Recent Comments

It wouldn't surprise me if the idea of "casual" socks is more prevalent in Northeastern cities than in Southern California.   Casual socks are the socks you wear with your fashionable casual attire.  Out here, if you are heading out for dinner and drinks with friends, you throw on a pair of nice dark jeans, a colorful casual sock, and some rich leather shoes.  Athletic socks don't go with anything other than athletic shoes, and very few city dwellers wear athletic shoes casually.

I have lost faith.  79-63, Bad Guys. 

Ceiling: All Big Ten

Ace's current methodology treats a class of five 3-star players as equivalent to a class of three 5-star players.  Yet numerous studies have shown that recruting three 5-star players produces one All-American about 75% of the time.  Recruitng five 3-star players produces one All-American about 9% of the time.  There are similar studies about the correlation between star rankings and team wins.  If Ace wants to include a measure of quantity in his rankings, he needs to first find a way to better account for the drastic differences between individual player star ratings.

He's the leader of the group
Transformed from the norm by the nuclear goop. 

and I am happy to have him as our coach.

But I was always pretty fond of Brian's Tay Odoms = Mountain Goat meme.   Mountain Goat beats Muscle Hamster any day.

I'd take the dog to beat your spread in all three cases.  What would you give me on a $5 trifecta?

Rutgers has finished either in the AP Top 25 or among "Others Receiving Votes" in 5 of the last 6 years.  If they keep up their momentum this year, it will be 6 of 7.  I'm not saying they are great, but they are not exactly a one-year fluke. 

That article is over a year old. 

I'm sure the #4 has something to do with it, but their size and upright running style are similar enough.  Looking back at his high school tape, Minor might have had more top-end speed coming in (or he might have just played against inferior competition).  Either way, I hope Hoke teaches Smith how to RAGE.

I agree that carries will be sparse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him give us a few highlights as a reciever out of the backfield or the slot.  Despite being the nominal change-of-pace back, Smith only has 36 career receptions in 33 games.  I see Hayes getting some chances out there.  I believe the coaches were also auditioning him at punt and kickoff returner last year, so he might get a look there again at some point.

All told, you're right that it's likely still a weak line: 20-25 caries and 15-20 receptions, probably.  But I guess my point is that I fully expect to see him become a reliable role-player this year rather than just a substitute.  By the end of the season, I think he'll be getting touches because the coaches want him to get those touches, not because the other guy needed a breather.  If that's the case, I'd consider it a successful year for him regardless of the final numbers.

Don't forget Justice Hayes.  He's probably above both of the players you mention in terms of slot/speed backs.  Frankly, I'm quite excited for his future here.

That said, I would be happy to have Dee Hart competing here if the coaches think he's worth the offer.

Homebrew IPA.  Trying to kick the keg so that I can start cabonating my Special Bitter tomorrow while I brew an Oatmeal Stout.

This isn't as new a trend as you might like to believe.  Wake Forest offered NC QB Chris Leak as an 8th grader.  That would have been roughly 12 years ago.  These things happen.

If I'm doing the math correctly, the Under bet would require a 65% or greater chance of Michigan winning fewer than 10 games.  Although I would take the Under straight up, I'm not sure that a 9-or-fewer win season is twice as likely as a 10-win season.

Yeah, he's probably thinking of Canadian cyclist Clara Hughes rather than US figure skater and Olympic gold medalist Sarah Hughes.

I'm sure we'd all take a B1G championship over not getting one. That's an easy choice.

Perhaps the question should be posed as: Would you rather have a Sweet 16 team that won the B1G championship or a Final Four team that didn't?

Although it's tough, I would probably rather Michigan makes the Final Four. That means that, to me, B1G titles don't really matter. (Note that I would take a B1G championship team that lost in the second round of the tourney over a non-championship team that only made the Sweet 16.)

and I get where you are coming from, though it still seems odd to me to say "We are choosing a champion based on which team is able to beat a set of elite teams, but we are going to potentially exclude the team(s) with the best odds of beating that a set of elite teams by imposing an arbitrary requirement."

I guess part of it comes down to what you see as the purpose of a playoff.  If you think that a playoff is the most accurate way of determining the "best" team (by forcing them to play the other legitimate contenders), it seems that you should want all the teams that could reasonably prove to be the best (I disagree that Michigan would fall into that category this year, btw).  If, however, you don't think that a playoff is about determining a "best" team, but rather about finding a method of choosing among teams with the best resumes, I'm not sure why we would bother with a playoff at all (as opposed to, say, reverting to just voting for a national champion).

"When was the last time the #5 team in the country, had a real arguement, that they should be in the  National Championship game? "

We haven't had that argument because we've always had a two-team playoff.  But look just at this year.  A four-team playoff would have been LSU, Alabama, OKlahoma State and . . . who?

You say Stanford, but what makes them more "deserving" than Oregon?  I would think that Oregon has a better chance to win a four-team playoff that Stanford.  Why not Boise State?  They've proven that they can hang with anyone in big games.

Even if we expanded to an 8-team tourney, the first year that a 3-loss 8-seed wins it all, the 9th and 10th best teams will have an argument that they could have done the same.  And I doubt it will take long for that to happen.

In 6 of the last 15 years, the college basketball champion has not been one of the four best teams at the end of the season.  And in 4 of those 6 years, the champion has not even been one of the eight best teams at the end of the season.  More that 26% of the time, the champion has come from teams ranked 9th or worse.

Spence looked great in the Under Armor All-Star game.  That's a huge pickup for Ohio.  It will be fun watching him match up against our terrific O-line recruiting class for the next four-five years.

shoulder, ankle, and hamstring injuries.

Given all he's been through, I'm very happy for him.

". .  .though he had some issues corraling players to the ground . . ."

Glad to see this said, honestly.  When I said something similar in another thread, it got flagged as flamebait, but it does seem from the UA game that getting his head accross the body of runners and fully wrapping up is one big area where he will need some work this spring.

I think it will be interesting to compare his play to James Ross this afternoon.  Usually, opponent quality disparities makes  comparing recruits nearly impossible.  But these All-Star games should provide a base level of talent that provides some much-neeeded context for evaluations.

I think a lot of teams will be scared away by his injury history.  I agree that it will turn to some extent on his combine numbers, but my gut tells me that he's probably a 6th-7th round prospect.

By this logic, breaking out of prison isn't breaking a REAL law.

Stonum broke the law by driving drunk.  Part of his punishment is that he is no longer allowed the privilege of driving.  He circumvented his own punishment for the first crime, breaking ANOTHER law in the process.

I consider that a big deal in its own right.  It is all the more so when combined with the previous violations.

7am is not particularly early.  Buses, bikes, and feet are all perfectly capable of transporting an individual from one location to another.  On a personal level, Stonum's bad decision is understandable.  But, on an accountablility level, it is still a bad decision, it should not be excusable.

I'm not sure I understand your comment.  The point of this diary entry is proving that the call on the field was incorrect, and that Fitz was in fact down short of the goal line.  The person above is simply saying that it is better that the final result (no TD) matched the facts (no TD), even though the replay official was wrong to overturn the initial incorrect call on such inconclusive evidence.  Yes, the replay official botched the call, but reached the correct outcome in doing so.

I was also a supporter of RR and was dubious of the Hoke hire.  I am also, in general, much less optimistic about all things Michigan footaball that the commenters here.  But no rational person could have watched every game this season and thought anything other than "By God, that's starting to look like Michigan football again." 

Scenario 3 looks the most realistic to me.  The offense will have flashes of explosiveness, but it is unlikely to be a smooth transition.  Denard is fantastic, but is still likely to throw some ill-advised balls that lead to interceptions.  He is also less likely to get as many opportunities for wide-open 50+ yard touchdown passes without the constant threat of the Incredibly Surprising QB Iso.  The defense, while hopefully improved, is still lacking the kind of top-end talent that will get us over the hump against teams like Ohio.

The early schedule looks promising otherwise, but Notre Dame is a coinflip given that we'll still be adapting to the new offense and some new personnel.  Later in the season, I would expect us to be underdogs in four games: @MSU, @Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio.

I think a 5-loss season looks as likely as a 3-loss season at this point.

I know that the team's working through some injuries, and that Spring is a long way from Fall, but that's an interesting-looking set of defensive 1s.  Exciting.

I predicted 6-7 last year, so I was a bit off.  

This year, 8-5. 

Ruddles Best Bitter is a phenomenal beer, and not one most people have heard of (unlike, say, Stone's Arrogant Bastard).  Excellent recommendation!

Mike Cox strikes me as the obvious beneficiary of this change.  He was always reputed to be the most talented back on the team, but he struggled with the mental side of the spread option offense.  I suspect that I-formation "downhill" running will likely suit his strengths while masking his weaknesses. 

And Casteel will remain with the team.  I guess we can cross that one off the wishlist.

Agreed.  My pre-season prediction was 6-7.  I find it really hard to be upset that they're doing about what I expected.

I think Wisconsin should be above Alabama.  Wisconsin's loss came against a better team (#6 MSU vs. #18 South Carolina) and their signature win came against a better team (#12 OSU vs. NR Florida).  Alabama has looked a little more dominant against the mid-level competition, but Wisconsin has stepped up more in the big games.

I also think that Missouri should be a little higher.  They're undefeated and crushed a decent Texas A&M team on the road.  When I compare their schedule against OSU (with whom they share a common opponent), I have trouble concluding that a home win against Miami and a road loss to Wisconsin is better than a road crushing of A&M and a home crushing of a creampuff.  The rest of the schedules are fairly comperable.   

I don't see it. 

I like the part where the baby comes before the wedding.  

I AM ANGAR!

I always make sure to wear a maize student season ticket holder t-shirt when we play at home, even when watching on TV.  

Last week it was the 2007 season shirt.  Stupid 1-AA teams.  

I'm re-rocking it today, however, because my other available options are equally ominous w/r/t today's opponent (2006 - Ball State; 2008 - Toledo).  

There are several ways a voter might approach his/her ranking system.  Among them:

* Which team would likely beat all the other teams on a neutral field?

* Which team will likely end the season with the best body of work?

* Which team has put together the best body of work to date?

You seem to be focused on the first or second approach.  I agree that Boise should probably not be in the conversation for the first.  I'm also inclined to agree that it would take some far-fetched speculation to put Boise number one based on the second criteria. 

However, the third approach is also valid, and I have no reason to think that the eight voters who consider Boise the number one team in America didn't reach that conclusion based on precicely that kind of reasoning.  Without question, theirs was the best win of the season so far.  If I had to award a trophy today, it would go to Boise State. 

I know Odoms is playing outside this year, but my memory of the scrape-exchange-counterpuch screen was of the outside reciever moving toward the quaterback and cutting under the slot(s).  Having reviewed the picture pages from last year, that is clearly incorrect.

I still think this is the right play call (Rich Rod will want to see how the defense plays the zone read, but will want to give Denard an easy completion to get his rhythem going), so change Odoms to Grady, and the gain to 8 yards (Odoms is the teams best blocking reciever, and Grady is quick).

I wear a maize student season ticket holder t-shirt for home games (even though I am no longer a student and no longer in Michigan) and a blue Michigan t-shirt for away games.  Whenever possible, I wear a shirt from a year in which we beat that week's opponent (works for everyone but Ohio State). 

I also make my wife watch the game and wear her Michigan shirt.  She's not that into football, but I swear the team plays better when she's in the room. 

Although I think he looked good and am glad to see him developing, he was running with the 2s and 3s in the Beanie Bowl.  He may well have been featured so much on the video because he made the best catches for Tate and Devin, not because his play was better than the receivers catching balls from Denard.

If all of the league's primary rivalries are set up as protected cross-division games, the divisions can look pretty even.

Michigan - OSU

MSU - Penn State

Nebraska - Iowa

Wisconsin - Minnesota

Illinois - Northwestern

Indiana - Purdue

This keeps all but one existing permanent rivalry (Nebraska - Iowa replaces Wisconsin - Iowa) and provides plenty of competitive balance.  

I can't tell how fancy of a place you're looking for. The word "client" suggests to me that it should be reasonably high-end (though kid friendly). I'm also assuming that you're looking for lunch/brunch, and not a full-blown breakfast (favorite breakfast: Afternoon Delight or Seva).

If you have a car, the best place to eat in Ann Arbor is Zingerman's Roadhouse in the Westgate plaza. It's kid-friendly, but does really delicious, fairly-expensive Southern comfort food. On the weekends, they do my favorite brunch item ever: the Grits-n-Bits Waffle. It's a waffle stuffed with grits, bacon, and sharp cheddar cheese, served with real maple syrup. If you dig the savory + sweet combo, you'll be in heaven.

If you want something less formal, Zingerman's Deli in Kerrytown is an Ann Arbor institution. It does high-end sandwiches with sides like potato salad or mac-and-cheese. Definitely kid-approved (unless we're talking about babies?).

If you're looking for lower on the price scale (i.e., if by "chain" you mean MacDonald's rather than Olive Garden), you'll want to hit up Blimpy Burger. A short drive or a long walk from the arena, they do a delicious greasy burger with signature surly service. The key to the burger is customizability, so explore the menu fully. My favorite: Triple w/ fried egg, hard salami, bleu cheeze, grilled onions, banana peppers, stone ground mustard, and lettuce on a pumpernickel roll. Add in some fried mixed veggies or onion rings. :)

Initially, my thought was that he's simply assuming an equal pace between the two teams (more time = more snaps = more opportunities to score). The assertion seems likely to be true once we expose and assume the hidden premise.

Interestingly, I'm now wondering whether there is a correlation between points and TOP even when snaps are equal. It certainly seems possible that a slower pace (a) decreases offensive mistakes, (b) allows offensive linemen rest, (c) tires out defenses at a disproportionate rate, or (d) indicates a willingness to audible and adjust. I'd be interested in seeing a correlation study on it, actually.

If I'm not mistaken, Brown was also a special teams coach at one point in his career. I wouldn't mind seeing GERG more involved with the LBs and having Brown as an assistant LB coach and dedicated special teams coordinator.

So far this season, we've played Big 10 folk about as well as we did last year:

Last year we played ND close, other than the 21 points spotted by turnovers.
This year we played ND close straight up.

Last year we lost to MSU close, and to Purdue in a shootout.
This year we lost to MSU close, and to Purdue in a shootout.

Last year we got crushed by PSU and Illinois.
This year we got crushed by PSU and Illinois.

And although we didn't play Iowa or Indiana last year, I think a favorable comparison can be made between Iowa and 2008 Utah.

In any event, I point out all of this because last year we should have lost this game by around 17-20, but we got lucky. It was basically the opposite of the ND game from last year. If the trend above holds, I think the safe money is on Wisconsin to cover the 8.5. Maybe we can get lucky again (I REALLY hope that we do), but if I'm playing the odds I'm taking Wisky.

I'm also terrified that we're going to lose again this weekend. Against FBS teams, we've performed only slightly better than last year: we played ND roughly even, but had mistakes kill us last year; we played close, but lost to MSU; we got killed by PSU; and we played an overachieving undefeated team close and loss (Utah v. Iowa).

Last year, Illinois killed us. I can't buy into us being that much better or them being that much worse. I really hope I'm wrong, but if I had to put money on it, I'd guess 38-23.

The officiating really was terrible. It's like they handed the game to Florida. I usually hate complaints about the refs "giving away" games, as they're often whiny conspiracy theory things, but the calls in that game really were atrocious.

Kansas played Iowa State, not Texas A&M, last week. Kansas's last two wins have been closer than they should have been, and Colorado looked better than expected at times last week. I'd play it in this order:

CSU +20
Arkansas +24
Kansas -10

Unfortunately, now I'm not sure just what message Tate takes away from all of this. If you were in his shoes, does the last drive demonstrate just how much the team needs you, or did the previous drive demonstrate just how much it doesn't.

I like the idea, but I think the methodology is a little funky. Why not run a series of correlations between the raw data and your dependent variables without worrying about deciding what is good or bad? If you have STATA or some similar program, it should be able to tell you how to weight them by producing correlation coefficients for each independent variable (%DO, %MA, etc) that are readily comparable. That would be the real benefit of a study like this--similar to Visualizing the Hennechart, your work would be able to tell us how to read the chart (e.g. by teaching us that a DO is worth 127% of a CA). Just some food for thought.

The angle was so bad that I actually wondered for a second whether he was intentionally throwing the game for some reason. Obviously, that can't be true. But the mere fact that the thought could enter my head is evidence of just how poor his effort was today.

You can see that the Pac-10 analysis is from last week. Whoever was cutting/pasting over last week's material probably just pasted two paragraphs in the same spot and failed to notice.

One of the biggest sources of consternation with polls is that everyone assumes different criteria. My poll would look a lot different if you are asking me to rank (1) the 25 strongest teams, (2) the 25 teams who have compiled the best resume so far, (3) the 25 teams that I expect will have the best record at the end, or (4) the 25 teams who had the best season-to-date (not the same as #2).

I was actually going to write a diary about this difference and perform a detailed resume ranking to show why I think everyone does it wrong, but the ranking took way too long and I didn't get very far. What I did conclude is that, if we are using criteria #2, Iowa is ahead of Boise, and looking extremely impressive. Boise and Houston are a coin-flip. And Michigan should be ahead of Wisconsin, but not by as much as we think.

Anyway, I'll probably weigh in with a complete top 25 once I have a better sense of what our rankings should be based on.

Denard is averaging 6.2 YPC as a QB. Even if opponents are keying on the run, they haven't been effective at stopping him. Why do we need to use him any better than that?

There is nothing ridiculous about it.

First of all, we're talking about a week 4 poll with zero consequences for anyone involved. There is no difference between this poll and a pre-season poll. It's the best guess of some people about who are the "Top" 25 teams. I offer that a power ranking is much more consistent with the goal of ranking the "top" 25 teams than a resume ranking 4 weeks into the season.

Second of all, and most importantly, Wins and Losses aren't the only things that happen on the field.

We've all had the experience of watching the better team lose. For example, most of us felt that way after the 2008 Notre Dame game. Based on what we saw (i.e., the play on the field), I would have ranked us ahead of the team that just beat us by quite a few points.

Sometimes a team struggles against a particular style of offense or defense. Under Carr we couldn't stop the spread. Sometimes a team loses a trap game, or loses because they were looking ahead, or looses because they're playing a former coach who knows the system. USC's loss to Washington is infinitely more understandable than, say, Ole Miss' loss to South Carolina, despite the fact that South Carolina is probably a better team than Washington.

What happens on the field, including the wins and losses, is evidence of which teams are good, but if the goal is to rank the best teams then a complaint based solely in wins and losses just doesn't have much critical power.

Even if you strongly believe in resume voting, then you shouldn't be tied to head-to-head records, since resume voting requires evaluating the whole record. For example, take Iowa and Penn State. Iowa's worst game (near loss to Northern Iowa) doesn't look that much better than Penn State's worst game (loss to Iowa). If Penn State's other three wins are more impressive than Iowa's other three wins, Penn State could still end up having accomplished more at the end of the day. It's like the difference between a student who gets 4 straight Bs and a student who gets 3 As and a D. That D sure looks ugly, but it's the second student who has the higher GPA. You may not believe that to be true in this case, but (1) it's debatable, and (2) the point is not that the coaches got it right, but that your use of head-to-head results simply isn't a meaningful critique.

I was quite excited for the drive, in large part because our rushing offense had been our largest offensive advantage and having Robinson in at QB meant that we would (1) be running more often, and (2) be able to use the QB run as part of the offense more effectively (i.e., without worrying about the health of the QB on every hit).

Yes, and it was and still is the right call. The polls at this point are more like a power ranking than anything else. Sometimes a better team can lose to worse team. It happens.

This thread reminds me of a blog comment the other day where someone asserted that the phrase "girl-on-girl" was coined by the movie Mean Girls, and that every use of it since has been a hat tip to the movie.

I'm not saying this to be a dick, this just reminded me of that, which made me chuckle.

Boo Boo was hurt early in the game and the announcers overlooked it entirely. The announcers then later claimed that he was benched for poor play.

UNC/GT
FSU/USF
MSU/WISC

That's my order.

Also: Craig James should have his AP vote taken away.

Interestingly, not drinking before drinking is like that for me. Mmmm...booze.

The spread for the game was -27 points (which we certainly didn't cover).

I have no hard data (jamiemac probably does; I bet my gut), but under Lloyd Carr I almost always took the dog with the points, and was regularly happy about it. As Brian showed in a recent board post, Michigan has not been dominant against lesser non-conference opponents, and even when playing teams like Vandy (2006) Vegas gave us something like -17 points (which we certainly didn't cover).

That is one of the amazing things about this year under Rich Rod - we're actually beating the teams we are supposed to by more than we are supposed to. Yet another reason to stay away from the game: three games is too anomalous, but history is based on a different regime and is therefore not predictive.

Is there any chance you're Slightly FREAKING OUT?

EDIT: To watch the game, go to Buffalo Billiards in DuPont Circle (just to the right when you exit the Metro to the South). Michigan is in the back room, with some mediocre drink and food specials. Get there early enough to get a table near the speakers (11:20ish for a 12:00 game) as it can sometimes be hard to hear if you're relegated to the pool tables.

It's actually really valid. People assume there are only two options: Stand and yell; sit and clap. They're not mutually exclusive.

The biggest complaint by the blue-hairs is "Down in front!"
The ubiquitous response by the damn hoodlums is "But we need to be loud!"

Much (not all, of course) of the argument is just people talking past each other.

Assuming that you've convinced me w/r/t to yelling, I fail to see where standing enters your argument. May I not sit and yell to achieve your desired effect?

Ah, you think like a poker player. You're absolutely right in mutliple iteration games (which is what football is, so admittedly I just screwed up in making up the numbers off the top of my head), but interestingly there is an increasingly-accepted approach to single-iteration games that says Ticket B is still more valuable. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, the basic point is that in 67.5% of possible outcomes you are better off with ticket B, so if you only have one ticket, that's the one you want.

Just like you shouldn't pay $500,000 for an 11% chance at $5,000,000 because (even though the value is right), you'll probably lose and you can't afford to play enough times to make the risk of loss worthwhile (you probably need that $500K for like, you know, food).

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting, given your response. Probably wasn't very interesting actually.

Yeah, ask anonymous internet posters whether they've had cool, risky sex in a forum where they have no incentive not to lie. That'll go swimmingly, I'm sure.

And no.

While I'm always in favor of new approaches to ranking teams, have you tested your rankings to see whether they're predictive of future outcomes? At least part of what mainstream rankings are attempting to do is establish a hierarchy of talent, such that the #1 team should usually beat the #10 team, etc.

I think that such hierarchy is an integral part of lending ratings credibility. I could establish a rankings system where each team gets a point for every letter in the name of the team that they beat, but obviously that would be arbitrary. Although factors like margin of victory and opponent winning percentage are more rationally related to the endeavor of ranking, the way that they are weighted is no less arbitrary unless it is testable against some motivating purpose.

All of this is a long way of me saying that I would like to embrace your ranking approach, but that I need some additional reason to believe that it is useful. I get skeptical when I see a team like UCLA so far above a team like Miami (FL) because I would expect Miami to be an 11 point favorite on a neutral field.

I trend along these lines as well. It so happens that most of my other second-favorite teams fit this mold, as well, so I'd love to see something like Michigan - Texas A&M, or Michigan - Arizona State.

OKSt and Houston should have some kind of rational relationship here. Either the Cowpokes were exposed as a pretender (and therefore Houston should not be highly ranked) or they were beaten by an elite team (in which case OKSt should stay in the high teens or low twenties).

The issue with USC and OSU is similar. From my vantage point, they both looked like talented-but-struggling teams, which would lead me to rate them in the 6-10 slot. You can disagree, certainly, but I'm not sure how anything that happened on that field could lead you to believe that one team is significantly better than the other.

Kansas is getting no love. It's sad, really.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that Silverlight is incompatible with PowerPC. You should probably check elsewhere to verify, but I think that's the problem.

In terms of historical prestige and impressiveness of program, OU is right up there. I can tell you personally that the atmosphere is pretty awe-inspiring and I can understand a player being impressed enough by it to want to seal the deal.

Their best RB was hurt, and their backup had not been able to get positive yards all day. I think the pass play was the smarter call, as the odds of them making a first down running were not great.

If they're going to fire CW for anything, it should be for the costly mistakes/penalties, not the play-calling. Offensively, his game plan was quite impressive and really had our defense off-balance in the first half. But the coaching staff is also responsible for the discipline of the players, and the sheer number of penalties should be worrisome to any ND fan.

ND is a good team. They displayed some impressive talent yesterday, and I expect them to win 8 or so games this year.

I actually couldn't sleep last night. I think this is the first time that's happened. I went to bed early and kept waking up throughout the night thinking that I had overslept.

At one point, I had a dream that somehow I got distracted and missed the game completely, turning to ABC just in time to see Tate throw a futile hail mary in the last seconds of a 38-24 loss. It was heartbreaking.

I can't tell you how excited I am to be awake right now.

I just liked that he was quoted using the phrase "Rich Rod & Co."

I might be up for it.

Edit: mbrummer beat me to it, and I didn't even notice.

Shame on me.

Damn. I liked 52-17, but now that sounds too similar to your prediction, so I may have to change it to like 9-2, or something.

Here's why the Beanie Bowl toss isn't indicative of anything:

The coin toss was scripted so that the 1st team offense went first (that is, they didn't actually let the outcome change, they just pretended the White team won the toss so that the Blue team received). But they scripted it so that the winning team deferred. So they practiced deferring, but actually sent the offense out first when given the choice. You can draw an equally valid inference either way.

Although the stats are impressive, I'm sad to see him in a time-share. I was hoping the lack of carries meant only that he was pulled after the team got out to such a big lead. However, his primary competition scored in the first quarter and Hopkins scored once toward the end of the game, suggesting that both backs alternated throughout the game.

As stated above, the Blue team was the two-deep, the White team was everyone else. 90% of the clips were of Blue O v. White D, so I don't understand complaints about the defense not looking good. The few clips of Blue D usually showed interceptions/sacks/etc., which is what you would hope from your starters.

I certainly wouldn't consider it sloppy. It's clear that they were just out there to have some fun and run through some situations. No one was going hard (heck, Denard looked like he was jogging through the defense on his one run).

All in all, it was enjoyable to watch (I especially liked when the White captain won the toss and chose to "kick") and it looks like they had a good time, too, but we shouldn't draw any inferences from it. It's like a less competitive version of the spring game.

So here's what I'm seeing as a problem:

Under the current metric, if I'm understanding it correctly, we're better off having 3* players leave without seeing the field than having them stay on as career backups.

Our recruiting average star rating will always be between 3* and 4*. If everyone on the team ended up with the same McBean rating as Rivals rating, every 4* or 5* departure is a penalty, though not a severe one. That seems right. But for every 3* that leaves, the average McBean ratings actually increase (i.e., player defections are getting recorded as player development). Moreover, some of those 3* left because they would have been invisible (read: 2*) had they stayed. So we get a McBean ranking benefit when they leave and would suffer a McBean penalty had they stayed. That seems wrong to me.

Not sure how to fix it, just thought I'd point it out.

The reports from GBMW (take it for what it's worth) have Wilkins playing Brandon Graham's rush end spot with Antonio Kinard projecting more to Deathbacker.

Given that Roh and Lalota also both played a lot of deathbacker this fall, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to bring in two more freshman for the same spot.

According to this, we have 5 likely wins, and a 88% chance of winning a 6th.

It's the sort of rough math statistical nonsense that I like to do myself when bored.

Actually, the only problem I have with it is the assumption that 1 place difference in ranking equals a 1% increase in chance to win.

If it were me, I'd look to the average margin of victory per ranking difference among top 25 matchups over the last 5 years, then add 7 points for homefield advantage.

On the one hand, I think it's one of the best yet. It's actually the first one that I've liked that's also funny, which is a major plus. I honestly laughed out loud.

On the other hand, that face is going to give me nightmares, I know it.

Last season Vandy started out 4-0, including a week 2 win over then #24 South Carolina. They didn't hit the top 25 until a week 4 victory over another SEC team (unranked Mississippi).

I would put us in the same boat this year. With such low public expectations, people aren't going to look at wins over MAC teams as evidence of anything. Unless the win over ND is huge, I think we'll need to at least beat another Big 10 team to confirm that we're not a fluke.

I can't say Rich Rod did it right or wrong because it depends on numbers I don't have.

The problem I have with your approach is that you assume a coach who is down by 8 will call the game the same as if he were down by 7 (i.e., using time freely and attempting to score late into the game to prevent the other team's comeback), rather than as if he were down by 9 (i.e., attempting to score as quickly as possible knowing that his team needs two scores).

If your assumption is right, so is your analysis (for the most part).

Say a two-point conversion is a 30% probability event. If the team goes for two first, 30% of the time they will be down by 7 and use conservative strategy A (which has some non-zero probability of success). 70% of the time, they will be down by 9 and use risky strategy B (which has some other non-zero probability of success).

If a team down by 8 employs strategy A just the same as if they were down by 7 30% of the time, the outcomes will be identical. The other 70% of the time, they must employ last-ditch strategy C (which will almost certainly have a lower probability of success than strategy B).

That's basically your argument. I object to these assumptions, because I believe that coaches are aware that a two-point conversion is a low-probability outcome. I am confident that a coach behind by 8 with nine minutes left is aware that he will likely need to score more than once, and is therefore calling the game with the intent to score as quickly and as often as possible.

For example, assume a coach takes the extra point to go down by 8 points with 9 minutes remaining. With 5 minutes remaining, his team drives the ball into safe field goal distance (say, to the 20), but stalls leaving a 4th and 3. I'm inclined to believe that almost any coach with a competent kicker would take the field goal there, just as if they were down 9.

If a coach down by 8 calls the game the same as if he were down by 9, then the logic plays out differently.

If you go for two first:
30% of the time you have an x% chance of tying.
70% of the time you have a y% chance of winning outright by scoring twice, but no discernable chance of tying.

If you go for one first:
z% of the time you will score a touchdown first. 30% of those occasions you will tie the game.
(1-(z*.7))% of the time you will need to score twice (either you score a non-TD first or you will fail the two-point conversion), thus, you have a y% chance of winning outright (still employing strategy B).

Since (1-(z*.7))% > 70%, the difference between the strategies is that when you go for 1 first, (1-(z*.7)-.7)% of the time, you have y% chance of winning rather than x% chance of tying.

Therefore, you should always go for one first where y > (x* % chance of winning in OT). The numbers here depend on the riskiness of your alternative strategies A & B.

In short, you may be right but (1) its probably for the wrong reasons, and (2) it is contingent upon data that we're basically speculating about. If I were a coach, I would hire someone to actually do a statistical analysis of games to tell me what to do. Maybe coaches do that, in which case they are probably more right than you.

If I had to rank talent/players on the schedule this year:

OSU
PSU
Iowa
Illinois
ND
<--Michigan
WIsconsin
MSU
WMU
Purdue
Indiana
EMU
Del. St.

That's 7-5. The problem is that the two teams immediately below Michigan are away games, which might be enough to make up for the talent difference. Similarly, Michigan may be able to overtake ND's talent at the Big House.

I agree. I actually think that 8-4 is more likely than 7-5. To go 7-5, assuming that we can hold off upsets in the easy games (WMU, EMU, Del.St., Ind., & Purdue), we'd need to win two games out of the next tier: ND, @MSU, and @Wisc. We may not be talented enough to beat 2 of these 3, but if we are talented enough to be 2 of 3, I have trouble (1) seeing us lose to a third (i.e., there's just not that much difference between these games), or (2) if we did lose one, not pulling an upset @Illionois, @Iowa, or against PSU.

Basically, if we have the talent to get to seven wins, it's hard to think we wouldn't get to 8+. It's entirely possible we only have the talent for 5-6, but since I'm an optimist I have to think that the Insight bowl is a little conservative.

So, basically 3-5 in conference, and don't lose to both WMU and ND? I can see it. Assuming Indiana and Purdue are our best chances, we'd only need to win one more. At the very least, one of @MSU or @Wisconsin.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that this has anything to do with how we will do this year. What I thought was fascinating was that the rhetoric around the program was so similar:

1. Old coach "run out" because the game had passed him by.
2. New coach already facing rumblings of discontent from fans for step backwards.
3. Moving to 3-man front after defensive collapse previous year.
4. Experienced running back is the strength of the offense, must be the workhorse.
5. New QB who better fits the system brings optimism, but many question marks
6. Team depth is major concern.
7. Skeptical fans discount prior successes, attribute to talent of prior quarterback.

I recently read an account of practice (can't recall where, sadly) that suggested the frozen line play was (1) still being practiced, and (2) had been changed from a desperation throw to a QB kneel, suggesting the sole purpose is getting an offsides call from the ref.

Am I the only one terrified by this thought?

I find it odd that this is your "dream" when it is the way that is works at most schools (including Michigan) most of the time. I know that we've had three consecutive QBs start as freshmen, but before Henne there was:

Matt Gutierrez - RS in 2002, Backup in 2003, slated to start in 2004 (before injury)
John Navarre - RS in 1999, Backup in 2000, 3 year starter 2001-03.
Drew Henson - Backup in 1998, Shared time in 1999, Starter in 2000.
Tom Brady - RS in 1995, Backup in 1996-97, 2 year starter in 1998-99.
Brian Greise - RS in 1993, Backup in 1994-95, shared time in 1996, starter in 1997.
Etc.

I think that we've all collectively contracted short memory syndrome, but even 4 and 5 star QBs don't typically get to start as freshman (and those who do don't tend to fare well). Once we get through the odd transition we're in now, you should expect all starters to be at least RS sophomores (barring injury).

I much prefer a pictoral representation. Something like "(picture of taco) + (picture of pants) = (picture of heisman trophy).

Maybe I just like good pictures, as the Slot Ninja shirt is still my favorite (and something I would probably buy).

My only other concern is wearing the mgoblog name so prominantly. It starts to feel more like a t-shirt that companies give away for free. I much prefer misopogon's UFER/UFR shirt, as the back just had the +1/-1 arrows, a blog signature of sorts without the name (think nike logo).

Agreed. Hope that they are on your end of the field a lot (hopefully Michigan coming at you). When they are, it's amazing.

When they're at the other end, you'll pretty much be watching on the big screen.

You'll have a great time no matter what, though!