to play football, not to play trumpet
- Member for
- 3 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- They don't allow a lot of live-ball turnovers, which (a) shorten the offensive possession and (b) often lead to quick transition opportunities for their opponents.
- They don't generate a lot of live-ball turnovers, so most of their possessions are run from half-court sets.
- They rarely push the ball up the court, after misses or makes, unless they have an exceptional advantage -- hence, their transition offense is very efficient, but not used very frequently.
- They rarely foul, meaning that most defensive possessions take longer than they would if they fouled frequently.
- Similarly, they rarely draw fouls, extending their offensive possessions.
- Beilein has coached the team to pass up a good shot to get a better shot.
- The possession arrow is given to the team that loses the opening half tip,
- The arrow is guaranteed to be used (and reset) once per game, at the start of the second half, and
- The first held ball call either switches the arrow -- such that the team the won the opening tip will now open the second half with the ball -- or simply awards the ball to the team that won the opening tip (if the first held ball is in the second half).
|3 days 10 hours ago||Upshot for the rest of the class||
I'd say the true upshot for the rest of the class is that the 2017, 2018, and 2019 classes, at a minimum, willl not likely contain scholarship kickers.
So, if you are the parent of a high-school student and are hoping to have Jim Harbaugh and Warde Manuel pay his tuition, I recommend you have him work out at any other position. ;-)
|3 days 11 hours ago||Sorry..||
Sorry, I meant "vetted the disclosure of this information." As in, I hope that Gary and his family weren't blindsided by this.
|3 days 11 hours ago||...||
There is an ACC Network -- it's just a little different. :-) Wikipedia . (TL;DR: Raycom Sports entered a partnership with ESPN for the content but they handle the distribution; Detroit viewers would see it on Channel 50). However, that's a good point -- even if it weren't an ESPN venture, they don't have the ability, as currently built, to broadcast on a national platform.
Anyway, the point is, the announcement would have moved to a non-ESPN property, not necessarily one related to any particular school.
|3 days 12 hours ago||Well...||
That would be surprising for a former CEO. One of the first things I was taught during orientation for my first job is "never say anything that you wouldn't want to read on the front page of the New York Times.' And that was years ago, well before the social media explosion and smartphones in every pocket. When you rise to the CEO position of a major company, you're often privvy to a lot of details that would be of great interest to third parties (e.g., the Wall Street Journal). Learning not to speak off-the-cuff is an absolutely requirement for a successful CEO.
Even if he didn't know that he was speaking to a reporter, he should have assumed that his words would get out, given the amount of buzz the SWTS event was generating. Also, based on the series of tweets, it looks like Zúñiga was interviewing him at the time, or at least part of a group conversation.
|3 days 12 hours ago||:-)||
:-) Yeah, definitely a different scenario. Thankfully, there don't appear to be too many examples of athletes being attacked, so I had to reach a little bit.
|3 days 12 hours ago||Hmmmm..||
OK, well, in that case, I'll just keep my fingers crossed that he vetted this with Gary and his family first. And I definitely hope you're mistaken that Gary will suffer -- he certainly hasn't done anything wrong.
|3 days 12 hours ago||Directly?||
Eh, probably not directly, although ask Nancy Kerrigan about that. But they could certainly make things difficult for his family. Some people don't take kindly to being cheated.
|3 days 12 hours ago||The ACC Network||
The ACC Network (yes, it exists) is an ESPN venture, so that wouldn't have been it. The SEC Network is also an ESPN venture, so ditto.
|3 days 12 hours ago||eh...||
Eh, good point. I guess I wouldn't be a very good bagman. :-) I suppose there'd have to be a good-faith payment up front. Then again, what's to say that there wouldn't be consequences? Someone upthread compared it to robbing a drug dealer -- sure, they may not report it, but you're going to be sleeping with one eye open for a while.
|3 days 12 hours ago||I disagree||
I read it as an attempt by a man who has secured his legacy, announced his retirement, and hired / vetted his successor to try to do the right thing for the future of college football. You can have a legitimate argument about whether or not eliminating bagmen is (a) actually the right thing to do and (b) possible, but statements like this from a man in Hackett's position will be impetus toward having that discussion and deciding, as a community, which direction the sport should go.
The reason you don't see ADs say anything similar to this very often is that they have too much to lose. Hackett doesn't need Clemson's (or Alabama's, or Mississippi's, or...) AD to return his phone calls, or to agree to some future proposal, or anything else. He has the luxury of a platform from which to deliver his message and the freedom to be honest without fearing the consequences.
|3 days 12 hours ago||...||
Well, if I were to offer an illegal* inducement for a student to attend college, I'd probably say something along the lines of "look in the closet of your dorm room when you arrive." Then again, maybe some bagmen are more trusting than I. ;)
* per NCAA bylaws, not -- as far as I know -- per any actual laws. :-)
|3 days 13 hours ago||I still wish...||
I still wish it had been handled better -- I liked Harbaugh's* suggestion yesterday at the press conference that students be allowed to sign LOIs at any time. That would cut down on early offers and 15-month (apparently) meaningless "verbal commitments."
Having said that, the consensus seems to be that there was a player who was willing to grayshirt if necessary, who was told that in advance and waited it out. So, there may have been a spot for Weaver after all, had he waited. The fact of the matter is that if Harbaugh had not been open with him, and had said something like "Sure, we have a scholarship for you; just don't fax your LOI until 6 PM on NSD," he might have ended up going to Michigan and we'd never have known about the drama.
I was a critic of Harbaugh's tactics, so I'll give credit where it's due -- honesty did not benefit Michigan here. It did, however, make sure that this young man was able to secure a scholarship to a good academic school in a Power 5 conference. So, kudos to Jim Harbaugh for being open with a recruit, even when the message isn't what said recruit wanted to hear. Now, just do a better job communicating (earlier) in the future. :-)
* This is not to suggest he's the first to mention it -- I've seen it from several other places also. But that was the most recent source.
|3 days 21 hours ago||Washington||
After reading numerous posts about the Washington recruting analysts wanting to fight anyone who suggested that a recruit might not pick UW, I'm shocked to report that ESPN and 24/7 both rank the Huskies as the #29 overall class.
Having lived in the Seattle area for way too long, I can tell you that Seattle sports fans -- and media -- are (a) few in number, (b) prone to bandwagonism, and (c) amazingly provincial. Seattle is a wonderful place to visit during the summer*, but don't expect to have an informed conversation about sports with anyone sporting UW or Seattle gear.
* defined as July 5 through the end of August.
|4 days 7 hours ago||MST3K||
You can tell the MST3K fans from the responses on this part of the thread. I think Thick McRunFast would be a great addition to the (Signing) Class of 2017... :-)
(For the rest of you: link )
|4 days 22 hours ago||I think I'm going to scream!||
Please! The rules for football and basketball are different. You do not get three timeouts per half; you get four timeouts for the game, of which up to three carry over to the second half. (Last year it was five, with up to four carrying over).
Michigan used its full allotment of timeouts in this game, two in the first half and two in the second. Beilein called the two first-half timeouts during the 25-0 run, to try to break momentum and draw up a play for his team. It didn't work. And between this thread (2) and the game open thread, I bet I've seen 10 people complain about Beilein's use of timeouts.
There were many problems with this game. Timeout usage was not one of them. In no particular order, they include bad offense, bad defense, hot shooting by Indiana (admittedly, on some very good looks), cold shooting by Michigan (free throws are never contested), the fact that nobody knows what a foul is anymore, fatigue, injuries to LeVert and Albrecht, and probably ten more things.
If you want to fault the coaches, talk about game preparation -- Michigan looked flustered by the intensity of Indiana's man defense, and they looked confused by Indiana's offense, especialyl in transition. But it's silly to call out Beilein for his in-game coaching during a blowout. Michigan did not lose this game due to timeout management.
|5 days 46 min ago||...||
This comment would make a lot more sense if Michigan had shot lights out and still lost. As it stands, you have committed the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent (aka the fallacy of the inverse). Feel free to read more about it here.
I've deleted three paragraphs that felt good to type but wouldn't contribute to the discussion. I'll compress it to this: I question people who are so unabashedly negative as many of you on this thread. We're talking about a group of young men working their rear ends off for our entertainment. While this was not the most entertaining game I've ever watched, I don't question for one moment that the team gave everything that they had. Some of you really ought to rethink your collective attitude.
|1 week 1 day ago||...||
Michigan is below average in tempo because:
Their average offensive possession length is 18.8 seconds, 319th in the country; their average defensive possession length is 17.4 seconds, 233rd in the country.
Your narrative -- that they don't have the talent or physicality to "control" the tempo, doesn't seem credible; for one thing, you're making an implicit assumption that they would prefer to go faster. If a team prefers to go more slowly, and they succeed in doing so, aren't they controlling the tempo as well? Michigan has played just three games this season that have reached 70 possessions or more. Again, the D-I average is 69.5, so it seems pretty clear that they are influencing the tempo plenty; slowing it down to match their strengths.
Certainly, I would love to see Michigan improve its defense. Michigan's defensive efficiency in conference play has not been great. However, this offense has been much better than you're giving it credit for, and if LeVert can return and play up to his potential, it can be an elite unit. During their best games -- e.g., @ Nebraska -- they can suffer a subpar defensive game and still win comfortably based upon the strength of the offense.
|1 week 1 day ago||...||
I don't think I've ever seen him publish his formula for point projection (he does publish the formula for win likelihood). However, it's basically two components: he projects the number of points per possession each team will score based upon each team's adjusted offense, the opponent's adjusted defense, and the game location. He projects the number of possessions based upon each team's adjusted pace, and then he multiplies the two to get a projected score.
The impact of the game location -- home court advantage -- can be seen when comparing projections for the same two opponents at home and away. Michigan doesn't have any home-and-homes left, but here's an example from Oklahoma: he's got them projected to beat Texas 79-67 at home and 75-71 on the road. Both games are projected to be 68 possessions, so we can infer that the pace is essentially location-invariant. In this case, home court advantage appears to be worth 4 points -- in this matchup, each team is projected to score 4 more points at home than they are on the road. That spread won't necessarily be constant for any pair of teams, but it illustrates the basic idea.
|1 week 1 day ago||Um...||
You do realize that "good with regards to... offensive efficiency" is the exact reason that "barely crack[ing] the top 100 in scoring offense" is meaningless, right? Michigan's adjusted tempo is 66.2 possessions per game -- 3.3 fewer than average. Michigan is scoring about 1.17 points per possession. Add 3.3 more possessions to get to average, you add about 3.9 points per game, which would rank 31st -- let alone how many points they could score if they could maintain this efficiency at a pace that were above average.
I mean, seriously. The top 5 in scoring average are The Citadel, Green Bay, Oakland, Oklahoma, and North Florida. Exactly one of those teams is any good. (The next five are Indiana, UNC, Duke, Detroit, and Omaha, so it gets better, but it's still not a telling stat).
As for "overall field goal percentage [being] average," well, first of all, that's ridiculous. Michigan is hitting 41.3% of its 3s and 54.7% of its 2s; that's 7th in the country for 3s and 18th in the country for 2s. (Hence, an effective field goal percentage of 58.1% -- fifth in the country). I mean -- not that field goal percentage, on its own, is a good stat -- but they're 18th in the country at 48.8%. That's well above average.
If the shots fall, Michigan can score as well or better than anyone in the country, as evidenced by having the #12 offense in KenPom despite having a few offensive clunkers along the way. The meme isn't the problem.
|1 week 1 day ago||"Foul trouble"||
To be fair, Robinson was limited by John Beilein's definition of "foul trouble." He finished with three personal fouls, despite all of the ticky-tack stuff that sometimes was being called during the game.
Having said that, he's definitely been struggling -- his 3P% is now all the way down to 50%, and his last couple of attempts really looked forced. I agree that getting Caris back could really help Robinson get some rest and find his shot again. Fingers crossed...
|1 week 1 day ago||Thanks...||
I was a late arriver to the thread. That defintiely explains quite a bit. Thanks. :-)
|1 week 1 day ago||Today's game||
I won't argue with you on Minnesota or Rutgers, but (a) PSU is much better than either of those teams, and (b) the final score today had nothing to do with playing to the level of competition and everything to do with PSU -- a poor shooting team -- shooting lights-out in the second half. Yes, there were probably too many open looks, but when a team who came in shooting 29.9% on 3s (28.3% in conference) is taking NBA 3s, the prudent move is to let them. Garner is their "best" three-point shooter, and he was at 35.5%. (They've got a guy who's 6/12, but I'm comfortable skipping him. :-)
There's only so much you can do in that situation. Happily, Michigan's offense was able to match them shot-for-shot throughout most of the second half, until it was too late for PSU to make a meaningful run. That's not the way you want to win games, but sometimes there's not much you can do about it.
|1 week 1 day ago||Officiating||
It is so frustrating to watch a basketball game destroyed by incompetent, inconsistent officiating. Ticky-tack fouls called on some possessions, obvious maulings ignored on others; blatant push-offs called as blocking -- and then, my personal favorite, the textbook charge ignored on PSU's last made three. (Immediately after his pass, the guy driving into the lane plowed right into a stationary Donnal, who had established proper guarding position). Irvin was properly called for traveling, but the same violation was missed repeatedly when committed by PSU.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad Michigan won, and I never had any doubt in the second half. But Michigan would have won by 15 if the officiating made sense.
Also, I love Gus Johnson, but I found this to be a subpar performance from him, possibly because the other guy simply wouldn't shut up. Of the myriad fouls called in the game, several of them were not announced by the BTN crew because they were too busy talking about something else.
Anybody else worried about Robinson? He seems to be pressing; his last couple of misses seemed really forced.
|1 week 3 days ago||...||
It took me two times reading it to realize that the person asking "Do you think this is something your kids would be proud of?" was actually an NHL executive trying to suggest his daughters would somehow be ashamed of him for being an All-Star. I thought that must have been a teammate trying to tell him he should play, not that he shouldn't. I mean, of course his kids will be proud. And when they're old enough to understand, they'll probably be even more proud -- because they'd understand that a goodly number of the voters were choosing their dad because of how cool it would be to have an enforcer voted into the All-Star Game along with all of the skill guys.
Somebody from the NHL needs to learn a little bit more about being a parent -- not to mention about their fanbase. How awful.
|1 week 5 days ago||Gun Rack||
I don't even own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I going to do with a gun rack?
|1 week 6 days ago||Well...||
Sure, but if the possession arrow happens to be pointing to the defense, they still only stole half a possession, but now they get the ball.
Furthermore, the vast majority of games have no held ball situations. Most of the rest have a single held-ball situation. Consider:
Thus, any game with an odd number of held ball calls is going to give an extra possession to.. the team that won the opening tip, which presumably is the team with the "taller player / quicker jumper". The alternating possession rule already builds in the bias that you're trying to eliminate.
There should either always be a jump ball or possession at the start of the game should be determined by rule (e.g., home team takes it out). The alternating possession rule is the worst of both worlds.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||OK||
Sure, I can agree with this, with my original caveat that the recruit needs to have been advised of the conditions of his offer at the time it was provided. "Come to an evaluation camp" may be a reasonable request -- although, remember, he's out of state, and we don't know what other schedule commitments he might have had -- but only if the recruit knows it at the time he accepts his scholarship.*
There's another pretty easy solution to all of this; John Beilein's approach of not giving out scholarship offers until a given date (June 15th before the junior year, I think?). If you don't want to get locked into a bad situation, don't make the kid an offer. Jim Harbaugh could announce "Michigan now has a policy of giving scholarship offers no earlier than Oct. 1 of the senior year." He'd miss out on a few candidates, but most kids would wait to see if they were going to get a Michigan offer before accepting one from a different school.
Still, absence the violation of an agreed-upon criterion in the scholarship offer, the school should never take it back once an offer is made.
* To be fair to Coach Harbaugh, it seems likely that recruits committing initially to him are getting a different set of up-front messages than Hoke's kids were. But the kids commit to the school, not the coach.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||This...||
This is another concern, but all that really does is raise the cost of the scholarship. Alabama -- or Michigan -- could certainly afford to fund 130 women's rowing scholarships if it meant that they could fund 130 football scholarhips. It would simply be part of the cost of doing business.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Of course...||
Of course I realize that, but the landscape of college football is entirely different than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. With nearly every single game on national television, and with the incredible amount of information at recruits' fingertips, it's a lot easier for a non-traditional power school to recruit against the "big boys" than it was when there was a single game on TV weekly and you only ever heard about the power programs.
The NCAA cites parity -- and that may even have been the reason when the decision was made -- but, make no mistake, the real reason for scholarship limits is to reduce costs. It's classic cartel behavior.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Indeed||
Swen Swenson is a fantasic name. It would make for a truly horrific monogram.
This whole thing fills me with sadness. On the one hand, when I got admitted to college (not UM -- a place with warmer winters :-), my acceptance letter said that they reserved the right to rescind my admission if my senior year grades were not up to par. On the other hand, my expectations for Michigan include putting character before championships (whilst still pursuing the latter). If Michigan offers someone a scholarship, I expect that either (a) they will honor that commitment or (b) they have made the conditions -- e.g., don't quit athletics and gain 150 pounds of fat during your senior year -- clear at the time the scholarship is offered, the same way the conditions upon my acceptance were made clear. As far as I'm concerned, even the next day is too late; fall of his senior year, for a commitment offered during his junior year, is definitely too late.
I don't care what other schools do. I don't care if this is acceptable in the SEC. I chose to follow Michigan because Michigan is supposed to be above the fray. I expect more from the coach who -- according to Endzone, anyway -- was disappointed that Michigan didn't require as much from its athletes as Stanford, because of course it should, because Michigan. I expect that when a Michigan Man gives his word, that word is his bond.
PS: There are way too many people interested in cost-control* for this ever to happen, but the real answer here is to eliminate scholarship restrictions. Then, you would never have to accuse coaches of pushing out one recruit to land another, because the schools that could afford it would just accept both and let competition win out. (The downside, such as it is, would be additional playing-time transfers, but there'd be more confidence that playing time was the actual reason).
* Where 'cost-control' means 'ensure that the money from insanely profitable college sports go to coach and staff salaries -- and the building of more and more elaborate edifices of sport -- in order to ensure that the team looks like a non-profit or, better yet, seems to operate at a loss.'