- Member for
- 5 years 35 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 years 24 weeks ago||"Some schools allow their||
"Some schools allow their verbal commits to visit elsewhere."
Oh, OK. I wasn't aware of this. I cant imagine any other school treats this any differently, though. With or without a "rule", if a commit is visiting another school, it seems like a given that the school he committed to will start looking at other options, too. Looks like business as usual to me.
I mean, I'm sure OSU is looking at other RBs now that Dunn visited Michigan, right?
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Of course.||
Maybe I'm just not understanding what the issue is here. I don't think there's a coach in the country who WANTS his commits to visit other schools. That's obvious. But the original poster mentioned that Hoke has a specific "rule" against it. Is this different from any other school? I was under the impression that this "rule" implied that if you visit, you're out. If not, what's the point of the rule?
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I don't understand...||
How can the coaching staff stop commits from taking visits to other schools? They have a rule that they will immeadiately rescind the commitment if a visit is taken? I find that very hard to believe. If a 4- or 5- star commits makes a visit, I doubt they'll do anything.
IMO, until they sign, commits have every right to visit wherever and whenever they want. This is huge decision and they should make sure it's the right one. I would say it's wrong for Hoke to deny them that right. The deck is stacked against them enough as is. The recruiting period seems to be the only time college players have any kind of power in their college careers.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Thoughts...||
The BCS's problems can be fixed in 3 steps, IMO:
1) Pull a "Lean On Me".
There are 120 teams in the FBS and around half of them have no shot at winning a National Championship. Ever. They don't bring in enough revenue, compete for recruits, or have the tradition of the "top tier" teams. We all know it's true. So since none of them will graduate anyway, they are all expurgated. They are dismissed. They are out of here, forever. I wish them well.
The FBS moves to five 14-team conferences. This is an easily obtainable goal. The SEC and ACC are there. The Pac 12 adds Boise and BYU. Big 10 adds Notre Dame and Rutgers. The Big 12 can add 4 of the remaining teams (Houston, SMU, Louisville, any of the Florida schools). Every other program moves to the FCS.
2) Mandate interconference games. Every team gets one FCS "warmup". The other 2 OOC games must be against FBS teams from a different conference. One home, one away.
3) 6 or 8 team playoff as Brian outlined. This will be made a lot easier because there will be a lot more data about realtive conference strength and individual team strength. Hell, I wouldn't even bother with the conference championships any more. They are unnecessary.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I realize it's based on||
I realize it's based on logic, but it's all gonna come down to the voters and it's gonna be close. ESPN was saying that something like 44 voters will have to change their 2nd place votes from Bama to Ok St. How can this guy claim to know that 44 voters will change their mind?
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I don't see how anyone can||
I don't see how anyone can possibly predict the BCS. 2/3 of the formula relies on human polls which are not out yet. How can he possibly claim to know how a few dozen pollsters will vote? This is the CFB equivalent of a horoscope.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Up - we were 19 last week.||
Up - we were 19 last week. Our SOS went down from 38 to 42, though. Sagarin loves the Big 12 this year. Look at Texas A&M.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||From Chengelis on Twitter:||
"Brad Edwards ESPN BCS analyst: "Right now my feeling is not good about Michigan getting into the top 14" (ESPN radio)"
Not looking good at all. Baylor and TCU will jump us. I believe we now need both Houston and the OK-OK St. loser to fall below us to get a bid. That's a longshot.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Oh, I'm not saying we would||
Oh, I'm not saying we would have lost, but the point is breaks go both ways. If you're a great team you don't need them.
We played in 4 close games this year. We won the two at home and lost the two on the road. Sounds about right.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Not to mention the OSU game||
Not to mention the OSU game where Miller missed a wide open receiver for the lead with 90 seconds left...
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I agree with your reasoning but...||
don't follow your conclusion. How are conditions going to change? The south will always have warmer weather and, therefore, better conditioned atheletes. SEC schools will always pay for top coaches because most of those schools have rabid fanbases and bring in a ton of revenue. College football is the ONLY sport in many of these states.
I suppose the SEC, or even NCAA, might crack down on oversigning one day, but the effect of having 4-5 extra recruits a year is minimal, IMO. Oversiging sucks, but I believe it is used as a crutch by haters. The top SEC schools gets 4- and 5-star athletes by the boatload - if oversigning stops, they'll just be more selective about who they offer.
You could make a strong case that the only thing that ever held the SEC back was institutional racism that existed into the 60s & 70s. Once recruiting opened up, it was only a matter of time before they started to dominate. I think the only way other conferences can compete on a regular basis is to outscheme them. Teams like Iowa and Minnesota can never expect to bring in the talent that Bama, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi et al get on a regular basis.
All IMO, of course.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||From what I have read, this||
From what I have read, this is wrong. Here's how CBS's guru explains it:
"If a Bowl loses a host team to the title game, then the bowl gets first choice at a replacement team. The rest of the selection order for 2012 is as follows: Fiesta, Sugar, Orange."
Assuming LSU wins and it's an LSU-Bama championship, the only bowl "losing a host team" is the Sugar Bowl, so they get first pick of the at large team. They would in all likelyhood pick Michigan. The order then reverts to the above, so the Fiesta gets the next pick (presumed to be Stanford), followed by the Sugar again (Houston) and the Orange (the Big East winner, who nobody wants).
I agree with you, though - I have a feeling Georgia's gonna win on Saturday. It's been that kind of year.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Right, but the Fiesta gets||
Right, but the Fiesta gets the second at-large pick after the Sugar Bowl. So assuming the Sugar picks Michigan first, the Fiesta will have a choice of Stanford or Houston next. Everyone's assuming they take Stanford because they're in a bigger conference and would probably draw a bigger TV audience, but I don't think that's a slam dunk. Houston is a big school in a big market and the team is undefeated.
I guess we'll find out in a week.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Someone somewhere||
Someone somewhere (ESPN, maybe?) mentioned that it's possible the Fiesta Bowl people take Houston over Stanford to set up a OK St-Houston shootout-to-end-all-shootouts. That would leave Michigan v. Stanford in the Sugar Bowl. This makes too much sense, though, so it probably won't happen. Not impossible, though - Houston has more that twice as many students as Stanford and isn't terribly far from Arizona.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I'm not really on board with||
I'm not really on board with this reasoning. In 2007, with Mattison as DC, Florida was ranked 41st in total defense. After Mattison left and Strong took over, they finished 9th in 2008 and 4th in 2009. Then Meyer left and they were 9th in 2010. They're 10th this year.
The point is, those Florida defenses were/are great because they were/are unbelieveably talented. If he recruits and gets any halfway decent DC (which he will), they'll be very good. Same with special teams, which was always a strength for Florida (Meyer uses his best players on special teams).
|3 years 25 weeks ago||He'll recruit in Florida||
The guy is practically a household name with a career 104-23 record and a history of sending players to the NFL. Recruiting will not be a problem (not that it ever is for OSU).
This is a best case scenario for OSU, IMO. They hired one of the best football coaches in the country and, unlike Tressell, Meyer has some balls and is capable of beating an SEC team and winning bowl games. You can make a strong case that the scandal was a net win for their program, actually.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||True...||
But I feel like for every Hawaii, there's a Boise/Utah/West Virginia. Plus, you kind of made my point for me. What does everyone remember about the 2008 Sugar Bowl? Hawaii being exposed. That wasn't some great accomplishment for Georgia or anything. They just got stuck playing a team from the WAC.
I guess my point is, I don't really understand why people are falling over themselves to find a way for Michigan to sneak into a BCS game, all for the right to play...Houston. I suppose it's cool to say you played in the Sugar Bowl, but us being left out would produce a much better game, IMO. I'd rather play an SEC team then a C-USA team, and I'd rather not be Houston's "we've arrived" moment.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I'll get negged for this, but what the hell...||
What are our signature wins? Nebraska and...Notre Dame? We played exactly 2 ranked teams all year - Michigan State and Nebraska. One of those was a loss, and the other got whooped at home by Northwestern. Our Sagarin Strength of Schedule ranking is 38th. K-State's is 9, Oklahoma's is 10.
Let's be fair - the Big Ten is having an off year and we had a very easy schedule. We skipped 2 of the best teams in the conference (Penn State and Wisconsin), and caught Ohio State in the midst of a meltdown.
Plus, do we REALLY want to face down Houston in the Sugar Bowl? They have one of the best offenses in the history of college football, and Case Keenum will not miss the wide open dudes like Braxton Miller did yesterday. Not to mention the fact that Houston is a lowly C-USA team and we're big bad Michigan, who only got in because we have a big fanbase. It's a no win situation for us.
I would presonally rather Michigan play Arkansas or Georgia in a New Year's Day bowl. It's a better match up for us and a more interesting game, IMO. Let some other bunch of poor SOBs deal with the all-time NCAA passing leader.
|3 years 29 weeks ago||That, and there's also the||
That, and there's also the problem of comparing 4 completely different teams.
Anyway, my point was only to throw some water on the "our offense only moved the ball in garbage time last year" and "we couldn't do anything against Big Ten defenses" memes. Our offense was very good last year, in just about every situation except for "holding onto the ball" and "The Gator Bowl". And that was with a first year starter at QB.
Doesn't really matter much now, though.
|3 years 29 weeks ago||When do they count? Only when||
When do they count? Only when you want them to?
Last year's Iowa game (the team that was ranked in the Top 15):
08:18 *TOUCHDOWN 13-75 4:41# 05:30 Punt 3-1 1:50 14:47 Interception 5-17 1:42 08:33 Missed FG 13-59 4:49# 00:33 Punt 10-48 3:58 13:15 Punt 3-4 1:45 06:54 Fumble 12-71 4:24# 04:22 Interception 3-5 0:50 13:10 *TOUCHDOWN 12-85 3:40# 10:28 *TOUCHDOWN 4-75 1:09 06:55 *TOUCHDOWN 6-69 1:13# 01:54 Interception 3--9 0:59
This year's Iowa game (the team that just lost to Minnesota):
13:30 Punt 3-5 1:30 09:23 Punt 3-5 1:06 02:14 *TOUCHDOWN 12-61 5:33 12:13 Punt 5-21 2:47 04:07 Fumble 6-0 2:51 01:02 Interception 5-40 1:09 06:19 *FIELD GOAL 10-45 5:17 01:09 Punt 6-3 3:36 07:53 *TOUCHDOWN 8-57 2:49 03:59 Punt 4-21 1:13 00:00 Downs 14-79 2:15
|3 years 29 weeks ago||You're talking about the Iowa||
You're talking about the Iowa game in which the offense gained 522 yards and scored 4 TDs, right?
|3 years 29 weeks ago||Who told you we "got||
Who told you we "got dominated by every decent defense we played the second half of each of the last three seasons"?
Last year, we put up 377 yards against MSU, 522 against Iowa, 423 against Penn St. 442 against Wisconsin, and 351 against OSU. Those were either seaon highs, or very close to them, for all of those teams. We had the best offense in the Big Ten last year, and one of the best in Big Ten history. We lost because of defense and turnovers.
|3 years 29 weeks ago||True, and Denard did throw||
True, and Denard did throw more than that a few times under RichRod (definitely in the ND game). Plus, 4 of the passes were on the last series. It's more the overall all playcalling and balance that I have a problem with.
Denard ran the ball 12 times and I think they were all planned runs. Some (maybe half?) were options. I don't think any were scrambles or QB draws. Borges seems to have taken away all of the plays that made us so dangerous/hard to defend in 2009 & 2010 and replaced them with pocket passing and the occasional end-around, which doesn't ever seem to work.
I think all hope of avoiding another awkward transition is now lost. Hoke & Borges can't run a spread, and it's gonna be 2-3 seasons before they get their guys in and are able to do whatever it is they plan to do on offense. They do have the benefit of a veteran team, a weak Big Ten, and OSU doom, though, so we should be able to keep our heads above water and go to some bowl games. It's just a shame about Denard - he's clearly a square peg in this system. Hoke has effectively turned him into Steven Threet. If he wasn't such a standup guy I would be worried about a transfer.
|3 years 29 weeks ago||37 pass attempts? No less||
37 pass attempts? No less than 6 downfield bombs that were woefully off the mark? On the road against a bad run defense that can't handle mobile QBs? What the fuck is this?
If you want to run POWER every once in a while, fine. But don't make Denard do something that he is clearly not capable of doing. I know we're Michigan, but our QBs do not magically turn into Tom Brady or Chad Henne or Jim Harbaugh when they put a helmet on.
Hoke was handed the keys to a Ferrari and clearly has no fucking clue how to drive stick. I know the plan is to eventually transition into the BoMoellerCarr ProStyleManBallRock offense, but maybe he can do us all a favor and let the fastest QB in the NCAA run some option out of the shotgun so we can actually win some games? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
|3 years 29 weeks ago||Stefon!||
|3 years 30 weeks ago||Well, it's little different||
Well, it's little different when you get to plug one freshman into an experienced secondary as a spot start, as opposed to having and entire secondary of Freshman, Sophomores and walk ons.
The safety play is so much better this year than last year it's not even funny. A lot of credit for that should go to Mattison, but all of those reps for Kovacs and Gordon last year definitely helped.
[sorry - should be a reply to Mparadox]
|3 years 30 weeks ago||This is funny to me for two||
This is funny to me for two reasons:
1) The idea that we're a "protected team" would make a lot more sense if the Big Ten didn't suspend one of our players for throwing a punch TWO YEARS AGO.
2) It turns out MSU had been whining about Lewan for the entire game. Guess they're not so tough.
IMO, this is really easy - you can't throw a punch on a football field, especially after the whistle blows. The idea that this was "part of the play" and that Ghoulston "didn't intend to injure Lewan because he had a facemask on" is ridiculous on its face. As is the idea that this is some grand conpiracy by the Big Ten to return Michigan to relevancy (Ghoulston's suspension did nothing for us).
Dude lost control during a heated game and got punished. Happens all the time. Fucking deal with it, MSU.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||At this point, from what I||
At this point, from what I understand, thier NBC football money is significantly less than our BTN football money, so that's not an issue. Notre Dame is looking to move to a weaker conference where they can be competitive and not stuck in the middle of the standings.
If they remain independant, the Big Ten should boycott. Carr talked about this back in the 90s. Notre Dme should not be allowed to put together their own "fantasy conference" of Mich, MSU, Purdue, Standford, USC, Army, Navy and Pitt. Enough of their bullshit exceptionalism. Their team has sucked for 20 years now - time to choose a side.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||I'm a layman, but I think||
I'm a layman, but I think Borges could have done a better job scheming for the pressure and punishing MSU for their agressiveness. It would have been nice to see some more screens, mis-directions, throwbacks, etc. Despite the FOOTBAW talk, we're still a finese team and I feel like, to a certain extent, Hoke is trying to jam a square peg into a round hole (a frequent critism of RichRod in his first few years). The two QB sets were interesting, but didn't really amount to much (aside from the Denard jet sweep, which worked nicely).
It also seems like the read option is completely gone, right? I'm a little confused as to why we can't keep that in the playbook as a failsafe when nothing else is working. At the very least, it's a different look, and our guys can probably run it in their sleep.
I'm encouraged with Gardner's performance, though. He had his problems, but he made a couple of nice throws. I'm confident he'll be ready to take control of the offense in 2013. That redshirt is now crucial.
|4 years 5 weeks ago||Well this just says it all...||
"People are talking crap about Rodriguez not respecting Michigan's tradition at the alumni flag football game he started."
I always balked when people compared Michigan fans to Yankee fans, but after all this ridiculous blathering about "tradition", can there even be a debate anymore? It is so obnoxious that it almost seems like self parody. Not even Alabama fans are this over the top.
I'm a proud alumni and I can honestly say that I don't give a shit how involved the former players are with the program. It's nice to see them trotted out every 5-10 years, and the Gerald Ford pre-Ohio State 1997 speech was sweet, but the coaches run the team. This is not a democracy, it's a fucking brutal football dictatorship. Or at least it was...