- Member for
- 4 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
- The rivals rating is a pretty good indication of how the team will perform over the long term (well, yeah), particularly at the very top and very bottom.
- Even with the disaster of the Rodriguez years, Michigan pretty much performed to expectations.
- Wisconsin and Northwestern really have exceeded expectations based on the recruiting rankings, something I think we all thought.
- Michigan State has actually performed a bit below what their recruiting ranking would have predicted. Probably due to pre-Dantonio (but would he be considered pre-madonna?) years.
|6 hours 20 min ago||Oh don't go gettin' your||
Oh don't go gettin' your panties in a wad.
|1 day 14 hours ago||Geography matters for rivalries||
That is why Notre Dame worked so well, and why Texas-Oklahoma, Michigan-Ohio State, California-Stanford, UCLA-USC, etc work as well.
For Michigan, there is no natural replacement for Notre Dame, so I wouldn't lock in another school.
However, there is another way to go. Private, excellent D-1 schools like Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt and Rice tend to schedule each other as they are facing the similar challenges and are essentially playing each other on an equal footing.
I would propose that Michigan do the same with excellent public schools and rotate among schools of Virginia, North Carolina, California, UCLA, and perhaps Texas.
|2 days 10 hours ago||Vince Smith getting 0 yards up the middle||
The problem I have with his point of averaging half a yard and 35 yards, getting into the playbook with added turns, and how it pertains to Ohio State.
From my observation, plays that gain half a yard just do not set up other plays off it. It is plays that are somewhat successful (say off-tackle runs that gain 6-8 yards) that set up others (play action).
Regarding Borges point about his preference for a balanced offense. It is reasonable to conclude that he prefers it because it is the offense that will most likely lead to success. But balanced offenses work because the defense is unsure if the play called is going to be a run or a pass. Just how does this square with his play calling with Denard in the Ohio State game when EVERYONE in the stadium knew when he was under center the play was going to be a run?
|5 days 12 hours ago||No doubt.||
If you look at just the record, OSU at 67-13 is head-and-shoulders above the rest of the conference. With the next team at 52-28 (15 games behind in baseball terms) there really is no "second place" team (5 teams between 9 wins of each other, or even 7 teams within 16 wins).
Without the dip in record from the RR years, yeah, Michigan likely would have been solidly second overall in the conference.
|5 days 12 hours ago||A table comparing the teams'||
A table comparing the teams' (less Nebraska as that would not make much sence) Big Ten record versus their recruiting rank supplied by the OP. I used the last 10 years as this would not incorporate too much of the classes prior to 2002.
Several things show up:
|1 week 14 hours ago||A ways back I jumped out of a||
A ways back I jumped out of a plane at Tecumseh but all I got was some dumb certificate.
|1 week 2 days ago||What a welcome to the||
Big Ten for Rutgers. Requisite divisional games with OSU, MSU, Michigan and Penn State, and their crossover games are at Nebraska and home against Wisconsin. This must be the toughest schedule in the conference.
|1 week 3 days ago||I dunno,||
a little small if you ask me (the picture, that is), but this is nothing that you wouldn't see every day on the street in the south or Southern California.
|1 week 3 days ago||There are a few anomalies that appear by assigning||
2* to all NR. For example, look at 247 composite ranking, overall, for Rutgers and Michigan State. Currently, Rutgers has the #20 class (!) in the country, with Michigan State #23. Yet Ace reports 24/7's average for Rutgers 9 recruits as 2.89 and for Michigan State's 8 recruits as 3.50. This makes absolutely no sense and is due to Ace factoring in 2* for NR's and is not actually 24/7's average.
EDIT- I must be reading things wrong as the numbers are not due to NR=2*, somehow 24/7 does have MSU averaging 3.50 and Rutgers 2.89. I guess Rutgers' 2/3*s are better than MSU's 3/4*s. Works for me.
There are 2 interesting things that can be missed because of this. Rutgers is on pace to have what might be one of their best recruiting classes of all time (due to the announcement of joining the Big Ten?) and Penn State is clearly doing much better than everyone else thought in the wake of their sanctions.
Regarding the algorithm, I don't think that would be a hard one to write.
|1 week 3 days ago||Suggestion Ace||
From what I understand how you do your overall rankings and the comment under Penn State "They'd be giving Ohio State a serious run for #2 if ESPN got around to ranking half their commits" if a player gets three 4*, averaging in a 2* for a NR makes little sense as there is no way the forth service is going to give him 2*s.
To avoid this hard downward skew, I would suggest that you just average the rankings provided (particularly if 3 of the 4 services provide a ranking, but I would do it even if only 2 of the services provide a ranking). This would probably give a better reflection as to where the kid is actually ranked, and thus where the team's recruiting actually stands. And I think this is what your really want to convey with your reporting.
Just a thought.
EDIT: If no (or only 1) service provides a ranking, then it does make sense to give (or factor in) the player a 2* as his obscurity probably warrents it.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I like your design for||
Michigan State's field, Seth, but don't you think the endzones should read "What's in you're wallet?"
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I know that Magnus has been able to||
incite MGoRiots here on the blog with his insights, but I have never heard of anyone being "incitefully correct."
Learn somethin' new every day, I guess.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I don't know,||
I haven't much of a problem getting to Chapel Hill or anywhere in Durham.
Regarding Nebraska recruiting, I think a lot of people are only looking at one side of the equation. Nebraska was plenty stocked with talent well before the Big 8 absorbed the Texas schools, and that talent came almost exclusively from Nebraska, with some from the surrounding states.
Nebraska has no in-state competition, and little if any competition for Nebraska talent from out-of-state schools. Also, it has been mentioned that it is difficult for recruits to get to Lincoln. Well, that also goes for coaches and recruiters for schools outside of Nebraska, and probably just makes it tough to identify and ultimately recruit talent out of the state.
All the big programs recruit Texas, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, etc. There is a lot of competition to go along with the great deal of talent.
Nebraska, as when Penn State joined the Big Ten, will have a winning percentage lower than their historical average. But it will not be due to newfound shortcomings in recruiting.
|3 weeks 6 hours ago||Yeah?||
Tell that to the Detroit Lions. They seem to only go from bad to worse.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||I guess I'm old school||
I chisel my posts in granite.
I then take the tablet to this young guy who has this stuff he calls moveable typeface and puts it on paper. I then take the paper to this really hip young guy who works at a new place called Western Union. He telegraphs my post to a young whippersnapper who has a box that looks at the telegraph and converts it into, well, magic I guess, cause there is the post in the light box.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||7 years of college?|
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Ouch, so far, not a good day for Michigan||
Men's tennis lost to Ohio State, 4-0
Women's tennis lost to Northwestern, 4-1
Women's softball lost to Nebraska 7-5
Water polo pending
EDIT: Water polo lost to Princeton 7-5 finishing off a clean sweep to the day. Bummer
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Don, apparently this is some||
Don, apparently this is some serious stuff, and this is no time to employ half-measures.
Show up late, don't show up at all, don't cheer, don't cheer loud enough, have blue hair, or are just an irritating drunken sorority girl, that's it, its the scrotum squeeze of death for you.
We get rid of the 85,000 or so deadbeat fans that plague the stadium and fill them with real Michigan Men who know how to attend and properly cheer the team, only then will the world be right.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Bo was always concerned about||
Bo was always concerned about the impact of televising every game, home and away, on attendance. There was no immediate impact back in the '80's when this first became a reality, but I wonder if, with all of the other additional sports coverage and entertainment options, if there is now a noticeable impact.
I haven't been in the state for almost 20 years, let alone a football game, but back in the '70's and '80's we had crappy opponents, hangovers, drunken sorority girls, alcohol, etc, but attendance was always pretty good. Something seems to have changed.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Strong or weak safety?||
Strong or weak safety?
|8 weeks 5 days ago||I agree and I think that||
I agree with your very first statement and I think that Brian gets a little too emotionally vested in the teams success. Understood that this is fan as well as blog-success issue.
It must be tough to analyze/report on a team that is performing poorly, but he really has should do it and not come off so "fair-weathery." I am sure having a 5-hour enema would be more fun, but he did choose to have a Michigan sports blog and sometimes needs to emotionally divest himself a little and try to analyze the things that are going wrong with various poor-preforming teams when they happen.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||But, but, but...||
the response of some of the fanbase is that you shouldn't be critical (read: conduct any kind of analysis as to why the team is underperforming to expectations) because then you aren't a true Michigan fan, and that we should celebrate any and all effort by the "kids" (or coaches) regardless how feeble, otherwise you are not a true "fan."
|8 weeks 5 days ago||I agree, monuments should be||
I agree, monuments should be built in Ann Arbor to honor your greatness "of not trashing 18-23 year olds" as well as your impressive critical thinking.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||Wow||
|8 weeks 5 days ago||That is practically a||
That is practically a difference without a distinction.
Give me an f-ing break, the point stands.
|9 weeks 14 hours ago||Yes, as important it is to||
Yes, as important it is to have a couple of good ball handlers on the court, you also need to have guys that can finish; particularly at the basket. Robinson, Hardaway and McGary should have big games with a number of dunks.
The team has to have the mentality to make VCU pay for the chances they take with the press and not be satisfied with just getting the ball over the time line. That would be like giving them a free pass.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||If I am doing my math||
If I am doing my math correctly, I think you're half right.
There are 28 years and 4 of each seeds, so there are a total of 112 4-seeds in those years. 1 of those 4-seeds won the tournament, so 1/112, or a little less than 1% of all of the 4-seeds won the championship.
For the final 4, 11 of the the 112 4-seeds made it, so that would be 11/112, or 10% chance. And yeah, I would probably put Michigan's chances at around that.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Here is the problem||
There is no way that this will stand for long. In a related case, the Ivy league schools (along with a number of private eastern schools associated with them such as MIT) were sued by students over their price-fixing scholarship offers (non-student athletes) a little over 20 years ago. Representatives from each school got together and in order to avoid competition between the offers of each school, they "normalized" the scholarship offer that each school was to give a prospective students. This was clearly price-fixing and they ultimately had no choice but to settle out of court.
Similarly, if there is an arrangement within the NCAA that sets the amount to be paid to a student athlete across the country's universities, I just can't see it lasting long at all. A case in which there is a fundamental difference between price fixing at $0 (under the guise of amateurism) and any other set amount.
Ultimately, this will result to competition in cash for the high-profile high school athletes. This new free agency would transform college athletics far beyond what Delany is proposing.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||Yeah, I just looked it up.||
Yeah, I just looked it up. Villanova (1985) was an 8, and Kansas (1988) was a 6. By my count, there have been 17 #1-seeds that have been champions, 4 2-seeds, 4 3-seeds, 1 4-seed and 2 seeds lower than 4 since 1985. That totals 28 champions - which adds up for the number of years.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||Not sure I understand your||
Not sure I understand your last chart.
Since 1985, there have been 28 NCAA tournaments, thus 28 champions. Your chart of 1-4 seeds shows 21 champions, implying that there have been 7 champions of seeds 5 or lower, almost as many as 2, 3, and 4 seeds combined.
If that is right, it would seem like it would be better to be a lower 6 or 7 seed than a 4 seed, which seems to contradict what you say about fortunes falling precipitously after the 4 seed.