things go poorly
|2 days 21 hours ago||When Rich-Rod Was Here, Support the Troops Was An Argument||
It was also an excuse -- if only everyone would've supported the coach, supported the troops, etc., then...
|9 weeks 22 hours ago||Missing the Obvious Answer||
This is likely not about getting cheap home games, but a clear scheduling preference by Beilien and co. You have a young team, you want some opportunities to build confidence, try different things in game settings, etc. While the overall RPI might take a small hit, playing teams in the 190s vs the 290s doesn't affect how many top 50 or top 100 RPI wins you have. And with the B1G being so good, the end of year RPI is always high if you do well. The marginal difference in overall RPI might not make the increased chance of losing one of those games worth it if you're trying to game it out. But it seems to me it's just a clear choice by the coaching staff: in the nonconf they want (1) big-time games and (2) games the team is going to win by 20 pts, and that's about it.
|28 weeks 6 days ago||whoops||
|28 weeks 6 days ago||The stats and experts disagree||
Beilein is considered a master of late-game/out-of-time plays. ESPN's Fraschilla tweeted last night about JB being a maestro after the play for GRIII. Dakich has praised this about JB too. And the stats suggest that JB and Michigan have been the best in the B1G the past couple of years in out-of-timeout situations.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||It was execution, but that doesn't excuse the coaches||
A way to beat that type of defense is with big passing plays. These plays were there for the taking. That first pass on the first drive should have been a touchdown. On the third drive we get this: DG "can't find Funchess wide, wide open on a circle route for the first down and instead takes off." On the fourth drive we get this: "Funchess runs a great route that gets separation; Michigan protects it; Gardner chucks it wide."
I'm not blaming DG and excusing the coaches. It's the coaches job to get the QB ready to execute the gameplan. And to have linemen and RBs who can pass protect. But the "scheme" actually had pretty wide open TDs or close to it on a whole bunch of drives, including the first few. That's not a bad scheme.
Richrod had 28 yards total rushing his second year @MSU, but people go crazy for his scheme.
|46 weeks 6 days ago||The problem isn't timing, it's jumping to conclusions...||
...without sufficient data. As Sherlock Holmes will you tell you old chap, "it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theores, instead of theories to suit facts."
|49 weeks 1 day ago||This could be true, but these||
This could be true, but these are the kinds of rumors I don't put much stock in. First, it's a rumor of what other players say Booker said. That's a game of telephone, that is. And players often have no idea what exactly is going on -- that one kid was sure that Grantham was following him to Cincinnati and then the Bearcats were out of the picture a couple days later. Meanwhile, even Ulis publicly said that Booker hasn't told him anything although they've talked about playing together, and Booker seems to have been careful not to say anything publcly in advance of his Missouri trip.
All that said, I'd certainly rather have the rumor be that he's telling people he's going to UM, and thanks for the info.
|49 weeks 5 days ago||You have to count Doyle||
Not counting him because he was an early commit makes no sense. Hatch was originally a 2013 guy so we can exclude him in discussing 2014.
Here's another way to think about it:
Early offers/high interest:
Doyle - commit
Chatman - commit
Looney - miss
Diop - miss
Tate - miss
Bluiett - miss
Booker - ?
Edwards - partiall miss?
Blackmon - ?
Wilson - ?
Devin Robinson? - miss
Grantham - miss
By my count, we're 2 out of 6 so far on early offers/high interest. That strikes me as very good considering how high these guys were rated and that none of them were from Michigan. Remember, Doyle reportedly had OSU, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Miami offers. You can't get every high-rated guy you go after, and it's very hard to come in late on high-rated guys who've had people recruiting them for ages. The final grade will depend on getting one of Booker/Blackmon (or I guess Bluiett or Bolden maybe), but so far they've done very well after two pretty exceptional years. I'd say they have a good recruiting strategy.
|49 weeks 6 days ago||If true, my guess would be a 2015 guy||
Maybe Jalen Brunson? Although that's based on zilch other than no 2014 guys seems to fit and good-but-no-insider vibes on his recruitment. After all, his dad was an NBA player -- those guys tend to mesh with our staff. Plus, Illinois got a top 2014 PG and they were thought to be our major competition. Just to add total internet speculation to unverified speculation, though I hope it's all true.
|50 weeks 22 hours ago||I don't see it that way for Booker/Blackmon||
Blackmon and Booker both have Kentucky offers. If Kentucky was really the first choice for both, one would jump on it. There may be some interplay between Blackmon, Booker, and Oubre, but my guess is it's much less simple than how Brian depicts it. After McGary, Irvin, Chatman, etc., the evidence shows that UM has a good shot at the prospects they're in on seriously no matter who else is there too.
|50 weeks 6 days ago||I get your point, but...||
...there's also been some revisionist history the other way. In his first game, Trey went 1-7 against Ferris State with 0 assists. He had 7 assists and 6 TOs in his first 3 games. Over the course of the year, his asst/TO ratio was 1.66 and he shot just under 35% from 3. He was bad against Ohio St. in the B1G tourney and pretty poor against Ohio in the NCAA tourney. If he'd left after 1 year, he might not have been drafted at all (and was certainly unlikely to be a 1st rounder).
Don't get me wrong, he was great for a freshman his 1st year and well-above his ranking. But he improved greatly from how he came in, a testament to his hard work, the coaching staff, and his teammates. Walton might or might not be better at the same stage, but it's not a crazy statement.
|51 weeks 16 hours ago||Has Sam Webb said anything about Booker lately?||
He's been pretty bullish overall and he is usually in the know. Until he goes negative, I'll continue to think we have a good shot.
McGary's recruitment was a lot like Booker's. Some go your way, some don't. Booker's had a process in place for a long time and I wouldn't take too much from the fact he hasn't committed yet.
|51 weeks 16 hours ago||OSU won the B1G tourney this||
OSU won the B1G tourney this year. For the 2nd time in those 3 years (the other was a finals loss to MSU). Win total is affected by the B1G tourney too, for better and for worse. Overall, success is (perhaps unfairly) measured in large part by NCAA tourney success, so it might be underweighted by looking at win total (vs, say, the nonconference schedule). But the point is taken that overall wins is only one measurement.
|51 weeks 16 hours ago||True, although IU's been||
True, although IU's been doing pretty well on the recruiting trail and has a higher profile than PU. If IU keeps pulling in recruits like Zeller, Ferrell, and Vonleh they'll win a lot of games.
|51 weeks 17 hours ago||OSU has the best case for success over the next 3 years||
Quick quiz: who leads the B1G in overall hoops wins the past three years:
Answer: OSU, by a country mile, with 94 (including a final four run, an elite 8 run, and a tip to the sweet sixteen).
In second place we have our own UM with 76 (and a run to the finals). MSU is just behind us in 3rd with 75 (topping out with 2 Sweet 16 appearances), with Wiscy next at 74. Obviously strength of nonconference schedule has something to do with all of this, but OSU's case over the last 3 years is head and shoulders above anyone else's.
OSU has also been doing pretty will on the recruiting trail - Rivals has them with 5 4-stars and 2 5-stars coming in in the 2013-15 classes.
I understand why MSU gets props from the national media, but OSU has been the best B1G program over the last little while. Obviously UM has been doing pretty well the last little bit too and is trending upward. With IU on the rise, Illinois probably improving, MD coming in, MSU and Wiscy hard to discount, the B1G is really going to be tough the next few years.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Larry Brown was the most||
Larry Brown was the most successful college to pro guy.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||No, that was Vince Edwards...||
...who was down to Purdue and Michigan. Bluiett supposedly is considering a whole bunch of teams, though Butler was believed to be the leader with Michigan 2nd.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||It is not true that Michigan||
It is not true that Michigan "never, ever posts guys up" -- the coaches tried it with Horford and McGary at times. And they will certainly do it more this year. Look for Mitch in particular to get more opportunities with the ball in the high post and the low block. How large a part of the offense it becomes and whether it could emerge as a late-game go-to set are the questions.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Beilein's track record with preferred walk-ons is impressive||
Former walk-on Sai Tummala just committed to Arizona State as a scholarship player. Other guys like Eso and Josh turned down mid-majors or playing time at Ivy schools. It might not be quite as flashy as the improved top-end recruiting, but getting these guys is another example of JB and crew doing the work from top to bottom, of working on the top five recruit starter to the practice squad behind the scenes leader.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||According to Tillman's AAU||
According to Tillman's AAU coach, Tillman has interest but no offer yet from UM. This is from a @UMHoops RT of a tweet from the coach @MichaelAllie
|1 year 20 weeks ago||The effort to downplay Nik's||
The effort to downplay Nik's year is peculiar to me.
In B1G play, Nik had the 12th best 3pt% in the entire conference, and was 3rd for freshmen (behind Harris and Dekker), not bad when "don't let Stauskas shoot a 3" was the 1st or second emphasis (don't let Burke into the lane being the other) of every defense.
He currently stands 3rd in career 3pt% in Michigan history (behind Rice and Higgins) and his season was the 9th single best season in 3pt% in Michigan history (all the others occurred wh the line was shorter, by the way).
He shot "just" 38% from 3 for the tournament. That seems pretty good. Trey shot 31% for comparison. It's also easy to play the "if you take" game. If you take out Nik's worst game of the tournament, he shot 45% from the field in the tourney. If you take Nik's two worst B1G games out, he shot 41% from 3.
So, I guess it's true that Nik doesn't shoot as well as a freshman in B1G play when some of the best defenses in the country are keyed on stopping him from shooting the 3 as he does in the video, but he still shoots awfully well. And he does so in large part because of all the time practicing shooting, just like the video demonstrates.
Some people appear to have been blinded by Nik's almost inhuman start to the year to the excellent year Nik had.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||I agree completely that||
I agree completely that students who show up late -- especially after the game starts -- shouldn't automatically get better seats than students who were there early. But this "slap in the face" thing, I mean, for some students Michigan football is a fun part of going to the school but they don't live and breathe it. I don't remember for sure, but I don't think students can even buy single game student section tickets. Some students want to go sometimes but not others, or for a half but not the whole game. It's frustrating for others that they have such good tickets and don't make use of them like devoted fans, but being jealous doesn't make anger a sensible or productive response. Part of being a student at UM is getting perks re: UM athletic games. The fact that worst seats in the student section are not always full is not intended as an insult to alumni (and others) who wish they could have those seats, it's just college kids making decisions. A few empty rows in one corner of the endzone isn't a crazy price to pay for being a college team.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||If Rutgers and MD do turn out to be good for business...||
...and the fact that they bring in two of the biggest media markets does turn out to help the B1G financially, are we going to get one of those one sentence apologies and then be expected to pretend like all the rage and wrongness never happened -- you know, like the whole we should keep RR for a fourth year instead of hiring Hoke thing? Just want to be prepared.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||If it makes you feel better,||
If it makes you feel better, I laugh at the umbrage toward current students. I happened to be one of the students, back in the day, who sometimes slept until 1 or 2 pm because I was socializing or playing music or reading or watching movies or running around the arb until 4 in the morning. Regardless, it doesn't seem like too much for current students to have less than 20% of the stadium's capacity, including some of the worst seats, and to have a some relatively small percent of those seats empty in the lesser important games of the season. And the RR years cannot have helped.
Now, that does not mean the AD is wrong for going to GA and rewarding kids who come early or doing some other rewards program. But all the anger toward current students for not filling up their section to absolute capacity right at tipoff is goofy.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Good point||
We have guys that can play multiple positions, and they likely will (particularly the upperclassmen), in order to deal with match-ups and get our best guys on the floor.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Beilein said he believe the||
Beilein said he believe the team to done with attrition of any kind (and Blake has considered a graduated senior), so Blake probably will be the last one transfering. Unless you know more than Beilein does.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Let's look at what Beilein said:||
On Glenn Robinson III’s future position: “We’ve always envisioned him to be a three man. This year was like, how do we get our best five guys on the floor as much as possible. Just like we did with Novak. That’s the plan. He can do it. There’s no question he can do it.”
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Well, score one for reading||
Well, score one for reading the article. If they've actually used "that team up north" then I guess that's reasonable. For some reason I think of them as saying "that school up north" though.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You beat me too it. I kept magnifying it on my screen...||
...thinking I must be wrong.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Is that a reference to the OSU-UM score with UM as "TUN"||
I'd get TSUN as "that school up north" but what is TUN?
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Exactly. We played the P&R||
Exactly. We played the P&R the same way all year, essentially regardless of personnel/habits of the opposition. If there was coaching error, it was this year-long decision, as diverting in the most important game from the one way we played it all year would've been questionable. With the offensive struggles this team had at times, the coaches were probably thinking that they had to get the guys to play one defensive strategy well.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||THJr had a great first||
THJr had a great first weekend -- shot very well (8-12 from 3) and was a huge part of breaking the VCU press. He had 21 assists over the 6 games to only 7 TOs. He rebounded well. He was the leading scorer against 'Cuse. He was 5-9 from 2 in the final. It would have been great if he could've shot better, especially from 3, over the last 3 games in particular. Whatever you think of his upcoming decision, he didn't have such a bad tournament.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||I think it's someone's job on the bench to keep track of fouls||
And that someone is not named John Beilein. So It is true that he's covering for someone. On the other hand, there were probably monitors at the stadium that listed the team fouls, and it would've behooved JB to be absolutely sure about the situation. So it does fall on him, to some extent.
And they would certainly like those 14 seconds back, although it probably would have been more like 10 in the end. It made an already unlikely comback a little more unlikely. They still probably wouldn't have won, and they still could've won regardless, but it didn't help matters. Even great players and great coaches aren't perfect.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||The hire better not turn on Jones and Vaughn signing with Minny||
I'm sure Rich Pitino will put on the full court press, and maybe he's a great recruiter, but I'll be surprised if either, nevermind both, sign with the Gophers. It ain't easy for a mediocre program to just start pulling guys away from Duke, NC, Florida, Kansas, KY, Ohio State. If they do, it's a great hire. But it better be a good hire even if they don't from Minny's point of view.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||I wonder if we'll see pick and rolls at the top of the zone||
I know it's not a traditional way to attack the zone, but we're so good at running it, and UM Hoops linked this old article showing how the P&R can be used against the zone:
One advantage of the zone is that it gets teams away from the things they're used to doing. If we can (a) keep using something that's worked well for us and at the same time (b) attack the zone in a way that 'Cuse isn't used to seeing, that could be a positive.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||A few thoughts||
GRIII did shoot 3-3 from 3 against SDSU, for what it's worth.
This year's team would have some advantages you haven't mentioned. It's a much better shooting team - 39% from 3 compared with 33% (note: I'm using the 91-92 stats, which seems fair). I think the line was actually shorter back then, too, but I might be wrong about that. This year's team also shoots the three a lot more. I think Ray made one three all year. He averaged less than 5 points a game. The 1992 team also turned the ball over a lot more than this year's team. And as for Jimmy "quieting" Nik, it's not a one-on-one game. And Beilein has been known to beat some more athletic teams in his day.
To me, this comes down to an era thing. Do we think every team back then was better than every team now because people stayed at least two years, often more. Do we think players now have better workout techniques, trainers, coaching, etc.? Because in this era, this year's team is pretty much as good, if not better, than the 91-92 team was for its era.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Kampe is mad that Beilein stopped playing Oakland at the Palace||
JB wanted to play at Crisler instead.
Kampe went off about how JB was scared to play them. Brian even bought it for a while.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Selling Stauskas Short||
In the 5 games before "the epic slump," Stauskas had shot 50% from 3 -- 40% if you don't want to count the MSU game from which he was KO'd. In the 9 games before that he shot 50% from 3 twice, 60% twice, and 40% once. He shot 37% for the conference season. He's still currently on pace for the 5th best 3pt% ever at Michigan.
Agaisnt KU he shot 4/7 total - the best shooting % of any starter besides McGary, had 3 assists to 1 TO, and had 2 rebounds.
This entry makes it sound like Stauskas played well until OSU, then was essentially lousy until yesterday. Not at all the case.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||We'll see if Smart and Stevens sit tight for >5 years||
First, people seem to think these guys are going to be able to "compete at the highest level" year after year. Well, despite back to back final fours, Butler has exactly one four star recruit since, a fringe top 100 guy. So, a guy below Stauskas is the best recruit Butler has picked up over three years. Maybe Stevens can get these guys to go back to the final four as juniors and seniors, but there are other very good coaches out there getting more talented players. History says it'll be hard to compete. Maybe Butler's recruiting will pick up more as it moves to the Big East, but so far they've been beaten out for guys by IU, PU, UM, etc. They were around 50 in kenpom this year, lower than Michigan was as a 9 seed a couple years ago.
Second, the pressure will start to pick up if they don't replicate the magic. Now, the glow from two years ago still shines, and the places are just happy to be there. In a few years, if the teams haven't gotten out of the first weekend in five years, people will start asking why they're paying nearly 2 million for a coach who isn't producing any out of the ordinary results.
They're not going to leave for the Minnesota job. But when elite jobs come along, we'll see. UCLA is a good test case. Would Stevens turn down IU if that job came open? OSU, MSU, UM, Duke? Would Shaka turn down 'Ville, where a roster that suits his style might be set up.
Now, these guys get calls every time there's an opening. What happens when some openings occur and they don't get interest?
Maybe they will stay. Mark Few has, at least so far. In general, though, these guys are becoming smarter and more patient about when and where they jump, but most still go.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Excellent point, and...||
...those passes are very important in getting our running game going.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||The big man analysis is off||
"I don't think there's a huge gap between Michigan's three big men offensively, aside from McGary's stellar offensive rebounding;"
McGary brings a lot to the table: a free-throw line jumper (that goes in more than his free throws seem to); the ability to put in on the floor - anyone remember Mitch taking it almost from the 3pt line in for a layup against SDSU?; faking the hand-off and going strong to the hoop; making steals up high and going for the transition dunk; making great back door passes; and finishing off passes or putbacks with better efficiency.
Horford has some decent post moves, but not the overall game McGary has. I'm not saying McGary is going to take it to Withey, but the post-men are decidedly not the same offensively.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||I hope GRIII stays||
GRIII seems right at the point where it could go either way. If he's projected late first round or lower, seems like it makes sense to stay and move up. Anything solid in the lottery and it makes sense to bolt -- although staying can also be a good option, like it was for Zeller and Sullinger, who, despite being drafted perhaps lower, made a final four and seemed solid once he got to the pros.
Obviously it would be nice if THJr played another year, but I think we will be okay at 2-3 with Stauskas, Levert, and Irvin, as well as Spike being able to soak up some minutes there. I think we are less prepared at the 4. We could see some double post looks with Bielfeldt, McGary, or Morgan at the 4, and maybe Donnal will be ready.
I also think THJr is closer to reaching his potential physicall and mentally than GRIII, so staying an extra year would give GRIII more time to grow in a MIchigan uniform.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||I don't think that's an apt comparison||
Sure, Joe Flacco wouldn't have gotten his contract this year had he been on a last place team. But as of now, a ton of NFL teams would pay him a lot of money. Despite Denard's fame and performance, no NFL team would pay him a ton of money. Add up his out-of-state tuition, room, board, etc., and he probably got what he's going to get next year in the NFL. Moreover, nothing was keeping Denard from going pro last year. If he thought he was worth more, he could've left early and got his worth in the marketpace (at least insofar as NFL draft rules allow, about which I know little).
Let's look at basketball players, who can leave after one year. First, the vast majority stay. In other words, in their estimation they are getting more for their services in college than they would as professionals. And these same writers that criticize schools for not paying their players generally criticize those players that do leave early, saying for most that it's a "bad decision."
Better than paying players would be the elimiantion of age restrictions in the NFL and NBA. Those are lawsuits I'd like to see. Wasn't Clarett or somebody involved in one? Then a player who thought he wasn't getting his market value good go there.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||Where would Denard be without UM?||
In this particular case, without RichRod being at UM, Denard would likely either be (1) a good but not particularly famous WR or maybe TB at another BCS school, or (2) a QB at some lower level school that made some ESPN top plays but wasn't particularly well-known. What were Denard's other offers to play QB? And even at Michigan, who knows what would've happened if Tate hadn't been a flake or RichRod been more established.
In general, even the very best players would almost certainly be much worse off if football just had a minor league system like baseball without the universities. Imagine basketball players with just the D League.
So determining their "market value" or what they're worth just by looking at university AD revenues is flawed.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Yeah, isn't this what's happened with college basketball?||
At least, you've taken the top sophs, juniors, and seniors and sent them to the NBA. College baskeball seems to still make a good deal of $.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Are the "Go with the flow" t-shirts a Jake Ryan reference?||
You could argue that at least Jake signed a contract with UM and gets something out of it -- not just the degree that gets poo-poo'ed, but the coaching (that could help land bigtime NFL dollars), the fame, the alumni connections. What does he get from the t-shirts sold showing what probably is carefully designed so that everybody knows who it is but can escape the cease and desist letters. Or the twosie shirt that carefully omits actually using Lewan's name, even in the t-shirt rollout, even though everyone knows who it's about?
|1 year 26 weeks ago||For the record...||
...I'm not asserting that Brian (or even ESPN, for that matter) is exploitative. I'm just pointing out that media businesses drive the vast majority of money/increases/decisions, yet everyone in the media somehow ignores this, calls the ADs "vampires," and considers themselves champions of the downtrodden. I do think an interesting discussion could be had on who brings what to the table and who are the vampires/leaches/whatevers.
As for your first point, sure, ADs do make mistakes -- so do governors, presidents, etc. I guess you could argue (and some people do) that any one person is irrelevant and could disappear, but the general consensus is that those jobs are important.
Health insurance might be a great use of the funds, particularly as some of the sports seem to put students under great physical risk.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Brian wanted a 4th year of Richrod instead of Brady Hoke||
Maybe ADs are important?
You can mock it all you want, but tons of people spend tons of their time and money watching and reading about college athletics, especially football and basketball. The same people that go crazy about uniforms also call the guy in charge of that irrelevant. That seems contradictory. You may not like the AD, but he apparently makes all kinds of decisions worth obsession over.
Plus, the media's obsession with this issue strikes me as hypocritical. How much money does ESPN make off college football? CBS off of the tourney? Mgoblog make off of Michigan athletics? Yet somehow these folks consider themselves as part of the "vampire" contingent.
Who would watch minor league football or basketball without the association of the universities? Most student-athletes are much better off because of the system.
I'd think a much better approach than paying the players would be mandating that a certain percentage of revenue be spent on financial aid to students, research into relevant areas, like athlete safety and health, and funds to help injured student-athletes, or something along those lines.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Actually, Kansas State did get a share of the Big 12 title||
Kansas lost too, meaning both KU and KSU finished 14-4.
Unless I'm missing something or a joke or what not.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I agree that we got a fair||
I agree that we got a fair result in that IU was the best team in the conference this year, but I think Brian sells our season a bit short in his metrics.
I'll be interested to see the final enfefficiency numbers, but as of last week we were ahead of both MSU and OSU in conference efficiency -> +.11 ppp vs. .8 and .7. It's easy to forget now, but we were out demolishing teams while others were racking up 2 and 3 point wins.
Also, as to the matchups vs. OSU, MSU, and IU, it would have been:
OSU - lose by 3, win by 2
MSU - lose by 23, win by 1
IU - lose by 8, win by 1
In my view, the loss to MSU was an outlier performance. I don't think the 34 and 4 numbers accurately portray the overall closeness with which we played the top 3 teams.
All that said, I think IU had the best conference season, and, while slightly unlucky, our end result is pretty indicative of how we played.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Best news -- win and we're co-champs and almost certainly...||
...a 2 or 3 seed.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||They are in SI's Bubble Watch, but...||
...they're problem is they have taken one of the least impressive roard to .500 in the B1G -- no wins over UM, MSU, OSU, or IU. They have home wins against Wiscy, Minny, and Illinois. Out of conference they have one home win against ISU, but got spanked by VTech and Wich. One more big win would do wonders for them.
That being said, I think they are closer than some people think. ISU's resume is pretty close, as you say. (I think some people give them subconcious credit for the victory against KU that the refs may have messed up.) If ISU loses to Okst, you may see them on about equal footing.
Also a problem for Iowa -- if they end up in the 8-9 game, there's almost only downside - a win over PU wouldn't count for much (maybe they can get Ill or Minny though). If they could win one against any of the top 5 B1G team, they'd likely be in for sure (assuming they beat Nebraska and win they're 8-9 game). They're a great example of a team where one big win would completely change their outlook.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||I'd rather win a share of the B1G reg season championship...||
...than have a better seed in the BTT. In other words, I'll take OSU beating IU.
I think the main takeaway, though, and thanks for doing this, is that win out and we're guaranteed either a share of the B1G regular season championship or a 2-3 seed, fine results. To be really greedy, though, it looks like we want OSU over IU and MSU over Wiscy (where we get the 3 seed and B1G share).
|1 year 28 weeks ago||There will be no lineup changes||
I have no inside info, but I have confidence that we're not going to undo what had us as the #4 team in the country.
Nik has shot 36% in B1G play (including 2 of 4 @PSU), while garnering a ton of attention out there.
JB has also addressed the zone issue a whole bunch of times.
So here's what I say: we have to play better, with more focus, on defense. If we do, we'll be just fine. But no lineup change will solve whatever problems we've been having without creating new ones. Perhaps Caris will get some more minutes, perhaps we'll throw out some zones -- but mostly we just have to play a bit better on one end.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I missed those follow-ups||
Certainly does sound like he has a case of the can't-be-wrongsies. Becomes a lot lamer in that context.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Dakich is aight, and Donnal's AAU coach||
Dakich is generally very positive about Michigan basketball these days. He probably saw one angle and it looked like something and he went with it. Andy Katz did the same thing about MSU Dawson's punch. I'm not saying the two incidents are identical, just that Katz tweeted about a certain suspension and then backtracked later. (Dakich probably will too, we'll see.) I'm sure being an Indiana homer played a part, but Dakich is a good commentator who overall is complimentary about Michigan basketball. Sometime it's so easy to bet ahead of the curve these days, say something very public before all the facts are in. Happens everywhere, even here.
And Dakich is Donnal's AAU coach, so he's helping us get top-100 bigs with range and skills. Again, he made a mistake here, but who doesn't.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Try to get him to come for a last second visit?||
Perhaps the goal is get him for a visit on the weekend. If you can't do that, you might not bother offering -- you might still be evaluating him, or you might want to make the offer in person (or get Saban or Richt or whoever to make the offer) for maximum effect and figure it's otherwise a useless exercise to extend the offer.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||For instance...||
...Vogrich doesn't get many minutes, but how many teams have a senior on the bench with a career 40% 3pt fg pct? He hasn't played a ton, but that's partly because of JB's preference of playing his best 7 as much as he can. He was certainly a part of our top 7 or 8 his sophmore and junior years. I'm not saying he's a great player, but I bet he stacks up pretty well compares to most team's 4th wing option.
We'd obviously be in a heap of trouble of Trey went down. GRIII seems like the next most indispensible because we don't really have anyone else like him. But what team wouldn't suffer if one of it's top 2 or 3 players went down?
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Any scenario in which UM is||
Any scenario in which UM is in the same division as OSU and MSU seems like a win. How many of us really care if we don't play Iowa or Illinois or Indiana or Northwestern every hear.
I understand the nostalgia for the Big Ten with ten actual teams, but that day is gone. Even if UM plays in a division with MSU, OSU, and then a bunch of teams who weren't in the B1G before 1990, is that really so bad? Maybe for some. I do beel bad for those people. I don't care all that much. And you'd still get a couple of those other teams every year.
The inner-outer scenario seems very unlikely -- it's not a particularly good set up for the Eastern push, for instance, and pretty much screws over the outer teams.
You have to ask yourself: what are my primary interests? Getting into the same division as OSU and keeping the Game on the last week of the season seems by far and way the 1st. Keeping MSU seems like the second. You're getting those.
It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||How does this works re: raw numbers vs. rank & year to year?||
For instance, that 2009 NC NC team finished 16th in ADE but it's number 89.6 is very close to Michigan's and would place them currently 38th -- would they somehow be ranked higher this year? Would their defense not come out to 89.6 this year?
Could you plausibly set up the limit as being achieving a certain number on defense vs rank? Maybe there are more offensive and defensive oriented years?
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Bit of a tough pass, no||
Bit of a tough pass, no doubt, but I think Trey can make that pass. He can also pass it to McGary, who as a better angle. Like I said above, hit singles, get the hockey assist.
Setting up a little bit farther up the baseline might not be a bad idea, maybe even seal his guy off a bit. You want to give your teammates room/separation to get you the ball, but I think you have a good point here.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||He's wide open under the basket...||
...with the PG in the middle of the floor. Never a bad idea.
You could get a bounce pass in there -- it might be tight, but Trey should be able to make that pass. Also, he could pass it to McGary who could feed GRIII. McGary is a good passer. It's okay to hit singles, as JB says, even for Trey.
At screen shot 3 and 4, you're right, the spacing is messed up -- it might have been better for GRIII to reverse it back out. However, given the motion that's going on, I don't think he'd be set for a 3 in time. At this point, it's probably necessary for Trey to reset the whole thing
|1 year 35 weeks ago||My read of this play is different||
To me, this looks like Trey's miss -- he had GRIII wide open under the hoop and didn't get it to him (via lob or bounce pass). Screen shot 3 called for a pass to GRIII. Or even a bounce pass to McGary, who has an open lane. Of course, things are easy to spot slowing things down to frame by frame action, and real time, with OSU's length and tenacity, it's hard to get it right. But I don't think anything's wrong with that cut. GRIII saw his man ball-watching and got in position to take advantage of it.
Afterward, the spacing does get messed up, and Trey should pull it out and reset.
Please insert all the usual accolades to Trey here, which are well-earned.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||I'd take that bracket||
First, I'm looking to avoid a team like Kentucky as an 8 seed (they're currently a 7 seed). Even teams like UCLA or UNC with lots of elite young talent who could put something together. You have to play somebody in the second round, and I think we would shred Baylor's d.
Second, we avoid Kansas as the 2 seed, and UNLV and NCState aren't particularly scary. I'm not sure we could see this bracket because rematches generally are avoided until the Elite 8, unless I'm mistaken.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||"All possessions are worth the same" is not smart||
There's a very good argument that different conclusions can be drawn from (1) a game where you lead by 10 after 10 minutes, by 20 after 30 minutes, and then have the lead slip down to 10 by the end, and (2) a game you trail much of the time, are tied after 30 minutes, then have a run and end up winning by 10?
Just because Kenpom is not sophisticated enough (yet, maybe) to differentiate these games does not mean that the only difference is how it "feels" for a fan.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||They're monetizing you and you didn't even know it||
"In the U.S., [ESPN3] is available to individuals who receive their high-speed Internet connection or cable TV subscription from an affiliated service provider. Since 2008, ESPN3 has also been available to approximately 21 million U.S. college students and U.S.-based military personnel via computers with college/university (.edu) and U.S. military (.mil) IP addresses. ESPN3 is only available to Internet providers who pay fees to ESPN."
You may have access through your internet connection, and presumably the site recognizes this. Have you tried using WatchESPN via your phone/tablet while not at home?
As for Rutgers, I have neither the information nor the energy to discuss intelligently whether it was a good move. However, I am confident that the powers that be at B1G considered and spent a bunch of money figuring out whether it was a good choice when assessing how the landscape will look in 5, 10, 20 years. They may be wrong, but they're not going to be blindsided by these technologies, despite what some bloggers/writers think.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Quick, Someone Tell the Cable Companies...||
...about Hulu. And the internet. The B1G officeces need to know too, the fools.
Actually, they are very aware of the changes technologies will have on their business model. If you'll notice, access to WatchESPN and such are predicated on your cable affiliate. They are working every day on how to monetize (or whatever they call it) our obsession with sports.
Of course, they may get it wrong. And longterm college sports interests may not be aligned with cable interests. But the that idea sports networks and conferences are operating without thought to how games will be watched in a few years seems, well, not thoroughly reserached.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Any way to crown a champ would have "flaws"||
We can't play games a million times. A best of 7 series is more likely to have the "better" team crowned champ, but not perfectly. And what if a star gets injured after game 2? And why is neutral court setting a flaw? Maybe the flaw is not playing all the games on neutral courts? Or without crowds at all?
Anyway, it all depends on what he want our championship game/system to do/measure and what he think is "better." So I agree that the NCAA champ isn't always the "best" team in that it might not yield the team that would win the most times if a billion tourneys could be held, but it's a pretty great viewing experience that yields high-quality champions.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||I pretty much agree, but...||
... the question then becomes which team is "better" - the team that won or the team that robots say would win more times if they played a billion times. You seemed to imply that Team A that finishes behind in Team B in Win-Loss but ahead in Kenpom is "obviously" better.
I might be reading more into your original comment though. I do hear/read people say often, though, that some team was "better" than their W-L record indicates and cite Kenpom. Such a claim is not "obvious" to me as true, even if there might be good arguments to support it.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Well, if winning is the goal, then by definition...||
...the winning team of a single, neutral court game is the better team that day 100% of the time. That's how he crown the NCAA champ, in fact.
Also, I don't think UM wants to give back its B1G title banner from last year, even though Kenpom says OSU and MSU were a lot better over the course of the conference season. Ws and Ls are the ultimate measuring stick of good and bad in basketball.
Just as it's "obvious" that the results of any one game can be overstated, it's also "obvious" that some people overstate what Kenpom says about a team.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Well, I agree that this is a weakness of Kempom, but...||
...it's also part of its very basis. Kempom assumes that possessions are of equal predictive value, and argues that people tend to overrate the importance of certain possessions over others. There may be some threshold you could use -- >20 point lead with less than two minutes to go, maybe. But (a) as Brian says, Kenpom has probably looked at that, although who knows, and (b) it might not make much of a difference. That it matters that you beat a team by 25 or 15 in the first place - or X amount per/possession, really - is the main difference between Kenpom and, say, RPI.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||I agree that...||
...some people treat Kenpom like it's something it's not (and doesn't claim to be). Does it really matter if UM drops a spot because it got distracted up 30 with 15 minutes left or its second-string guys let the Bearcats shoot a couple open 3s? Not to UM's potential seeding, and not to UM's actual likelihood of winning future games, despite what some seem to think.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Good find, thanks. I take from that...||
...that Michigan didn't want to play the games at the Palace. I remembered it had to do with where the games were played. They asked JB, and he said he didn't want to play at the Palace. Which probably makes sense -- it's not any more convenient for the vast majority of fans, doesn't get much attention, and only gets credit for neutral court in a very technical sense, likely discounted by the committee.
Do we really think JB is afraid to play Oakland, currently 3-7 and 186 in Kenpom? They're a fine regional program that has made the tourney twice in the last 6 or 7 years.
At best, Kampe took a statement JB made out of politeness and made a big deal out of it, appealing to some of his base (and others whose worldview it jived with).
|1 year 39 weeks ago||A few things||
First, I'm not a die-hard Kenpom guy. I believe it's really useful, but, as others (including Kenpom himself) have pointed out, has flaws. For me, it's enlightening, but not the end-all-be-all.
Second, I used the Zags/Illini example because it seemed even more objectionable than UM/Pitt -- a larger margin of victory at the Kennel and a much bigger spread in Kenpom ranking.
Third, I do wonder about Illinois's future. They are shooting a lot of three at a 40% clip, when the same players shot 30% last year. They also got out to a good start - 10 and 0, in fact - last year, before cratering. Brandon Paul is great but very streaky. If I had to bet about who has a higher seed in the tourney, I'd probably go with the Zags.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||There's a better example for your point||
Illinois is ranked 21 spots below Gonzaga after spanking the bulldogs on their home court.
Or is it a better example? One thing you have to keep in mind is that the selection committee in March is doing something different than Kenpom. The former is mostly rewarding past accomplishments -- you've won the games, and that's what counts, Ws and Ls. The latter is predicting the future, which, on the whole, is (at least arguably) better measured by a per-possession basis than a per-game basis. As an example, does a forty foot three at the buzzer in a one-point game change that much how you think those teams will do in the future? Maybe not. But it could determine a champion and a runner up.
There are a lot of good reasons to suspect that, going forward, the Zags really are a better team than Illinois.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||You bought the Oakland spin||
The real reason, if I remember correctly, that UM stopped playing Oakland was that they couldn't agree on a venue. I think Michigan wanted to do it at the Palace, get credit for a neutral site, while Oakland wanted home and home? Or maybe UM just wanted to play the games at Crisler? Anyway, it wasn't because Oakland was getting too good.
As for road games, next year we'll be playing @ISU and likely @ an ACC team, in addition to the Puerto Rico Tip Off and Arizona at home. That's 5 (or 6) neutral site/road games, plus another big-time home game. So if we start out with a couple patsies just to get the ball rolling, that leaves about five more games. We got to have a couple relative cupcakes in there for exams/winter break.
All that said, I do think the cupcakes could be a little less cupcake-ish than the bearcats were, but on the whole we are moving in that direction. I wonder about getting some 2 for 1 deals with MVC teams or other regional top level midmajors.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||I agree with you||
My original post was badly worded. I meant that the ACC would much rather have MD than Louisville -- that they would trade out the 'Ville (who they added) to get back MD (who they lost) without blinking (for many of the reasons you write) -- and that this is evidence that MD is a good asset despite the debt. Sorry for the confusion.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Wasn't Michigan's AD in the red ten years ago?||
Also, this is good investing. If the fundamentals are there -- flagship state school, good academics, big market(s), good athletics (certainly some question there) -- but there is a short term need for cash, it is a good time to buy. Of course founding institutions are unlikely to leave conferences that are doing well if they don't need to.
Everyone in the ACC would trade Louisville for MD without blinking. Nobody in the B1G would take the 'Ville over MD.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||My bet would be on MD winning||
At least, i doubt MD will have to pay the full exit fee of nearly $53 million. It looks like a penalty clause, and those generally are not enforced.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Nah||
We nabbed GRIII and Zak Irvin, two of the top prospects out of Indiana, and Irvin had an early IU offer. We got Derrick Walton from MI, probably the top '13 prospect in Michigan (outside of James Young, i guess), as MSU was about to offer. In Ohio we got Donnal and are in great shape for Kennard in '15. If we go up against IU, OSU, and MSU, we are sure to lose some, but right now we're doing great. Of course, winning always helps.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||It's all about the $ -- i.e., beveled guilt?||
I know writers aren't making millions of dollars, but all the media that makes its living off college sports acting so self-righteous about realignment is annoying.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||"This is a stupid hire, this will always be a stupid hire"||
You owe Dave Brandon another few years of not complaining. Plus, what makes you think Brandon has the power to "fix" the divisions? Plus plus, if further expansion is possible/probable/imminent, why not wait to do the "fix" until the final situation is evident?
|1 year 44 weeks ago||I wonder what say he had in this||
OSU and MSU are in alternating years. Yeah, I'd rather have MSU and Neb together, as OSU is by far the biggest game. The ND contract was fixed. Really, this complaint is just about getting Nebraska to align with MSU, not OSU.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Both those things are true||
I guess I give a free pass on the UTL unis as a one-time deal, although this bothers me more than the road unis. On the whole, I don't really care about the road unis, but I retract the uni issue as something not to rag on Brandon for. The essential point I maintain.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||The Anti-Brandon Posts Are Crazy||
In his biggest decision, he controversially went with Brady Hoke -- and that decision has since been widely lauded and approved. All the panic over the mascot now looks ridiculous. The road uniforms were being changed around well-before Brandon took over. The only criticism with any merit is having OSU in the other division, and we still play them the final game of the year. Who knows what Brandon's position was behind the scenes too. He's looking like an excellent AD, get over it.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Makes sense||
I must've missed or forgotten that distinction. Although, as Brian has noted, the refs might thow the WR a flag as he goes back through the running DB for the ball. Anyway, seems clear Roundtree bailed Devin out on that throw.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Hey, UFRs Are Great and...||
...they include a lot of information and insight. They take a ton of work - I can barely muster the patience to read them, nevermind write them. And they provide a lot more evidence than simply saying Denard can't throw and Devin is awesome (or the reverse). My point was that categorization does not equal objectivity. And +s and -s could vary by the viewer and moment. For instance, I was glad to see Devin huck the ball deep after an offsides call -- free play, ended up with a 15 yard penalty. I can recall times yelling at Denard to do that, and he doesn't. Does that always show up as a + or -? I would + it, but maybe that's not the right call.
For what it's worth, I have not made any Denard vs Devin arguments, nor argued that your assessment of Devin was wrong or biased. I hope Denard comes back soon for both his sake and the team's. And I can understand that, after putting a ton of time into something long and extensive, like a UFR, you have no interest in responding to a simple "Denard sucks, Devin is awesome." All that said, while I enjoy the UFRs and think they add a lot of interesting information, I don't assume that they are "objective." I do learn from them.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Systematic Does Not Mean Unbiased||
You can be systematically biased. Also, the fact that you have a set of categories with definitions does not mean that you are objective in deciding into which category a given throw belongs. The UFRs are not objective.
I have no idea whether Brian judged the throws as he would have had Denard been making them. I guess you could go back and find similar throws Denard made and see how they were categorized. The Roundtree bomb does not seem like a good throw, although we have heard about the benefit of underthrowing the bombs.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||I don't know how to build the widgets either||
Thanks - I found it added to the article to understand the process and the relative ease/difficulty. I also didn't mean to pry into finances, I was just trying to make a general point, but appreciate the info.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||Big Ten Championships/Record against Rivals||
Henne will always be +ed because of his 4-0 Record against MSU, -ed because of his 0-4 record against OSU. He was 2-2 against ND, right? One B1G championship (shared, but beat Iowa in the tie-break (head to head) and went to the Rose Bowl.
That's why Denard's legacy will vary greatly depending on the next few weeks. If we beat OSU and win the B1G, he'll be 2-1 against OSU, 2-1 against ND, have at least one victory over MSU, and have a B1G championship. He'll be on the level of everyone save a few absolute all-timers. If he loses to OSU and doesn't win the B1G, he'll be adored but down a notch.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||1-1 is not a wash||
50% is not a wash for a career 70% winner.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||You're ignoring opportunity/labor costs||
What if you spent all the time you were looking for tickets making money some other way? I don't know what you do, but you could (a) bill another hour, (b) build another widget, (c) write another article. Would these activities make up more money than $111? You actually might be getting value because you're writing an article -- i.e., making $ from Mgoblog. Either way, you'd have to consider these factors if you want to make a meaningful cost/benefit analysis.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||A couple things||
One, I didn't argue that Borges's (and Hoke's, let's not forget) plan was perfect or couldn't be improved. I only said that this constant "hey, why isn't Borges doing what RR did against MSU" ignores the main data points, that Borges did as well with Denard as RR did, perhaps better when considering the TO's (at least if you have a good defense and can afford more low-risk-low-reward offense).
Second, Sun-Tzu wrote a lot of things. Some of them include: “One may know how to conquer without being able to do it;” “He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious;” and “To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
Another author, Dale Carnegie. not quite as famous but more recent than Sun-Tzu, noted: “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain--and most do.” There may have been better game plans than the one Borges/Hoke used, and maybe other coordinators would have the offense at a better point now, but most of the complaining on here is just that.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Criticizing Borges for not doing what RR did suggests amnesia||
People keep offering up with RichRod did as a solution to our woes against MSU. They seem to forget that in RR's game with Denard against MSU, we had only 50 more yards and 5 more points than yesterday (including a TD in the 4th quarter down 21) -- and additionally that Denard threw 3 picks that day.
Maybe Denard as a SR > Denard as a freshman, but, on the other hand, there is now a lot more film and scouting on Denard. Pat White's QB rating and average yards per rush went down his sophmore to junior years (although they were both quite good).
Criticizing Borges (and Hoke, of course) for the offense may have merit, but arguing for what RichRod did seems pretty empty. I think Hoke would much rather take the game Borges/Mich/Denard had yesterday than the one RR/Mich/Denard had three years ago.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Jordan Morgan on the Hoops Team...||
...is getting an engineering degree. There may be different workloards re: basketball and football but it seems comparable.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I have no doubt that many BCS||
I have no doubt that many BCS college towns (and of course big cities like LA, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis) could handle a national semi-final game. I don't know just how high a % it is -- I'd assume Corvalis or Champaign could, but I don't know for sure. I really don't know about Pullman. It's probably pretty high. Of course, those games that you mention also provide lots of lead time. Also, I don't know about all those other towns, whether there is a reason I'm not thinking of that would cause problems.
Anyway, the real question is whether you can count on being in one of those places and what happens if you're not? Could the B1G adopt a plan that would, for instance, disproportionately penalize Minny and Indy with the assumption they wouldn't make the title game because they've been bad for a long time? They did adopt divisions based on competitive balance, of course. But was that the only way to do it?
Again, I think it the right answer might be to hold all the games in the college sites regardless of other considerations. I just don't think it's obvious on its face that every reason to do something else is dumb.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||This is exactly the kind of||
This is exactly the kind of discourse that would be needed before dismissing a problem out of hand. How do I know if it's a problem? Is it like other problems that are solved relatively easily throughout the country in different sporting events or not? Just saying "this is a dumb reason" doesn't convince me it's not a good reason.
I am ready to be convinced that it is feasible for college campuses to host the semifinal games. I am not ready to join in off-hand angry rejection of what could be plausible reasons from a source that seems to offer similar reactions so freely and commonly.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I'm not accusing anyone of being dumb + the top 4 teams issue||
I think people have good ideas. I think they might be better ideas than hosting games at neutral sites. But I do think people are oversimplifying the problem and underestimating the potential matters that would have to be sorted out (making the out-of-had derision seem unpleasant and naive).
I was including top 4 because that's who'll be in the semifinal games. Nothing has been established regarding how these games would be played. We can assume 1 would host 4 and 2 would host 3. But what if there's a rule that one conference can't host both games? In that case, perhaps 3 would host two. What if there's a rule that conference champions automatically get to host the game if the other teams aren't champs (again, 3 could host 2, or possibly, 4 might host a game -- the conference champ might not finish highest in the BCS standings, after all). Without knowing all the rules, I used top 4. Maybe using top 2 would be better for analyzing the best solution, but, again, it's not quite so clear cut with having all the info.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Okay, what if there's an NFL game and a concern the night before||
Seattle is supposed to block out Saturdays because Boise State might make the semis and they might get picked? The Superdome builds the chance of the Saints making the playoffs into their scheduling, I assume.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Being a good problem solver||
Being a good problem solver requires recognizing the problem and not underestimating it. .
You say: "If you're one of the few schools where this comes down to the wire, use some of the boatloads of cash that this tournament will create to compensate the hotels at the various schools that don't host."
So, we're to set up a system in which proceeds from the home game at school X are to be alotted to schools Y and Z to defray costs to hotels in the town where Y and Z exist? Or will some central mechanism handle all this? In fact, how is the money split in the first place in these games?
Every problem is oh so easy to solve until you get down to the details. If you want to think these problems are easily washed away, I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise. But my experience in detailing with complex events, with multiple parties where big money is at stake, is that it's not so easy getting everyone to simply give the thumbs up to a plan that you think everyone should be happy with.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I don't think it'd be so easy||
Reserving a couple of hotels? Done. Easy, right? Hmmm.... That's all you have to do?
I don't want to get to personal, but what's the biggest event you've planned? How far in advance did you make the preparations?
How far in advance do you think Brian reserved the hotel for his wedding? The venue?
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Here's what Brian said||
"You can't make this up, because if you did people would hit you really hard with rolled-up socks." That's the full dismissal of the infrastructure, etc., argument. That seems closer to "uncivil" that "rational and persuasive."
Also, we don't know who will finish in the top 4. BSU and TCU have done so recently. And, like I've said, when you make such plans you can't count on the last 10 years being replicated exactly.
I'd like to see them play the games at the schools, no deviations from that.
As for 3, I'm not really sure, but I think bowl games aren't great indicators -- how many people attended games that included teams that might actually make the championship game (sadly, the B1G was not included, but the PAC12, Big12, and SEC championship games).
4 seems accurate to me.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Where would the game be played?||
They'd lose the ability to host, and then what? Someone would find somewhere else for them to play? How far in advance would the proposals be rejected? When would they set the place of the game?
Also, I think someone said Boise finished top 4 recently. TCU finished 4th and their stadium seats 44,000.
And the NFL playoffs are hosted at NFL stadiums in NFL cities, making it a bit different.
Anyway, as I've said, it's not that I necessarily think the games should be played at neutral sites. To the contrary, I'd like to see them at colleges regardless of seating capacity, etc. But to dismiss the reasons given out of hand is not to engage them and therefore not be able to address real questions. In short, arguing against legitimate points is productive, mocking derisively, well, not so much.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||That's a decision-making||
That's a decision-making question. Do we plan based on "best case" or "worst case?" Do we ensure a 100% chance of a decent outcome or go for a 80% chance of a better one? What will happen in the "worst case?" How much better is the better outcome than the decent one?
Again, you can come out on the side of hosting the games at colleges. In fact, I might lean to doing so, clean and guaranteed, no contingency plans going to some nearby NFL stadium. But the answer isn't so clear cut. Discussion can be civil, and people aren't predisposed to agreeing with what you say are more likely to listen to and be convinced by others who talk in a mature fashion.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||You seem to be making the opposite point||
First, if it's the semifinals, it's 4 teams, so BSU would have been in the top 4. Second, you'd have 16 teams needing to present proposals, making it extremely likely that places would have to come up with something besides just playing at the stadium -- WSU was in the top 16 3 times last decade, BSU top 4 and other times in the top 16 -- and those are just teams off the top of my head. Plus, you've have 14 colleges/towns spending lots of time and resources coming up with plans, all of which work would go for naught? And that's if the proposals are acceptable?
Again, it's just not so easy. There may be people in power being disingenuous, but part of getting into power is probably learning how to make decent arguments to achieve what you want even if you can't use the "real reason" to bolster your argument.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||WSU finished in the top 10 2001-03||
They played in the Rose bowl in 2003 and, hmm, I think it was 1998. Boise State played in the 2006 and 2009 Fiesta bowls. You can't assume that these teams won't be in the playoffs. Thus, the discussion is what should be done.
Perhaps there are "real reasons" behind this -- although it's not crazy to want a big event in a place people want to be. Doesn't the NFL rotate the superbowl between a few cities, mostly warm weather places?
Again, you might decide that the best thing to do is play in the college campuses. In fact, it arguably would be a better indicator of quality to make SEC teams come north in December. And it might be more in the spirit of college athletics. But dismissing these issues out of hand says more about the dismisser than the dismissed.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Oops, wrong spot, delete||
.Oops, wrong spot, delete
|2 years 20 weeks ago||That doesn't sound so easy||
You would ask all schools "with a shot" to submit plans? What schools would count? What if the bids were rejected? What if Seattle is hosting an NFL game that weekend? Plus, you still wouldn't necessarily be playing at the college campus. If you can't guarantee you'd play in Boise or Pullman, then you are already going down the path of not playing at the host team's stadium, and you're just wondering what's the most reasonable solution? In the end, it may be what you're saying or something similar, but it's hardly obvious or so easy to accomplish. There's a reason the B1G determines where it's championships will be years out, for example. All the anger and derision is just petty and doesn't do the credibility here any favors.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||U Angar Again? Boise Stadium Capacity = 35,000||
Listen, it may or may not be a good decision, but the derision is unwarranted. Wondering whether many small campuses could handle the influx of media, out-of-towners, etc., not just for the game but for potentially a few days is reasonable. You can't assume that those schools listed will make it. What about Pullman (pop <30,000), and that's a PAC12 school? What if a small school makes it? What if the school isn't particularly close to any professional football stadium? Boise State plays at a stadium that seats 35,000 and will soon seat 40,000. What's the closes pro stadium?
Also, a semifinal is a lot more likely to sell out than a bowl game, in my opinion, because bowls have suffered by being outside the championshiop format.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be play the games at college campuses, but these reasons given aren't so crazy. The anger and derision detracts from the credibility here.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Here's what Brian said||
Quiz: Here are five things Brian said about Hoke and one he didn't -- you guess which is which:
(1)I still cling to the belief that Michigan would not look at a 53-year-old with one decent season and one undefeated MAC campaign (undefeated until Ball State played Buffalo in the championship game, anyway, and then imploded against Tulsa, and then the mighty foundation Hoke had wrought imploded in a pile of balsawood splinters) after Indiana and Minnesota had both said "thanks, but no thanks" to the same guy, let alone make him their head coach. . . .
Unfortunately, I don't have much information and am relying on the common sense and logical deduction that have
(2) I'm not going to rush to my keyboard and spit out all the reasons Hoke is not a plausible candidate for the Michigan job like I did three years ago . . . . Brady Hoke is not a serious candidate for the Michigan job. He is not any sort of candidate.
(3) Does Hoke approach any of these guys [Dan Mullen, Pat Fitzgerald, Garry Patterson, Charlie Strong, Chris Peterse, Kyle Wittingham]? Absolutely not. If he'd been a Michigan State assistant no one would have ever brought him up.
(4) If you're eager to get Michigan started on a painful transition away from the offense they just painfully transitioned to, Hoke's your man. If he's hired we'll get some soundbites about flexibility but they'll be about as convincing as Tommy Tuberville's strained "hhhhyyyarrrrr" upon his hiring at Texas Tech. If there are coaches out there comfortable with the spread offense that's proven itself kind of good across college football they'd be preferable to a guy who professes disdain for "basketball on grass" and doesn't have the track record to suggest he's anything more than average at the other stuff.
(5) Seriously? How on earth are we supposed to expect that a guy who's had two years in eight above .500 is as good of a coach as a guy with 8 of 10 above .500, most of them featuring eleven wins—TCU has won 11 games six(!) times under Patterson. He's vastly more proven than Hoke, whose single comparable season ended with blowout losses against Buffalo and Tulsa. Patterson just beat Wisconsin. There is absolutely no comparison between their resumes. . . .
Despite my antipathy for him it's not like Hoke is a guaranteed failure. However, it's hard to see him not providing another awkward transition period and then being at the tail end of his career by the time he gets something up and going. The upside is low, and frankly I don't want to return to whatever philosophy Carr had at the end of his career when OSU zoomed by him and Michigan flailed about with no answers.
(6) This is a stupid hire. It will always be as stupid hire and David Brandon just led the worst coaching search in the history of Michigan football. He managed to chase off half of an already iffy recruiting class, hired a Plan C coach on January 11th, probably ensured the transfer of the reigning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year, and restricted his "national search" to people who'd spent at least five years in Ann Arbor. Michigan just gave themselves a year of USC-level scholarship reduction voluntarily.
What are the chances that the best available coach is a 52-year-old with a 47-50 career record and no experience as a coordinator? Why weren't a half-dozen coordinators with time and results on their side given the opportunity to interview? Why did Brandon waste time with Les Miles, a guy on the downside who may not have even gotten a serious offer? After learning a hard lesson about program continuity with the last hire why did Michigan hire a guy who professes to hate the spread 'n' shred a day after two spread teams played for the national title?
I'd rather have Rich Rodriguez entering year four with a new defensive staff than this, a total capitulation. Does anyone remember Tressel's record against Lloyd Carr? 5-1. Change was necessary. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean you go back to the stuff that required change.
Answer - Trick question, Brian said all those things. You know what he never said? I think Hoke could succeed, just as long as he's aggressive on fourth downs. The closest I guess is the "we can't return to whatever philosophy Carr had at the end," which is a big, big stretch. The fourth-down aggressiveness thing was a tiny, if any, part of the vitriol.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Hindsight is okay, but||
Hindsight is okay, but rationalization is better. Brian harped on Hoke's record, Michigan's recruiting problems, etc. Brian went on and on about how we need a schematic advantage or we'd be cooked by the big boys. The going-for-it-on-4th-and-3-meme is nice, but it's not what drove the vitriol.
Plus, learning from history is okay. So is a bit of humility. Nothing changes that Brandon got the most important thing right and that Brian went nutso about it and has been proven wrong. All the hysteria about the little stuff is a bit odd considering who was right on the important stuff -- or maybe it's not.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Considering how Brandon aced||
Considering how Brandon aced the single most important decision for a UM AD (the football hire - Hoke), and how bad Brian whiffed on that subject, I'd think Brian would lay off the anti-Brandon vitriol. Guess not.
Brian, U ANGARY?
|2 years 27 weeks ago||In a season = in the same season||
In a season = in same season = in same conference, etc. It is much harder to measure across seasons, with different non-conf schedules, different bowl games and opponents. That 2006 team had a better B1G record, for instance. That 2006 team lost to a USC team that lost two games by a total of 6 points that year. What do you think the efficieny margins would say about 2006 vs 2011?
Anyway, that's why a system with a set season with set parameters makes such clear measure of being "good" - Ws and Ls, that's it. Departing from that sets off a whole separate discussion.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Wisdom begins with the definition of terms - Socrates||
By the way, I don't just watch basketball for the luck/variance. And "variance" happens in chess too.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||No, you've got it wrong||
First, note that they don't use those tie-breakers to determine championships. All three teams are co-champs. Ws and Ls are what counts for that, nothing else. In other words, better as a measurement of season quality is based solely on Ws and Ls.
Second, how else should the B1G proceed for seeding? Efficiency margins? Who got the Ws against the next best teams (especially with an imbalanced schedule) is a reasonable choice.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||What is the object of basketball?||
To score more points than the opposition? Or to outscore the opponents by a certain number of points per possession?
So, what is the best measurement of achieving the object, w's and l's, or efficiency margin. In other words, if you could design a system that could win every game by one point, you'd go undefeated and would be the best team of all time. That, of course, is unlikely, and generally it is true that efficiency margin will equate with w's and l's over time. But saying teams with equal records didn't achieve equally in a season is incorrect.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||No, that is a correct assumption||
Certain rules of the game have been set up. Scoring more points by definition means you won that game and were better. Having more wins means at the end of the season means you won that season.
If you want to set up a different system that equates being good with better advanced metrics you can do so and try to convince the NCAA or others to change their rules.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Here's what correlate means||
According to thefreedictionary.com
So, yes, they are correlated. Teams that score more points than their opposition will tend to have more W's and better efficiency margins/kenpom numbers. One useful tool in seeing teams that "outperformed" is to compare efficiency margins and Ws vs Ls. Finally, efficiency margins are good predictive tools in that future Ws and Ls, but primarily over large samples (including large samples of teams).
None of this means one 13-5 team was better than another.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||What Brian said is false, no "framing" can change that||
Here's what Brian said: "Michigan was not as good as either of the two teams they tied with. You can see that in the efficiency margins:"
He equates being good with the efficiency margins. That is simply false. He misunderstands the stats. If he really had discussed what you were suggesting, he'd be closer to getting it right -- but still not there.
|2 years 27 weeks ago||We were as good||
As others have pointed out, there's one measuring stick: W's. We had as many.
Kenpom/efficiency numbers are useful predictive tools, but only useful, they are not perfect. Saying we weren't as good is misunderstanding the nature of those stats.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Exactly. Why are we||
Exactly. Why are we splitting hairs making a big deal out of a comment Brandon made that can be interpreted as a truthful statement or as some kind of skullduggery? Do you think Brandon really forgot that he acknowledged at one point that the Game might be moved? It was kind of a big deal. Again, blowing this up into a big deal doesn't seem like the work of someone supporting the home team...
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Q. Was there discussion||
Q. Was there discussion last year of moving the Game?
A. No, there was never talk of that.
i.e., never talk last year. I'm sure he'd word it differently in a statement. But the context suggests that's what he meant. "I don't think there's anything being contemplated as it relates to that." i.e., talk regarding the present
And Brian is "objective" and "reasonable"? Okay, if you say so. Anyway, Brian has some good blogging skills and insights, but his views on Brandon don't strike me as those things you mentioned (as they didn't with Hoke, for that matter). Plenty of other blogs are out there too, some of which do report stuff as fact that's probably made up or might as well be. I think Brandon seems like a good AD. And no, I don't want UM to be represented by the "best athletes." I want amazing athletes who are also "Michigan Men," meaning that nebulous term in the most positive way.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Well 18 months was not last year||
Last year was 2011. Eighteen months ago was 2010. There also were rumors going around rather recently, which I think was what was being referenced.
Also, this fascination with picking on everything Brandon says is very different from the "let's all get behind the UM team" that used to be advised here.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||Tigers Have Used 30 different Ds...||
...and they use different Ds on their caps vs jerseys.
I like these jerseys, but having so many in one season does seem a bit much.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||The 1st 1000 Words of this post are a Carr Diatribe||
Michigan wins its ninth game for the first time since 2006, plays pretty darn well in every facet of the game, and the 1st 1000 words of the game post are complaints about other people's perception regarding a time when Michigan was really good but not quite as good as how Brians thinks they should have been? That sounds like not enjoying it to me.
And, as I said in my original post, I'm not arguing that we had the best schemes for defending mobile QBs, but, on the whole, our biggest problem was that a few other teams had, for a variety of reasons, at least as much and sometimes more talent than we did. My point about '06 was that we didn't lose that year because we were conservative or because we couldn't handle mobile QBs. Maybe we could've been better in these regards but overall we were pretty good.
Brian didn't think we'd be able to recruit top classes with Hoke. So far he looks to be wrong. The schematic advantages of spread n shred are overated. If you have Cam Newton the spread works a whole lot better. We need to get among the best players and have coaches who can coach those players up. We seem to have that now. It's okay to make mistakes, it doesn't help dwelling in public on all the reasons you made them.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Weird write up for a great win||
Yesterday felt like Michigan because of good, tough defense and solid fundamentals.
Also, did we really not win a bunch more national championships because of running too much and conservative playcalling? Brian is cherrypicking numbers to make Michigan look bad.
For instance, here are the rushing yards per carry for Michigan’s leading rusher in Carr’s last 4 years (leading rusher because that’s who was getting most of the rushes when games were in doubt):
YPC for leading rusher – 2004 - 5.2; 2005 - 4.4 (4.0 for 2nd who got a lot of carries); 2006 - 4.9; 2007 - 5.1
And here are the numbers for the mobile QBs Michigan faced in 2006:
Vanderbilt’s QB Chris Nickson averaged 4.8 yds per carry, ran for 700 yards and 9 tds – against Michigan, 16 rushes for 22 yds.
IU’s Kellen Lewis ran for 440 yards in 2006 with a 3.6 avg – against Michigan, 11 attempts, 5 yards.
Troy Smith’s running totals in the 2006 game – 4 attempts, 12 yards.
Sure, some of these numbers were influenced by sacks. Could Michigan’s playcalling have been better at times? Sure, especially toward the aggressiveness side. Although that Tressel guy we kept losing to was pretty conservative.
Did Michigan lose at OSU because it was too conservative? The real problem for Michigan was that Beanie Wells, future NFLer, was the back-up RB, two WRs got at least a cup of coffee in the pros, etc. The real problem for Michigan was that OSU, USC, and some of the SEC had the most talent for much of this time.
Sure, Michgan might’ve been susceptible to good mobile quarterbacks, might’ve had some things it could’ve done better. But yesterday felt like Michigan because of good tough, defense and solid fundamentals.
I feel bad for Brian. He just cannot enjoy this, too entrenched in previous positions. Michigan has a huge victory, nine wins, feeling great, and Brian’s big lead is complaining about Lloyd Carr. He jokes he only talks about coaches at Michigan regarding BWS’s RichRod discussion, but actually he only complains about Carr. Carr must’ve turned down some interview requests.
|2 years 46 weeks ago||Confusion of random with regression to the mean and...||
...other statistical phenomena appears often on this site.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||3-9, 5-7||
Look, the personal stuff is there, and there is enough blame to go around, from members of the Michigan community not being all in to RR not caring enough to figure out Michigan traditions.
In the end, RR went 3-9, which put him behind the 8-ball. Going 5-7 made it so that he had to really show something last year. He didn't. Defense and ST were terrible. He didn't do a good job here -- overall, not that he didn't have some success on the offensive side -- and he didn't sell himself as loving Michigan qua Michigan before it was too late.
He seemed like an okay guy, but also not the kind of guy Michigan should have as a coach, between certain quotes, the wingless helmets, etc. I'm sorry it didn't work out, but I'm glad we've moved on.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||Myth 2 seems like problematic analysis||
If you want to determine whether resting a defense helps said defense, why would you just compare numbers following a scoring drive? It would be better to compare general time/length of plays in all drives -- for instance, 3 and outs, turnovers, etc. A one-play score on offense may fire up the defense and negate a general trend where length of previous offense drive helps a defense.
Moreover, it might be an aggregate phenomenon. A defense might not produce differently after a one-play drive vs a 15-play drive, while still performing differently being on the field 20 minutes in a half vs 10 minutes in a half.