How many guys on this year's team so you expect to be a first, second, or third round draft pick over the next five years? Jabrill is this team's Brandon Graham. Beyond him, I think the best odds are for Jourdan Lewis, Mason Cole, and Jake Butt. I'm not confident that any of the three will make the third round (though I certainly hope so). We have a lot of athletes with potential (guys like Taco Charlton, Willie Henry, Lawrence Marshall, and Derrick Green), but none of them have done enough yet to be in the same conversation with folks like Mike Martin.
Last year, Walton and Spike played in all 37 games and combined to play the full 40 minutes per game. They combined for 11.2 points and 4.9 assists. You're essentially asking them to double that production without playing any additional minutes (unless you envision them playing together more frequently this year).
As a team, Michigan averaged 14 assists per game this year. These predictions have the starting 5 producing 13.5 all by themselves. That seems very optimistic, if not downright unrealistic, particularly if this is supposed to represent the pass/fail baseline.
I was at both Utah games (2008 and 2014), and was at the 2008 Wisconsin game. I am far more optimistic about this season's start. This year, we are talented but inconsistent. In 2008, we were both untalented and inconsistent.
I remember walking home from the 2007 Oregon game (a 32-point blowout at home) and having a friend rant about how Lloyd Carr (Lloyd Carr!) should be fired on the spot.
We then proceeded to rattle off 8 consecutive wins.
This game reminded me of that game a bit. We got beat. Badly. And not even by an elite team (Oregon ended that year 9-4, as did Michigan). These things happen. Fans take it hard. Then more games are played and things get better.
The Notre Dame game certainly reduces the likelihood that this team will be particularly successful this season (predictions of 11-2 seem pretty off-the-mark at the moment). But, given the schedule, it is still entirely possible that this will be Michigan's best year since 2011. And that would be something worth cheering for.
How about scoring 7 against OSU in 2010, when the RichRod offense was at its best? Or 14 against Mississippi State? The 17 we scored against MSU at home?
The previous year, we mustered 10 against OSU (at home) and against PSU (also at home). We scored just 13 at Illinois. Illinois! We did manage to put up 20 points in a loss to MSU, but on just 251 yards of total offense (we had more than that last night).
RichRod's two BEST seasons gave us five games with 14 or fewer points (OSU, OSU, PSU, Illinois, Miss. State). Hoke's two WORST seasons gave us . . . six games with 14 or fewer points (Alabama, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Nebraska, MSU, Kansas State). Two of those games featured our backup QBs.
Last year, our offense averged 6.60 yards per play. The year before, it was 7.42. RichRod averaged 6.75 in 2009 and 7.95 in 2010. I'm not seeing the drastic drop off in offensive performance that motivated this thread.
I just watched his 2013 pre-season press conference at Bama and then watched this one (since the transcript doesn't give you the full picture). While there is a lot of overlop, he was happier and more optimistic in 2013. His responses were primarily about how much certain players had progressed and how much depth there was at each position. He never said anything approaching "we are not where we need to be" or "we're successful in spurts." Maybe this press conference caught him on a bad day, but he really did appear frustrated with some of the inconsistency from his offense.
The NCAA rule is that If teams only have played once previously, they can be bracketed to meet as early as the “third round” (i.e. Round of 32). I belive that Michigan only plays Maryland once (away) next year.
I love breakdowns like this, where we get to see exactly what was intended and how each player did. If you want to do any additional plays that might give us a look at the Nussmeier offense or the new "over" defense, I woudl love to see them!
I am an old person who will happen to be in Ann Arbor on business tomorrow. Where should i go to watch the game without getting swarmed by drunk undergrads?
It's only a statistical fallacy because there is no evidence that being "due" changes the probabilities. But that just means the evidence is "due." It'll stop being a fallacy any day now.
Who said anything about "best" teams? This is a pre-season ranking. It is basically a predicton of the final rankings of these teams, which is heavily influenced by schedule difficulty.
I agree, and that's perhaps the best part of this transition for me (though I am excited about Coach Nussmeier). I never joined the "Fire Borges" contingent because I strongly believe there are many worse options. When I first saw that he had been let go, I had a sinking feeling that we'd witness a lengthy search and end up with an uninspiring replacement. But seeing that Coach Hoke and/or Dave Brandon had a strong replacement already lined up has bolstered my faith in both of them. Well done, Michigan.
Assuming Kalis, Mags, and Glasgow stay in the starting lineup, I expect that the new additions to our offensive line will likely come from Braden (Rs. So.), Bosch (So.), and Kugler (Rs. Fr.). But I suppose there are a lot of others still in the mix.
And just to be clear, I meant that my previous "optimistic" season was 9 wins including the bowl game. I agree with others that a 10-win season (including the bowl game) is a good season, and one we should be happy with. I'm not sure it's likely, but with the possibility of a new offense I no longer think it's entirely out of reach.
And I also want to see what happens with the position coaches. That will have a significant impact on our success next season.
I am skeptical that Nuss is a long-term hire. He's a bright young coach on an upward trajectory, and if he has the kind of success here that fans are clamor ing for, I think he will be in contention for HC positions sooner rather than later. While that would be great in the short term - it means success for us - I generally like coaching stability and loyalty. It is heard to be emotionally invested in a coach who feels a bit like a hired gun.
Unlike many, I had little optimism for next season. The schedule breaks poorly, and we are replacing two NFL-caliber tackles with guys one year removed from high school (and this following a season where we already couldn't run the ball or protect our quarterback). Nine wins was my hope.
I was - and still am - hoping for a change in OL coach and potentially a change in RB coach (though I appreciate all Fred Jackson has done here and am happy to let him retire on his own terms). I think Borges is a good coordinator, and I saw no need to fire him unless Hoke/Brandon already had an upgrade lined up. When I saw the news he was let go, I was initially disappointed and concerned about who we might bring in.
Coach Nuss seems like the best possible candidate for the position, and I am happy that he was swiftly retained (though as I write this, it is still not official). If he is able to bring in an experienced OL coach and/or a RB coach of his choosing, I might be able to raise the ceiling on my optimistic season to 10 wins.
But we still have a lot of talent and experience issues, so I expect next season to more closely resemble the offenses Nuss had at Washington than his offense at Alabama - the team's numbers should be comparable to Borges' average at UM. Borges was trending in the wrong direction, and a change in coordinator can often energize the team, so overall this seems like an upgrade. But it's not a panacea. We're still not a legitimate Big Ten title contender. Right now, I just hope that the team has enough success next year to keep Hoke off the hot seat, and to keep Nuss and Mattison together as the team's coordinators for a little while longer.
I never thought I'd someday be #5 in the "get off my lawn" parade, especilaly here at Mgoblog. But I desperately miss the old system of bowls + voting. A national championship was a reward for a stellar season, but rivalries and conference titles and bowl wins all had so much more significance.
Yeah, I'm not trying to knock Michigan's recruiting, nor am I saying that 5-star recruits need to come in and dominate from day 1 (far from it, in fact). I just thought it was odd that the OP decided to lump players in 5-star and 4-star buckets when the truth is that most recruits have a fair bit of divergence across sites. It's not at all clear who the OP is counting or why he chose to count some guys as 5-star recruits and not others.
Frankly, I get rather frustrated with the recruiting emphasis in the comments on this site. We are recruiting a lot of solid prospects, whether 5-star or 4-star or whatever. I'm interested in watching them develop and eventually play for Michigan. Players being annointed as team saviors before they even step on the field at the Big House (Peppers, Green, Kalis, Pipkins, Gardner) seems a little silly, and it only sets everyone up for disappointment.
I was a fan of the 4th and 1 call against MSU in 2011. It was a fake off a play that they had run many times before in similar situations. When I saw them line up, I thought they were going to run the same play as always and I feared they would get stuffed up the middle. To run the fake off it was a solid call, in my opinion. Sucks that it didn't work, but that's football.
I also liked the Vincent Smith interception against ND in 2012.
Which site(s) are you getting your stars from? You list us with two 5-star starters, but don't mention who you are counting. None of our players were 5-star recruits across the board.
Devin Gardner received 5 stars from 1 of 3 sites.
Kyle Kalis received 5 stars from 2 of 4 sites.
Patrick Kugler received 5 stars from 1 of 4 sites.
Derrick Green received 5 stars from 2 of 4 sites.
I also agree with this. What the "free market" would pay these kids is very much the product of the University's brand. If Denard Robinson had gone to Indiana State and Tate Forcier had stuck around for four years, Tate would be the valuable one. If Russell Bellomy had the game of his life against Nebraska and Devin Gardner stayed at WR, their market values would be drastically different, despite having the same innate talents.
To put it another way, I have never once tuned into a football game to watch good football players. I tune in to watch whatever team Miichigan fields, whether national champions or Big Ten cellar dwellers.
For me, the primary frustration in the analysis is that the highs are too high and the lows are too low.
Using your own example, after 28 games at Michigan, Borges is hailed by Brian. He writes:
"I love this staff's feel for the game. Michigan plays high offense and low offense games correctly; in this one Michigan could not feel particularly confident in a four-point lead so they went and got some more."
Yet, today (after 32 games at Michigan), Borges is described as a man trying to ignite rocks with his shoe. Brian writes:
"I'd like to think this is a come-to-Jesus moment, but Michigan has had, what, eight of them in the last three years? They've never been inclined to look at either stats or, you know, their team and decide that we have to wait on the manball stuff."
It just feels a bit too much like revisionist history. Coming into this season, 10-3 or 9-4 were likely predictions. Coming into the season, most everyone knew we would drop a game we shouldn't, probably on the road. From where I'm standing, we seem to be on pace.
When you write "So you 'think' we'll make it to the Elite 8, because it has your highest likelihood," who, exactly, are you talking to? Was there another comment that got deleted? It looks like you are replying to me, but I said nothing of the sort.
If anyone is "expecting" a Final Four run, they are nuts. Even if we were the best team in the country, the odds of reaching the Final Four are <50%.
If you think that there is a greater than 50% chance that Michigan will even make the Sweet 16 (where you think they will "land"), you're still very optimistic about the quality of the team overall.
Expectations seem to be the bane of fanbases everywhere. We will have a good basketball team. We will get to watch lots of good basketball against other good basketball teams. Hopefully we will make the NCAA tournament. Hopefully, we will get to experience the joys of winning an NCAA tournament game or two. But honestly that's all just gravy.
One way to sanity check numbers like these is to convert the probability of winning in the expected spread (or vice versa). Your predictions would be roughly the following:
Wholeheartedly agree. This fanbase is insane.
We're not a great team this year, but we're a good one. We lost a game on the road in triple overtime where we were a 2 point favorite going in. It was always going to be a close game. It was a close game. This time we lost, but them's the breaks. Until we start losing games we have no right to lose, I'll take Hoke, Borges, Mattison, and Funk every single time.
Why is there not something better than A? You really believe that no sensible Michigan fan can argue that last night's game management was poor?
My answer is - Yes, Hoke is the right man for the team. We lost one game. Big whoop. We aren't a great team this year, and despite that fact this staff will take us farther than we have any right to go. I was fine with how the game was managed and while I would have preferred to win, I can't fault the coaches for the fact that we didn't.
"I think some people do their rankings based on how good they think the team is rather than how good their season's been." Ummm...just about everyone does that at this point in the season. If you were looking at a blind resume, #4 Ohio State doesn't look much different than #15 Washington or #25 Maryland. All three teams are undefeated, have played at least two major-conference teams, and have ~30 ppg margin of victory thusfar. When you get to the end of the season, a resume argument is easier to make. Right now, these are effectively power rankings with an additional penalty for losing games.
One problem with looking at the results this way is that we don't know whether the opposing team would have scored absent the mistake. This is perhaps most clear in the case of shanked punts. Let's just look at Notre Dame's scoring following kicks (this is not in order):
ND takes touchback. Drives to Michigan 7. Kicks field goal.
ND takes touchback. Drives to Michigan 4. Kicks field goal.
Wile has a good punt. ND drives for TD
Wile shanks a punt. ND drives to 26. Kicks field goal.
Wile shanks a punt. ND drives to Michigan 23. Kicks field goal.
Although 2/5 of the above scoring drives started with a shanked punt, there's not much evidence that good punt would have changed the score. So, yes, 57% of Michigan's opponents scoring has followed mistakes. Correcting those mistakes, however, will not necessarily reduce opponent's scoring substantially.
In 2006, Michgan barely scraped past Ball State, a 35-point underdog, at home. The opponents had a first and goal to potentially tie the game with just two minutes left. They were a bad team (finished with a losing record in the MAC). By contrast, we were a good team (you may remember the 2006 season as featuring a #1 v. #2 showdown with Ohio in the game).
You ask, "if Akron can do this on Michigan's home turf, what can a Nebraska or an Ohio do?" The game before Ball State, Michigan beat Northwestern 17-3. The game after, Michigan beat Indiana on the road 34-3. Yet Michigan gave up 24 points to Ball State. These things happen sometimes, even to good teams.
One anecdote isn't enough? In 2004, a Rose Bowl bound Michgan team escaped San Diego State 24-21. We were 21-point favorites that day. We outgained them by 17 yards. We trailed at halftime. We went on to win the Big Ten and earn a #14 ranking to finish the season. They finished 4-7 in the Mountain West. These things happen, even to good teams.
I was agreeing with you (see the first line: "You are correct"). I think many people, the OP included, didn't pay attention when the program was announced back in April and thus they erroneously thought Hoke's reference to a "glazed donut game" was meant to be an insult to Akron. It was not. The Game may very well be a "glazed donut game" this year.
Recent Comments
Almost. Trey's career high is 32 points back in 2014.
You really think this is disrepectful, WD? Lunardi has been surprisingly accurate in his pre-season assessments of Michigan.
Last November, he projected us as a 3 seed. We were a 2 in March.
November 2012, he projected us a 3 seed. We were a 4.
November 2011, he projected us as a 5 seed. We were a 4.
If Lunardi tells me we're a 7 seed, I think that's gotta be pretty reasonable.
I was kinda hoping we'd win a few games by having the opponent forfeit out of fear.
Last year, Walton and Spike played in all 37 games and combined to play the full 40 minutes per game. They combined for 11.2 points and 4.9 assists. You're essentially asking them to double that production without playing any additional minutes (unless you envision them playing together more frequently this year).
As a team, Michigan averaged 14 assists per game this year. These predictions have the starting 5 producing 13.5 all by themselves. That seems very optimistic, if not downright unrealistic, particularly if this is supposed to represent the pass/fail baseline.
I, for one, really appreciate these posts. I think it's great to put the big recent hires into perspective. Thank you for your effort!
I was at both Utah games (2008 and 2014), and was at the 2008 Wisconsin game. I am far more optimistic about this season's start. This year, we are talented but inconsistent. In 2008, we were both untalented and inconsistent.
Thanks for asking.
I remember walking home from the 2007 Oregon game (a 32-point blowout at home) and having a friend rant about how Lloyd Carr (Lloyd Carr!) should be fired on the spot.
We then proceeded to rattle off 8 consecutive wins.
This game reminded me of that game a bit. We got beat. Badly. And not even by an elite team (Oregon ended that year 9-4, as did Michigan). These things happen. Fans take it hard. Then more games are played and things get better.
The Notre Dame game certainly reduces the likelihood that this team will be particularly successful this season (predictions of 11-2 seem pretty off-the-mark at the moment). But, given the schedule, it is still entirely possible that this will be Michigan's best year since 2011. And that would be something worth cheering for.
3 years and 2 weeks.
How about scoring 7 against OSU in 2010, when the RichRod offense was at its best? Or 14 against Mississippi State? The 17 we scored against MSU at home?
The previous year, we mustered 10 against OSU (at home) and against PSU (also at home). We scored just 13 at Illinois. Illinois! We did manage to put up 20 points in a loss to MSU, but on just 251 yards of total offense (we had more than that last night).
RichRod's two BEST seasons gave us five games with 14 or fewer points (OSU, OSU, PSU, Illinois, Miss. State). Hoke's two WORST seasons gave us . . . six games with 14 or fewer points (Alabama, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Nebraska, MSU, Kansas State). Two of those games featured our backup QBs.
Last year, our offense averged 6.60 yards per play. The year before, it was 7.42. RichRod averaged 6.75 in 2009 and 7.95 in 2010. I'm not seeing the drastic drop off in offensive performance that motivated this thread.
Penn State's offensive line looks a lot like ours did last year. Could be a long season for them.
I just watched his 2013 pre-season press conference at Bama and then watched this one (since the transcript doesn't give you the full picture). While there is a lot of overlop, he was happier and more optimistic in 2013. His responses were primarily about how much certain players had progressed and how much depth there was at each position. He never said anything approaching "we are not where we need to be" or "we're successful in spurts." Maybe this press conference caught him on a bad day, but he really did appear frustrated with some of the inconsistency from his offense.
I think watching a game at a country club sounds lovely.
Walton is a talent. I would be shocked to see him here as a senior.
Kid has a long way to go before he can compete with Finnish products, like Angry Birds, Nokia phones, and Linux.
Pretty sure it is Yosef on the helmet. But with the colors INVERTED!
#wowfactor
The NCAA rule is that If teams only have played once previously, they can be bracketed to meet as early as the “third round” (i.e. Round of 32). I belive that Michigan only plays Maryland once (away) next year.
I love breakdowns like this, where we get to see exactly what was intended and how each player did. If you want to do any additional plays that might give us a look at the Nussmeier offense or the new "over" defense, I woudl love to see them!
I am an old person who will happen to be in Ann Arbor on business tomorrow. Where should i go to watch the game without getting swarmed by drunk undergrads?
If that was your point, you didn't provide any evidence for it. Instead, you compared Harris to Stauskas, who also made the list.
So what does a Harris vs. Petteway comparison look like? Using your own criteria:
Shooting Percentages? Harris .421 vs. Pettaway .429
Defense? Harris 2.0 spg; 0.4 bpg vs. Pettaway 0.9 spg; 0.8 bpg
Low-efficiency, high-volume shooter?
Harris has shot the ball 376 times this season with 158 made baskets. Petteway has shot the ball 382 times with a 164 made baskets.
Over the course of the season, Petteway took 6 more shots and . . . made 6 more shots.
Oh yeah, Petteway's team: 18-11. Harris's team: 23-7.
This is totally thread worthy.
Who said anything about "best" teams? This is a pre-season ranking. It is basically a predicton of the final rankings of these teams, which is heavily influenced by schedule difficulty.
I agree, and that's perhaps the best part of this transition for me (though I am excited about Coach Nussmeier). I never joined the "Fire Borges" contingent because I strongly believe there are many worse options. When I first saw that he had been let go, I had a sinking feeling that we'd witness a lengthy search and end up with an uninspiring replacement. But seeing that Coach Hoke and/or Dave Brandon had a strong replacement already lined up has bolstered my faith in both of them. Well done, Michigan.
Assuming Kalis, Mags, and Glasgow stay in the starting lineup, I expect that the new additions to our offensive line will likely come from Braden (Rs. So.), Bosch (So.), and Kugler (Rs. Fr.). But I suppose there are a lot of others still in the mix.
And just to be clear, I meant that my previous "optimistic" season was 9 wins including the bowl game. I agree with others that a 10-win season (including the bowl game) is a good season, and one we should be happy with. I'm not sure it's likely, but with the possibility of a new offense I no longer think it's entirely out of reach.
Given the history of improvement, would a conservative estimate for next year's offense be in the neighborhood of 2011 Washington/Michigan?
I never thought I'd someday be #5 in the "get off my lawn" parade, especilaly here at Mgoblog. But I desperately miss the old system of bowls + voting. A national championship was a reward for a stellar season, but rivalries and conference titles and bowl wins all had so much more significance.
If winning your conference is all that matters in your system, why even play a non-conference schedule? It's basically pre-season football.
Yeah, I'm not trying to knock Michigan's recruiting, nor am I saying that 5-star recruits need to come in and dominate from day 1 (far from it, in fact). I just thought it was odd that the OP decided to lump players in 5-star and 4-star buckets when the truth is that most recruits have a fair bit of divergence across sites. It's not at all clear who the OP is counting or why he chose to count some guys as 5-star recruits and not others.
Frankly, I get rather frustrated with the recruiting emphasis in the comments on this site. We are recruiting a lot of solid prospects, whether 5-star or 4-star or whatever. I'm interested in watching them develop and eventually play for Michigan. Players being annointed as team saviors before they even step on the field at the Big House (Peppers, Green, Kalis, Pipkins, Gardner) seems a little silly, and it only sets everyone up for disappointment.
I was a fan of the 4th and 1 call against MSU in 2011. It was a fake off a play that they had run many times before in similar situations. When I saw them line up, I thought they were going to run the same play as always and I feared they would get stuffed up the middle. To run the fake off it was a solid call, in my opinion. Sucks that it didn't work, but that's football.
I also liked the Vincent Smith interception against ND in 2012.
I miss the upvote. :)
For me, the primary frustration in the analysis is that the highs are too high and the lows are too low.
Using your own example, after 28 games at Michigan, Borges is hailed by Brian. He writes:
"I love this staff's feel for the game. Michigan plays high offense and low offense games correctly; in this one Michigan could not feel particularly confident in a four-point lead so they went and got some more."
Yet, today (after 32 games at Michigan), Borges is described as a man trying to ignite rocks with his shoe. Brian writes:
"I'd like to think this is a come-to-Jesus moment, but Michigan has had, what, eight of them in the last three years? They've never been inclined to look at either stats or, you know, their team and decide that we have to wait on the manball stuff."
It just feels a bit too much like revisionist history. Coming into this season, 10-3 or 9-4 were likely predictions. Coming into the season, most everyone knew we would drop a game we shouldn't, probably on the road. From where I'm standing, we seem to be on pace.
When you write "So you 'think' we'll make it to the Elite 8, because it has your highest likelihood," who, exactly, are you talking to? Was there another comment that got deleted? It looks like you are replying to me, but I said nothing of the sort.
If anyone is "expecting" a Final Four run, they are nuts. Even if we were the best team in the country, the odds of reaching the Final Four are <50%.
If you think that there is a greater than 50% chance that Michigan will even make the Sweet 16 (where you think they will "land"), you're still very optimistic about the quality of the team overall.
Expectations seem to be the bane of fanbases everywhere. We will have a good basketball team. We will get to watch lots of good basketball against other good basketball teams. Hopefully we will make the NCAA tournament. Hopefully, we will get to experience the joys of winning an NCAA tournament game or two. But honestly that's all just gravy.
MANGUN~!
One way to sanity check numbers like these is to convert the probability of winning in the expected spread (or vice versa). Your predictions would be roughly the following:
UM -5 vs. Ind
MSU -5.5 vs. UM
OSU -19 vs. UM
Is that more-or-less what you are expecting?
DJ Fluker redshirted in 2009.
"I think some people do their rankings based on how good they think the team is rather than how good their season's been." Ummm...just about everyone does that at this point in the season. If you were looking at a blind resume, #4 Ohio State doesn't look much different than #15 Washington or #25 Maryland. All three teams are undefeated, have played at least two major-conference teams, and have ~30 ppg margin of victory thusfar. When you get to the end of the season, a resume argument is easier to make. Right now, these are effectively power rankings with an additional penalty for losing games.
One problem with looking at the results this way is that we don't know whether the opposing team would have scored absent the mistake. This is perhaps most clear in the case of shanked punts. Let's just look at Notre Dame's scoring following kicks (this is not in order):
ND takes touchback. Drives to Michigan 7. Kicks field goal.
ND takes touchback. Drives to Michigan 4. Kicks field goal.
Wile has a good punt. ND drives for TD
Wile shanks a punt. ND drives to 26. Kicks field goal.
Wile shanks a punt. ND drives to Michigan 23. Kicks field goal.
Although 2/5 of the above scoring drives started with a shanked punt, there's not much evidence that good punt would have changed the score. So, yes, 57% of Michigan's opponents scoring has followed mistakes. Correcting those mistakes, however, will not necessarily reduce opponent's scoring substantially.
In 2006, Michgan barely scraped past Ball State, a 35-point underdog, at home. The opponents had a first and goal to potentially tie the game with just two minutes left. They were a bad team (finished with a losing record in the MAC). By contrast, we were a good team (you may remember the 2006 season as featuring a #1 v. #2 showdown with Ohio in the game).
You ask, "if Akron can do this on Michigan's home turf, what can a Nebraska or an Ohio do?" The game before Ball State, Michigan beat Northwestern 17-3. The game after, Michigan beat Indiana on the road 34-3. Yet Michigan gave up 24 points to Ball State. These things happen sometimes, even to good teams.
One anecdote isn't enough? In 2004, a Rose Bowl bound Michgan team escaped San Diego State 24-21. We were 21-point favorites that day. We outgained them by 17 yards. We trailed at halftime. We went on to win the Big Ten and earn a #14 ranking to finish the season. They finished 4-7 in the Mountain West. These things happen, even to good teams.
I was agreeing with you (see the first line: "You are correct"). I think many people, the OP included, didn't pay attention when the program was announced back in April and thus they erroneously thought Hoke's reference to a "glazed donut game" was meant to be an insult to Akron. It was not. The Game may very well be a "glazed donut game" this year.