch and are fishing big time.
I know there's a guy hiding in some basement bunker wearing a set of Michigan jammies, hugging his red stapler and comparing the number of shaved armpits among cleft-palated midgets in Luxembourg to the number of wins and points scored by Michigan in the last 21 games to extrapolate some theory that by 2012 Michigan will begin a 79 game winning streak--so all we gotta do is HOLD ON BABY!
Good luck with that one.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:11 AM ^
you and any other fan out there that wants to say he SPOILED tradition and TWO LOSING SEASONS is entirely unacceptable and should never happen at Michigan are a bunch of whiney assed arrogant fuck faces and should kindly get the fuck out from our fan base. ungrateful cocksuckers. rather than say "man, we've been really fortunate to not have ANY downturns in 40 YEARS" you turn and say "RAWWWWR UNACCEPTABLE NOT MICHIGAN MAN EVIL DOERRR."
go fuck yourself. I'm going to give the dude a pass until he get the talent in for his offense and his defense before I call for his head.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
About your anger issues. You should get that checked out.
But I'll tell ya what: YOU give him that "free pass" until he gets "his players"--and then you and he can run off to Hawaii and elope when his ass gets canned.
Great coaches win with the talent at hand. Their teams certainly do not resemble car wrecks nine games into their second seasons--car wrecks that are getting worse, btw.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
you're correct. one or two bad teams in one's tenure should == fired every single time.
I mean Lloyd or Les Miles or Dantonio or whoever you support probably never had miserable seasons. Pete Carroll's winning is straight from him being a superior coach. talent has little effect on the equation. Florida International agrees.
coaching can only do so much. you can't coach a turd into a top 3 big ten team.
tell me these superior coaches that have won at the major collegiate level with less than half of their 22 starters being returning upperclassmen.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
Bear Bryant won one game in his first season at Texas A&M following massive roster attrition (though unlike Rodriguez, the Bear purposefully brought about that attrition). He won a conference championship a few years later and then went on to Alabama where he did a pretty nice job coaching their team. As the Bear used to say, "You can't make chicken salad without any chicken."
So, you may not put other mens' penises in your mouth as others suggested (not that there's anything wrong with that), but you could not be more wrong when you say, "Great coaches win with the talent on hand."
November 6th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
...but one season doesn't wipe out forty years of tradition unless you are a Sparty fan. Then you can rewrite history to reflect one good or bad year all you want. You can even make one good year wipe out forty years of ineptitude, like they did last year.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:20 PM ^
One season, no matter how bad, can't erase 40 years of tradition.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:49 AM ^
I think it's important to note that the talent gaps between big schools and little schools has decreased significantly in recent years, especially with the advent of the spread offense and other talent leveling schemes.
The internet and technology has increased the amount of information on recruits and made the "market" for recruits much more efficient which means smaller schools get better players.
In recent years many a Div I AA school have beaten their Div I A counterparts (cough) and I think we need to realize that it's harder than ever to simply dominate the competition year in and year out.
I'd be interested to see if those number munchers? crunchers? could look and see if the amount of undefeated or one loss seasons has decreased over recent years.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:48 AM ^
I remember SC fans making the parity argument during the Hackett years about how expectations needed to adjust because the game had changed. Along comes Pete Carroll and they are a juggernaut. Same goes for OU, Texas, and now (it looks like Alabama). I think the elite programs (Michigan being one of them) have a much higher ceiling once they get the ball rolling with the right coach.
One thing I'd like to see researched is the rise of recruiting rankings and their effect on parity. There is so much more information out there now and such better analysis of prospects (as opposed to coaches relying on their own tape observations and word of mouth). I think this helps the elite programs in the country who have an advantage signing blue-chip prospects and are now much less likely to be out-scouted by inferior teams. I don't think it is a coincidence that recently OU/Texas have dominated the Big 12 (6 of last 7 conference titles), SC has owned the Pac 10 (7 straight titles), and in the Big Ten only Michigan, OSU, PSU, and Iowa have won a share of the conference in that same time-frame.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^
I would say this statistic is a lot more relevant on a very larger scale. You could probably compile these numbers to review the decline of Army, but this does not say anything about the future without MAJOR assumptions that can not be made. One of them being that improvement will occur. If you want to see signs of hope, go watch the spring game next year and see if they can tackle or not, and if they can hold onto the football. Once they stop commiting fundamental errors I bet any sort of trend will become concave up. Interesting application of win percentage though, I like the premise in a general sense.