Utah and Michigan - Scores and Turnovers

Submitted by BornInAA on

I averaged the scores for this young season and last year for both Utah and Michigan.

Michigan

Average Points Scored : 32         Cupcakes Removed: 29

Average Points Allowed: 25         Cupcakes Removed: 30

Average Rank of Ranked Opponents: 14

Utah

Average Points Scored : 33         Cupcakes Removed: 25

Average Points Allowed: 27         Cupcakes Removed: 30

Average Rank of Ranked Opponents: 12

This shows me that Utah is not the offensive powerhouse people are deriving from the last two games. Rather, we match up quite evenly.

That said, when matched with an even opponent, turnovers play a key. Here, Michigan has given up 18 interceptions to Utah's 21. Again, very evenly matched. (For comparision, the cream of the crop of each conference turnovers: Oregon 6 , MSU 9)

BloomingtonBlue

September 14th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^

They also hired a new offensive coordinator this year, Dave Christensen. Who was the Head Coach at Wyoming until being fired at the end of last year. This is their seventh offensive coordinator in 7 years. First game on the road, new coordinator hopefully we will see some bumps in the road.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Blue NY Gold

September 14th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

Last years team, Does not = this years team For either squad.. I see what you are trying to do, but I think taking last years results and applying them to this year is a bit of a mistake. I do think 2 games is not enough info to be 100% about them being a "powerhouse" though. Thank you for compiling data anyway.

noel

September 14th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^

My son and I are huge UM fans, but we live out of state and are planning on driving up for a game this season.  It is a high school graduation gift from me. He has never been to a game, and I have only been to one.  I saw tickets for sale on StubHub in Section 30, which is marked as the student section.  Do you have to have a student ID for those seats?  I thought that might give him the best experience of a game, or is there a better section to buy tickets in where we can have an awesome experience?

egrfree2rhyme

September 14th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^

I personally love sitting in the student section because of the atmosphere (although it's been since 2011 since I live abroad) but we aware that you probably won't get to sit in your actual seat.  Instead you just will go to that section and find whatever space is available.  Then, if a big group of students sits right next to you you'll likely have to move down to accommodate them, so you'll definitely have a spot but you might need to be kind of flexible.  Also, you're likely to be near some really really drunk people and you'll have to stand for the entire game.

If none of that bothers you, though, the atmosphere in the student section is better than in the rest of the stadium IMO and section 30 has a great view.

EGD

September 14th, 2014 at 7:14 PM ^

Out of those choices, Section 41 is going to give you the best view of the field--though what row you are in can also make a big difference. The student section is definitely a different experience than the rest of the stadium; I was personally over that by around age 25 but to each his own. Have fun!

elhead

September 14th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^

We have stats from this year to be concerned about - ours. If we get sloppy the way we did yesterday during the second quarter then we could have hell to pay with Utah. I liked the way we tightened up at the half against Miami but I don't think that we'll have the same luxury this week.

PurpleStuff

September 14th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

I think Utah is a lot better than they have been the last two years.  They've been playing a young QB and dealing with the move up to the Pac-12.  Their roster is in better shape now and their staff has a track record of being pretty good when the pieces are in place (beat Bama in a BCS bowl not too long ago). 

So I think they are at least a decent Pac-12 team, which takes us to our recent track record against that conference:

In 2000 we lost to a UCLA team that went 6-6.  In 2001 we lost to a Washington team that finished 8-4.  In 2002 we needed a crazy dumb penalty and a last second FG to beat a Washington team that went 7-6.  That same year we played a Utah team that went 5-6 and edged past them by a score of 10-7.  In 2003 we lost to an Oregon team that went 8-5 and got beaten soundly by USC in the Rose Bowl.  In 2004 we played another west coast team and beat San Diego State 24-21.  In 2006 we lost to USC again in the Rose Bowl.  In 2007 we got smoked at home by Oregon.  In 2008 we lost to Utah (again, pre-Pac-12 move). 

So basically, since I enrolled in college, we've never once played well against a Pac-12 team.  Throw in the current state of the team/program, and that is why I think Utah is going to beat us.

Reader71

September 14th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

You are a maestro. Utah's past performance in games that Utah plays with Utah's players and Utah's coaches are not as good of an indicator as Michigan's past performance (starting 14 years ago) in differing venues against teams in Utah's conference? I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but you are better than THIS. Utah's results from last season are not a great indicator of what the team is like now, sure. But what does Michigan's performance against UCLA in 2000 have to do with anything? The implications of such a suggestion are so stupid. I can't believe you really typed this. Holy shit! Also, as a little stupid cherry on top, Utah joined the Pac 12 in 2011. If they were still in the MWC, would they get the old 2001 Washington bump?

PurpleStuff

September 14th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^

You probably thought we'd beat all the other mediocre west coast teams we've played over the years.  We didn't beat any of them unless we got lucky and they kind of sucked at football. 

Pac-12 >>>>>>> B1G and has been going back to Bo's time (Do we need a reminder of his Rose Bowl record?)

You're assuming because they look like a 7-8 win team in that league and we look like a 7-8 win team in the B1G that we're even.  I'm pointing out that given those assumptions, we still are not close to being even. 

Unless we are somehow a lot better than we've looked the last 11 games or Utah is actually somehow terrible, then they are the better team and we'll see the evidence of that on Saturday.

 

Gulogulo37

September 14th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^

"dealing with the move up to the Pac-12"

So the last few years they haven't been that good because they've been too busy unpacking boxes to practice as much as they should? They should have hired the movers who helped Mizzou and Texas A&M to the SEC.

I'm aware our track record against the Pac-12 generally sucks, but I also don't at all buy the fact that we lost to UCLA 14 years ago so that probably means we'll lose to Utah. Utah wasn't even in the Pac-12 at that time. So does that even count? Not sure how this BS theory works so help me out.

You're arguing it's just a reflection that the Pac-12 is better and has been for a long time, but there are plenty more data points than Michigan. Hell, Wisconsin played the most MANBALL of football and I'm pretty sure Alvarez was 2-2 in Rose Bowls. Also, the SEC is even better than the Pac-12 and yet Carr had a great record against them, so your logic fails pretty hard there. Do you think his final win against Florida was because he was calling on the victory spirits from the past or because they decided to finally use all that talent they had on the field and Florida's defense wasn't that good that year?

egrfree2rhyme

September 14th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^

I agree that all this information has little (or nothing) to do with how we'll fare this weekend, but it's still really interesting IMO.  In general, comparing past teams or analyzing how teams have done against schools from a certain region may not be particularly useful for predicting future results (especially because turnover of players and coaches in college football is so high) but it's still interesting which is why I think it's done so often.

Appreciate the good post.

umchicago

September 14th, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^

"This shows me that Utah is not the offensive powerhouse people are deriving from the last two games. Rather, we match up quite evenly."

Even?  That's the problem.  It's Utah fergodsakes.

Reader71

September 15th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^

From one viewpoint, I agree 100%. If we're discussing the state of the program, Michigan should never be compared to Utah. But this is a discussion about an actual game that we will be tasked with winning next Saturday. In the context of that football game, being even is better than being worse and worse than being better. Throw in our good home record and their bad road record, and I think that should give Michigan fans some confidence in winning that game.

goblue81

September 14th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^

This game scared me before the season and the way we've been turning the ball over, I'm not so confident going into this game.  I think the consensus that its an even match up is pretty spot on.  I think our tendancy to turn the ball over and inconsistent play (or consistentlyplaying down compared to our talent level) makes this a dangerous game.  

HOWEVER, this game could be the game where we turn the corner and start playing like a team determined to win the B1G championship.  The talent is there - we just have to put it all together.  This weekend is the perfect opportunity to gain some much needed confidence for Gardner, RBs, OL, CBs, etc... Eliminate the mental mistakes and start dropping the hammer on people.

switch26

September 14th, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^

Nerbraska just played Fresno State on the road and dropped the same amount of points as Utah against them..

 

Utah did give up almost 30 to a crappy fresno state team though..

 

I don't think Nebraska's offense is very good outside of abdullah anyway, so i think Utah and Nebraska are pretty similiar..  

 

Our defense should hold them to a lower score.  Hopefully we can run the ball